Niz Velasquez PDF

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
A Numerical and Physical Study of Relative Permeability in High-Pressure Air
Injection Process
by
Eider Niz Velásquez
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
CALGARY, ALBERTA
APRIL, 2009
© Eider Niz Velásquez 2009
The author of this thesis has granted the University of Calgary a non-exclusive
license to reproduce and distribute copies of this thesis to users of the University
of Calgary Archives.
Copyright remains with the author.
Theses and dissertations available in the University of Calgary Institutional
Repository are solely for the purpose of private study and research. They may
not be copied or reproduced, except as permitted by copyright laws, without
written authority of the copyright owner. Any commercial use or publication is
strictly prohibited.
The original Partial Copyright License attesting to these terms and signed by the
author of this thesis may be found in the original print version of the thesis, held
by the University of Calgary Archives.
The thesis approval page signed by the examining committee may also be found
in the original print version of the thesis held in the University of Calgary
Archives.
Please contact the University of Calgary Archives for further information,
E-mail: uarc@ucalgary.ca
Telephone: (403) 220-7271
Website: http://www.ucalgary.ca/archives/
Abstract
High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) is a complex enhanced oil recovery

process that combines flue gas drive, exothermal chemical reactions and three-
phase flow in porous media, among other phenomena. A simulation model able
to replicate this process under controlled conditions (a combustion tube test)
matching phase production and composition, differential pressure, and
temperature distribution in time and space has not been formulated. Although
research efforts have been devoted to the description of chemical reactions, flue
gas/light oil interaction and temperature effects, no studies have dealt with the
characteristics of three-phase flow in porous media under the process conditions,
which may include hysteresis and relative permeability variation with temperature
or interfacial tension. The lack of reliable models for predicting HPAI performance
has contributed to hindering the massive application of this EOR process.
The objective of this dissertation is to investigate the behavior of relative
permeability of water, oil and gas phases under typical HPAI reservoir conditions.
First, a relationship between oil-gas relative permeability curves and oil-
gas interfacial tension is presented, based on light oil displacements with flue
gas. Combustion tube test data are then used to assess the contribution of the
high-temperature reaction front to the overall oil recovery under ideal conditions.
Two- and three-phase displacement experiments are conducted on a Berea
Sandstone core to analyze the production behavior under several injection
sequences at typical reservoir conditions, including situations where saturation
reversals occur. Reservoir simulation is then used to match the experimental
response, including relative permeability hysteresis whenever necessary.
The need for an improved characterization of relative permeabilities
became evident during the experimental phase of the study, and the last chapter
is devoted to appraise the effect of this improved description on the predictions of
a thermal reservoir simulator for the modeling of a combustion tube experiment.
Hysteresis, particularly for the gas phase, was observed to play a more
important role in the relative permeability characterization than variations with
ii
interfacial tension or temperature. Recommendations to improve the numerical

simulation of HPAI are made based on the results of this study.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the guidance and support of Dr. Gord Moore and Dr.
Raj Mehta: two exceptional individuals I had the opportunity to meet and work
with.
I appreciate the direction and teachings of Kees van Fraassen, as well as
the attentive help of Matt Ursenbach.
My gratitude is also with all the staff of the In Situ Combustion Research
Group, particularly with Dan Marentette, Jed Gomes, Elizabeth Zalewski, Ligaya
Aguinaldo, Lucy Molinos and Mark Hancock, for their friendship and valuable
technical support.
To the personnel at the Department of Chemical and Petroleum
Engineering I wish to thank for their kind assistance. I am also grateful for the
great support I received from the people at the Engineering Machine Shop.
My work would not have been possible without the financial assistance of
NSERC and Servipetrol and the reservoir simulation software provided by CMG.
Special thanks to Dr. Roberto Aguilera for his encouragement and
coaching, and to Dr. Olawale Shokoya for his helping hand in the first stages of
this project.
To my friends and family for their continuous support and love, especially
to my parents Guillermo and Isabel, and to my wife Linda.
iv
Dedication
To
Linda Catalina
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................iv
Dedication ............................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents .................................................................................................vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................ix
List of Figures and Illustrations ............................................................................ xii
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature ............................................. xvi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1
1.1 Background................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Review of Previous Research ..................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Physical modeling of HPAI .................................................................. 3
1.2.2 Numerical modeling of HPAI ............................................................... 6
1.2.3 Three-phase flow in porous media and relative permeability for
HPAI simulation .................................................................................. 10
1.2.4 Summary of literature review............................................................. 13
1.3 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................... 15
1.4 Objective of the Study............................................................................... 16
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation................................................................ 17
CHAPTER TWO: ASSESSMENT OF THE OIL RECOVERY MECHANISMS
IN HPAI ...................................................................................................... 19
2.1 Interfacial Tension Dependency of Gas-Oil Relative Permeability for
HPAI Simulation....................................................................................... 21
2.1.1 Experimental data ............................................................................. 22
2.1.2 Methodology...................................................................................... 24
2.1.3 Results and discussion...................................................................... 25
2.1.3.1 Compositional model................................................................ 25
2.1.3.2 Relative permeability model ..................................................... 29
2.1.3.3 Variation of relative permeability parameters with IFT.............. 37
2.1.4 Concluding remarks .......................................................................... 43
2.2 Contribution of Combustion Reactions to the Oil Recovery in HPAI
under Controlled Conditions .................................................................... 44
2.2.1 Experimental data ............................................................................. 45
2.2.2 Methodology...................................................................................... 47
2.2.4 Concluding remarks .......................................................................... 55
CHAPTER THREE: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THREE-PHASE FLOW AT
HPAI RESERVOIR CONDITIONS.............................................................. 57
3.1 Experimental Setup................................................................................... 58
3.2 Determination of Rock and Fluid Properties ............................................. 61
3.2.1 Preliminary procedures ..................................................................... 62
3.2.2 Rock porosity and permeability ......................................................... 66
vi
3.2.3 Density and viscosity measurements for oil and brine ...................... 71
3.3 Two-Phase Displacements ....................................................................... 73
3.3.1 Experimental procedures .................................................................. 73
3.3.2 Methods of analysis .......................................................................... 75
3.3.2.1 Mass balance and saturation determination............................. 75
3.3.2.2 Processing of raw data............................................................. 76
3.3.2.3 Determination of relative permeability curves........................... 77
3.3.3.1 Mass balance and saturation determination............................. 79
3.3.3.2 Detailed results for a particular displacement........................... 81
3.3.3.3 Overall relative permeability results for the two-phase
displacements............................................................................. 92
3.4 Three-Phase Displacements................................................................... 100
3.4.1 Preliminary procedures ................................................................... 101
3.4.1.1 Flue gas preparation .............................................................. 101
3.4.1.2 Equilibrated fluids preparation and properties ........................ 102
3.4.1.3 Equilibrated water and oil floods ............................................ 104
3.4.2 Experiment # 1 ................................................................................ 109
3.4.2.1 Experimental procedures and methods of analysis ................ 110
3.4.2.2 Results and discussion........................................................... 113
3.4.3 Experiment # 2 ................................................................................ 122
3.4.4 Experiment # 3 ................................................................................ 134
3.4.5 Experiment # 4 ................................................................................ 145
3.5 Concluding Remarks............................................................................... 161
CHAPTER FOUR: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF A COMBUSTION TUBE

TEST WITH AN IMPROVED RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................. 163
4.1 Combustion Tube Test Data ................................................................... 164
4.2 Simulation Model .................................................................................... 170
4.2.1 Rock properties ............................................................................... 170
4.2.2 Compositional model....................................................................... 171
4.2.3 Reaction model ............................................................................... 172
4.2.4 Relative permeability and heating sequence match ........................ 174
4.3 Results and Discussion........................................................................... 176
4.4 Concluding Remarks............................................................................... 188
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 189
5.1 Summary ................................................................................................ 189
5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 189
5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................. 191
vii
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 194
APPENDIX A: JBN METHOD FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
DETERMINATION BASED ON UNSTEADY STATE DISPLACEMENTS 199
APPENDIX B: THE BBM METHOD FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
HYSTERESIS........................................................................................... 201
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Conditions for the displacements analyzed ....................................... 22
Table 2.2: Properties of the porous media used ................................................. 23
Table 2.3: Properties of the fluids employed in the displacements ..................... 23
Table 2.5: Relative permeability parameters for 12 displacements with Oil 1..... 34
Table 2.6: Relative permeability parameters for 8 displacements with Oil 2....... 35
Table 2.7: Reported fluid saturations and masses for the CT test before
nitrogen and air floods ................................................................................. 47
Table 2.8: Liquid production history during nitrogen and air floods..................... 47
Table 2.9: EOS characterization for Oil 1 CT test............................................... 50
Table 2.10: Measured and calculated physical properties of Oil 1...................... 50
Table 2.11: Experimental and simulated breakthrough times and saturations ... 53
Table 2.12: Comparison between the simulated flue gas flood and the
experimental CT test ................................................................................... 54
Table 3.1: Density and viscosity measurements for oil and brine ....................... 71
Table 3.2: Simulated Distillation analysis of the oil sample ................................ 72
Table 3.3: Initial and final saturations for the two-phase floods as calculated
by mass balance.......................................................................................... 79
Table 3.4: Corrected volume and pressure drop data for Flood 4A .................... 86
Table 3.5: Oil-water relative permeability from JBN method for Flood 4A .......... 87
Table 3.6: Properties of the pseudo-components used for reservoir simulation
of the two-phase floods ............................................................................... 89
Table 3.7: Oil properties as predicted by the compositional model..................... 89
Table 3.8: Injection sequence of the 3-phase experiments .............................. 100
Table 3.9: Measured and calculated composition and calculated properties of
oil and flue gas equilibrated at operating conditions.................................. 103
ix
Table 3.10: Measured density and viscosity of gas-equilibrated liquids and
comparison with calculated oil properties .................................................. 104
Table 3.11: Initial and final saturations of gas-equilibrated water and oil floods
calculated from mass balance ................................................................... 105
Table 3.12: Oil-water relative permeability curve parameters obtained for the
match of Floods 6A and 7A ....................................................................... 107
Table 3.13: Initial and final saturations of Experiment # 1 and subsequent gas
expansion, water and oil floods as calculated by mass balance................ 113
Table 3.14: Corrected data for the determination of relative permeability
curves for Experiment # 1.......................................................................... 117
Table 3.15: Liquid-gas relative permeability as function of gas saturation
determined by the JBN method ................................................................. 118
Table 3.16: Corey correlation parameters defining the kr curves resulting from
the reservoir simulation match of Experiment # 1...................................... 120
Table 3.17: Initial and final saturation of Experiment # 2 and subsequent gas
expansion, dead oil, gas-equilibrated water and oil floods ........................ 125
Table 3.18: Corrected data for Experiment # 2................................................. 128
Table 3.19: Corey correlation parameters resulting from the match of
Experiment # 2: Hysteresis and no-hysteresis cases ................................ 132
Table 3.20: Initial and final saturations for Experiment # 3 and subsequent
gas expansion, dead oil, and equilibrated water and oil floods.................. 137
Table 3.22: Corey correlation parameters for the match of Experiment # 3 ..... 142
Table 3.23: Initial and final saturation for Experiment # 4 from mass balance.. 146
Table 3.25: kr Corey correlation parameters obtained for Experiment # 4........ 155
Table 3.26: Summary of kr parameters obtained for the three-phase
experiments............................................................................................... 157
Table 4.1: Summary of oil and water in the system .......................................... 166
Table 4.2: Cumulative injected and produced gas............................................ 166
Table 4.3: Liquid production history.................................................................. 167
Table 4.4: Pressure drop history....................................................................... 167
Table 4.5: Temperature history before air injection .......................................... 168
Table 4.6: Temperature history after air injection ............................................. 169
Table 4.7: Thermocouple locations................................................................... 170
Table 4.8: Liquid density and fluid enthalpy correlation coefficients ................. 172
Table 4.9: H/C ratios and stoichiometric coefficients employed ....................... 173
Table 4.10: Reaction enthalpies ....................................................................... 173
Table 4.11: Oil-water and oil-gas kr parameters for the CT test simulation ...... 176
Table 4.12: Kinetic parameters resulting from the matching of temperature
profiles....................................................................................................... 178
xi
List of Figures and Illustrations
Figure 2.1: Experimental and predicted physical properties for Oil 1.................. 27
Figure 2.2: Experimental and predicted physical properties for Oil 2.................. 27
Figure 2.3: Match of slim tube displacements 1 to 4 with Oil 1........................... 30
Figure 2.4: Matching of slim tube displacements 5 to 8 with Oil 1 ...................... 31
Figure 2.5: Match of 4 core flood displacements with Oil 1 ................................ 32
Figure 2.7: Matching of two core flood displacements with Oil 2 ........................ 34
Figure 2.8: Comparison of experimental and simulated produced gas
composition for three selected displacements............................................. 36
Figure 2.9: Gas-oil relative permeability curve parameter variation with IFT for
ST displacements with Oil 1 ........................................................................ 37
Figure 2.10: Gas-oil relative permeability curve parameter variation with IFT
for CF displacements with Oil 1 ................................................................... 40
for ST and CF displacements with Oil 2 ...................................................... 42
Figure 2.12: Drainage water-oil relative permeability curves and parameters
used in the CT simulation of Oil 1................................................................ 51
Figure 2.13: Drainage oil-gas relative permeability curves and parameters
used in the CT simulation of Oil 1................................................................ 52
Figure 2.14 Experimental and simulated cumulative oil and water masses
during the nitrogen flood.............................................................................. 54
Figure 3.1: Schematics of the core flood apparatus employed in this study ....... 58
Figure 3.2: Calibration correlation for injection and exit absolute pressure
transducers.................................................................................................. 63
Figure 3.3: Calibration of the “Low” differential pressure transducer .................. 64
Figure 3.4: Calibration of the “High” differential pressure transducer ................. 65
Figure 3.5: Porosity and permeability measurements for the 4-inch core
sample as a function of net pressure........................................................... 67
Figure 3.6: Raw data for the flow test at 19.89 cm3/h injection rate.................... 69
xii
Figure 3.7: Pressure drop versus brine flow rate relationship............................. 70
Figure 3.8: Mercury injection capillary pressure curves on 1-in. core plugs ....... 74
Figure 3.9: Cumulative mass of oil measured during Flood 4A .......................... 83
Figure 3.10: Pressure and pressure drop raw data for Flood 4A ........................ 83
Figure 3.11: Pressure and pressure drop behavior at early times during Flood
4A ................................................................................................................ 84
Figure 3.12: Points from Table 3.5 and fitting Corey correlation curves ............. 87
Figure 3.13: Reservoir simulation match of Flood 4A ......................................... 90
Figure 3.14: Match of Flood 4A: First pore volume injected ............................... 91
Figure 3.15: Comparison between relative permeability curves obtained from
the JBN method and reservoir simulation for Flood 4A ............................... 92
Figure 3.19: Reservoir simulation match of flood 5A .......................................... 96
Figure 3.20: Comparison of oil-water relative permeability curves during water
imbibition (Floods 2A and 4A) ..................................................................... 97
Figure 3.21: Comparison of oil-water relative permeability curves during oil
drainage (Floods 3A and 5A)....................................................................... 98
Figure 3.22: Comparison of imbibition and drainage oil-water relative
permeability curves for the second cycle (Floods 4A and 5A) ..................... 99
Figure 3.23: Reservoir simulation match of Flood 6A ....................................... 106
Figure 3.24: Reservoir simulation match of Flood 7A ....................................... 106
Figure 3.25: Comparison of the last two imbibition curves: Floods 4A & 6A..... 108
Figure 3.26: Comparison of the last two drainage curves: Floods 5A & 7A...... 109
Figure 3.27: Path followed by the injected water, and then flue gas to become
equilibrated with oil and brine at operating conditions ............................... 111
Figure 3.28: Pressure and pressure drop raw data for Experiment # 1 ............ 115
xiii
Figure 3.29: Cumulative liquid mass and gas volume measured during
Experiment # 1 .......................................................................................... 116
Fiugre 3.30: Gas-liquid kr curves obtained from the JBN method and fitting
Corey correlation curves............................................................................ 119
Figure 3.31: Reservoir simulation match of Experiment # 1 ............................. 120
Figure 3.32: Pressure and pressure drop raw data for Experiment# 2 ............. 126
Figure 3.33: Cumulative liquid mass and gas volume for Experiment # 2 ........ 126
Figure 3.34: Reservoir simulation match of Experiment # 2: No hysteresis
case........................................................................................................... 129
Figure 3.35: Experiment # 2 reservoir simulation match using hysteresis ........ 129
Figure 3.36: Experiment # 2 reservoir simulation prediction comparison for the
first PVI...................................................................................................... 130
Figure 3.38: Cumulative masses of oil and water and volume of gas as
measured for Experiment # 3 .................................................................... 139
Figure 3.39: Match of Experiment # 3: Simulation without hysteresis............... 141
Figure 3.40: Match of Experiment # 3: Simulation including hysteresis............ 141
Figure 3.41: Comparison of simulator predictions for Experiment # 3 at early
times.......................................................................................................... 142
Figure 3.43: Cumulative oil and water mass, and gas volume measured for
Experiment # 4 .......................................................................................... 148
Figure 3.44: Match of Experiment # 4 without employing hysteresis ................ 151
Figure 3.45: Match of Experiment # 4 (0-1 PVI) without using hysteresis ........ 151
Figure 3.46: Match of Experiment # 4 employing hysteresis ............................ 153
Figure 3.47: Match of Experiment # 4 (0-1 PVI) using hysteresis..................... 153
Figure 3.48: Comparison of cumulative gas predictions for Experiment # 4
including and not including hysteresis ....................................................... 154
Figure 3.49: Comparison of oil-water kr curves from all three-phase tests ....... 158
xiv
Figure 3.50: Comparison of oil-gas (drainage) kr curves from all three-phase
tests........................................................................................................... 159
Figure 3.51: krg vs. Sg history plot for a particular block in the simulation grid
as calculated by the BBM method, featuring the drainage and imbibition
krg curves ................................................................................................... 160
Figure 4.1: Liquid production match before the start of air injection ................. 176
Figure 4.2: Gas production match before the start of air injection .................... 177
Figure 4.3: Temperature profile matching for thermocouples 1, 2 and 4 .......... 178
Figure 4.4: Temperature profile matching for thermocouples 3, 5, 7 and 9 ...... 179
Figure 4.5: Temperature profile matching for thermocouples 6, 8 and 10 ........ 179
Figure 4.6: Oil and water production comparison between the models ............ 181
Figure 4.7: Cumulative gas production comparison between the models......... 181
Figure 4.8: Simulated temperature, saturation and molar fraction profiles at
the end of air injection ............................................................................... 183
Figure 4.9: Pressure drop comparison between the models ............................ 184
Figure 4.10: Saturation, kr and temperature history for a grid block as
calculated by the conventional kr model .................................................... 186
determined by the model including hysteresis........................................... 186
Figure 4.12: krg history as a function of Sg for a grid block located at mid
height......................................................................................................... 187
Figure B.1: Non-wetting phase relative permeability as calculated by the BBM
method (After Computer Modelling Group, 2007)...................................... 201
Figure B.2: Wetting phase relative permeability as calculated by the BBM
method (After Computer Modelling Group, 2007)...................................... 202
xv
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature
˚API Specific gravity in API units (= 141.5/γ – 131.5)

A Pre-exponential factor in kinetic equation, 1/(day-kPa), or
Traverse flow area in JBN method, cm2
ag Curvature exponent of krg curve
agi Curvature exponent of krgi curve
aog Curvature exponent of krog curve
aow Curvature exponent of krow curve
aowi Curvature exponent of krowi curve
aw Curvature exponent of krw curve
awi Curvature exponent of krw curve
ARC Accelerated rate calorimeter
API American petroleum institute
BBM Beattie, Boberg and McNab
BIC Binary interaction coefficient
BPR Back pressure regulator
CCE Constant composition expansion
CF Core flood
CHNS Carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-sulphur
CP Component liquid compressibility at constant temperature
(1/kPa)
CPG1 Gas heat capacity correlation’s first coefficient (J/gmol-˚C)
CPG2 Gas heat capacity correlation’s second coefficient (J/gmol-˚C2)
CPG3 Gas heat capacity correlation’s third coefficient (J/gmol-˚C3)
CPG4 Gas heat capacity correlation’s fourth coefficient (J/gmol-˚C4)
CT Combustion tube, or Combustion tube test
CT1 Thermal expansion correlation’s first coefficient, 1/˚C
Cum. Cumulative
DDP Double displacement process
DP Differential pressure
Ea Activation energy, J/gmol, or kJ/gmol
ENGI, engi Scanning curve exponent of gas relative permeability for a gas
saturation reversal from drainage to imbibition
ENGD, engd Scanning curve exponent of gas relative permeability for a gas
saturation reversal from imbibition to drainage
ENWD, enwd Scanning curve exponent for the non-wetting phase for a
water saturation reversal from imbibition to drainage
ENWI, enwi Scanning curve exponent for the non-wetting phase for a
water saturation reversal from drainage to imbibition
EOR Enhanced oil recovery
EOS Equation of state
EWTD, ewtd Scanning curve exponent for the wetting phase for a water
saturation reversal from imbibition to drainage
EWTI, ewti Scanning curve exponent for the wetting phase for a water
xvi
saturation reversal from drainage to imbibition

Exp. Experimental (or Experiment)
f Fractional flow
FG Flue gas
GLR Gas-liquid ratio
H/C Hydrogen to Carbon (ratio)
HPAI High pressure air injection
Hr Reaction enthalpy, kJ/gmol, or kJ/kg
HTO High temperature oxidation
HVR First coefficient in vaporization enthalpy correlation (J/gmol
˚C)
Ir Relative injectivity in JBN method
IFT Interfacial tension, mN/m (= dyne/cm)
JBN Johnson, Bosller and Naumann
k Absolute permeability, darcy, D (1D = 103 millidarcy, mD
kr Relative permeability
krg Relative permeability to gas, or Relative permeability to gas
during gas drainage
krgcw Relative permeability to gas at connate water saturation
krgi Relative permeability to gas during liquid (oil) imbibition
kro Relative permeability to oil
krog Relative permeability to oil during gas drainage
krow Relative permeability to oil during oil drainage (displacing
water)
krowi Relative permeability to oil during water imbibition
krocw Relative permeability to oil at Swr
krw Relative permeability to water during oil drainage, or Relative
permeability to water
krwi Relative permeability to water during water imbibition
krwro Relative permeability to water at Sorw
L Length in JBN method, cm
LTO Low temperature oxidation
m Mass, g or kg , or Number of hydrogen atoms in hydrocarbon
component
M Mobility ratio
MW Molecular weight, g/gmol
n Carbon number
NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance
p Oxygen stoichiometric coefficient in combustion reaction
PV Pore volume, cm3, or Pore volumes
PVI Pore volumes injected
PVT Pressure-volume-temperature
q Water stoichiometric coefficient in combustion reaction, or
Rate of injection in JBN method
res. Reservoir
RNG, rng Gas phase starting curve indicator
xvii
RNW, rnw Non-wetting phase starting curve indicator

RWT, rwt Wetting phase starting curve indicator
Sg Gas saturation
Sgr Critical gas saturation in the presence of oil and connate water
So Oil saturation
Sorg Residual oil saturation to gas drainage
Sorw Residual oil saturation to water imbibition
Sotmax Maximum trapped oil saturation of a water imbibition scanning
curve
Sw Water saturation
Swc Connate water saturation
Swr Residual water saturation to oil drainage, or Connate water
saturation
Sim. Simulated
ST Stock tank, or Slim tube
Std. Standard
T Temperature, ˚C (or K)
VP Pore volume, cm3
W Pore volumes injected in JBN method
Subscript
avg Average
d Dead (volume), or Displaced phase
D Displacing phase
drain Drainage (curve)
f Final condition
g Gas phase
i Initial condition, or Time level
imbib Imbibition (curve)
o Oil phase
p Produced amount, or Point of last saturation reversal
RC Reservoir conditions
SC Standard conditions
scan Scanning (curve)
w Water phase
Greek Symbols
Δ Differential operator
φ Porosity
γ Specific gravity
µ Viscosity, Pa-s, or cp (1 cp = 1,000 Pa-s)
ρ Density, g/cm3 or kg/m3 (1 kg/m3 = 103 g/cm3)
xviii
1
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
An Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) method is defined as a process to

increase the amount of oil removed from a reservoir, typically by injecting a liquid
or gas (SPE, Glossary of Industry Terms).
When air is injected, the oxygen contained in it reacts in an exothermic
fashion with the hydrocarbon, producing mainly water and carbon dioxide. One of
the objectives of injecting air is to take advantage of the heat released in the
exothermic reactions, for reducing the viscosity of the oil and improving the
displacement capability of the gas phase. It was because of this that shallow
heavy oil reservoirs were the main target for air injection for several decades
since the earliest applications of this technology in the 1920’s.
However, when employed in low-density oil reservoirs, air injection proved
to have the same rate of success as in heavy oil applications (U.S. Department
of Energy, 1999). The unlimited availability of air, as well as the higher injectivity
when compared to that of water, encouraged operators to use this process in
deeper, lower permeability, lighter oil reservoirs. As a consequence of this shift in
emphasis, the majority of the production from air injection projects in the United
States nowadays corresponds to light oil.
In light oils, calorimetric studies have demonstrated that the peak
temperatures reached by oxidation reactions are sensibly lower than those of
heavy oils. Additionally, while the viscosity reduction in heavy oil by a given
increase of temperature may extend over several orders of magnitude, that of a
typical light oil is not as sharp.
Despite the less apparent convenience of injecting air in high-gravity, deep
oil reservoirs when compared to heavy oil, recent field air injection EOR projects
in light oil zones have demonstrated both technical and economic success
(Kumar et al., 1995 and Watts et al., 1997). One of them, the Buffalo unit in the
2
Williston basin, has been operating in secondary air injection for nearly 30 years.
This is a strong indication of a difference in the physical mechanisms associated
to oil recovery by air injection between light and heavy oils. Authors have
differentiated the air injection process as In Situ Combustion (or Fire Flooding)
when applied to heavy oil reservoirs, and High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI)
when applied to light oil.
One of the most comprehensive definitions of HPAI reads: “…Air is
injected into a high gravity, high pressure oil reservoir, with the expectation that
the oxygen in the injected air will react with a fraction of the reservoir oil at an
elevated temperature to produce carbon dioxide. The resulting flue gas mixture,
which is primarily carbon dioxide and nitrogen, provides the mobilizing force to
the oil downstream of the reaction region. The gas-oil mixture may be immiscible,
or partly or completely miscible. In some situations, the elevated temperature
reaction zone itself may provide a critical part of the sweep mechanism in terms
of incremental recovery” (Moore et al., 2002). This definition implies that flue gas
drive, oil-gas miscibility behaviour and high-temperature front sweeping have to
be considered in order to evaluate the oil recovery efficiency of this process.
Some of the physical phenomena involved in air injection are: chemical
reactions, heat generation and transfer, and three-phase (aqueous, oil and gas)
flow in porous media. The large variation in pressure and temperature with time
and space makes phase equilibrium an important matter to consider, especially
for light oils, as some degree of vaporization/condensation of the components
may be expected between the phases. Under these conditions, modeling air
injection both in laboratory and by using numerical reservoir simulation has
become a challenge.
Particular emphasis has been put on the kinetic description of the
exothermal reactions, as well as on the light oil/flue gas interaction at typical
reservoir conditions. The flow of three phases, in contrast, has been treated from
a conventional point of view.
3
A review of attempts to describe HPAI and to study the flow of three
phases will be presented in the next section, and then, the proposed research
will be approached.
1.2 Review of Previous Research
With the purpose of better understanding the HPAI process, both physical
and numerical models have been built and run in the last two decades. An
accurate representation of the EOR method, including the characterization of
three-phase flow in porous media, is crucial to reduce the uncertainty and raise
the chances of success in a field application.
1.2.1 Physical modeling of HPAI
By injecting flue gas and hot water at different temperature and flow
velocity conditions into unconsolidated sand packs as an analogy to the HPAI
displacement process, Islam et al. (1992) showed that the combined action of hot
water and flue gas recovers more oil than each of these separately. The oil
recovery increases with temperature and lower instability numbers. Relative
permeability variation with temperature is apparent, but no relationship between
them was established in this work.
Under the assumption that flue gas displacement is the predominant
mechanism in HPAI, it is desirable to know the likelihood of miscibility
development at typical reservoir conditions. Huijgens et al. (1993) used the
pendant drop method to measure the interfacial tension (IFT) of nitrogen/volatile
oil systems at characteristic compositions along a slim tube apparatus at
constant temperature of 100°C and in the pressure range of 30 to 40 MPa. IFT
ranging from more than 9.0 down to 0.05 mN/m were measured. The
displacement in the slim tube developed miscibility after multiple contacts. Later,
in 2005, Shokoya studied the recovery of light oil under flue gas injection. Pure
4
nitrogen, normal and enriched flue gas displacement capabilities were
investigated in both a slim-tube apparatus and a core flood system at varying
pressures (17 to 46 MPa) and constant (reservoir) temperature. Two oils were
tested in this study. Oil recoveries ranging from 30 to 64% were obtained, which
showed dependence on the pressure and concentration of carbon dioxide in the
flue gas. Although complete miscibility was not achieved for the investigated
conditions, an increase in the oil recovery capability by mass exchange between
the gas and oil phases is apparent as pressure and carbon dioxide content
increase.
The exothermic behavior of oils has been typically employed as a first
inspection procedure for HPAI applications. Yannimaras and Tiffin (1994) used a
modified ARC (accelerated rate calorimeter) apparatus for screening medium
and light oils (API gravity ranging from 26 to 36). ARC tests allowed for
estimation of kinetic parameters, identification of reaction regimes (Low-
Temperature Oxidation –LTO- or High-Temperature Oxidation –HTO-), and
determination of the possibility of spontaneous ignition, at operating pressures up
to 6,000 psi.
Combustion and flow in porous media have been experimentally modeled
and analyzed by a number of authors. Greaves et al. (1996) conducted air
injection experiments at adiabatic conditions in a 3D box packed with
unconsolidated sand. Horizontal and vertical well configurations were
investigated. Three oils classified as light, medium and heavy were used. Only
the heavy oil developed a self-sustaining combustion front and produced little
oxygen and high fractions of carbon dioxide. Although some design
considerations affected the establishment of a combustion zone in lighter oils,
this was mainly attributed to the lack of sufficient heavy fractions to provide fuel
for the process. Combustion tube tests at varying pressures (1000-5400 psig)
were carried out by Tiffin and Yannimaras (1997) to analyze the effect of this
variable on the combustion performance of light oils. Higher air injection rates
were required at higher pressures to sustain combustion. Air/fuel ratio stayed
5
fairly constant with pressure. Results from a tertiary test showed similarities with
a secondary displacement at the same ambient conditions.
In the work of Clara et al. (1999) a laboratory strategy for the evaluation of
air injection in light oil reservoirs is proposed. It is stated that both HTO and LTO
reaction modes may occur in the same process at different points in the
reservoir. Calorimetric and displacement studies were carried out in consolidated
reservoir core samples. Displacement tests included isothermal flue gas and air
flood, and adiabatic air flood (Combustion Tube test). During the isothermal air
flood at reservoir temperature of 92ºC, the oxygen was consumed but only 2%
CO2 was produced, which indicates operation in the LTO mode. The oil recovery
by flue gas injection was 57% OOIP. Unlike the isothermal test, the combustion
tube, when sustained combustion was attained, showed a stabilized CO2 molar
fraction of 12%.
Greaves et al. (2000) affirmed that an LTO process, with negligible heat
delivery but oxygen conversion to generate flue gas is what could typically occur
in most light oils subjected to air injection. This process would work basically as
an isothermal gas drive. Oxidation tube displacements showed that for most of
the oils, complete oxygen utilization is achieved at low injection rates, while
produced CO2 is lower than 9%.
Juan et al. (2005) carried out an experimental study on light oil samples
from two Argentinean reservoirs to determine their suitability for HPAI. Four ARC
and combustion tube tests were performed, two for each oil species. Two of the
combustion tests were carried out at residual oil saturation after water flooding.
The higher water saturation did not affect the carbon dioxide levels of the
produced gas stream, an indication of vigorous and sustained oxidation
reactions.
6
1.2.2 Numerical modeling of HPAI
A number of finite-difference-based reservoir simulators have been

developed since the late 1970’s. Number of components allowed, chemical
reaction and heat transfer treatment, and the combustion front representation,
among other features, are the differences between one model and another.
Grabowski et al. (1979) presented a fully-implicit, three-dimensional thermal
simulator. The number of oil components and chemical reactions is treated as
variable. Rubin and Vinsome (1980) developed a one-dimensional, fully-implicit
simulator for in-situ combustion allowing for two hydrocarbon components in the
gas phase and two volatile oil components in the oil phase. Hwang, Jones and
Odeh (1982) built a black-oil, three-dimensional in-situ combustion simulator
without considering kinetics and thermodynamic relations, but employing a
moving-front representation (moving heat source) for the combustion zone based
on the amount of oil to be burnt per unit bulk volume of formation. Further
refinements to these initial models were presented later, which emphasized the
field scale application.
As stated by Islam et al. (1989), the main difficulty for a proper utilization
of an advanced in-situ combustion simulator is the lack of experimental data, as
well as the lack of mathematical models for various reactions actually taking
place in the reservoir. An effort to characterize reactions beyond the classical
complete oxidation and cracking was made by Belgrave et al. (1990). The
proposed reaction scheme was based on both high- and low-temperature
oxidation reactions involving water, asphaltenes, gas, coke, maltenes and
oxygen as components. This approach may be used to a broad variety of fluids in
order to describe the fuel deposition and combustion in a more precise way.
In spite of the uncertainty derived from the limited number of components
and reactions involved, reservoir simulators have been used to forecast the
performance of light oil reservoirs under HPAI process. Tingas et al. (1996)
employed a commercial simulator to analyze the field-scale air injection EOR
7
process in light oils. Some of the features investigated were: the effect of grid
size on the accurate representation of the displacement process, convergence
and numerical stability, the sensitivity of the simulation results to the number and
nature of components, and the effect of chemical reaction stoichiometry and
kinetics on oil recovery and temperature profiles. The simulation output showed
that mass transfer between phases and oil vaporization are important
mechanisms in this recovery process. At least three hydrocarbon components
should be considered, while both nitrogen and carbon dioxide should be defined
as able to coexist in the oil and gas phases. Reservoir conditions were taken
from typical values of the North Sea reservoirs, with pressure higher than 6,000
psia (41,400 kPa) and temperature around 100˚C.
Germain and Geyelin (1997) and an update by Watts et al. (1997)
presented a predictive simulation model for a secondary HPAI project in the
Horse Creek Field. A radial model around an injection well and a full-field scale
model including several wells were analyzed in a thermal simulator, including a
compositional description of the oil and characterization of oxidation reactions,
although no further detail was offered. The use of a black-oil model enabled fast
and reliable results (when compared to the full-field thermal model) regarding the
incremental recovery and production scenarios required to make initial economic
projections and business decisions.
The use of non-thermal reservoir simulators for HPAI applications has not
been a rarity. Gillham et al. (1997) presented the results of Hackberry Field in the
Gulf Coast, subjected to air injection combined with gravity drainage, in what was
called the Double-Displacement Process (DDP). Although no detailed information
appeared regarding the simulation model used, the authors believed there was
little need to model thermal effects since the portion of the reservoir affected by
the combustion zone is small in comparison to the volume of the flue gas
generated. Fraim et al. (1997) employed a black-oil simulator to build a predictive
model of a HPAI tertiary application for a North Sea light oil reservoir. Miscible
flue gas displacement was assumed to occur, as suggested by laboratory tests.
8
Glandt et al. (1999) used an EOS, isothermal reservoir simulator to predict the
production behavior of both a five-spot element of symmetry, and a full-field scale
model for tertiary application in the Coral Creek Field (Williston Basin). The oil
was modeled as a mixture of 8 pseudo-components.
Returning to the thermal field-scale predictive simulations, Surguchev et
al. (1999) modeled an air injection process for predicting a simplified five-spot
injection pattern in a North Sea light oil reservoir, based on parameters matched
from a combustion tube test. The oil was defined as composed by four
pseudocomponents, the heaviest two of them allowed to both: 1) oxidize to
produce carbon oxides and 2) crack into coke and the second lightest
component. Air injection performance was analyzed under different scenarios
including secondary and tertiary recovery after waterflooding.
A comparative study of the use of different kinds of reservoir simulators
was carried out by Kuhlman (2000). Thermal, compositional (EOS-based) and
black-oil simulators were tested to model HPAI in both viscous-dominated and
gravity-stable reservoirs. A thermal simulator is recommended for assessing
reservoir performance, unless the reservoir is especially thick, has a high
temperature and API gravity. A thermal model with at least six hydrocarbon
components is preferred for modeling light-oil air injection, since it will predict
NGL production as well as problems with the process.
More recent applications include the work of Lacroix et al. (2004), who set
up a model for HPAI in fractured reservoirs, using a thermal, compositional
(EOS) simulator. The oil was composed of five pseudo-components. The
heaviest three of them were allowed to oxidize following a HTO reaction.
Diffusion was accounted for in this simulator. The study focused on the matrix-
fracture interaction and prevailing recovery mechanisms under HPAI conditions.
Duiveman, Herwin and Grivot (2005) utilized data from laboratory and a single-
injector pilot in the Handil Field (Indonesia) to generate both compositional and
thermal simulation models to predict the process performance. Some specific
comments were made about fluid rates and ratios, but no further general results
9
or observations were stated in this paper. Pascual et al. (2005) used calorimetric
and combustion tube tests to characterize a tertiary HPAI in the Barrancas Field
in Argentina via a predictive model. The reaction scheme employed involved two
oxidation reactions in liquid phase: one for each of the two heaviest components,
ignoring any possible cracking. A previously published set of relative permeability
curves was used with no further attempt to describe the three-phase flow.
De Zwart et al. (2008) used a reservoir simulator with dynamic gridding
capabilities to simulate a 3D volume with real geological features. Kinetic
parameters were based on combustion tube experiments. Isothermal,
compositional runs were also carried out and compared with the combustion
model. The use of dynamic gridding allows for a small grid block size near the
combustion front. However, the timestep is highly dependent on the smallest
gridblock volume, limiting it to 10m x 10m x 1m. This grid block size still needs
upscaling and the laboratory-determined parameters cannot be used. An
increase in pre-exponential factor and reduction in activation energy is performed
to maintain peak temperatures of 300˚C. Results show that an oil bank is formed
ahead of the combustion front, but cannot reach the production well due to the
oxygen fraction constraint of 3% in the producing gas stream. The authors point
out the necessity of a stronger characterization of combustion reactions, which
would enable more accurate prediction of the consumption of oxygen. As
principal challenges for proper HPAI simulation, the authors mention: the lack of
temperature-dependent PVT description, the temperature dependence of three-
phase relative permeabilities, the stoichiometry of the chemical reactions used to
model the combustion, and the upscaling method for the kinetic model.
10
1.2.3 Three-phase flow in porous media and relative permeability for HPAI
simulation
Three-phase flow is likely to occur in improved oil recovery processes.

The injection of gas into a formation containing water and oil may be enough for
three-phase flow to occur. When the reservoir is at connate water saturation
condition, only gas and oil phases would flow. However, depending on local
conditions of pressure, temperature and composition, gas could mobilize connate
water by evaporation and further condensation.
During HPAI, the exothermal reactions release heat and produce an
increase in temperature, which results in water and oil vaporization. Water is also
a product of the combustion reactions. Consequently, three-phase flow would
occur during HPAI even if water had not been previously injected into the
reservoir or encroached from an aquifer. Liquid vaporized in the high-
temperature region is eventually condensed ahead of the reaction front, thus
increasing liquid saturation and reducing gas saturation. This constitutes a
saturation reversal, which may affect relative permeability of one or more phases,
and depending on the magnitude of the saturation change, relative permeability
curves at varying saturation histories (hysteresis effect) may need to be
considered. Very often, hysteresis in relative permeability is not taken into
account to simulate reservoir processes. A more rigorous approach is to obtain
experimental information on relative permeability with all saturation histories
likely to occur in the investigated process and use hysteresis parameters to
simulate numerically the three-phase flow at reservoir conditions.
The traditional approach for estimating the relative permeability of each of
the three flowing phases is based on interpolating values from laboratory-
obtained oil-gas and oil-water relative permeability curves. Oil-gas relative
permeability curves are determined at connate water saturation, and thus, only
oil and gas phases are mobile. Typically, gas (always assumed as non-wetting
phase) is injected, which represents a drainage process. For oil-water relative
permeability curves, oil (the non-wetting phase, assuming the rock is water-wet)
11
is injected into a fully water-saturated core, representing a drainage process.
Frequently, after attaining connate water saturation, water is re-injected into the
rock sample to resemble an imbibition process (wetting phase displacing).
Methods for estimating relative permeability of each phase at a given saturation
condition have been proposed in the literature. Two of the most common
methods are: the modification of Stone’s first model proposed by Fayers and
Matthews (1984), and the modification of Stone’s second model proposed by
Aziz and Settari (1979). These methods were validated against experimentally-
determined three-phase relative permeabilities under either unsteady- or steady-
state conditions.
In 1966, Sarem extended to three-phase flow the fundaments established
by Buckley and Leverett for unsteady-state two-phase flow, in such a way that
the saturations of the displaced phases at the outflow face would be calculated
as a function of the volume of displacing phase injected. This approach was
validated with three-phase flow displacement experiments consistent in
presaturating the core with oil and water (at different proportions) and then
subjecting it to gas drive. The main finding of this investigation was that the
relative permeability for three-phase flow is influenced by initial saturation
conditions.
Later, Saraf and Fatt (1967) stated that Sarem’s assumption that relative
permeability of each fluid depends only on the saturation of that fluid to calculate
the saturation of each phase at the outer face is unrealistic, as well as neglecting
capillary effects at the core ends. To overcome this, the authors used a nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) technique to determine fluid saturations. Three-
phase experiments were conducted on Boise sandstone. Three-phase relative
permeability to water was found to depend only on water saturation, while three-
phase oil permeability was found to depend on both oil and water saturations,
and gas saturation depended only on total liquid saturation.
In a later work published in 1982, Saraf et al. measured three-phase
relative permeabilities to water-oil-gas mixtures both under unsteady- and
12
steady-state conditions, based on an extension of the Welge-JBN method for
three-phase flow. The rock employed was Berea Sandstone (water-wet). Water
relative permeabilities were found to depend only on water saturation and were
practically independent on the saturation histories considered. Gas relative
permeabilities depended on the total liquid saturation and also strongly on the
direction of saturation change of the gas phase (hysteresis). Oil relative
permeability seemed to depend on the saturations of all phases.
Oak, Baker and Thomas (1990) measured three-phase relative
permeabilities in a water-wet Berea sandstone core. Fluid saturations were
measured by an X-ray absorption method. Two saturation histories were studied:
DDI (water saturation decreasing, oil saturation decreasing, gas saturation
increasing) and IID (water saturation increasing, oil saturation increasing and gas
saturation decreasing). In the DDI case, oil and gas three-phase relative
permeabilities depended on the water, oil and gas saturations. In the IID case, oil
and gas phases showed relative permeabilities that depended primarily on the
saturations of oil and gas, respectively. In both cases, relative permeability to
water depended mainly on water saturation. Oak (1991) performed similar
measurements on intermediate-wet Berea sandstone samples.
The first attempt to measure three-phase relative permeabilities at
reservoir conditions was made by Dria, Pope and Sephernoori (1993). Carbon
dioxide was used as opposed to nitrogen, which was customary in the previous
studies. The displacements on a carbonate core were carried out at 71˚C and
9.65 MPa. The relative permeability of each phase –taken along a monotonically
changing saturation trajectory- is seen to depend only on the saturation of that
phase. Gas relative permeabilities are lower than those measured on previous
studies on different rocks, but under the same wettability conditions.
Nordtvedt et al. (1997) used reservoir simulators coupled with an
optimization procedure to determine the relative permeability and capillary
pressure functions that match the experimental results. The displacements were
conducted on a low-permeability chalk sample. The results were presented as
13
three-dimensional graphs of relative permeability to each phase as a function of
oil and water saturation, and no particular observation on the saturation
dependence was made.
Cinar and Orr (2004) conducted an experimental investigation on the
effects of variations in interfacial tension (IFT) on three-phase relative
permeabilities. To create three-phase systems in which IFT could be controlled
systematically, the authors used a quaternary liquid system composed of
hexadecane (C16), n-butanol, (NBA), water (H2O), and isopropanol (IPA). The
reported phase behavior of the system shows that the H2O-rich phase should
represent the “gas” phase, the NBA-rich phase should represent the “oil” phase,
and the C16-rich phase should represent the “aqueous” phase. Oil-wet Teflon
bead packs were used to simulate the flow in a water-wet reservoir. Phase
saturations and three-phase relative permeabilities were determined based on
the combined Welge-JBN method. The experimental results indicate that the
wetting-phase relative permeability was not affected by IFT variation, whereas
the other two-phase relative permeabilities were clearly affected. As IFT
decreases, the oil and gas phases become more mobile at the same phase
saturations. A 10-fold increase in the oil and gas relative permeabilities against
an approximately 100-fold decrease in IFT was observed.
1.2.4 Summary of literature review
Combustion tube tests are the most approximate physical model of an air
injection process, provided that a combustion front is created and sustained.
Beyond the interest to test whether particular reservoirs are suitable for HPAI,
very little experimental effort has been devoted to analyze the effect of the
multiple variables on oil recovery and reaction zone stability. It has been shown
that under the same conditions, a tertiary process will yield as good results as a
secondary application in terms of fractional recovery, provided that enough oil is
available to react with the oxygen. Attention has been paid to flue gas/light oil
14
interaction as some authors state that gas drive is the major recovery mechanism
in HPAI. However, as suggested by laboratory measurements, miscibility
between flue gas and light oil is not easily achievable at typical reservoir
conditions, and the contribution of carbon dioxide to the mass exchange between
phases is not so relevant at the expected concentrations in flue gas. Despite the
number of calorimetric studies performed, a set of reactions that honors the
multi-component nature of the oil has yet to be proposed. If the kinetic aspects
have been studied superficially, it must be said that no experimental work has
been bestowed on the analysis of three-phase flow under HPAI conditions. Re-
imbibition and gas trapping mechanisms may play an important role in the
reservoir saturation distribution and hence, the oil recovery.
Reservoir simulators are available which account for multiple chemical
reactions, heat transfer and multi-component characterization, solid phase
formation and deposition, among other features. Although multiple field-scale and
laboratory-test simulation applications have been reported in the literature, most
of them simplify the problem by stating assumptions such as: 1. Flue gas drive is
the dominant mechanism, 2. Combustion tube test results are reproduced at the
field scale, 3. The oil can be represented as a single-component, or in the best
case, as composed of two or three pseudo-components, 4. A single chemical
reaction occurs (typically complete oxidation of a so-called fuel of average
properties) that is representative of the whole oxidation process. The appropriate
reservoir simulation of HPAI process is dependent on the quality of laboratory
data and the careful choice of assumptions, which should be the result of
experimental observations and not simply a-priori statements. Considering the
complexity of a reservoir environment and the multiplicity of uncertainty sources,
emphasis should be initially given to the proper simulation of a combustion tube
test. Despite the fact that the complexity of the process in a combustion tube is
the same as in the field, the known volume and shape, and the fact that data are
reliable and systematic, makes the combustion tube test modeling a necessary
step towards the understanding of HPAI EOR process.
15
Experimental data on three-phase relative permeability from different
sources agree on the fact that gas phase relative permeability is strongly affected
by the saturation history. In other words, there is a hysteretic effect on the
relative permeability of the gas phase. Most of the studies suggest that oil
relative permeability should be a function of the saturation of all phases, while
water relative permeability appears to be dependent only on water saturation.
The methods to determine relative permeability vary from analytical methods
using simplifying assumptions to sophisticated techniques to measure the
saturation inside the core in real time, and even the use of reservoir simulation
coupled with an optimization procedure to solve an inverse problem. There is
evidence that relative permeability to intermediate- and non-wetting phases (oil
and gas respectively for a water-wet porous medium) is significantly affected
when changes in interfacial tension occur (Cinar and Orr, 2004).
1.3 Statement of the Problem
HPAI is a very complex enhanced oil recovery process that combines flue
gas drive, exothermal chemical reactions and three-phase flow in porous media,
among other phenomena. A simulation model able to replicate this process under
controlled conditions (a combustion tube test) matching oil, water and gas
production, gas and oil composition, differential pressure, and temperature
distribution in time and space has not been formulated. As a result, the
contribution of each associated driving mechanism to the oil recovery is not clear.
Although some research effort has been devoted to the description of chemical
reactions, flue gas/light oil interaction and temperature effects, no studies have
dealt with the characteristics of three-phase flow in porous media under the
process conditions, which may include hysteresis and relative permeability
variation with temperature or interfacial tension. The lack of reliable models for
predicting HPAI performance has contributed to hindering the massive
application of this EOR process.
16
1.4 Objective of the Study
To investigate the behavior of relative permeability of water, oil and gas

phases under typical HPAI reservoir conditions.
Specific objectives of this study include:
1. To use experimental data (corefloods and slim tube tests) to determine the
variation of relative permeability curves with interfacial tension at typical HPAI
conditions
2. To employ combustion tube data to evaluate the contribution of the high-
temperature front to the overall oil recovery during HPAI under controlled
(laboratory) conditions
3. To conduct two- and three-phase coreflood tests emulating typical HPAI flow
situations and environmental conditions
4. To derive relative permeability curves from the coreflood tests by means of an
optimization procedure applied to the calculations of a numerical reservoir
simulator
5. To evaluate the degree of hysteresis in relative permeability on each flowing
phase at HPAI reservoir conditions
6. To propose an improved relative permeability curve characterization for a
better description of HPAI
7. To evaluate the effect that this improved characterization has on the modeling
of HPAI under controlled conditions (combustion tube test)
17
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation
In Chapter two, experimental data consisting of light oil being displaced by

flue gas in both slim tube and core flood tests is used to determine the variation
of gas-oil relative permeability curves with interfacial tension. A compositional
reservoir simulator is used, and relative permeability curves are found by
matching the cumulative recovery and pressure drop curve for each
displacement. Then, relative permeability curves parameters are related to the
gas-oil interfacial tension as calculated by the simulator and this variation is
presented and discussed. In addition to that, data from a combustion tube test is
employed to assess the contribution of the high-temperature front created by the
combustion reactions to the overall oil recovery under controlled conditions. The
oil flood and inert gas flood steps, previous to air injection, are used to match
water-oil and gas-liquid relative permeability curves. Then, these curves are used
to predict what would be the oil recovery and performance of an immiscible gas
flood under the same conditions (except self-heat generation) of the air flood.
The comparison between this prediction and the actual oil recovery sheds light
on the role of self-heat generation in the process success under ideal conditions.
In Chapter three, the two- and three-phase isothermal coreflood
experiments are explained, and their results and discussion are presented. The
two-phase tests consist of three cycles of oil and water floods to determine oil-
water relative permeability and the wettability of the rock, to assess the
experimental mass balance error, to refine the procedure for the three-phase
tests, and to provide an insight on the oil/water hysteresis behavior of the rock
sample. Four three-phase experiments replicating flow situations occurring
during HPAI are explained and discussed. These experiments provide
information on both gas-liquid and oil-water hysteretic behavior at typical HPAI
reservoir conditions.
In Chapter four, the conclusions made from the core flood test analysis
are considered to simulate a combustion tube test, and to compare the behavior
18
of this improved characterization to that of a conventional set of relative
permeability curves, and their ability to match the experimental data.
Finally, in Chapter five, general conclusions of the study and
recommendations on future work will be addressed.
19
Chapter Two: ASSESSMENT OF THE OIL RECOVERY MECHANISMS IN
HPAI
Consistent with the definition of HPAI, it is evident that oil is mobilized and
recovered by a combination of a series of mechanisms that include the
displacement by and interaction with the generated flue gas, as well as the highly
efficient displacement caused by the high-temperature front.
Considering the high complexity of the process, modeling of HPAI has
been carried out by first stating simplifying assumptions. The most popular of
these assumptions is that flue gas displacement is responsible for most of the oil
recovered. The fact that the gas front advances much faster than the high-
temperature front, and thus contacts and displaces more oil supports this idea.
Moreover, the convenience and simplicity of an isothermal model versus the
need to characterize chemical reactions and fluid properties at a wide range of
temperatures determines the choice. The field scale simulation of Coral Creek
field by Glandt et al. (1999) was based on this assumption, focusing on the
compositional modeling of flue gas/oil interaction.
Although combustion tube tests show that the reaction front leaves behind
a virtually zero oil saturation zone (nearly 100% microscopic efficiency), these
experiments represent an ideal situation, besides being an unscaled physical
simulation. This is enough reason to doubt that the combustion proceeds as
vigorously in the reservoir as it does in the combustion tube.
On the other hand, field observations brought together by Montes et al.
(2008) suggest that combustion is occurring in the Buffalo field. The cited
evidence is twofold: first, the carbon dioxide concentration in the producing gases
is in excess of 12%, which is an indication of combustion as the primary reaction
path, and second, a core sample taken at an observation well shows residual oil
saturation below 5% and presence of halite, strong evidence of the rock being
swept by a high-temperature front. If combustion effectively occurs in the
reservoir, the volume of oil contacted and displaced by the thermal front would be
higher than assumed, taking into account the high displacement efficiency,
20
despite the relatively small area swept by the combustion. As a consequence,
the reaction front would potentially be responsible for the recovery of a more
significant amount of oil than traditionally estimated.
This chapter attempts to provide an assessment of the contribution of flue
gas displacement and the high-temperature front to the overall oil recovery by
analyzing experimental data consisting of flue gas displacements (slim tube and
coreflood tests) and a combustion tube experiment, giving priority to the
characterization of relative permeability.
First, data from flue gas displacements at a variety of pressures and
carbon dioxide compositions for two light oils carried out by Shokoya (2005) are
used to produce a relationship between gas-oil relative permeability and
interfacial tension. This relationship could be used to enhance the simulation of
HPAI as an isothermal flue gas flood.
Next, data from a combustion tube test for a light oil is employed to
evaluate the contribution of exothermal reactions to the experimental recovery
under ideal conditions (vigorous and sustained combustion by a high oxygen flux
in a nearly-adiabatic system). The oil flood and inert-gas (nitrogen) flood previous
to air injection are used to obtain gas-oil and oil-water relative permeability
curves for the air flood simulation. Then, a thermal simulator is used to model the
air injection period as a flue-gas flood, ignoring the temperature increase by
exothermal reactions, but accounting for the temperature increase to ignition
conditions near the injection end. The difference between the simulated and
experimental oil recovery provides an estimation of the contribution of the
combustion reactions to the oil displaced during HPAI.
21
2.1 Interfacial Tension Dependency of Gas-Oil Relative Permeability for
HPAI Simulation
The displacement of a fluid by another in an immiscible way results in

residual saturations and a combined mobility lower than that of a single-phase
fluid. In contrast, for miscible displacements, a single-phase fluid fills the porous
medium, and then, residual saturations do not exist. The transition between
miscibility and immiscibility is not sharp and is determined by the interfacial
tension (IFT). As IFT is a function of temperature, pressure and composition, the
variation of these conditions will impose a change in the flow pattern in a porous
medium. In the near-miscible region, residual saturations and relative
permeability endpoints are known to vary with IFT. Consequently, pressure,
temperature and composition variations will affect the recovery and flow behavior
of flue gas displacing oil under HPAI conditions.
Relative permeability variation with IFT may constitute an important tool to
model the HPAI process. During HPAI, if temperature does not raise high enough
to vaporize the liquids to a low saturation, accounting for a lower residual
saturation at the attained temperature can provide a way to represent an efficient
displacement. On the other hand, if the reservoir setting provides near-miscible
conditions for flue gas and oil, the use of an isothermal model that considers
relative permeability variation with IFT can predict a high displacement efficiency.
In a typical HPAI process, pressure can significantly vary due to reservoir re-
pressurization, and this in turn, makes the phase equilibrium change, providing a
variation in phase composition, which also affects IFT.
In order to evaluate the relative permeability variation with IFT,
experimental data consisting of immiscible displacements at varying pressure,
temperature and composition must be analyzed.
22
2.1.1 Experimental data
Cumulative oil volume, instantaneous gas-oil ratio and pressure drop

produced from a total of twenty (20) displacements covering slim tube and core
flood displacements, for two light oils and three flue gases and varying pressure
conditions were used in this study (Shokoya, 2005). Table 2.1 presents the
specifications for each displacement (type of displacement, fluids used and
operating pressure), while Table 2.2 shows the properties of the porous media
used. Stock-tank oil samples were recombined with separator gas samples at the
field producing gas-oil ratio to produce live oil. Stock tank oil, flue gas and
separator gas properties are summarized in Table 2.3. All displacements were
conducted at the corresponding reservoir temperature.
Table 2.1: Conditions for the displacements analyzed
Pressure
# Type Oil Gas
(kPa)
1 Slim Tube Oil 1 N2 38,320
2 Slim Tube Oil 1 N2 46,060
3 Slim Tube Oil 1 FG A 34,590
6 Slim Tube Oil 1 FG B 27,770
9 Core Flood Oil 1 N2 27,470
10 Core Flood Oil 1 N2 41,580
11 Core Flood Oil 1 FG A 27,710
12 Core Flood Oil 1 FG B 27,820
19 Core Flood Oil 2 FG A 17,680
20 Core Flood Oil 2 FG B 17,680
23
Table 2.2: Properties of the porous media used
Porous Media
Property Slim Tube Core Flood
Length (cm) 1,829 244
Diameter (cm) 0.4318 4.41
#160-200 Berea
Porous medium
Ottawa Sand Sandstone
Porosity (%) 39.9 21.5
Absolute permeability (md) 3,123 327
Table 2.3: Properties of the fluids employed in the displacements
Fluids
Property Oil 1 Oil 2
ST Oil
API Gravity 39.7 37.3

Reservoir Temperature, ˚C 116 80.6
Property N2 FG A FG B
Flue Gas
N2 fraction 100.0 83.0 69.0

CO2 fraction 0.0 16.0 30.0
CO fraction 0.0 1.0 1.0
Fraction, Fraction,
Component
Gas 1 Gas 2
N2 0.0057 0.0391
CO2 0.0079 0.0035
Separator Recombination Gas
C1 0.8240 0.5067
C2 0.0861 0.1880
C3 0.0497 0.1428
i-C4 0.0095 0.0255
n-C4 0.0106 0.0520
i-C5 0.0024 0.0131
n-C5 0.0025 0.0133
C6 0.0016 0.0081
C7+ 0.0000 0.0079
24
2.1.2 Methodology
A Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) test reported in the

experimental study and comprising density, viscosity and relative volume data
was matched using an Equation of State (EOS) software -WinProp® from
Computer Modeling Group (CMG)- by tuning the volume translation coefficients,
critical pressures and temperatures of the three heaviest fractions, and binary
interaction coefficient (BIC) exponent in a regression routine for each oil system.
The Peng-Robinson EOS was employed for this purpose. Oil viscosity was
matched by varying the oil viscosity mixing rule exponent and correlation
coefficients. Density at standard conditions was also considered for the
regression process. As CO was not included in the model, its fraction was added
to that of N2.
The resulting 12-component model was used to match slim-tube (ST) and
core flood (CF) displacements using a one-dimensional simulation grid in GEM®,
compositional simulator from CMG. Corey-type correlations were used for oil-gas
relative permeability curves, so oil and gas relative permeability are related to
gas saturation according to the following expressions:
A og
⎛ 1 − Sg − Sorg − S wr ⎞
k rog = k rowc ⎜ ⎟ 2.1.2.1
⎜ 1− S wr − Sorg ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Ag
⎛ Sg − Sgr ⎞
k rg = k rgcw ⎜ ⎟ 2.1.2.2
⎜ 1− S wr − Sgr ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Ag, Aog (curvature exponents for gas and oil curves respectively), krowc,
krgcw, (oil and gas relative permeability endpoints at connate water saturation
respectively) and Sorg (residual oil saturation to gas flood) were adjusted to match
oil production, gas-oil ratio, and differential pressure for each displacement. Swr
(connate water saturation) was zero for ST and known for CF (0.329 for
25
displacements with Oil 1 and 0.276 for displacements with Oil 2), whereas Sgr
(critical gas saturation) was set as zero for all displacements. The approach used
to match the experimental data consisted in the following steps:
1. Adjust krowc and krgcw to roughly match the initial and final pressure drop
2. If the calculated oil recovery deviates much from the experimental one,
adjust Sorg and readjust krowc and krgcw accordingly
3. Modify the curvature exponents (Ag, Aog) to reproduce the pressure drop
slope before breakthrough and breakthrough time. Readjust krowc, krgcw
and Sorg as required
4. Perform a fine tuning of all the variables to reduce the average deviation
of every measured property as much as possible
5. Stop when a satisfactory match is achieved or the deviation is not further
reduced.
Initial estimates for the matching parameters can be obtained from
simulated displacements at similar conditions.
Produced gas composition data is also available, and although
comparison with calculated data is not directly used to evaluate the goodness of
the displacement match with relative permeability, it is employed as a good
indicator of the compositional model predictive capability.
Minimum oil-gas IFT calculated by the simulator in the grid at
breakthrough time was found and related to each displacement and their
respective matching parameters.
2.1.3 Results and discussion
2.1.3.1 Compositional model
The pseudo-component properties resulting of the regression procedure

for each oil are presented in Table 2.4. Experimental and calculated physical
properties from the CCE experiments are displayed in Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
26
Table 2.4: EOS characterization for Oil 1 and Oil 2
OIL 1 C6 toC9 C10toC15 C16toC21 C22toC29 C30+
Critical volume, l/mol 0.4150 0.6291 0.9067 1.2232 1.6005
Acentric Factor 0.3439 0.5354 0.7612 0.9712 1.1880
MW, g/mol 106.0 166.1 252.0 339.4 499.9
Parachor 306.4 464.5 662.9 831.5 1053.5
Critical pressure, atm 29.25 21.41 15.57 11.82 10.70
Critical temperature, K 566.2 670.0 762.0 834.5 1068.9
Shift Vol. Factor, Bc 0.035 0.111 0.158 0.108 0.065
Other Components CO2, N2, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5
Visc. Mixing rule exp. 1.000
Visc. Model coeff. 1.023E-01, 2.336E-02, 5.853E-02, -4.076E-02, 9.332E-03
BIC Exponent PVC3 1.800
OIL 2 C6 toC9 C10toC15 C16toC21 C22toC29 C30+

Critical volume, l/mol 0.4076 0.6290 0.9391 1.2135 1.7912
Acentric Factor 0.3355 0.5285 0.7631 0.9636 1.2447
MW, g/mol 103.6 163.8 252.8 336.0 490.0
Parachor 299.3 457.2 663.3 823.9 1082.5
Critical pressure, atm 29.64 21.63 15.53 11.94 6.74
Critical temperature, K 560.0 666.8 762.7 831.9 869.3
Shift Vol. Factor, Bc 0.000 0.170 0.200 0.180 0.309
Other Components CO2, N2, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5
27
CCE Match - Compositional Model for Oil 1

1.3 800
Relative Volume, Exp
Oil Viscosity, Experimental
Relative Volume, Regressed
Oil Viscosity, Regressed
Viscosity, cp and Relative Volume Oil Density, Experimental
1.1 Oil Density, Regressed 775
Density, kg/m3
0.9 750
0.7 725
0.5 700
12,000 18,000 24,000 30,000 36,000 42,000 48,000
Pressure, kPa
Figure 2.1: Experimental and predicted physical properties for Oil 1
CCE Match - Compositional Model for Oil 2

1.3 800
Viscosity, cp and Relative Volume
1.1 775
Density, kg/m 3
0.9 750
Relative Volume, Exp

0.7 725
Oil Viscosity, Experimental
Relative Volume, Regressed
Oil Viscosity, Regressed
Oil Density, Experimental
Oil Density, Regressed
0.5 700
0 6,000 12,000 18,000 24,000 30,000 36,000 42,000 48,000
Pressure, kPa
Figure 2.2: Experimental and predicted physical properties for Oil 2
28
The saturation pressure for both oils 1 and 2 was accurately reproduced,
and this was easily attained with an initial regression on the BIC correlation
exponent. Meanwhile, density data and relative volume average less than 1%
deviation, with a maximum deviation of 2% for density and 6% for relative
volume, both at lower pressures. However, the slim tube and core flood
displacements simulated in this section were carried out at pressures well above
that of the bubble point. The typical deviation for oil viscosity is lower than 5%,
with a maximum of 9%. The relative mobility of the oil with respect to that of gas
at reservoir conditions varies more with the relative permeability ratio than with
the viscosity ratio, since the difference in viscosity of these two phases is
typically of one order of magnitude. According to that, the error associated with
the calculation of oil viscosity will be reflected in an uncertainty of the same order
in the calculation of pressure drop, but will have minor influence in the producing
gas-oil ratio.
Calculated density of oil at standard conditions after flashing the gas
phase was 826.6 kg/m3 (820.7 kg/m3 measured) for Oil 1 and 840.9 kg/m3 (838.5
kg/m3 measured) for Oil 2. This corresponds to 0.7% and 0.3% deviation, in that
order.
Considering the deviations observed for the oil properties, it is concluded
that the generated EOS models are capable of reproducing the oil phase
characteristics at a broad range of pressures within reasonable deviation
(commonly within experimental uncertainty). Although no experimental PVT
information is available regarding the interaction of the studied light oils with flue
gas, the produced gas composition data gathered during the displacements and
presented below, are indicative of the oil-gas equilibrium agreement with the
compositional model. Overall, the regressions performed on EOS parameters
allow representing produced fluid volume, producing gas-oil ratio, and pressure
drop with relatively low levels of uncertainty.
29
2.1.3.2 Relative permeability model
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 present a graphical comparison between experimental

and simulated data after the matching procedure for each of the eight slim tube
displacements with Oil 1. The instantaneous gas-oil ratio was calculated based
on the reported cumulative gas data, and was used for the match instead of the
original data because it shows variations that cannot be easily observed in the
cumulative curve. However, the degree of experimental uncertainty for this
property is much higher than that for cumulative gas. From this figure, it can be
inferred that all of the displacements were matched within the same range of
deviation and giving priority to cumulative oil volume, then pressure drop, and
finally gas-oil ratio.
In Figure 2.5, the match obtained for displacements 9 to 12,
corresponding to core floods with Oil 1, is displayed. Pressure drop data was not
considered for the simulation of core flood displacements since the original data
varies widely and even reports some negative values, for which it was regarded
as unreliable. From the visual comparison, a similar conclusion to that drawn for
the slim tube floods is attained: the fittings exhibit consistency in the degree of
variation and deviation for both cumulative oil and gas-oil ratio.
Slim tube displacements with Oil 2 are depicted in Figure 2.6, while core
floods with Oil 2 are shown in Figure 2.7. In both cases, the matches are
satisfactory and the deviations are mostly within the expected uncertainty.
Considering the closeness between the simulation and the physical model, and
the consistency between different matches, it is expected that a logical variation
between the relative permeability parameters that allowed the fitting and the
physical variable that relates to the conditions of each displacement (IFT) occurs.
30
Displacement 1:
Displacement 1: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 + N2
N2 at
at 38,320
38,320 kPa
kPa Displac. 1:
Displac. 1: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 +N2
+N2 at
at 38,320
38,320 kPa
kPa
140
140 60%
60% 45000
45000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
112 48%
48% 36000
36000
Ratio, m3/m3
m3/m3
Pressure (kPa)
(kPa) Simulated
Simulated
Pressure Drop,
Pressure Drop, Simulated
Simulated
Oil Recovery, %
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Pressure Drop,
Pressure Drop, Experimental
Experimental Experimental
Experimental
84 36% 27000
27000
Diff. Pressure
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Oil Recovery,
Oil Recovery, Simulated
Sim ulated
Oil Recovery,
Oil Recovery, Experimental
Experimental
56 24% 18000
18000
Gas-Oil
Diff.
28 12%
12% 9000
9000
0 0%
0% 0
0
0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60
Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hours Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hour s
Displacement 2:
Displacement 2: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 + N2
N2 at
at 46,060
46,060 kPa
k Pa Displac. 2:
Displac. 2: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 +N2
+N2 at
at 46,060
46,060 kPa
kPa
280 70%
70% 30000
30000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
224
224 56%
56% 24000
24000
m3/m3
Ratio, m3/m3
Simulated
Simulated
(kPa)
Pressure (kPa)
Oil Recovery, %
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
168
168 Pressure Drop,

Simulated 42% 18000
18000 Experimental
Experimental
Diff. Pressure
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Pressure Drop,
Experimental
112
112 Oil Recovery,

Simulated 28% 12000
12000
Gas-Oil
Oil Recovery,
Experimental
Diff.
56 14%
14% 6000
6000
0 0%
0% 0
0
0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hours Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hour s
Displacement 3:
Displacement 3: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 + FGA
FGA at
at 34,590
34,590 kPa
kPa Displac. 3:
Displac. 3: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 + FGA
FGA at
at 34,590
34,590 kPa
kPa
180 60%
60% 15000
15000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
144
144 48%
48% 12000
12000
Ratio, m3/m3
m3/m3
Simulated
Simulated
(kPa)
Pressure (kPa)
Pressure Drop,
Simulated
Oil Recovery, %
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
108
108 Pressure Drop,

Experimental 36% 9000
9000 Experimental
Experimental
Diff. Pressure
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Oil Recovery,
Simulated
72 Oil Recovery,
6000
Gas-Oil
Diff.
36 12%
12% 3000
3000
0 0%
0% 0
0
0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60
Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hours Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hour s
Displacement 4:
Displacement 4: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 + FGA
FGA at
at 41,280
41,280 kPa
kPa Displac. 4:
Displac. 4: ST
ST Oil
Oil 1 + FGA
FGA at
at 41,280
41,280 kPa
kPa
140 70%
70% 15000
15000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
112
112 56%
56% 12000
12000
Ratio, m3/m3
m3/m3
Simulated
Simulated
Pressure (kPa)
(kPa)
Pressure Drop,
Simulated
Oil Recovery, %
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Gas-Oil Ratio,
84 Pressure Drop,
9000 Experimental
Experimental
Diff. Pressure
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Oil Recovery,
Sim ulated
56 Oil Recovery,
6000
Gas-Oil
Diff.
28
28 14%
14% 3000
3000
0 0%
0% 0
0
0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60
Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hours Time Elapsed,
Time Elapsed, hours
hour s
Figure 2.3: Match of slim tube displacements 1 to 4 with Oil 1
31
Displacement 5: ST Oil 1 + FGA at 44,510 kPa Displac. 5: ST Oil 1 + FGA at 44,510 kPa
140 75% 15000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
112
112 60%
60% 12000
Gas-Oil Ratio, m3/m3

Simulated
Diff. Pressure (kPa)

Oil Recovery, %
Gas-Oil Ratio,
84 Pressure Drop, Experimental 45% 9000 Experimental

56 Oil Recovery, Experimental 30% 6000
28 15%
15% 3000
0 0%
0% 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time Elapsed, hours Time Elapsed, hours
Displacement 6: ST Oil 1 + FGB at 27,770 kPa Displac. 6: ST Oil 1 + FGB at 27,770 kPa
18
1 0
80 50% 8000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Simulated
14
1 4
44 40
40%% 6400

Gas-Oil Ratio,
Oil Recovery, %
Experimental
10
1 8
08 30% 4800
72 20% 3200
36 10
10%% 1600
0 0%
0% 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
12
1200 60% 12500
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Simulated
96 Pressure Drop, Simulated 48
48%% 10000
Pressure Drop, Experimental Gas-Oil Ratio,

Oil Recovery, %
Experimental
72 36% 7500
48 24% 5000
24 12
12%% 2500
0 0%
0% 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
75% 10000
204
20 4 Gas-Oil Ratio,
Simulated
60%
60 % 8000
170
17 0
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio,
Oil Recovery, %
Experimental
Experimental
136
13 6 Pressure Drop, Simulated 45% 6000
102
10 2 Oil Recovery, Simulated
30% 4000
68
15%
15 % 2000
34
0 0%
0% 0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
50 60
Figure 2.4: Matching of slim tube displacements 5 to 8 with Oil 1
32
Displacement 9: CF Oil 1 + N2 at 27,470 kPa
Displacement Displacement 10: CF Oil 1 + N2 at 41,580 kPa
Displacement
35% 70000 55% 80000
28% 56000 44% 64000

Oil Recovery, %
Oil Recovery, %
21% 42000 33% 48000
14% 28000 22% 32000

Rec overy, Simulated
Oil Recovery,
Oil
7% Simulated
GOR, Simulated 14000 11% 16000
GOR, Experimental
GOR,
GOR, Simulated
GOR, Experimental
0% 0 0% 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
Displacement
Displacement 11: CF Oil 1 + FGA at 27,710 kPa Displacement 12: CF Oil 1 + FGB at 27,820 kPa
Displacement
40% 35000 45% 70000
32% 28000 36% 56000

Oil Recovery,

Oil
Oil Recovery, %
Oil Recovery, %
GOR, Simulated GOR, Simulated
GOR, Simulated
24% 21000 27% GOR, Experimental
GOR, 42000
GOR, Experimental
16% 14000 18% 28000
8% 7000 9% 14000
0% 0 0% 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
Figure 2.5: Match of 4 core flood displacements with Oil 1
Displacement 13: ST Oil 2 + FGA at 17,620 kPa Displac. 13: ST Oil 2 + FGA at 17,620 kPa Displacement 14: ST Oil 2 + FGA at 27,580 kPa Displac. 14: ST Oil 2 + FGA at 27,580 kPa
240 55% 8000 2500
25 55% 12500
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
Simulated
Simulate Simulated
Simulate
3
192 44%
44 % 6400 2000
20 44%
44% 10000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
Experimental Experimental
144 Pressure Drop, Simulated
Simulate 33% 4800 150 Pressure Drop, Simulated
Simulate 33%
33% 7500
Experimenta Pressure Drop, Experimental
Experimenta
Simulate Oil Recovery, Simulated
Simulate
96 22% 3200 100 22%
22% 5000
Oil Recovery, Experimental Oil Recovery, Experimental
O il R e c o v e r y , %
D iff. P r e s s u re (k P a )
G a s - O il R a tio , m 3 /m 3
G a s -O il R a tio , m 3 /m 3
48 11%
11 % 1600 50 11%
11% 2500
0 0%
0% 0 0 0%
0% 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Time Elapsed, hours Time Elapsed, hours Time Elapsed, hours Time Elapsed, hours
Displacement 15: ST Oil 2 + FGA at 41,570 kPa Displac. 15: ST Oil 2 + FGA at 41,570 kPa Displacement 16: ST Oil 2 + FGB at 17,680 kPa Displac. 16: ST Oil 2 + FGB at 17,680 kPa
360 55% 12500 3600
36 60% 8000
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
Simulated
Simulate Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
228888 44%
44 % 10000 2888
28 6400 Simulated
Simulate
Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
Experimental Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
Simulate 40%
40%
Simulate 7500 4800
Experimental
216 33% 216
Experimenta
Experimenta
Simulate
Simulate
144 22% 5000 144 Oil Recovery, Experimental 3200
20%
20%
72 11%
11 % 2500 72 1600
0 0%
0% 0 0 0%
0% 0
0 13 26 39 52 65 0 13 26 39 52 65 0 16 32 48 64 80 0 16 32 48 64 80
Displacement 17: ST Oil 2 + FGB at 27,670 kPa Displac. 17: ST Oil 2 + FGB at 27,670 kPa Displacement 18: ST Oil 2 + FGB at 41,680 kPa Displac. 18: ST Oil 2 + FGB at 41,680 kPa
Figure 2.6: Match of 6 slim tube displacements with Oil 2
300 60% 12500 2600

26 60% 15000
Gas-Oil Ratio
Ratio,
Simulated
Simulate Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
224400 10000 2088
20 12000 Simulated
Simulate
Gas-Oil Ratio
Ratio,
Experimental Gas-Oil Ratio,
Ratio
Simulate 40% Pressure Drop, Simulated
Simulate 40%
40%
Experimental
180 7500 156 9000
Experimenta Pressure Drop, Experimental
Experimenta
Simulate Oil Recovery, Simulated
Simulate
120 Oil Recovery, Experimental 5000 104 Oil Recovery, Experimental 6000
20% 20%
20%
O il R e c o v e ry , %
O il R e c o v e ry , %
D iff. P re s s u re (k P a )
D iff. P re s s u re (k P a )
60 2500 52 3000
0 0%
0% 0 0 0%
0% 0
33
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
34
Displacement 19: CF Oil 2 + FGA at 17,680 kPa
19: Displacement 20: CF Oil 2 + FGB at 17,640 kPa
50% 30000 55% 30000
40% 24000 44% 24000


Oil Recovery, Experimental Oil Recovery, Simulated
Oil Recovery, %
Oil Recovery, %
GOR, Simulated Oil Recovery, Experimental
30% GOR, Experimental 18000 33% GOR, Simulated 18000
OR, Experimental
GOR,
G Experimental
20% 12000 22% 12000
10% 6000 11% 6000
0% 0 0% 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
Figure 2.7: Matching of two core flood displacements with Oil 2
The oil-gas relative permeability parameters used to match each of the 12

ST and CF displacements conducted on Oil 1 are listed in Table 2.5. The
parameters resulting of the adjustment of the 8 ST and CF displacements carried
out on Oil 2 are presented in Table 2.6. In the third column of each table, the
minimum calculated oil-gas IFT at breakthrough time for each displacement is
provided.
Table 2.5: Relative permeability parameters for 12 displacements with Oil 1

Pressure IFT Krocw Krgcw Sorg Aog Ag
Gas Type (kPaa) (dyn/cm)
Flue Gas B 27,770 1.75 0.67 0.75 0.405 2.35 2.9
Flue Gas B 34,460 1.15 0.6 2.0 0.380 1.50 4.8
SLIM TUBES
Flue Gas A 34,590 1.096 0.46 3.0 0.365 1.50 4.8

Flue Gas A 38,230 1.086 0.60 2.3 0.365 1.35 5.3
Nitrogen 41,280 1.00 0.66 2.4 0.295 1.30 6.0
Flue Gas A 44,510 0.991 0.55 4.4 0.267 1.11 9.2
Nitrogen 46,060 0.983 0.5 3.0 0.265 1.12 9.0
Flue Gas B 45,040 0.975 0.62 4.8 0.235 1.09 9.7
Flue Gas B 27,820 1.68 0.26 0.70 0.383 1.40 3.50
FLOODS
CORE
Flue Gas A 27,710 1.67 0.17 0.50 0.370 1.55 3.15

Nitrogen 27,470 1.68 0.14 0.44 0.391 1.70 3.00
Nitrogen 41,580 0.631 0.25 0.54 0.304 1.35 4.70
35
Table 2.6: Relative permeability parameters for 8 displacements with Oil 2
Pressure IFT Krocw Krgcw Sorg Aog Ag

Gas Type (kPaa) (dyn/cm)
Flue Gas A 41,570 1.60 0.75 4.2 0.385 2.45 1.6
SLIM TUBES
Flue Gas B 41,680 1.71 0.60 2.3 0.365 2.10 1.7

Flue Gas A 27,580 3.32 0.66 2.2 0.380 1.95 1.8
Flue Gas B 27,670 3.37 0.75 2.5 0.340 1.80 2.1
Flue Gas A 17,620 5.72 0.50 3.0 0.360 1.75 2.2
Flue Gas B 14,680 5.77 0.82 2.3 0.340 1.60 2.4
FLOODS
Flue Gas A 17,680 5.51 0.6 0.82 0.342 1.75 2.15

CORE
Flue Gas B 17,640 5.47 0.5 0.66 0.318 1.70 2.20
Figure 2.8 offers a comparison between the experimental molar fraction of

selected components in the produced gas stream and that calculated by the
simulator for three of the matched ST displacements. For all of the components
displayed, the molar fractions at times when either oil or gas flow predominates
are accurately reproduced, indicating that the light oil/flue gas equilibrium is
being properly modelled. On the other hand, during the times when two-phase
flow dominates, the calculated transition time is longer than the experimental. In
the displacement number 14 (Flue gas A displacing Oil 2 at 27,580 kPa) it is
observed that nitrogen and methane fractions start to change rapidly coinciding
with the gas breakthrough. However, at this same time, carbon dioxide fraction
remains low, suggesting that it has appreciably dissolved in the oil. The time lag
for carbon dioxide molar fraction increase after breakthrough calculated by the
model is much shorter than that observed. The same behaviour can be noticed
for displacement # 8. This implies that a higher concentration of CO2 in the oil
phase than that calculated by the model occurs near breakthrough, and then the
real IFT would be lower than what the model predicts. Considering that no gas/oil
equilibrium data was available, the model prediction of gas composition is in
good agreement with the experimental observations.
36
Displacement 4: ST Oil 1 + FGA at 41,280 kPa Displacement 4: ST Oil 1 + FGA at 41,280 kPa
5
5
90
Molar fraction in Produced gas,

Molar fraction in Produced gas,
gas
gas
72
72
4
4
C3, Simulated
54
54
N2, Simulated 3
3
C3, Experimental
%
%
C1, Simulated
36
36
N2, Experimental
Experimental
2
2
C1, Experimental
Experimental
18
18
1
1
0 0
0
0 11 22 33 44 55 0 11 22 33 44 55
55
Time Elapsed, hours Time elapsed, hours
Displacement 8: ST Oil 1 + FGB at 45,040 kPa Displacement 8: ST Oil 1 + FGB at 45,040 kPa
32
32
90
90
Molar fraction in Produced Gas,

Gas
Gas
27
27
72
72
CO2, Simulated
21
21
CO2, Experimental
54
54
N2, Simulated
C1, Simulated
%
16
%
N2, Experimental
36
36
C1, Experimental 10
10
18
18
5
5
0 0
0
0 11 22 33 44 55 0 11 22 33 44 55
55
Displacement 14: ST Oil 2+FGA at 27,580 kPa Displacement 14: ST Oil 2+FGA at 27,580 kPa
19
19
90
90

Gas

Gas
72
72
15
15
54
54
11
11
N2, Simulated
Simulated
C1, Simulated
Simulated
CO2, Simulated
36
36
N2, Experimental 7
7
CO2, Experimental
C1, Experimental
18
18
3
3
0 -1
-1
0 17 34 51 68 85 0 17 34 51 68 85
85
Time elapsed, hours Time Elapsed, hours
Figure 2.8: Comparison of experimental and simulated produced gas

composition for three selected displacements
37
2.1.3.3 Variation of relative permeability parameters with IFT
Figure 2.9 reproduces part of the information contained in Table 2.5 (slim
tube displacements for Oil 1) showing the oil-gas relative permeability
parameters varying with interfacial tension, as calculated by the model. It is
apparent that most of the parameters exhibit a monotonic variation with IFT. Oil-
gas IFT spans a relatively narrow interval of less than one order of magnitude
around 1.0 dyne/cm. Although there is a high uncertainty in the absolute value of
IFT, the magnitude of variation of the relative permeability parameters needed to
reproduce the experimental behaviour is significant enough to presume that such
relationship is necessary to correctly model the performance of light oil/flue gas
processes at the investigated conditions.
Krog Parameter variation with IFT - Slim Tube Oil 1

10 0.7
8 0.6
Ag, Aog and Krgcw
Aog Ag
Krocw and Sorg

Krgcw Krocw
6 Sorg Linear (Krocw) 0.5
Power (Krgcw) Log. (Aog)
4 0.4
2 0.3
0 0.2
0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8
Oil-Gas Interfacial Tension, dyn/cm
for ST displacements with Oil 1
38
The endpoint relative permeability of oil at connate water saturation (krocw)
exhibits an increasing trend with IFT. However, the dispersion of data around the
trend line is significant, and considering that the average of 0.58 is representative
of the whole interval, it can be suggested that this parameter does not
significantly vary with IFT. This result is coherent since this endpoint is defined at
connate water saturation in the presence of oil (no gas saturation), and should
not depend on gas-oil IFT. In the particular case of the slim tube displacements,
connate water saturation is zero, and then oil saturation at this condition is 100%,
which implies that relative permeability to the oil should be the unity. However,
considering that the first data set taken and employed in the matching procedure
occurs normally after one hour of the start of gas flood (when gas saturation is
significantly higher than zero), and that the Corey-type function does not allow for
a steep increase in relative permeability at saturations near the endpoints, the
average value of 0.58 can be understood as a reasonable extrapolation for krocw
from the low gas saturation region to the zero gas saturation condition. The error
in the calculation of gas and oil viscosity by the compositional model is also a
source of deviation from the ideal value of 1.
From a similar perspective, krgcw, the gas relative permeability endpoint
represents an extrapolation to the 100% gas saturation condition. The deviation
from the ideal value of 1 is more likely for krgcw from the data collected since the
experimental values of gas saturation range from near zero to rarely above 70%.
As can be observed in Figure 2.9, the krgcw values range from 0.75 at high IFT to
4.8 at low IFT. The values of the gas relative permeability endpoint are directly
related to the values of the gas curvature exponent. At low IFT, curvature
exponents (ag) range from 6 to 10, correlated with the high values of krgcw that
varies between 2.5 and 4.8. The displacement at the highest IFT, in turn, was
matched with ag=2.9, krgcw=0.75. The dispersion of the gas endpoint values
around the trend line is significant, although the decreasing variation of this
parameter when increasing IFT is clear. On the other hand, the gas curvature
exponent also exhibits a decreasing trend with IFT, but a much lower dispersion
39
of points, implying a higher correlation between these two variables. This
correlation is explained by the fact that a higher curvature exponent implies lower
relative permeability at low gas saturations. As IFT becomes low, a more efficient
immiscible displacement takes place, in which the relative mobility of gas phase
is reduced favouring the mobility of the oil phase, resulting in a higher oil
recovery. The variation of the oil curvature exponent supports this conclusion. Aog
displays a consistent and clear increase with IFT. At low IFT values, the oil
curvature exponent takes lower values, approaching to 1 (1.09 at 0.975 dyne/cm)
while at the highest recorded IFT of 1.75 dyne/cm, aog takes a value of 2.35. The
lower the curvature exponent of the oil phase, the slower is the oil relative
permeability decay from krocw as gas saturation increases, making oil more
mobile at a broader range of saturation conditions.
Maini (2009) considers that with decreasing IFT the curvature exponents
of both phases should be reduced. This could have been accomplished by using
low curvature exponents and successively lower krgcw values, and at the same
time, employing residual gas saturations (Sgr) higher than zero. As Sgr was
assumed to be zero for all displacements in order to keep the number of
matching parameters low, increasing the gas curvature exponent, and
correspondingly increasing the gas relative permeability endpoint was the only
way to simulate the reduction in krg at low gas saturations. This implies that the
results of this study do not contradict general wisdom, and provide an alternate
way to model near-miscibility behaviour with a simple relative permeability
correlation.
Residual oil saturation (Sorg) also appears to have a definite increasing
trend and high correlation with IFT. At the lowest IFT, Sorg=0.235, while at the
highest IFT, Sorg=0.405. This parameter is the most indicative of the efficiency of
an immiscible displacement, since it has the highest impact on oil recovery. This
result supports the conclusion that gas-oil relative permeability curves should be
related to gas-oil interfacial tension to improve the characterization of the
immiscible displacement of light oil by flue gas at typical HPAI reservoir
40
conditions. As noted above, the range of IFT variation throughout the observed
displacements using Oil 1 is relatively narrow. However, there appears to be a
critical value of IFT that separates a zone with sharp variation of parameters from
a zone of virtually no variation. Assuming that the trends indicated in Figure 2.8
are applicable for the IFT values shown, it can be observed that at approximately
1.2 dyne/cm that transition occurs. It must be recalled that IFT was not directly
measured and that these values should be treated with care. This functional
relationship is representative of the porous medium in which the displacements
were carried out (slim tube). A similar analysis must be performed for the data
corresponding to the core flood tests in order to provide a more generalized
insight on this issue.
The relative permeability parameters resulting from the analysis of the
core flood tests conducted on Oil 1 varying with IFT are depicted in Figure 2.10.
Krog Parameter variation with IFT - Coreflood Oil 1

5.0 0.40
4.0 0.32
Krgcw
Ag, Aog and Krgcw
Krocw and Sorg

3.0 Aog 0.24
Ag
2.0 Sorg 0.16
Krocw
1.0 0.08
0.0 0.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Interfacial Tension, dyn/cm
for CF displacements with Oil 1
41
The fact that three out of the four displacements display virtually the same
minimum calculated IFT makes it difficult to produce conclusive remarks on the
correlation level of each parameter with IFT. However, it is noticeable that the
variation in the value of each parameter is much lower compared to that from the
slim tube displacements. This is related to the fact that gas and oil saturation
vary in a smaller range due to the presence of connate water. The immobile
water phase can also interact in a compositional way with the gas phase,
solubilising some of its components (particularly CO2) and partially vaporizing.
A high dispersion in the value of krocw can be observed, as it was the case
for the ST data. The average value of 0.205 can appropriately represent every
displacement, recalling that a variation of this parameter with oil-gas IFT is not
theoretically sound. As connate water saturation (Swr) is 0.329 for the core floods
with Oil 1, a value lower than 1 is expected for this parameter.
As opposed to the results of the slim tube displacements, the data in
Figure 2.10 suggests a constant value for krgcw. The computed average of 0.55 is
also consistent with a theoretical value lower than 1.
Even though the values of Aog present some dispersion at the high IFT
region, the fact that all three quantities are greater than that at low IFT suggests
an increasing trend, as it was found from the graphical display in Figure 2.9. For
the gas curvature exponent, the variation is even clearer, exhibiting a decreasing
trend, also consistent with the findings for the ST data. At low IFT (0.63
dyne/cm), Ag is calculated as 4.7 while at high IFT (1.67-1.68 dyne/cm) it varies
from 3.0 to 3.5.
Residual oil saturation (Sorg) is 0.30 at low IFT and varies between 0.37
and 0.39 at high IFT. This difference, although not as pronounced as that from
ST displacements, represents a considerable variation in this key relative
permeability parameter for an immiscible flood. In general, Figure 2.10 indicates
that also for this porous medium, including relative permeability varying with IFT
can help improve the prediction of the immiscible displacement process when
pressure, temperature and composition conditions change considerably. More
42
general conclusions can be drawn from including the results from ST and CF for
Oil 2.
For Oil 2, only two CF displacements were available to match, and in both
cases the calculated IFT is approximately 5.5 dyne/cm. This does not allow
making concluding remarks on the variation of the relative permeability
parameters with IFT for the core floods. However, in Figure 2.11, curvature
exponents and residual oil saturation for these tests are plotted together with the
results for ST displacements. When comparing the magnitude of these
parameters, they are in close agreement for both porous media.
Krog Parameter variation with IFT - Oil 2 - ST & CF

5.0 0.85
4.0 0.74
Krgcw ST
Aog ST
Ag, Aog and Krgcw
Krocw and Sorg

Ag ST
3.0 0.63
Aog CF
Ag CF
2.0 Sorg ST 0.52
Krowc ST
Sorg CF
1.0 0.41
0.0 0.30
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Interfacial Tension, dyn/cm
for ST and CF displacements with Oil 2
For the slim tube data, calculated oil-gas IFT ranges from a minimum of
1.6 dyne/cm to a maximum of 5.8 dyne/cm. Figure 2.11 shows that the variation
of every parameter with IFT is not as pronounced as that presented for Oil 1.
This may be explained by the fact that even the lowest IFT for displacements
43
with Oil 2 are higher than those calculated for Oil 1, and that all of them are
above a critical IFT value marking the transition from immiscible to near-miscible
(or improved immiscible) displacement.
A constant value equal to the average of 0.68 for Krocw is representative for
the whole range of IFT for ST conducted on Oil 2, as the dispersion shown in
Figure 2.11 for this parameter is considerable. Krgcw also presents a high degree
of dispersion when varying with IFT, and data points oscillate around an average
value of 2.8. For the case of curvature exponents and residual oil saturation, a
variation trend is more apparent. Sorg at low IFT averages 0.375 while at high IFT
averages 0.350. This exemplifies that despite the good correlation, the variation
is not significant and a constant value can be assigned to the whole IFT interval
without losing much accuracy in the gas flood prediction.
2.1.4 Concluding remarks
The direction of variation of relative permeability parameters (curvature

exponents, residual oil saturation and endpoints) with gas-oil IFT is consistent for
both slim tube and core flood displacements between light oil and flue gas. As
IFT decreases, and modeling the phase flow with Sgr=0, the curvature exponent
for oil tends to decrease, while that for gas tends to increase, and residual oil
saturation tends to decrease.
The magnitude of variation of the relative permeability parameters with
gas-oil IFT is more pronounced in the case of the ST tests, since water is not
present in the porous medium. For the CF experiments with Oil 1 studied,
residual oil saturation varies from 0.30 at 0.63 dyne/cm to 0.38 (average) at 1.65
dyne/cm.
Some of the displacements conducted at higher pressures displayed near-
miscible behaviour, as concluded by the variation of gas-oil relative permeability
curves with IFT. Although direct measurements of IFT would be required to
conclude it, the results suggest that gas-oil IFT values in the region of 1.0 to 1.5
44
dyne/cm would be regarded as transitional from immiscible (above this interval,
relative permeability would be basically constant) to near-miscible (below this
interval, relative permeability would start to show dependency with IFT).
Despite the difference in API gravity being small (37 ˚API for Oil 2
compared to 39˚ API for Oil 1), other composition-related parameters such as
bubble point pressure (22,000 kPa for Oil 1 versus 7,300 kPa for Oil 2) could be
used as an indication of the likelihood of developing near-miscible or improved
immiscible displacement conditions with flue gas at typical HPAI conditions.
The simulation of HPAI using IFT-dependent oil-gas relative permeability
curves can model an additional improvement in recovery efficiency while
employing an isothermal simulator. Whether the magnitude of this improvement
is comparable with the enhancement achieved by HPAI versus an immiscible gas
flood, is still dependent on the relative importance of high temperature generated
by the exothermal reactions in the reservoir setting.
2.2 Contribution of Combustion Reactions to the Oil Recovery in HPAI

under Controlled Conditions
In order to assess the feasibility of air injection, Combustion Tube (CT)

tests have become the standard experiment. Not only does it evaluate the
exothermicity of the oil in the presence of oxygen, it provides a general picture of
the advancement of a sustained combustion front in a porous medium and the
relationship between burnt volume and volume of oil produced, between air
injected and volume of oil produced, and other ratios that are crucial to estimate
the economy of the process.
Physically speaking, a CT does not represent a scaled experiment, and
many of the parameters that are typically obtained from the CT data are scale-
dependent. In order to achieve a vigorous, sustained combustion front during the
test, oxygen delivery rates have to be much higher than those expected under
reservoir conditions. Ignition is achieved by willingly increasing the injection end
temperature right before air starts to be injected. The temperature is controlled by
45
means of heaters in order to ensure a pseudo-adiabatic process. The linear
geometry of flow ensures a constant air flux through a relatively small traverse
area. All in all, the CT test corresponds to the best-case scenario for the
performance of a high-temperature front as an efficient oil recovery mechanism.
Further research needs to be conducted in the upscaling of kinetic
parameters and reaction schemes in order to model the ignition and extinction
phenomena, as well as the oxygen flux dependency of kinetic parameters in the
reservoir setting. As the field information is limited to the well locations, and very
little has been published on reservoir temperature profiles under air injection, a
first attempt to assess the contribution of the exothermal reactions to the overall
oil recovery in HPAI has to rely in data from CT tests, since superior information
in the form of temperature profiles and histories, pressure drop, oil and gas
composition, injected and produced fluid volumes is available.
The objective of this section is to use reservoir simulation to assess the
contribution of the exothermic reactions to the oil recovery in a CT. This is
achieved by comparing the simulated recovery of a flue gas (rather than air) flood
with the experimental oil recovery by air injection. The state at the beginning of
air injection (fluid saturations, temperature profile and fluid properties) is
matched, so the only difference resides in the exothermicity produced by the
reactions between oxygen and oil, provided that relative permeability remains
unchanged during the air flood. Special attention is placed on the
characterization of relative permeability curves. The experimental data and
methodology employed are described below.
2.2.1 Experimental data
A dry CT test conducted on a stock tank sample (dead oil) of Oil 1 is

available for this study. The experiment was performed at 14,600 kPaa (2,115
psia) using normal air (21.0 mole percent O2) at a stable injection flux of 45.6
m3(ST)/(m2h), and started at reservoir temperature of 116˚C. Reservoir core
46
samples were crushed and packed in the 183 cm long (only 170 cm of re-
saturated crushed core), 9.74 cm internal diameter combustion tube. Synthetic
brine was prepared based on a compositional analysis of produced water.
The sand pack was cleaned with solvent and air, then subjected to
vacuum and saturated with brine. Porosity was determined to be 48% and
absolute permeability to brine, 9 darcy. Oil was then injected through the top of
the vertically oriented tube at a rate of 100 cm3/h and temperature of 40˚C until it
broke through, after 1.36 day of injection. The system was then pressurized to
the operation pressure of 14,600 kPaa with oil, while increasing the temperature
to 116˚C. Once the initial conditions were stabilized, nitrogen injection was
started, displacing oil and brine in order to establish gas communication
throughout the core. After 0.60 hours, gas breakthrough occurred and then a
continuous injection rate of 339 litres(ST)/h of N2 was imposed. Then, the ignition
heaters on the walls of the first three zones (top 15 cm) were set to a higher
temperature, achieving an average temperature of 264˚C at the start of air
injection. Continuous normal air injection was started (1.85 hours after the start of
nitrogen injection) and within six minutes, ignition was observed. Air injection was
stopped after 4.03 hours and nitrogen was injected through the core to purge the
remaining oxygen and product gases. After that, the system was bled down.
Table 2.7 contains information on the fluid saturations and masses before
the start of N2 injection and at the start of air injection. Table 2.8 presents the
liquid production history during both nitrogen and air floods. The start of air
injection is considered to be time zero.
47
Table 2.7: Reported fluid saturations and masses for the CT test before
nitrogen and air floods
Before N2 Before Air

Injection Injection
Mass of brine in core (g) 2,668.5 2,193.7
Mass of oil in core (g) 2,485.1 922.7
Volume of brine in core (cm3) 2,800.1 2,301.9
Volume of oil in core (cm3) 3,270.3 1,214.2
Brine Saturation 46.13% 37.92%
Oil Saturation 53.87% 20.00%
Gas Saturation 0.00% 42.08%
Table 2.8: Liquid production history during nitrogen and air floods
Run Cumulative Cumulative

Time (h) Water (g) Oil (g)
-1.85 0.0 0.0
-1.72 260.5 163.2
-1.58 302.3 544.8
-1.50 320.2 965.2
-1.33 335.5 1412.6
-1.05 474.8 1562.4
1.63 724.1 1769.5
2.17 1228.6 1842.9
2.62 1625.0 1946.1
3.15 1963.4 2057.3
3.70 2296.5 2142.5
4.72 2719.4 2221.2
2.2.2 Methodology
Composition, viscosity and density data for dead Oil 1 reported by

Shokoya (2005) were used to tune the compositional model by adjusting the
viscosity correlation parameters, volume translation coefficients and critical
properties of the two heaviest fractions employing CMG’s WinProp software. The
resulting compositional model including 9 hydrocarbon pseudo components in
addition to nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water, was used to calculate the input
properties for the thermal simulator STARS® (also from Computer Modelling
Group), including a table of liquid-vapour equilibrium constants for each
component varying with pressure and temperature.
48
Departing from a fully water-saturated core, oil flood was simulated in
STARS, and a match of the breakthrough time and final saturation was achieved
by modifying the oil-water relative permeability curves. These curves are
representative of a drainage process (non-wetting saturation increasing). Then,
nitrogen flood is simulated while maintaining the same conditions as in the test,
including preheating and pressurizing. The gas breakthrough time, oil and water
cumulative masses and saturations at the beginning of air injection were
matched by fine-tuning the oil-water and gas-oil relative permeability curves, as
well as a hysteresis parameter for the oil. The use of a hysteresis parameter for
the oil is explained by the fact that during oil flood and early during the gas flood,
oil saturation is increasing at the producing end, but after gas breakthrough, oil
saturation starts to decrease, and thus, a proper characterization of relative
permeability must include at least one hysteresis parameter.
Gas-oil relative permeability curves are constructed based on the Corey-
type correlations described in section 2.1.2. Water-oil relative permeability curves
are also based on Corey’s correlation, as follows:
a
⎛
1− S w − Sorw ⎞
ow
k row
= k
rowc
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 2.2.2.1
⎝
1− S wr − Sorw ⎠
a
⎛
S w − S wr ⎞
w
k rw
= k
rwro
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 2.2.2.2
⎝
1− S wr − Sorw ⎠
krwro represents the water relative permeability endpoint at residual oil

saturation, and was defined as 1.0 since it is a drainage process starting at 100%
water saturation, implying also that Sorw = 0.0 (residual oil saturation to the
drainage process). aow and aw are the oil and water curvature exponents. The
Carlson method (CMG, 2007) is used for calculating the relative permeability of
oil when oil saturation decreases. This method uses a parameter called Sotmax,
which represents the maximum trapped oil (non-wetting phase) saturation of the
49
imbibition curve. It is the saturation endpoint of the imbibition curve that breaks
off the relative permeability drainage curve at the maximum possible krow (at So =
1-Swr), and is used to evaluate the shape and path of all scanning curves that
leave the drainage curve at any saturation reversal.
With the conventional oil-gas and oil-water relative permeability curves as
an input, the simulator uses the Stone’s second method (Aziz and Settari, 1979)
to calculate the relative permeability of the intermediate-wetting phase (oil) in a
three-phase situation.
Having adjusted the relative permeability for the three phases, a flue gas
(84% N2 - 16% CO2) flood is simulated during the air injection time. Numerical
heaters are set so the temperature achieved at the injection end due to the
ignition preheating is matched, but at air injection starting time, heaters are
turned off to operate at adiabatic mode. The cumulative oil and water recovery
after 4.03 hours (end of air flood) of flue gas flood simulation is then compared to
the experimental recovery by air injection.
Table 2.9 displays the physical properties and correlation parameters for
the nine hydrocarbon components after a regression of the experimental
information available. Table 2.10 shows the comparison between the measured
and calculated properties (density and viscosity of dead oil) after regression.
The experimental uncertainty in viscosity is higher than in density, not only
due to the instrumental error, but also because of sample handling.
Measurements were conducted at atmospheric pressure, and at higher
temperatures, some of the most volatiles component may elude from the liquid
phase. This made it difficult to measure viscosity at higher temperatures, while at
lower temperatures Oil 1 tends to solidify (despite its high API gravity) since it is
a very waxy mixture. The match obtained permits making a satisfactory
prediction of the oil properties at the oil flood conditions (atmospheric pressure
50
and 40˚C). However, at higher temperatures, due to the lack of experimental
information, the extrapolation has to be assumed as true.
Table 2.9: EOS characterization for Oil 1 CT test

nC5-C6 C7-C8 C9-C10 C11-C13 C14-C17 C18-C22 C23-C29 C30-C37 FC38+
Molar Fraction 4.00% 18.41% 15.38% 15.56% 15.88% 10.76% 9.60% 5.32% 5.08%
Critical volume, l/mol 0.3295 0.4045 0.4940 0.6218 0.7931 1.0112 1.2415 1.4990 1.8277
Acentric Factor 0.2665 0.3338 0.4154 0.5178 0.6594 0.8114 0.9882 1.1329 1.2831
MW, g/mol 81.1 102.5 127.0 160.3 210.6 272.5 346.7 420.7 588.0
Parachor 243.5 296.5 363.3 449.7 570.6 704.7 842.8 957.1 1,127.2
Critical pressure, atm 32.77 29.86 26.02 21.77 17.93 14.57 11.58 9.47 7.89
Critical temperature, K 494.3 559.6 609.7 662.8 723.1 779.8 839.9 890.5 1,009.1
Shift Vol. Factor, Bc 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.066 0.104 0.109 0.157 0.132 0.199
Other Components N2, CO2 and H2O (For exporting the model to STARS)
Table 2.10: Measured and calculated physical properties of Oil 1
Property T (˚C) Measured Regressed Deviation

15 826.5 821.2 0.64%
23 820.7 818.1 0.32%
Oil Density (kg/m3)
40 811.4 811.3 0.01%
65 792.9 800.3 0.93%
35 4.20 3.80 9.5%
Oil Viscosity (cp)
40 2.94 3.00 2.0%
Before exporting the compositional model to STARS, a match of the oil

flood and prediction of the gas (nitrogen and flue gas) flood was conducted in
CMG’s compositional simulator GEM. This served as a pre-screening for the
relative permeability curves parameters and to calculate the oil-gas interfacial
tension. The minimum calculated IFT at test pressure and temperatures up to
200˚C was higher than 2.0 dyne/cm. This implies that strong compositional
effects on the immiscible displacement that may improve the oil recovery as
shown in Section 2.1 are not likely to be present. This was expected since the oil
is an atmospheric sample, rather than recombined oil as that used for the ST and
CF tests analysed in the previous section.
51
The simulation grid employed was one-dimensional consisting of 67
blocks of 2.54 cm height and distributed in such a way that the thermocouple
locations coincide with the center of the cells. The equilibrium constant table
consisted of 15 temperature entries ranging from 15˚C to 575˚C and 10 pressure
entries ranging from 50 to 16,385 kPaa, as generated by WinProp with the
compositional model described in Table 2.9.
Figure 2.12 presents the drainage oil-water relative permeability curves
and their respective Corey correlation parameters adjusted for the match of
breakthrough times, oil and water cumulative production and saturations. The
imbibition curve was constructed as specified in the Carlson method with Sotmax =
0.16, which was shown to improve the final match of the nitrogen flood. Gas-oil
relative permeability curves are displayed in Figure 2.13 with their respective
Corey correlation parameters.
Drainage Water-Oil Kr Curves: CT Simulation, Oil 1

1
0.9 Krw
Krow
0.8
Swr 0.345
0.7
Relative Permeability
Sorw 0.0001
0.6 krocw 0.75
krwro 1.0
0.5 aow 2.0
aw 2.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, Fraction
Figure 2.12: Drainage water-oil relative permeability curves and parameters

used in the CT simulation of Oil 1
52
Drainage Oil-Gas Kr Curves: CT Simulation, Oil 1

1
0.9 Krg
Krog
0.8
0.7
Relative Permeability
0.6
0.5
Sorg 0.16
0.4 Sgr 0
krgcw 0.40
0.3 aog 1.3
ag 5.1
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gas Saturation, Fraction
Figure 2.13: Drainage oil-gas relative permeability curves and parameters

used in the CT simulation of Oil 1
The connate water saturation value of 0.345 and the curve crossover at
Sw near 0.67 suggest that the porous medium is water-wet. The relatively high
value of krocw (0.75) is reasonable considering that the porous medium is
unconsolidated, and not atypical for a water-wet condition. The residual oil
saturation to gas flood (Sorg) value of 0.16 is considerably low, implying a
maximum oil recovery by immiscible displacement of 75.5%. The uncertainty of
relative permeability endpoints is high, bearing in mind that the pressure drop
data is highly scattered, and was only used as guidance in their magnitude, but
not as a property to be matched. On the other hand, the uncertainty in endpoints
saturations is lower, since the cumulative masses are measured with high
accuracy. The overall mass balance error for the CT test after bleeding down the
system and analyzing the residual fluids in the pack was reported to be roughly
3% for both oil and water.
In Table 2.11 a comparison between the calculated and experimental CT
test data to the start of air injection is presented. Figure 2.13 illustrates the match
obtained for the cumulative mass production of oil and water during the nitrogen
53
flood. Despite the final saturations reported were accurately matched, some
intermediate points in Figure 2.14 are deviated beyond the experimental
uncertainty. The oil rate at the beginning of air injection was calculated high in
comparison to the experimental value, which would imply that the extrapolated
behaviour of an immiscible gas flood would be overestimated. Discrepancies in
calculated oil phase density, limitations of the relative permeability curve
correlations and the three-phase relative permeability model used by the
simulator (Stone’s second model) can explain that difference. However, the
matched relative permeability curves are considered to properly represent the
three-phase flow for the test, bearing in mind that an oil flood, nitrogen and flue
gas injection, and heating and pressurizing processes were simulated with the
same relative permeability curve set.
Table 2.11: Experimental and simulated breakthrough times and

saturations
Exp. Sim.
Property % Error
Value Value
Oil breakthrough time to oil
drainage (days) 1.357 1.327 2.21%
Nitrogen breakthrough time

since start of N2 injection (h) 0.600 0.624 4.00%
Average oil saturation just
before N2 injection 53.87% 52.88% 1.84%
Average oil saturation just

before air injection 20.00% 19.81% 0.95%
Average gas saturation just
before air injection 42.08% 42.03% 0.12%
Having adjusted the three-phase flow, the simulation of the air injection
period as a flue gas flood predicted an oil recovery at the final time (4.03 hours
run time) of 27.1% of the oil in place at the start of air injection, as shown in
Table 2.12. When compared to the actual oil recovery at the same time, of
65.6%, it can be inferred that the contribution of the flue gas displacement as an
isothermal immiscible flood process to the overall oil recovery is two fifths of the
54
total, while the contribution of the displacement by a high-temperature front
formed by the exothermal reactions of oxygen and oil is three-fifths of the total.
Liquid Mass Production Match - Nitrogen Flood

2000
Cum Oil, Experimental Cum Oil, Simulated
Cum Water, Experimental Cum Water, Calculated
1600
Cumulative Mass, g
1200
800
400
0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Run Time, hours
Figure 2.14 Experimental and simulated cumulative oil and water masses
during the nitrogen flood
Table 2.12: Comparison between the simulated flue gas flood and the
experimental CT test
Simulated:
Experimental:
Property Flue gas % Error
Comb. Tube
injection
Cumulative mass of oil produced at
1,562.4 1,582.3 1.27%
start of air injection (g)
Mass of oil in the system at the start
922.7 911.2 1.25%
of air injection (g)
Cumulative mass of oil produced at
2,168.0 1,829.0
the end of air injection (g)
Mass of oil produced during air
605.6 246.7 59.3%
injection (g)
Oil recovery due to air injection, %
65.6% 27.1% 58.7%
of oil at start of air injection
The former result admits a judicious analysis. It has to be considered that

this outcome is circumscribed to a situation where the combustion can be easily
55
achieved and sustained under high delivery rates of oxygen and in an adiabatic
setting. However, it has not been demonstrated yet that this is not the case of air
injection in the reservoir scale. On the other hand, the calculated recovery by flue
gas injection may be overestimated because of the discrepancy in oil rate at the
end of nitrogen flood, turning the contribution of the combustion front into an
even higher figure than that reported in Table 2.12. In short, there are elements
that lead to the conclusion that the actual contribution of the high-temperature
front in the overall oil recovery by HPAI may be either higher or lower than the
value reported here, which makes it look as a good first approximation to this
problem which had not been previously addressed. A closer analysis of the
three-phase flow behaviour at HPAI conditions, including data with a better
resolution than the produced oil and water masses during a CT test, is needed to
provide a proper characterization for HPAI simulation and to improve the
assessment of the oil recovery mechanisms acting during this process.
2.2.4 Concluding remarks
The simultaneous match of a CT test including the previous gas and oil
floods, heating and pressurizing, with a conventional set of relative permeability
curves and the use of a three-phase relative permeability method, considering
hysteresis for the oil phase, was challenging, even though the air injection period
was simulated as an isothermal flue gas flood. It is expected that the simulation
of the air injection as a thermal process would be more demanding, and thus, an
improved characterization of relative permeability would have to be carried out.
For the particular CT data analyzed, IFT-dependent relative permeability
did not appear as a valid option to employ since the analysis in Section 2.1
suggested that IFT values below 1.0 to 1.5 dyne/cm are required for improved
miscibility conditions to become significant. As dead oil is commonly used for CT
tests, it appears unlikely that this approach can be used over a broad range of oil
compositions, pressure and temperature conditions.
56
Under typical CT test conditions, the high temperature front caused by the
oxidation reactions appear to contribute significantly more than immiscible gas
displacement by flue gas to the overall oil recovery. To extend this conclusion to
reservoir conditions, it is necessary to evaluate the strength and extent of
combustion fronts in field applications, and then propose the appropriate
upscaling relationships to simulate such behaviour. It is also needed that three-
phase flow be carefully studied with proper experimental data at typical HPAI
conditions to improve the characterization of the rock-liquid interaction.
57
Chapter Three: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THREE-PHASE FLOW AT HPAI
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
The importance of characterizing the flow of three phases in porous media

beyond the conventional approach for HPAI process became evident in the
previous chapter. The lack of good quality three-phase data at reservoir
pressures and temperatures characteristic of HPAI calls for experiments that can
provide an insight on the appropriate techniques for relative permeability
modeling.
In this chapter, two- and three-phase displacements conducted on a
Berea Sandstone core representing typical HPAI conditions and flow situations,
are presented and analyzed. The experiments were isothermal floods carried out
at reservoir temperature and typical reservoir pressure. Flow situations included
gas displacing oil and water (a drainage process), as well as liquid re-imbibition
following a gas flood. The three-phase displacements were preceded by several
cycles of oil and water floods starting at 100% water saturation, which served as
a way to determine the core wettability, to adjust the experimental setup and
procedures to minimize the mass balance error, to obtain oil-water relative
permeability curves to be used in the simulation of the three-phase tests, and to
investigate hysteretic effects for oil and water phases.
Three-phase experiments were designed to capture as accurately as
possible the rates of oil, water and gas phases, as well as the pressure drop
across the core. Mass transfer between phases was minimized by injecting fluids
that had been previously equilibrated with each other.
By adjusting oil-gas and oil-water relative permeability curve parameters in
a commercial reservoir simulator, the experimental data are matched, offering a
way to compare the different displacements. The use of hysteresis methods, also
described by equations containing parameters, allows identifying situations that
require a more sophisticated characterization.
58
3.1 Experimental Setup
A specialized core flood apparatus was designed and built to perform

sequential injection of oil, gas and water at reservoir temperature and pressure,
while collecting information on pressure drop across the core and fluid volumes
at room conditions. A schematic of the system is presented in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Schematics of the core flood apparatus employed in this study
59
The injection system is composed of a positive-displacement pump that
injects water at a constant rate to displace oil, brine or gas contained in the
cylinders. The pump barrel capacity is 1,000 cm3 and the precision in injected
volume is 0.01 cm3.
For the injection of equilibrated fluids, gas is stored in Cylinder # 1 at the
test temperature and pressure, then water from the pump is allowed to enter the
cylinder and displace gas, which flows through the bottom of Cylinder # 2,
containing a column of water and oil in order for the injection gas to become
saturated, and minimize the mass transfer to the liquid phases in the core. In
Cylinder # 3, oil or brine that has been previously equilibrated with gas is stored
and displaced by a bottom piston.
When non-equilibrated fluids are injected, gas displaced in Cylinder # 1
flows directly into the core holder injection line, while oil in Cylinder # 3
corresponds to non-equilibrated dead oil, and brine is injected directly from the
pump to the core holder. The cylinders have a volumetric capacity of 600 cm3
without piston (the case of cylinders # 1 and 2) and 500 cm3 with piston. The
injection system is rated to operate up to 5,000 psi (34,470 kPa).
The core holder is of the Hassler-type, able to house 1.5-inch (3.81 cm)
diameter cores, with lengths up to 1.5 feet (45.7 cm), and rated to operate up to
20,000 psi (137,890 kPa). The confining fluid applies pressure both axially and
radially to the core sample. Radial pressure is applied to a rubber sleeve
embracing the core longitudinally, while axial pressure is applied to a movable
piston pressing against the core injection face.
Two lines are directly connected to each end of the core. One of the lines
at each end is used for injecting and producing fluids, while the other pair is used
for monitoring the pressure differential across the core. The pressure drop
measuring system consists of two absolute and two differential pressure
transducers. The Sensotec absolute pressure transducers measure injection and
exit pressure with a full-scale of 10,000 psi (68,950 kPa) and 0.1% full-scale error
(10 psi or 69 kPa). The Validyne differential pressure transducers are equipped
60
with exchangeable diaphragms. When the difference between injection and exit
pressures as measured by the absolute pressure transducers is calculated and
corrected to a static difference value, this difference is found to be ±1 psi
accurate. In summary, three independent sources of differential pressure are
available to make this measurement more reliable. The lower differential
pressure transducer is protected by a valve at each side. When differential
pressures are high and the lower differential transducer is offline, the difference
between the absolute transducers becomes accurate enough and provides a
second value for comparison. A by-pass valve protects both transducers when
pressure changes to the system are voluntarily made.
The core holder and the cylinders are enclosed in independent
compartments. The temperature of the compartments is controlled via an
algorithm that receives signals from thermocouples located at various points
inside the compartments while operates several heaters and fans, in order to
maintain a stable, uniform temperature inside. The temperature control
subsystem was observed to allow maximum variations of 1.0˚C in both space
and time.
The confining or overburden pressure system is composed of a manual
pump and a back pressure regulator (BPR) valve to maintain a constant
overburden pressure, monitored by an absolute pressure transducer. The
confining fluid is distilled water.
The production system is composed of a BPR valve, liquid collector
vessels and a gas flow meter of the wet-test type. The pressure of the gas
confined in the top of the BPR diaphragm is monitored by an absolute pressure
transducer. The collector vessels are equipped with bottom or top drain valves
depending on the fluid being injected- for sampling, and with scales for volume
reading. Liquid samples are weighted and oil-water separation is conducted by
centrifugation and distillation, as required. Gas being produced passes through a
desiccant before reaching the gas meter. The wet-test meter reads 250 cc per
revolution, with 100 divisions per revolution, and is equipped with a counter in
61
liters. Ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure are recorded to correct
gas volumes to standard conditions.
The signals from all the transducers and thermocouples are processed by
a data acquisition system and visualized and stored in a computer.
A single-piece, cylindrically-cut Berea Sandstone core measuring 30.76
cm in length and 3.78 cm in diameter was the rock specimen used in this
experimental study.
A stock-tank sample (dead oil) of Oil 2 -as described in the previous
chapter- was used as the oil phase. 3% w/w KCl brine was employed as the
water phase, and a flue gas mixture containing 84% nitrogen and 16% carbon
dioxide constituted the gas phase.
The operating conditions for all of the two- and three-phase displacements
were the reservoir temperature of 80˚C and 2,563 psia (17,670 kPaa) of
pressure.
3.2 Determination of Rock and Fluid Properties
Before proceeding to the two-phase displacements, the porosity and

absolute permeability of the core had to be determined. In order to calculate the
absolute permeability based on Darcy’s equation, the viscosity of the fluid (brine)
had to be measured. For analyzing the two-phase flood data, the viscosity of oil
was also needed. In order to calculate saturations based on measured masses,
the densities of both oil and brine had to be found. The densities and viscosities
of oil at several temperature conditions were important to adjust the
compositional model for reservoir simulation. When measuring the porosity of the
rock mounted in the core holder, the dead volumes (volumes of injection and
production lines, valves and joints) had to be determined. Pressure transducers
(both absolute and differential) needed to be calibrated before their use in the
test.
62
3.2.1 Preliminary procedures
Two 2-feet (61 cm) long Berea Sandstone cores were received from the
provider. One of them was left as a backup, while the other one was cut in
sections of 2, 4, 6 and 12 inches long (5.08, 10.16, 15.24 and 30.48 cm) using
de-ionized water. The longest section was destined to be employed in the core
flooding experiments, while the others were separated to determine their porosity
and absolute permeability to air using an automated permeameter-porosimeter
for smaller samples. All of the sections were fired in an oven at 600˚C for 24
hours in order to fuse the clay and avoid interactions with the fluids that could
cause changes in rock properties.
Before mounting the foot-long core inside the core holder, a blind metal
core of the same dimensions was mounted to determine the dead volumes at
both ends of the core holder. Vacuum was applied in each separate system, and
then the volume was measured by displacing distilled water with the pump and
registering the volume difference necessary to reach the same pressure as
before the water entered the system. The production end dead volume was 4.17
cm3, while the injection end dead volume was measured as 7.77 cm3. While
these figures represent the total dead volume, the dynamic dead volume is lower
because a significant part of the measured volume is stagnant (e.g. part of the
lines conducing to the pressure drop measuring system). As a consequence, the
measured dead volumes are useful for the calculation of porosity, but need to be
corrected for the estimation of residual saturations during two- and three-phase
displacements. The blind core was then dismounted and the injection and
production lines were washed with acetone and dried with air before mounting
the Berea Sandstone core in the core holder.
The four absolute pressure transducers used in the tests (injection, exit,
overburden and back pressure) were calibrated against a precision analog 5,000
psi (34,470 kPa) gauge that had been previously calibrated to a dead-weigh
tester. Figure 3.2 shows the correlation plot for both exit and injection pressure
63
transducers, whose calibration was simultaneous in order to quantify the error
when the difference between the two transducers is calculated. The correlation
coefficients of 0.99999 demonstrate the high linearity of the pressure-voltage
relationship. This value was also observed for the calibration of the overburden
and back pressure transducers. When contrasted the gauge reading and the
correlation-calculated pressure, the maximum deviation found was less than 10
psi (69 kPa) for all of the transducers, corroborating the 0.1% error reported by
the manufacturer. The average absolute deviation was roughly 5 psi (35 kPa).
The deviation between the correlation-calculated difference (exit pressure minus
injection pressure) and the experimental value (zero, since they were calibrated
to read the same pressure at every step) was ±1.0 psi (7 kPa) maximum. The
pressures were first increased and then reduced, thus including hysteresis
effects.
Exit Pressure Transducer Calibration Injection Pressure Transducer Calibration

5000 5000
4000 4000
y = 2.5221E+03x - 2.5031E+03
Gauge pressure, psig
Gauge pressure, psig
y = 2.5300E+03x - 2.5231E+03
R 2 = 9.9999E-01 R 2 = 9.9999E-01
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Voltage reading Voltage reading
Figure 3.2: Calibration correlation for injection and exit absolute pressure
transducers
Based on absolute permeability estimates, expected injection rates, core

dimensions, oil and water viscosity, and typical values for relative permeability
endpoints, it was estimated that the minimum pressure drop across the core to
be measured during the two- and three-phase experiments would be around 1.0
psi (7 kPa), while the maximum pressure drop was expected to be around 30-50
psi (207-345 kPa). Considering this prediction, it was decided that the
64
diaphragms to be used in the differential pressure transducers for the
displacement tests were the 12.5-psi (86 kPa) and the 32-psi (221 kPa) nominal
full-scale pressure ones. Any value exceeding 32 psi would be calculated as the
difference between the exit and the injection transducers. Since the maximum
error of this measurement is 1 psi, the maximum expected error for pressure
drops above 32 psi is 3.3%. On the other hand, the maximum error for low
pressure drops would be dictated by the maximum error of the low differential
pressure transducer.
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 present the calibration of the low and high differential
pressure (DP) transducers, correspondingly. The transducers were calibrated by
maintaining the negative port at atmospheric pressure while applying nitrogen
pressure in steps at the positive port and measuring this pressure with a high-
precision digital gauge. Two cycles of increasing and decreasing pressure were
performed in order to capture any hysteretic behavior, since the direction of
variation in pressure drop is expected to change during the displacements.
12.5-psi plate DP Transducer Calibration

16
14
Applied Pressure (psig)
12
y = 5.2445x - 9.7361
10 R2 = 0.9998
0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Voltage
Figure 3.3: Calibration of the “Low” differential pressure transducer

65
32-psi plate DP Transducer Calibration
25
Applied Pressure (psig)

20
y = 11.1531x - 27.9351
R2 = 0.9999
15
10
0
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Voltage
Figure 3.4: Calibration of the “High” differential pressure transducer
The correlation coefficients of 0.9998 for the low DP transducer and

0.9999 for the high DP transducers reveal a strong linearity between pressure
drop and the voltage read by the data acquisition system. The maximum
deviation for the low DP transducer was observed to be 0.15 psi, which occurred
at nearly 3.0 psi measured. A more typical deviation value was ±0.06 psi. This
means that at low DP (around 1.0 psi) the maximum error could be between 6
and 15%. Above 3 psi, the percentage of error would drop to 2 to 5%. For the
high DP transducer, the maximum deviation registered was 0.30 psi, while the
average deviation was ±0.1 psi. For both DP transducers this means that the
maximum deviation, as a percentage of the full-scale pressure is below 1%. After
calibration, it was observed that the actual full-scale pressure resulted to be 16.5
psi (114 kPa) for the low DP transducer and 27.8 psi (192 kPa) for the high DP
transducer.
66
3.2.2 Rock porosity and permeability
The 2- and 4-inch long core plugs cut adjacent to the core used in the
flood tests were mounted in an AP-608 automated permeameter-porosimeter
from Core Test Systems for measuring their effective porosity to helium and
absolute permeability to air.
The effective porosity is determined by helium expansion. Helium is first
confined in a known-volume reservoir and pressure is registered. Then, helium is
expanded into the core and the final pressure is measured. The final volume can
be calculated from Boyle’s law assuming ideal gas behavior for helium. The
expanded volume is then related to the bulk volume, from which porosity results.
The measurements were conducted at ambient temperatures and a maximum
pressure of 200 psig (1,380 kPa). Helium displays a high level of ideal behavior
over the range of conditions.
The absolute permeability to air is determined by pressurizing the core
sample with air and then releasing it while registering the outlet pressure versus
time. The pressure response is matched using an unsteady-state pulse decay
technique, from which the Klinkenberg absolute permeability to air is reported.
Both porosity and permeability measurements were conducted at several
effective pressures (confinement pressure minus pore pressure). Pore pressure
was kept constant while the confinement pressure was adjusted by the
automated system.
Figure 3.5 displays the porosity and permeability measurements
conducted on the 4-in plug and their corresponding correlations with effective
pressure. Both porosity and permeability are observed to decrease with net
pressure, as theory dictates. As a net pressure of 750 psi (5,170 kPa) was
applied to all of the 2- and 3-phase displacements, the porosity and permeability
at this condition are a reference for comparison. At 750 psi net pressure, the
effective porosity was 19.54% and the absolute permeability to air was 205.4 md.
Meanwhile, the measurements conducted on the 2-in plug yield values of 19.90%
67
for porosity and 205.3 md for absolute permeability at 750 psi net pressure. The
agreement between the permeabilities reveals a high degree of homogeneity
between the samples. The discrepancy in porosity is higher, but may be
explained by geometrical factors such as errors in diameter and length, or the
cuts being rough or not perfectly perpendicular, allowing for end effects to occur.
Measurements to the 4-in Plug

220 20
-1.246E-05x
y = 1.972E+01e
Klinkenberg Permeability, md
2
R = 8.922E-01
214 19.6
Porosity, %
208 19.2
202 18.8
-1.742E-05x
y = 2.081E+02e
2
R = 7.604E-01
196 18.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Net Pressure, psig
Figure 3.5: Porosity and permeability measurements for the 4-inch core
sample as a function of net pressure
The helium expansion method was also used for determining the pore
volume of the long core mounted in the core holder. An external line was used to
connect the permeameter-porosimeter to the injection line of the core holder and
then let the helium expand in the core pore space, and the injection and
production dead volume. The system was first subject to vacuum after mounting
the core. Seven helium expansions were performed yielding an average total
volume of 85.30 cm3. Subtracting the total dead volume (11.94 cm3) and the
previously measured external line volume (8.00 cm3), it was determined that the
pore volume of the core was 65.36 cm3.
68
The core and dead volume system were subjected to vacuum for 24 hours
connected to both the injection and production ends. The injection pump was
then connected to the injection end of the core holder for measuring the system
volume with the water expansion method described in section 3.2.1 for
determining dead volumes. The water expanded in the system, as measured by
the pump dial was 76.10 cm3. Subtracting from this value 11.94 cm3 of dead
volume, a measurement of 64.16 cm3 results for the pore volume.
Since helium can occupy smaller pores where water cannot enter due to
strong capillary pressure, the result is coherent. Nonetheless, considering the
difference of 1.20 cm3 between the measurements, and acknowledging sources
of errors for both methods, the accepted pore volume was taken as an average
between the two measurements. Thus, the pore volume of the specimen used for
the core flooding tests was determined as 64.76 cm3, with an associated
uncertainty of about 1% (0.7 cm3). This corresponds to a porosity of 18.76%,
which is comparable to the measurements conducted on the smaller plugs.
Before conducting a flow test on the brine-saturated core, the viscosity at
2,563 psia (17,670 kPa) and 80˚C was measured in a ViscoPro2000 Viscometer
from Cambridge Applied Systems, calibrated for the 0.2-2.0 cp range. The
viscometer consists of two coils that are used to magnetically force a piston back
and forth a predetermined distance while measuring the piston’s round-trip travel
time, providing an accurate measurement of viscosity. The viscosity for the 3%
KCl solution at this condition was 0.343 cp.
After saturating the rock with brine, the system was set at a temperature of
80˚C and pressurized to a pore pressure of 2,563 psi. The overburden pressure
was set to 3,313 psia (22,840 kPa) so the net pressure on the core was 750 psi.
Brine injection was started at a constant rate while measuring the pressure drop
and monitoring back, overburden and average pore pressure. The injection was
stopped once a stabilized pressure was achieved.
Figure 3.6 displays the raw data as reported by the data acquisition
system data file, consisting of pressure drop, back pressure, injection pressure,
69
exit pressure and overburden pressure varying in time for the flow test at 19.89
cm3/h injection rate. Due to the increase in pressure and temperature from the
conditions at which the DP transducers were calibrated, a drift in the displayed
pressure drop at static conditions (no flow rate/zero psi) occurred. The
manufacturer states that this drift does not affect the span (slope representing
the variation between pressure drop and voltage), and thus a simple difference
between pressure drops at dynamic and static conditions can provide an
accurate measurement of the net pressure drop. The static DP shown in Figure
3.6 is 0.63 psi for the low DP transducer and 1.83 for the high DP transducer.
The stabilized DP exhibited was determined as 1.38 and 2.61 psi respectively,
which yields a net DP of 0.74 and 0.78 psi. The accepted value is that reported
by the low DP transducer, since its uncertainty is lower. Applying Darcy’s
equation, the absolute permeability of the core to 3% KCl results to be 102.8 md.
Flow Test at 19.89 cc/h

3400
Overburden Pressure
3
High DP
3200 2.4
Stabilized Pressure
Pressure Drop, psi

Drop Readings
Pressure, psig
Static Pressure Drop Readings

3000 1.8
Low DP
2800 1.2
Back Pressure
2600 Exit Pressure 0.6

Injection Pressure
2400 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
Time elapsed, days
Figure 3.6: Raw data for the flow test at 19.89 cm3/h injection rate
70
The procedure was repeated for two more injection rates: 23.86 and 31.82
3
cm /h in order to verify the linear relationship between pressure drop and
injection rate. The same procedure for finding the net pressure drop was applied,
resulting in net values for stabilized pressure drop of 0.89 and 1.19 psi
respectively. Using Darcy’s equation, the absolute permeability was calculated to
be 102.7 and 102.6 mD, respectively. The strong agreement between
measurements demonstrates the precision and consistency of the procedures. In
Figure 3.7, a plot of pressure drop versus flow rate is presented. The points were
matched with a linear correlation with zero intercept (no pressure drop at static
conditions), displaying a correlation factor of 0.99998, which shows that the
measured absolute permeability is not sensitive to changes in flow rate. The
accepted value for the core absolute permeability to brine is the average of the
three calculated values: 102.7 mD.
Pressure Drop vs Rate Plot

1.3
1.2
Pressure Drop, psi
1.1
1.0 y = 0.03739x
R2 = 0.99998
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
17 20 23 26 29 32 35
Flow Rate, cc/h
Figure 3.7: Pressure drop versus brine flow rate relationship

71
3.2.3 Density and viscosity measurements for oil and brine
Samples of stock tank Oil 2 and 3% KCl brine were loaded into an array
composed of a viscometer and a density meter in series. The viscometer was a
ViscoPro2000 System from Cambridge Applied Systems, and the density meter
was a DMA 60 from Mettler/Paar. The array was inserted in a PVT cell in order to
provide a temperature-controlled environment. Pressure was applied with a
manual pump. Once the target pressure and temperature were achieved (80˚C
and 2,563 psig), stable measurements were taken. Alternatively, viscosity and
density measurements at atmospheric pressure and selected temperatures were
carried out in a Brookfield Digital Viscometer (model DV-I+) and a DMA 48 Paar
density meter, correspondingly, for oil samples with the purpose of refining the
compositional model for reservoir simulation. Brine density determinations at
both 20˚C and 25˚C were carried out in order to convert produced mass to
volume and vice versa. Table 3.1 summarizes the findings for these tests.
Table 3.1: Density and viscosity measurements for oil and brine
Pressure Temp.
Fluid Property Value
(psia) (˚C)
3
Oil Density 2,563 80 812.2 kg/m
Oil Viscosity 2,563 80 1.405 cp
3
Brine Density 2,563 80 992.7 kg/m
Brine Viscosity 2,563 80 0.343 cp
Oil Viscosity 13 20 5.45 cp
3
Oil Density 13 20 844 kg/m
3
Oil Density 13 25 840 kg/m
3
Brine Density 13 20 1017 kg/m
3
Brine Density 13 25 1016 kg/m
The measurements at high pressure and temperature were conducted at

least twice in order to check for repeatability, and the values were exactly the
same for the case of viscosity, and well within the experimental error for the case
of density. The oil viscosity and density measurements at atmospheric pressure
72
were measured to be slightly higher than those reported by Shokoya (2005),
which suggests a different composition than that reported by this author and
used in Chapter 2. Consequently, a Simulated Distillation analysis for the
available oil was conducted. The cut point table is presented in Table 3.2. This
composition was used for the compositional model, which will be described later
in this chapter.
Table 3.2: Simulated Distillation analysis of the oil sample

T Start T End Equivalent Mass
(˚C) (˚C) fraction % Off
-0.5 36.1 C4 0.95
36.1 68.7 C5 1.87
68.7 98.4 C6 4.96
98.4 125.7 C7 5.84
125.7 150.8 C8 5.05
150.8 174.1 C9 4.99
174.1 195.9 C10 4.19
195.9 216.3 C11 3.79
216.3 235.4 C12 4.27
235.4 253.5 C13 3.85
253.5 270.6 C14 3.97
270.6 286.8 C15 3.02
286.8 301.9 C16 3.37
301.9 316.3 C17 3.19
316.3 330.1 C18 2.81
330.1 343.2 C19 2.43
343.2 356.5 C20 2.76
356.5 368.6 C21 2.29
368.6 380.1 C22 2.10
380.1 391.2 C23 2.01
391.2 401.8 C24 1.84
401.8 412.0 C25 1.75
412.0 421.9 C26 1.82
421.9 431.3 C27 1.63
431.3 440.4 C28 1.41
440.4 449.2 C29 1.34
449.2 457.6 C30 1.28
457.6 465.7 C31 1.18
465.7 474.0 C32 1.18
474.0 481.0 C33 0.95
481.0 489.0 C34 1.00
489.0 496.0 C35 0.84
496.0 503.0 C36 0.88
503.0 509.0 C37 0.72
509.0 516.0 C38 0.69
516.0 522.0 C39 0.55
522.0 528.0 C40 0.56
528.0 534.0 C41 0.53
73
3.3 Two-Phase Displacements
Three cycles of oil and water floods were performed on the core aiming at
a proper calibration of the system for the three-phase experiments. Residual
saturations and relative permeability endpoints for the oil-water curves were
determined with an analytical method and then by using reservoir simulation. In
order to achieve a better description of the two-phase flow with a reservoir
simulator, experimental capillary pressure data was measured and used in the
analysis of the displacements.
3.3.1 Experimental procedures
The 2-inch long core plug was sent to a commercial laboratory for capillary
pressure to be determined. The core was split into two plugs of one inch in
length, and separate Mercury injection capillary pressure tests were carried out.
Figure 3.8 shows a graphic depiction of the reported data. The data sets were
practically identical, implying a high degree of homogeneity. As a consequence,
the capillary pressure curves would be representative of the core subjected to
two- and three-phase floods, provided that pressure is scaled to the proper
interfacial tension.
Starting at 100% water saturation, oil was injected to reach connate water
saturation. Frequent sampling and oil-water separations were carried out to
quantify the amounts of brine produced. Pressure drop was continuously
monitored with the data acquisition system. Negligible brine production and no
appreciable change in pressure drop signals when to end the flood. After
stopping the pump, the system was left to reach a static condition, and volume in
excess of one pore volume of oil was injected to displace any additional brine. A
mass balance was performed and final saturations were determined.
74
Hg Injection Capillary Pressure Data

400
350
Sample 1
Capillary Pressure, kPa

300
Sample 2
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Wetting Phase Saturation (1-SHg)
Figure 3.8: Mercury injection capillary pressure curves on 1-in. core plugs
Brine was then injected for enough time to reach a steady pressure drop
and negligible oil rate. An extra water flood was performed, and final saturations
were determined by mass balance. At the end of this first cycle, saturation
endpoints were determined.
A second cycle of oil flood and water flood was carried out to confirm the
saturation endpoints and to estimate the associated uncertainty. Then, a third
semi-cycle was completed by displacing oil to connate water saturation, attaining
the initial condition for the first three-phase experiment.
Liquids accumulated in a 50-cm3 burette. Samples taken before
breakthrough were single phase, and the volume reading was periodically
registered between samples. Each sample was weighted and the volumes were
corrected to the measured mass by calculating them using the oil and brine
densities previously determined. Two-phase samples were collected in 100-cm3
centrifuge tubes and were subjected to centrifuging after registering their
masses. The free water phase was then collected and weighted. The mass of oil
was also obtained. Regularly, a layer of emulsion was formed. Whenever it was
75
required, centrifuged samples were subjected to distillation to quantify the total
mass of water. Results repeatedly indicated that emulsion contained
approximately 50 to 60 percent of water by volume.
3.3.2 Methods of analysis
3.3.2.1 Mass balance and saturation determination
Because only two fluids were filling the core at any time during this set of
experiments, the determination of one saturation was enough to establish the
mass balance. Therefore, during oil flooding, the mass of water produced was
carefully tallied to determine the residual or connate water saturation, while
during water flooding, the mass of oil produced was the one to be monitored.
Equation 3.3.2.1.1 defines the mass balance for a water flood, as an example of
the procedure conducted.
( )
VPSof ρoRC = VPSio + Vd ρoRC − mpo 3.3.2.1.1
A similar expression for the water mass balance during an oil flood can be
written. The left-hand side term represents the final mass of oil in the system,
where VP is the pore volume, Sof is the final oil saturation and ρoRC is the density
of oil at reservoir (test) conditions. The first term of the right-hand side represents
the initial oil in the system, where Soi is the initial oil saturation, and Vd is the
dynamic dead volume (fluid in the flow path but not in the rock). The last term
(mop) is the mass of oil produced, as measured.
Provided the initial oil saturation from the previous mass balance, the pore
volume, the dead volume, the density of oil at test conditions, and the mass of oil
produced, the final oil saturation can be determined. This endpoint is subjected to
the following sources of error: loss of liquids during sampling or due to
evaporation, uncertainty in dead volumes, accumulation of liquid in dead volumes
that may exist in tube joints, valves, elbows, the BPR system, uncertainty in the
value of density, uncertainty in the pore volume, and uncertainty in the previous
76
determined saturation. As the error tends to accumulate, it is very important to
determine the global level of accuracy of the saturation determination. The
results, presented later, provide a diagnosis on this issue.
3.3.2.2 Processing of raw data
The raw data provided by the data acquisition system consisted of: date,
time, injection pressure, exit pressure, overburden pressure, back pressure,
pressure drop 1 (from the low DP transducer), pressure drop 2 (from the high DP
transducer), and temperatures from the thermocouples located inside the oven.
Time and pressure drop are the most critical variables for the characterization of
relative permeability, while the rest of the data is basically monitored to ensure
that the operating conditions are within the tolerance.
Pore volumes injected were calculated from the injection time, but a
couple of corrections were necessary beforehand. First, the volume injected as
reported by the pump had to be corrected due to thermal expansion of the water,
since the pump and the core are at the same pressure, but while the pump
operates at room temperature, the core and cylinders are at 80˚C. Secondly, the
time of effective injection was determined by subtracting from the total elapsed
time (time since the BPR valve opened), the time taken by the fluid to displace
the dynamic injection dead volume and first enter the core. Then, pore volumes
injected (PVI) could be calculated as the effective injection time multiplied by the
corrected injection rate and divided by the pore volume.
Breakthrough time was registered as the time when the first drop of the
injected fluid was observed to come out of the production tube. However, it
needed to be corrected by the time the fluid takes to travel from the outlet face of
the core to the tip of the production tube. Two-phase volumes were also
corrected considering this time lag, since the relationship between two-phase
rates and PVI is crucial for the determination of relative permeability. The
monitoring of pore pressure, back pressure and pressure drop was useful to
77
determine the moments when the injected fluid enters and leaves the pores.
When the injected fluid enters the pores, there is a characteristic jump in
pressure drop, while when it leaves the pores, pressure drop starts to vary more
widely. When the injected fluid reaches the BPR valve, a sudden change in back
pressure occurs. These landmarks help in confirming the dynamic pore volume
when different displacements are compared.
The pressure drop data needed to be corrected by subtracting from the
measurement, the value at static conditions, as previously explained for the
single-phase flow test. The net pressure drop was then averaged over the
intervals for which cumulative production was reported and assigned to these
times. After these corrections have been made, the cumulative volume and
pressure drop versus PVI data can serve as input to methods for determination
of relative permeability curves.
3.3.2.3 Determination of relative permeability curves
The Johnson, Bosller and Naumann (JBN) technique for determination of

relative permeability curves was applied to the processed data. The JBN method
is explained in Appendix A. Since the relative permeability calculated by this
method depends directly on a derivative and the fractional flow, both calculated
from experimental data, smoothing of the cumulative oil (or brine) produced and
pressure drop is required in order to obtain a monotonic variation of relative
permeability with saturation. The original data is first tried to see if the calculated
derivatives and thus the relative permeability values do not suffer much
scattering or if negative values or inverse trends are absent. If the result is
unsatisfactory, smoothing is carried out on both cumulative volume and pressure
drop data.
After having obtained the values of relative permeability to both oil and
water at given saturations, the series are plotted and then matched by adjusting
the Corey correlation parameters for both curves (equations 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2).
78
This way, the comparison between relative permeability sets from different
displacements can be made based on the value of the parameters and not on the
dispersion of points.
Because of the analytical model’s limitations (capillary pressure not
considered, steady-state assumption, incompressible fluids), reservoir simulation
was used to refine the relative permeability curves. The oil-water curves obtained
from the JBN method were employed as an initial estimate for the matching
process. Capillary pressures reported in Figure 3.8 were corrected from the
mercury-air IFT value (368 dyne/cm) to a typical oil-water IFT value (22 dyne/cm)
and used as an input for the description of rock-fluid interaction in the simulator.
A compositional model is obtained by matching the properties measured
and reported in Table 3.1, using a similar procedure to that employed in section
2.2. The software used was WinProp for matching of the experimental oil
properties, and GEM, CMG’s compositional simulator, to simulate the
displacements. The relative permeability curve parameters were adjusted to
reproduce the pressure drop and cumulative volume data. The matching process
was stopped once a satisfactory match was achieved or no further improvement
was possible.
The results for mass balance and saturation determination for each of the
two-phase displacements conducted are first detailed. Next, the results of a
particular displacement illustrating the procedures from the raw data, then
applying the abovementioned corrections, the calculations of the JBN method
and the final matching with the simulator are presented. Then, the relative
permeability results for all of the displacements are summarized and compared
to make conclusions and explain the strategies adopted for the performance and
analysis of the three-phase tests.
79
3.3.3.1 Mass balance and saturation determination
Table 3.3 contains information about the initial and final saturations based
on the displaced volumes at core conditions, which in turn were determined from
the mass balance as described in section 3.3.2.1. The amount of pore volumes
injected is also reported.
Table 3.3: Initial and final saturations for the two-phase floods as
calculated by mass balance
Displaced
Flood Total Final
Type Initial Sw Volume, Final Sw
# PVI 3 So
res. cm
1A Oil Flood 3.67 1.0000 42.05 0.3507 0.6493
1B Accidental "Gas" Flood 0.30 0.3507 2.82 0.3071 0.6929
1C Extra Oil Flood 5.50 0.3071 0.51 0.2993 0.7007
2A Water Flood 7.65 0.2993 24.49 0.6774 0.3226
2B Extra Water Flood 1.23 0.6774 0.10 0.6790 0.3210
3A Oil Flood 5.38 0.6790 21.35 0.3493 0.6507
3B Extra Oil Flood 1.77 0.3493 0.41 0.3430 0.6570
4A Water Flood 5.66 0.3430 22.55 0.6912 0.3088
4B Extra Water Flood 0.59 0.6912 0.20 0.6943 0.3057
5A Oil Flood 5.82 0.6943 21.74 0.3586 0.6414
5B Extra Oil Flood 1.28 0.3586 0.67 0.3483 0.6517
Displacement 1A corresponds to oil injection from 100% water saturation.

Nearly 8 hours after the pump had started, an equivalent of less than 2 PVI, the
bottom valve of the liquid collection burette was connected to a u-shaped plastic
tube voiding into a 250-ml cylinder in order to accumulate produced fluid
overnight. At that time, nearly 38 cm3 (at core pressure and temperature) of brine
initially in the core had been produced.
Overnight, a leak in the oil injection cylinder upstream of the piston
occurred. As a consequence, the pore pressure dropped to about 200 psig
causing the nitrogen present in the BPR system (which was used to operate the
lower compartment of the BPR valve, and was always in contact with the fluid
emerging from the core) to expand and reach the core. According to the data
80
acquisition system, the leak occurred after 15 hours of injection, corresponding to
an effective 3.67 PVI. Because all produced liquids could be recovered, and only
water displaced from the pump to the bottom of the cylinder was spilled, the
mass balance for the experiment could be completed. As reported in Table 3.3,
at the moment of the leak, 42.05 cm3 of brine at test conditions had been
displaced.
In order to return the system to a two-phase situation to continue with the
experimental plan, the following steps were performed:
• The oven was cooled down to room temperature to avoid vaporization of the
light ends of the oil when expanded to atmospheric pressure
• The core holder production line was disconnected from the BPR
• The gas in the core was expanded to atmospheric pressure, gathering the
produced liquid. Because of the rapid expansion, water saturation was
reduced beyond the critical saturation
• Residual water saturation in the core was calculated
• The system was reconnected to the BPR and the core was pressurized to test
pressure and heated up to test temperature while injecting oil. Due to the
compression, it was expected that the gas reduced its saturation to less than a
hundredth of its volume at atmospheric pressure, thus dispersing the gas
which would eventually dissolve in the oil or flow out of the core
• 5.5 pore volumes of oil were further injected to improve the process of
dissolving and displacing the remaining gas. A stable pressure drop,
comparable to that displayed at the end of the regular oil flood, was achieved.
The amount of brine produced during the gas expansion at atmospheric pressure
is reported in Table 3.3 as “Accidental ‘gas’ flood” (Flood 1B), while the
equivalent volume of brine displaced out of the core during the oil flood posterior
to it, corresponds to the “Extra oil flood” (Flood 1C). The final water saturation in
the core was calculated as 0.2993, and from this point on, the experimental
program continued as planned.
81
Although a stable condition could not be achieved during the first oil flood,
the best estimate for connate water saturation was the water saturation after 3.67
PVI of oil: Sw = 0.3507. The oil flood during the second and third cycle yielded
final water saturations (Floods 3B and 5B) of 0.3430 and 0.3483. Considering the
uncertainties explained before and the accidental displacement of gas into the
core, the procedure appears to deliver a repeatable final water saturation of
approximately 34.5%.
During the first water flood (Floods 2A and 2B in Table 3.3), 24.49 cm3 of
oil at reservoir conditions were displaced, yielding a final oil saturation of 0.3226
after 7.65 PVI. Once the core was let to stabilize at static conditions, a further
1.23 PV were injected, producing an extra 0.10 cm3 and leading to a final oil
saturation of 0.3210. Assuming that a true steady-state was obtained, this
amount would be the residual oil saturation to water flood. The water flood of the
second cycle (Floods 4A and 4B) gave out a final oil saturation of 0.3057 after
more than 6 PVI in total. Although the agreement in residual oil saturation is not
as good as the agreement in connate water saturation between different floods, it
can be said that a discrepancy of this size is expected due not only to the
uncertainties of the methods and values used in the calculation, but to the fact
that the core may be acquiring equilibrium with oil and water that takes several
cycles to stabilize. According to the results, the residual oil saturation to water
flood is estimated at 31.0%.
3.3.3.2 Detailed results for a particular displacement
The process to obtain the relative permeability curves from a 2-phase

displacement is exemplified in this section by showing the results for Flood 4A
step by step from the logging of raw data to the matching of processed data
using reservoir simulation.
Figure 3.9 displays the cumulative mass of oil produced along the test
time. Before 600 minutes elapsed, the measurements of water mass were
82
constant. Then, the fluids were collected overnight using a u-shaped tube
connected to the bottom of the burette and feeding a graduated cylinder, thus
allowing the accumulation of oil at a fixed position in the collection burette. At the
end of the displacement, only a thin ring of oil was accumulated on the air-brine
interface, estimated as 0.01 grams. This corresponds to virtually no displaced
fluid rate, and agrees with a constant pressure drop observed at the end of the
flood for several hours, which implies that a steady state had been reached, and
hence, the final saturation would correspond to Sorw. It is worthy of mention that
roughly 98% of the collected oil was produced before water breakthrough. This
indicates a highly stable displacement and suggests that a favorable mobility
ratio (lower than 1.0).
Figure 3.10 depicts the behavior of pressure and pressure drop as
reported by the data acquisition system. As previously explained, smooth and
light variations in back and overburden pressure were expected due to minor
variations in room temperature over the day. Back pressure varies because the
BPR valve operates in virtue of a diaphragm that is held open by the fluid
emerging from the core when overcoming the pressure of a gas confined in the
valve reservoir, and when temperature changes, so does the pressure of the
confined gas. Pore pressure changes accordingly with back pressure.
Meanwhile, overburden pressure varies because it is a constant-volume system,
subject to changes in pressure with variations in temperature. To avoid excessive
increase in overburden pressure, the overburden BPR is set at a value slightly
above the operating condition, and to avoid significant pressure drop, the volume
is decreased by manually operating the pump. During unsupervised times, the
overburden pressure may drop below the ideal operating conditions, as observed
in Figure 3.10 between 900 and 1300 minutes. However, a variation of this
magnitude does not jeopardize the hydraulic insulation between the pore and
overburden systems, but slightly decreases the net pressure, causing only
negligible variations in porosity and permeability, as previously illustrated.
83
Cumulative Oil Mass - Flood 4A

25
20
Produced Mass, g
15
10
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.9: Cumulative mass of oil measured during Flood 4A

Pressure and Pressure Drop Raw Data for Flood 4A
3400 22
3300 20
Overburden Pressure
18
3200
High DP
16
3100
Pressure Drop, psi

Pressure, psig
Low DP 14
3000
12
2900
10
2800
8
2700
Back Pressure 6
2600 Exit Pressure 4

Injection Pressure
2500 2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.10: Pressure and pressure drop raw data for Flood 4A
Before breakthrough (0-100 minutes approximately) pressure drop

steadily increases with water injection. After breakthrough, pressure drop
84
decreases in a small amount and then stabilizes near the end of the experiment.
The discrepancy in the values of measured pressure drop is due to the difference
in the reading at static conditions for each transducer, as discussed in section
3.2.2. The parallelism of the two series, the smoothness of the variation, and the
low level of scattering give confidence on the precision of the measurement while
suggest that the displacement could be satisfactorily represented by an analytical
model.
Pressure Behavior at Early Times, Flood 4A

2630 13
Back Pressure
2620 12
2610 Sudden pressure 11
2600 drop increase 10
2590 Constant pressure High DP 9
drop period
2580 8
Pressure Drop, psi

Pressure, psig
2570 7
Low DP
2560 6
2550 5
2540 Exit Pressure 4
2530 3
Injection Pressure
2520 2
2510 1
2500 0
BPR valve Brine enters
2490 opens the core -1
2480 -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.11: Pressure and pressure drop behavior at early times during
Flood 4A
In Figure 3.11, the pressure and pressure drop behavior for the first 20
minutes of displacement 4A is displayed. A change in the slope of pore pressure
marks the time when the BPR valve opened. Before that time, fluid is not
displaced, but the injected volume is used to pressurize the system to the
operating pressure. At the same time, pressure drop builds up and then becomes
constant after approximately two minutes elapsed, once a stable rate of injection
85
and production has been reached. At that moment, the injected water is
displacing the oil that resides in the lines, and a constant pressure drop
corresponding to that at connate water saturation develops. At 13.6 minutes,
there is a steep increase in pressure drop, characteristic of water entering the
porous medium. It was observed that for oil floods, the increase in pressure drop
was more dramatic, which is explained by the fact that oil is the non-wetting
phase and the capillary pressure to overcome in order to enter the pores is
higher. It is at this point when the real water flood starts, marking the beginning of
the PVI and produced volume count.
Table 3.4 presents the corrected volume and pressure drop data as a
function of PVI, which is the input for determining relative permeability for both
the JBN method and reservoir simulation. As observed for the first entry, the
injected and produced volumes were corrected as incremental from the time at
which water enters the core. The cumulative water volume was found by dividing
the corrected cumulative mass by the density at operating conditions. The
resulting volumes after breakthrough were then smoothed out to produce
consistent values once the JBN technique is applied. The total produced oil
volume at reservoir conditions was 22.23 cm3, which compares very well with the
displaced volume reported in Table 3.3 (22.55 cm3) as a result of mass balance.
This check gives and indication of the goodness of mass balance and the
uncertainty of measured masses. Meanwhile, pressure drop was corrected by
subtracting the static value and smoothing out after breakthrough. Considering
the lower error of the low DP transducer, this value was taken as true.
86
Table 3.4: Corrected volume and pressure drop data for Flood 4A
Elapsed Pore Volumes Produced Oil Pressure
Time (min) Injected (PVI) (res cm3) Drop (psi)
13.6 0.0000 0.00 5.97
17 0.0140 0.93 6.91
21 0.0304 2.08 6.52
25 0.0467 3.17 6.58
29 0.0631 4.24 6.76
34 0.0836 5.62 7.04
40 0.1082 7.25 7.38
45 0.1286 8.59 7.78
50 0.1491 9.89 8.27
54 0.1655 10.86 8.68
57 0.1778 11.69 9.06
59 0.1859 12.20 9.21
66 0.2146 14.05 9.88
69 0.2269 14.94 10.51
72 0.2392 15.75 10.99
75 0.2514 16.52 11.26
78 0.2637 17.29 11.77
82 0.2801 18.47 12.21
86 0.2965 19.14 12.79
90 0.3129 19.81 13.45
94 0.3292 20.48 13.81
106 0.3784 21.61 13.94
113 0.4070 21.72 14.13
118 0.4275 21.74 14.15
131 0.4807 21.81 14.16
136 0.5012 21.83 14.14
154 0.5749 21.88 14.10
175 0.6609 21.92 14.07
199 0.7591 21.96 14.03
243 0.9393 22.01 13.99
270 1.0498 22.03 13.97
301 1.1767 22.05 13.95
331 1.2995 22.08 13.93
359 1.4142 22.09 13.91
395 1.5616 22.12 13.88
450 1.7867 22.15 13.84
481 1.9136 22.16 13.80
513 2.0447 22.17 13.75
538 2.1470 22.18 13.72
1341 5.4346 22.23 13.66
1369 5.5492 22.23 13.66
1397 5.6638 22.23 13.66
The calculations of the JBN method are performed as explained in

Appendix A, and the data in Table 3.5 results. Since the method is not applicable
for times before breakthrough, only few points at high water saturations were
obtained. The initial pressure drop before the start of water flood was used to
calculate krowc. Figure 3.12 depicts the calculated relative permeabilities including
the Corey correlation parameters that best fit them.
87
Table 3.5: Oil-water relative permeability from JBN method for Flood 4A
SwL kro krw

0.3513 0.47362 0.00000
0.6584 0.01446 0.05454
0.6752 0.00390 0.04776
0.6758 0.00353 0.04660
0.6770 0.00295 0.04508
0.6794 0.00207 0.04578
0.6813 0.00143 0.04610
0.6820 0.00125 0.04630
0.6835 0.00086 0.04678
0.6850 0.00056 0.04698
0.6861 0.00037 0.04697
0.6837 0.00076 0.04694
0.6861 0.00041 0.04694
0.6844 0.00063 0.04705
0.6867 0.00034 0.04692
0.6877 0.00024 0.04633
0.6889 0.00012 0.04586
0.6853 0.00045 0.04655
0.6899 4.76E-05 0.04844
0.6904 2.81E-05 0.04880
0.6912 1.74E-06 0.04880
Kr Curves Determined by the JBN Method - Flood 4A

0.55
0.50
Relative Permeability, Fraction
0.45
krocw 0.490
0.40 Swr 0.343
0.35 Sorw 0.3088
Krwro 0.0488
0.30
aow 1.65
0.25 aw 1.70
0.20 JBN Krow
0.15 JBN Krw

Corey Krow
0.10
Corey Krw
0.05
0.00
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Figure 3.12: Points from Table 3.5 and fitting Corey correlation curves
88
The scattering exhibited by the relative permeabilities calculated by the
JBN method occurs mostly at saturations lower than that of the water front.
However, the trend indicated by these points allows an extrapolation to the
relative permeability value of oil at the initial (connate) water saturation, which
can be compared to that derived from the previous oil flood. The match obtained
by means of the Corey correlation is satisfactory. The saturation endpoints were
made to coincide with the initial and final saturations as calculated by the mass
balance. The relative permeability endpoints were: krwro = 0.0488 and krowc =
0.490. Calculating the mobility ratio as:
k rwro
µw
M= 3.3.3.2.1
k rocw
µo
Yields a value of M = 0.408. As the mobility ratio is lower than 1, water flooding is
a stable immiscible displacement for the particular rock-fluid system studied. The
low endpoint for relative permeability to water, together with a high saturation at
which relative permeabilities crossover (above 60%), reveals that the rock is
preferentially water-wet.
Since the analytical method is restricted to estimating the saturation at the
producing end of the core, the use of reservoir simulation is of outmost
importance for the proper characterization of relative permeabilities. The
compositional model used for the reservoir simulation of two-phase tests is
reported in Table 3.6, and the match of the measured oil properties is
summarized in Table 3.7.
Seven hydrocarbon pseudo-components were employed to reproduce the
oil properties using the Peng-Robinson EOS. When viscosity and density values
at both ambient and reservoir conditions were attempted to match within the
experimental uncertainty, several of the parameters needed to be out of their
acceptable range of variation. This suggests either that the model has insufficient
components and parameters to represent the experimental data or that the
measured properties are inconsistent. The first possibility is discarded since
89
normally a single-phase liquid can be reproduced with a small number of
components. The second possibility is more realistic, since the measurements at
ambient conditions were conducted using different equipment than the
measurements at core flood conditions. Considering that, a higher weight factor
was assigned to density and viscosity at operating conditions. This resulted in a
density deviation averaging 1% and viscosity deviations of 15% (overestimated)
at high pressure and 30+% (underestimated) at atmospheric pressure, which is
more appropriate for the simulation of two-phase displacements. The
experimental water viscosity at reservoir conditions was directly entered in the
simulator for use in the calculations. The grid was one-dimensional and
composed of 100 grid blocks in the x-direction.
Table 3.6: Properties of the pseudo-components used for reservoir

simulation of the two-phase floods
C4-C5 C6-C7 C8-C11 C12-C16 C17-C22 C23-C29 C30+
Molar Fraction 8.32% 22.86% 26.99% 18.77% 11.37% 6.44% 5.25%
Critical volume, l/mol 0.2847 0.4008 0.5458 0.7111 0.9836 1.2314 2.0695
Acentric Factor 0.2286 0.3237 0.4437 0.5924 0.7935 0.9810 1.1889
MW, g/mol 66.7 93.2 130.1 186.5 264.8 343.3 500.0
Parachor 215.4 291.9 392.4 513.4 688.6 837.0 1166.2
Critical pressure, atm 34.88 28.11 22.95 19.59 14.93 11.69 9.00
Critical temperature, K 453.1 524.4 600.5 696.0 773.5 837.3 1260.9
Shift Vol. Factor, Bc 0.0000 0.0134 0.0565 0.0808 0.2284 0.3007 0.4501
Other Components N2 and CO2 (Absent in two-phase simulation)
Visc. Model coeff. 1.108E-04, 1.101E+00, 2.160E-02, 2.560E-01, 6.248E-01
Table 3.7: Oil properties as predicted by the compositional model
Pressure Temp. Measured Simulated Deviation,

Property
(psia) (˚C) Value Value %
Density (kg/m3) 2,563 80 812.2 817.5 0.65%
Viscosity (cp) 2,563 80 1.405 1.615 14.9%
Viscosity (cp) 13 20 5.45 3.76 31.0%
Viscosity (cp) 13 25 4.8 3.32 30.8%
Viscosity (cp) 13 35 4.21 2.65 37.1%
Density (kg/m3) 13 20 844 831.7 1.46%
Density (kg/m3) 13 25 840 829.3 1.27%
90
The cumulative oil volume and pressure drop match obtained through
reservoir simulation and the corresponding adjusted relative permeability
parameters are shown in Figure 3.13. A zoom in detailing the first pore volume
injected can be seen in Figure 3.14. The early behavior of experimental pressure
drop could not be well represented by the simulation model. Considering this, the
value of krocw = 0.750 can be regarded as an extrapolation of the Corey
correlation to connate water saturation in order to match the slope of pressure
drop increase before breakthrough, but not as a reliable figure. A more complex
relative permeability correlation (involving a curvature change) may be able to
replicate this early behavior and provide a more representative value for the oil
relative permeability endpoint. The rest of the match is considered to be within
the range of uncertainty.
Reservoir Simulation Match - Flood 4A

24 140
Exp. Cum. Oil

20 120
Sim. Cum. Oil
Cumulative Oil at r.c., cc
Exp. P. Drop
Pressure Drop, kPa

16 Sim. P. Drop 100
12 80
krocw 0.750
Swr 0.340
8 Sorw 0.3085 60
krwro 0.0460
aow 1.70
4 40
aw 1.90
0 20
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Pore Volumes Injected
Figure 3.13: Reservoir simulation match of Flood 4A
91

24 140
20 120
Pressure Drop, kPa

16 100
12 80
Exp. Cum.Oil
Sim. Cum. Oil
8 Exp. P. Drop 60
Sim. P. Drop
4 40
0 20
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 3.14: Match of Flood 4A: First pore volume injected
Figure 3.15 exhibits a comparison between the relative permeability

curves obtained with the JBN method and reservoir simulation match. The water
relative permeability curves are in good agreement, while the oil curves exhibit a
noticeable discrepancy. The reason for this is that the stable pressure drop and
saturation obtained at the end of the displacement (at residual oil saturation)
have a much higher level of certainty because they were displayed for a long
period of time, as opposed to the oil relative permeability endpoint, which is an
instantaneous state during the displacement and needs an extrapolation from
later-time data gathered over shorter periods of time.
The relative permeability curves obtained for displacement 4A correspond
to imbibition, since water (the wetting phase) is being injected. A comparison
between the imbibition curves obtained from different water floods, as well as
between the imbibition and drainage (oil injection) curves is needed in order to
provide conclusions on the reproducibility of the two-phase experiments and the
hysteretic behavior of the rock.
92
Kr Curves Comparison between Analytical and Numerical

Methods - Flood 4A
0.75 0.05
Corey-JBN Krow
Simulator Krow
0.60 Corey-JBN Krw 0.04
Water Relative Perm., Fraction

Oil Relative Perm., Fraction
Simulator Krw
0.45 0.03
0.30 0.02
0.15 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Figure 3.15: Comparison between relative permeability curves obtained

from the JBN method and reservoir simulation for Flood 4A
3.3.3.3 Overall relative permeability results for the two-phase displacements
Figure 3.16 depicts the cumulative water and pressure drop match
obtained through reservoir simulation for the first oil injection starting at 100%
water saturation (Flood 1A). At early times, the simulated pressure drop
predicted lower values in comparison with the measured quantities. It is apparent
that there was a much higher capillary pressure effect at low non-wetting
saturation than that observed for the measurements conducted on the core
plugs. On the other hand, an instantaneous drop in water relative permeability
from a value of 1.0 at Sw = 1 to a much lower value at 1<Sw<0.9 would capture
the pressure drop, but the Corey correlation does not allow for such an abrupt
variation. At lower oil saturations, near breakthrough, the pressure drop trend is
reproduced with more precision. After breakthrough, the experimental pressure
drop suffers a rapid decrease which is not reproduced by the relative
93
permeability model. However, at later times the measured pressure drop is
observed to increase and stabilize at that higher value, which would imply that
krow decreased at a higher oil saturation, which cannot be reproduced with a
monotonic variation of relative permeability with saturation. Under this
circumstance, the simulated pressure drop curve reproduces as accurately as
possible the measured values.

45 72
40 64
35 56
Cumulative Water at r.c., cc
Pressure Drop, kPa

30 48
25 40
20 32
Exp. Cum.Water
15 Sim. Cum. Water
24
Exp. P. Drop
10 16
Sim. P. Drop
5 8
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Although the produced brine volume at reservoir conditions was well

matched during the time the test was continuously monitored, the final calculated
volume does not match the value reported. Recalling the fact that the experiment
suffered a technical setback, as detailed in 3.3.3.1, it can be considered that this
final point is subject to a higher uncertainty than the rest of the measurements.
Even considering the final measured volume as accurate, its match would not be
straightforward given that the final decrease in relative permeability could not be
94
modeled, and thus a subsequent increase in mobility of the water phase would
not be possible to replicate with the current relative permeability model.
The match obtained for the displacement with water corresponding to
Flood 2A is illustrated in Figure 3.17. The cumulative oil volume produced and
pressure drop deviations are well within the experimental uncertainty for most of
the simulation time. At late times (more than 7.0 PVI) pressure drop stabilizes at
a lower value than that indicated by the trend followed by previous data. The
experimental behavior of pressure drop appears to indicate that at high water
saturations, krw increases faster near the endpoint (Sorw), while at high oil
saturation, krow tends to stop increasing, and even decrease near the endpoint
(Swr). Both of these trends have been reported to occur in experimentally-
determined relative permeability curves (Carlson, 2003).

28 140
24 120
20 100
Pressure Drop, kPa

16 80
12 60
Exp. Cum.Oil
8 40
Sim. Cum. Oil
Exp. P. Drop
4 20
Sim. P. Drop
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
In Figure 3.18 the experimental and simulated cumulative water and

pressure drop curves for Flood 3A (oil injection) are displayed. This displacement
could be represented with a high degree of precision. Again, the pressure drop at
95
the beginning of the test differs from the experimental data, which is attributed to
the disparity between the end effects occurring and the capillary pressure
characterization. It can be observed that an endpoint is not achieved since the
trend indicates that further brine could be produced and pressure drop has not
reached a fully-stabilized value. The test was terminated due to limitations in the
amount of oil available to inject. However, during Flood 3B an extra 1.77 pore
volumes of oil were injected, causing the production of an additional 0.41 cm3 of
brine at reservoir conditions and acquiring an endpoint condition.

24 90
20 75
Pressure Drop, kPa

16 60
12 45
8 Exp. Cum.Water 30
Sim. Cum. Water

4 Exp. P. Drop 15
Sim. P. Drop
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
The results for Flood 4A were already discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.

Figure 3.19 depicts the reservoir simulation match for the last oil flood
conducted (Flood 5A). Cumulative water and pressure drop were reproduced
within the uncertainty limits throughout the test time. The flow of additional 1.28
PVI of oil caused the production of 0.67 cm3 in addition to the brine recovered
during Flood 5A. The similarity between Figures 3.18 and 3.19 demonstrates that
the two-phase experiments display good repeatability.
96

24 120
Cumulative Water at r.c., cc 20 100
Pressure Drop, kPa

16 80
12 60
8 40
Exp. Cum.Water
Sim. Cum. Water
4 Exp. P. Drop 20
Sim. P. Drop
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 3.19: Reservoir simulation match of flood 5A
Generally speaking, it can be concluded that the relative permeability

curve model coupled with reservoir simulation provides a match within the levels
of experimental uncertainty for most cases. The use of more sophisticated
correlations including changes in curvature would improve the matching, but
would also increase the number of parameters to match with the same
experimental data. A comparison between the relative permeability curves
obtained from each match would help in revealing the cycle- and history-
dependency of relative permeability.
The krow and krw curves obtained from the match of water floods 2A and
4A are presented in Figure 3.20. From the first to the second water injection
conducted on the core, krw appears to decrease. Moreover, the trend in Figure
3.21 (comparison of kr curves obtained from Floods 3A and 5A) is identical: krow
increases while krw gets reduced from the first to the second oil injection cycle.
Meanwhile, krow is practically identical between the two oil flood cycles, but
exhibits a substantial difference between the two water flood cycles. The trend is
97
that the rock is becoming more water-wet with every cycle. Although the rock
was fired at 600˚C to avoid the chemical interaction between brine and clays, it
was expected that a minimum time or number of cycles were needed to stabilize
the rock-fluid system. Considering the high uncertainty at low water saturations
during water flooding, it is possible to state that krow presents more stability from
the first to the second cycle than krw. The preliminaries of the first three-phase
experiment include the injection of gas-equilibrated brine and gas-equilibrated oil
before starting the gas flood. This would constitute in a third cycle to verify the
stability of the oil-water relative permeability curves beyond the experimental
data presented to this point.
Comparison of Krow and Krw During Water Imbibition

0.8 0.08
Krow, Flood 2A
0.7 Krow, Flood 4A 0.07
Krw, Flood 2A
Water Rel. Permeability, Fraction

Krw, Flood 4A
Oil Rel. Permeability, Fraction
0.6 0.06
0.5 0.05
0.4 0.04
0.3 0.03
0.2 0.02
0.1 0.01
0 0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Figure 3.20: Comparison of oil-water relative permeability curves during

water imbibition (Floods 2A and 4A)
98
Comparison of Krow and Krw During Oil Drainage

0.8 0.08
0.7 0.07
Krow, Flood 3A


Krw, Flood 3A
0.5 Krw, Flood 5A 0.05
0.4 0.04
0.3 0.03
0.2 0.02
0.1 0.01
0 0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Figure 3.21: Comparison of oil-water relative permeability curves during oil

drainage (Floods 3A and 5A)
Figure 3.22 presents a comparison between the relative permeability

curves obtained during water injection (imbibition) and oil injection (drainage) for
the second cycle, corresponding to Floods 4A and 5A. The plot indicates that krw
is not dependent on saturation history, while krow presents a marked difference
between drainage and imbibition curves. As discussed earlier in this section, the
imbibition relative permeability of oil appears to change curvature at low water
saturation. A dotted line is added to illustrate the path krow should follow to
intercept the endpoint of the drainage curve, whose uncertainty at low water
saturation is very low. Similarly, although less noticeably, the imbibition krw would
need a steep increase near the residual oil saturation to encounter the drainage
endpoint. Theoretically, a stronger hysteresis is expected on the non-wetting
phase (oil) than on the wetting phase, and this was the case for the curves in
Figure 3.22. An alternative to verify the hysteretic behavior is to compare the
99
relative permeability curves resulting from the match of the water and oil injection
before the first three-phase experiment.
Comparison of Imbibition and Drainage Krow and Krw

0.8 0.08
0.7 0.07
Krow, Imbibition 4A

0.6 Krow, Drainage 5A 0.06

Krw, Imbibition 4A
0.5 Krw, Drainage 5A 0.05
0.4 0.04
0.3 0.03
0.2 0.02
0.1 0.01
0 0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Figure 3.22: Comparison of imbibition and drainage oil-water relative

permeability curves for the second cycle (Floods 4A and 5A)
In summary, the oil-water relative permeability curves for the core-fluids

system at reservoir pressure and temperature were investigated via both
analytical and numerical methods. The JBN technique provided a good first
approximation for the simulation match. The core was concluded to be
preferentially water-wet. It was observed that the Corey correlation did not
reproduce the behavior of some floods near the endpoints, but provided a
consistent means of comparing different displacements. The comparisons
showed that the rock needed more than one cycle in order to achieve equilibrium
with the fluids, and also that krow is affected by saturation history.
100
3.4 Three-Phase Displacements
Four three-phase experiments were conducted at the same operating

pressure and temperature as for the two-phase tests. In order to minimize the
mass transfer within the core, the fluids were previously equilibrated with each
other before being injected. Flue gas (84% nitrogen, 16% carbon dioxide) was
prepared to be used in the displacements. The 3% KCl brine and the Oil 2 stock
tank sample were mixed at constant temperature and pressure (operating
conditions) with flue gas to produce gas-equilibrated oil and brine.
Table 3.8 summarizes the injection sequence for the four tests, each of
them starting at connate water saturation. Experiment # 1 was intended to obtain
the gas-liquid relative permeability curves at connate water saturation and to
adapt the system, procedures and methods of analysis to the injection and
production of a compressible fluid. Experiment # 2 was the only one conducted
with non-equilibrated fluids in order to evaluate the impact of mass transfer in
relative permeability. The re-saturation of liquid (oil) after gas flood was also
explored in this test. In Experiment # 3, water was injected before flooding with
gas to create an actual three-phase displacement within the core. Experiment # 4
started as in the previous test, but after some gas had been injected, oil flood
was started to re-saturate the core, and finally gas was flooded to residual liquid
saturation. This test corresponds to the injection sequence that resembles the
most the saturation history of HPAI in the “cold” part of the reservoir.
Table 3.8: Injection sequence of the 3-phase experiments

Experiment
Injection sequence
#
Inject gas to residual liquid saturation
1
0.233 PV of gas, then 0.318 PV of oil, then gas to
2
residual liquid saturation
0.207 PV of brine, then gas to residual liquid
3
saturation
0.212 PV of brine, then 0.229 PV of gas, then 0.313
4
PV of oil, then gas to residual liquid saturation
101
The use of gas signified a more careful data treatment procedure in order
to obtain consistent data to be matched with reservoir simulation. Pore volumes
injected were corrected by variations in pore pressure, because of the
compressibility of the gas phase. Water-oil and gas-oil relative permeability curve
parameters were modified to match cumulative volumes of oil, brine and gas
produced, as well as pressure drop, using reservoir simulation. Three-phase
relative permeabilities were calculated by the simulator using the Stone’s second
technique. History dependency of relative permeability was considered by
adjusting parameters used by the hysteresis models included in the simulator.
The compositional simulator (GEM) was employed for simulating the experiments
without considering hysteresis, while STARS (thermal and special processes
simulator) was used whenever hysteresis was taken into account.
3.4.1 Preliminary procedures
The preparation of flue gas, the equilibration of liquids with gas and the
measurement of their properties, as well as the preliminary injection of
equilibrated liquids are treated in this section before describing the three-phase
experiments.
3.4.1.1 Flue gas preparation
494 g of nitrogen and 148 g of carbon dioxide (both technical grade) were
transferred from their respective bottles into a mixing cylinder placed on a
precision scale. The mixing cylinder had been previously evacuated and filled
with nitrogen to dissolve the oxygen, then evacuated again, and the cycle
repeated two more times. The blend was then subjected to heating from the
bottom of the cylinder to create convection and homogenize the mixture. Several
samples were taken and fed in a gas chromatograph to determine the
102
composition. The average molar composition was 83.75% N2, 16.20% CO2 and
0.05% O2.
The resulting flue gas was compressed to a pressure higher than the
operating condition and room temperature and stored in two high-pressure
cylinders.
3.4.1.2 Equilibrated fluids preparation and properties
Oil and brine were filtered and poured in high-pressure piston cylinders.
Approximately 25% of the total capacity of the cylinder was allocated to contain
the flue gas. The cylinders were closed and the excess air was removed by
displacing the piston with distilled water from a pump. Compressed flue gas from
the gas cylinders was allowed to enter each of the liquid cylinders while
maintaining them in a vertical position and displacing all of the water below the
piston out of the cylinders.
The cylinders were insulated and heated to achieve the operating
temperature, and mounted in a rocking device. Pressure was then monitored and
adjusted with the pump in order to stabilize the mixture at the operating pressure.
The rocking and equilibration process continued for at least 24 hours after the
start of heating or until the pressure and temperature conditions had achieved a
constant value for a minimum lapse of one hour. The excess equilibrium gas was
removed by placing the cylinders in a vertical position and driving the piston at
constant pressure with the pump. A sample of the oil-equilibrated flue gas was
taken and its composition was determined using a gas chromatograph. Table 3.9
presents the measured molar composition of the oil-equilibrated flue gas,
together with that calculated by the compositional model used to simulate the 2
phase displacements. Considering that the calculated and measured
compositions match very well, the compositional model was also used for the
simulation of the 3-phase floods. The density and viscosity of the gas, as
calculated by the model are reported in Table 3.9.
103
Table 3.9: Measured and calculated composition and calculated properties
of oil and flue gas equilibrated at operating conditions
Measured Calculated
Molar Molar
Fraction, % Fraction, %
N2 92.24 N2 92.38
CO2 5.93 CO2 5.97
C3 0.10 C3-C5 0.89
C4 0.42 C6+ 0.76
C5 0.58
C6 0.70
C7+ 0.03
MWmix 29.80 29.86
Calculated Equilibrium Phase Properties

Gas Z-Factor 1.0221
3
Oil Density 799.2 kg/m
3
Gas Density 175.8 kg/m
Oil Viscosity 0.8682 cp
Gas Viscosity 0.0248 cp
Interfacial Tension 12.09 dyne/cm
The gas-equilibrated liquids were cooled down to room temperature while

maintaining the operating pressure to keep the gas in solution. The cylinders
were then stored at room temperature and the liquids were loaded into the
injection system cylinders at constant pressure whenever it was necessary.
Density and viscosity of gas-equilibrated oil and brine were measured in
the viscometer-densitometer array described in Section 3.2.3 at operating
conditions (80˚C and 2,563 psia -17,670 kPaa-). The results are summarized in
Table 3.10, and the comparison with the calculated values reported in Table 3.9
for the equilibrated oil is made. The oil viscosity and density deviations are
similar to those observed for dead (non-equilibrated) oil.
Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR) was measured for both gas equilibrated oil and
brine. At constant pressure (operating conditions), water was injected to the
bottom of the piston cylinder while the liquid and gas emerging from the top of
the cylinder were separated in a closed plastic bottle. The liquid mass was
measured and converted to volume at 25˚C, while the gas volume at room
conditions was measured in a piston-type gas meter and then converted to
104
volume at standard conditions. The ratio between the volumes of gas and liquid
determines the GLR. Repetition of measurements was carried out in order to
obtain consistent values. The gas-water ratio was determined to be 5.7
cm3(std)/cm3(25˚C), while the gas-oil ratio was measured to be 30
cm3(std)/cm3(25˚C).
Table 3.10: Measured density and viscosity of gas-equilibrated liquids and

comparison with calculated oil properties
Property (at 2,563 psia Measured Calculated Deviation
and 80˚C) Value Value %
3
Oil Density (kg/m ) 796.4 799.2 0.35%
Oil Viscosity (cp) 1.018 0.8682 14.7%
Brine Density (kg/m3) 993.1
Brine Viscosity 0.343
3.4.1.3 Equilibrated water and oil floods
Departing from a near-connate water saturation condition (Sw=0.3483),

corresponding to the final saturation of two-phase Flood 5B, gas-equilibrated
brine was injected to reach a stable endpoint, and then gas-equilibrated oil was
displaced to return to the proximity of connate water saturation. After each flood,
once a static condition was achieved, an extra amount of displacing liquid was
injected to remove the displaced one. The final condition for stability includes, in
addition to negligible displaced liquid rate and pressure drop variation, a stable
measured producing GLR. Table 3.11 summarizes the mass balance for these
displacements.
The residual oil saturation after more than 7 PVI (Floods 6A and 6B) was
0.3107, which compares very well to the accepted Sorw of 31.0% determined in
Section 3.3.3.1. After more than 7 PVI of oil (Floods 7A and 7B), only 19.84 cm3
of brine at reservoir conditions could be removed, equivalent to a final water
saturation of 0.3830. Unlike Floods 1C, 3B and 5B presented in Table 3.3, the
amount of brine recovered in Flood 7B was significantly lower, which leads one
to think that connate water saturation for equilibrated liquids might be higher than
105
the accepted value of 34.5%. From a theoretical point of view, regardless of the
liquid viscosity, density or composition, the saturation endpoints should not
change. However, a less viscous oil may displace the water phase less efficiently
and would require more PVI to achieve the same endpoint. This could
satisfactorily explain the experimental observation in consistency with theory,
provided that the match of relative permeability curves confirms a value of Swr
similar to that obtained for the two-phase experiments.
Table 3.11: Initial and final saturations of gas-equilibrated water and oil
floods calculated from mass balance
Displaced
Flood Total Final
Type Initial Sw Volume, Final Sw
# PVI So
res. cm3
6A Gas-Eq. Water Flood 6.05 0.3483 21.95 0.6872 0.3128
6B Extra Gas-Eq. Water Flood 1.23 0.6872 0.14 0.6893 0.3107
7A Gas-Eq. Oil Flood 5.81 0.6893 19.62 0.3863 0.6137
7B Extra Gas-Eq. Oil Flood 1.35 0.3863 0.22 0.3830 0.6170
The match plots obtained using reservoir simulation for Floods 6A and 7A
are illustrated in Figures 3.23 and 3.24 respectively. For the gas-equilibrated
water flood the curves were matched within the range of experimental uncertainty
except for the earliest two points, whose calculated values were lower than
measured, as occurred in previous water floods. This has been explained as the
inability of the relative permeability correlation to account for abrupt variations
within a small saturation interval. For the oil flood, the match of the pressure drop
curve shows consistency, considering the fact that the oil viscosity calculated by
the simulator is lower than measured. This is also reflected in the lower
calculated final brine recovery, although the difference is within 0.5 cm3 (less
than 1% of the pore volume).
106

24 120
20 100
Pressure Drop, kPa

16 80
12 60
8 Exp. Cum.Oil 40
Sim. Cum. Oil
Exp. P. Drop
4 20
Sim. P. Drop
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

21 140
18 120
15 100
Pressure Drop, kPa
Exp. Cum.Water
Sim. Cum. Water
12 80
Exp. P. Drop
Sim. P. Drop
9 60
6 40
3 20
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
107
Table 3.12 presents the relative permeability correlation parameters
adjusted for the matching of the equilibrated water and oil floods. The saturation
endpoints agree very well with the accepted values for the two-phase floods,
confirming that the low water recovery in the last displacement does not affect
the saturation endpoints, but warning that more PVI are required to achieve a
steady state condition. The relative permeability endpoints and curvature
exponents show a similar trend to that observed in Figure 3.22. A closer
comparison can be made by contrasting the equilibrated curves with the last
cycle of the dead fluid floods.
Table 3.12: Oil-water relative permeability curve parameters obtained for

the match of Floods 6A and 7A
Imbibition Drainage
Flood 6A Flood 7A
Swr 0.345 0.348
Sorw 0.310 0.310
krocw 0.740 0.430
krwro 0.046 0.042
aow 1.65 2.50
aw 1.85 2.60
In Figure 3.25, a graphical comparison between the relative permeability

curves obtained from the last two water floods is made. Both krow and krw curves
are practically identical, contrasting with the results in Figure 3.20, where the
curves from Floods 2A and 4A exhibited a substantial difference. This is a strong
indication that before starting the first three-phase experiment, the rock had
achieved equilibrium with oil and water, at least when water saturation increases.
Figure 3.26 compares the two last oil displacements (Floods 5A and 7A),
showing that the oil relative permeability curves are very close, as was the case
for Figure 3.21, where Floods 3A and 5A were compared. This also suggests that
oil relative permeability is not cycle-dependent, and thus the obtained curves are
representative of the krow as a function of water saturation in a drainage process.
On the other hand, krw decreased from the previous oil flood, but not as much as
108
it decreased in Figure 3.21. This indicates that krw is cycle-dependent in a
drainage process, and it is likely that further reduction occur during the three-
phase displacements.
In short, it was observed that the saturation endpoints were measured with
precision and repeatability, and they are expected to maintain their values during
the three-phase floods. Meanwhile, the rock achieved equilibrium with oil and
water in an imbibition process, but the relative permeability to water was still
reducing when new cycles were performed in a drainage process. As the rock-
fluid behavior is very similar from the last two cycles of water and oil flooding, the
history-dependency exhibited in Figure 3.19 applies also for the injection of gas-
equilibrated liquids.
The injection of oil- and brine-equilibrated gas at this point of the
experimental program would minimize the mass transfer within the core.
Comparison of Krow and Krw During Water Imbibition

0.8 0.08
Krow, Flood 4A
Krw, Flood 4A

Krw, Flood 6A
0.6 0.06
0.5 0.05
0.4 0.04
0.3 0.03
0.2 0.02
0.1 0.01
0 0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Figure 3.25: Comparison of the last two imbibition curves: Floods 4A & 6A
109
Comparison of Krow and Krw During Oil Drainage

0.8 0.08
0.7 0.07
Krow, Flood 5A

Krw, Flood 5A
0.5 Krw, Flood 7A 0.05
0.4 0.04
0.3 0.03
0.2 0.02
0.1 0.01
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Figure 3.26: Comparison of the last two drainage curves: Floods 5A & 7A
3.4.2 Experiment # 1
In this experiment, gas dynamically equilibrated with brine and oil was
injected at near-connate water saturation (initial water saturation was higher than
the determined Swr, but the water rate was negligible after more than 7 pore
volumes of oil injected) until negligible liquid saturation and pressure drop
variation was observed. Pressure drop and produced volumes were measured,
while monitoring injection, exit, back and overburden pressure, as well as oven
temperature. Corrections to the raw data were performed in order to obtain
cumulative volumes of liquid and gas and pressure drop as a function of PVI. The
JBN method was applied in order to obtain a first approximation for the gas-oil
relative permeability curves. Then, the test was simulated using the
compositional simulator GEM and the experimental data was matched while
110
adjusting the gas-oil relative permeability curve parameters in Corey’s
correlation.
3.4.2.1 Experimental procedures and methods of analysis
Cylinders 1 and 2 in the injection system were connected to a vacuum

pump in order to evacuate the air at room temperature. Next, the flue gas stored
in the high-pressure reservoir was connected to Cylinder # 1 and flue gas was
transferred at approximately constant pressure. Meanwhile, roughly 500 cm3 of
oil and brine were siphoned into Cylinder # 2. At the end, Cylinder # 2 contained
a column of 500 cm3 of liquid and 100 cm3 of hydrocarbon gas and water vapor
at equilibrium pressure (lower than atmospheric), while Cylinder # 1 contained
600 cm3 of flue gas at nearly operating pressure. The cylinder compartment was
then heated up to the operating temperature of 80˚C. Once a constant pressure
was achieved in Cylinder # 1, the valve connecting the top of Cylinder # 1 with
the bottom of Cylinder # 2 was opened, allowing for a slow flow of flue gas into
the top of the second cylinder, bubbling through the brine and oil column. After
the expansion, brine was injected with the pump to the bottom of Cylinder # 1
until reaching the operating pressure. Time was allowed for the system to
stabilize at the operating conditions. Figure 3.27 portrays the final fluid state in
the injection subsystem and the path of flow the gas follows to become
dynamically equilibrated with oil and brine before entering the core.
It was possible that gas would not achieve a definite equilibrium with oil
and brine, considering that during oil and brine equilibration with gas, the system
was rocked to allow better contact between the fluids, while the bubbling of gas
through the columns of brine and oil provides a short contact time. To improve
the equilibrium conditions, nearly 100 cm3 of flue gas was bubbled while venting
the gas coming out of the top of Cylinder # 2 at constant pressure. After this
procedure, although minimal mass transfer may occur within the core, the oil and
111
gas properties are not expected to suffer a major variation from those measured
at equilibrium conditions.
Figure 3.27: Path followed by the injected water, and then flue gas to
become equilibrated with oil and brine at operating conditions
The injection lines between the cylinders and the injection core holder
valve were evacuated and gas was allowed to expand in this volume. Pore
pressure and gas pressure in the cylinder were adjusted to the operating
pressure of 2,563 psia previous to the start of gas injection. The data acquisition
system was started and the core holder injection valve was opened. The pump
was started and the injection at constant rate was maintained until negligible
liquid production rate and pressure drop variation was observed.
After a static condition was achieved, an extra gas flood was carried out in
order to verify the residual liquid saturation. In preparation for Experiment # 2, the
core holder was disconnected from the BPR valve and the gas in the core was
112
expanded to atmospheric conditions after cooling down the system to room
temperature. The expanded gas was collected and measured in a piston-type
gas meter, in order to provide an estimation of the initial volume of gas in the
core by analyzing the pressure depletion of the system. The resulting volume
was compared to the one determined by mass balance to assess the accuracy of
this procedure. Then, the production valve was closed and reconnected to the
BPR valve, and pressurization with oil was carried out. Next, the system was
heated up to the operating temperature and the BPR valve was opened. A new
oil injection was performed afterwards in order to displace most of the gas still in
the system and re-dissolve the remaining gas in the core by contacting it with
fresh, non-equilibrated oil.
A water flood and subsequent oil flood were later conducted in order to
bring the core to near connate water saturation condition for the start of
Experiment # 2. Each flood consisted of a main displacement followed by a
secondary injection after a static condition had been achieved. Fluids injected
were non-equilibrated, since Experiment # 2 was designed to be carried out with
“dead” fluids to assess the impact of mass transfer on the characterization of
relative permeability.
The raw data obtained during the test was subjected to the same
correction procedures as described in Section 3.3.3.2. The resulting cumulative
liquid volume and pressure drop versus PVI data was used to obtain the gas-oil
relative permeability curves by means of the JBN method. The Corey correlation
parameters that best matched the krog versus Sg and krg versus Sg points were
used as a starting set for the reservoir simulation match. krog and krg parameters
were adjusted to best fit the cumulative liquid, cumulative gas and pressure drop
curves within the experimental levels of uncertainty. Gas-oil capillary pressure
curves used correspond to the data in Figure 3.8, corrected to the calculated
gas-oil IFT of 12 dyne/cm, as reported in Table 3.9.
As stated in Section 3.4.1.2, the same compositional model used for the
simulation of two-phase tests was employed for the match of 3-phase tests.
113
3.4.2.2 Results and discussion
Table 3.13 contains the mass balance for the displacements conducted as
part of Experiment # 1. The main gas displacement, from which data was taken
to obtain the relative permeability curves, was labeled as Flood 8A, while 8B
refers to the extra gas flood and 8C to the gas expansion to atmospheric
pressure. Floods 9A and 9B correspond to the water flood, while Floods 10A and
10B refer to the oil flood in preparation for the following test.
Table 3.13: Initial and final saturations of Experiment # 1 and subsequent

gas expansion, water and oil floods as calculated by mass balance
Displ. Displ.
Flood Initial Initial Final Final Final
Type PVI Oil, res. Water,
# Sw So Sw So Sg
cm3 res. cm3
8A Gas Flood 6.12 0.3830 0.6170 20.49 1.06 0.3666 0.3006 0.3328
8B Gas Flood Extra 0.78 0.3666 0.3006 0.03 0.05 0.3658 0.3002 0.3340
8C Gas Expansion 0.00 0.3658 0.3002 1.75 0.87 0.3524 0.2732 0.3744
9A Water Flood 6.39 0.3524 0.6476 21.56 0.00 0.6853 0.3147 0.0000
9B Water Flood Extra 1.00 0.6853 0.3147 0.10 0.00 0.6868 0.3132 0.0000
10A Oil Flood 6.45 0.6868 0.3132 0.00 19.18 0.3907 0.6093 0.0000
10B Oil Flood Extra 2.83 0.3907 0.6093 0.00 0.65 0.3807 0.6193 0.0000
During the main gas flood, a total of 21.55 cm3 of liquid at reservoir
conditions was displaced, attaining a final water saturation of 0.3666 (above
connate saturation), oil saturation of 0.3003 (below residual oil saturation to
water flood) and gas saturation of 0.3328. This corresponds to an oil recovery
factor of 51.3%, which closely agrees with the range observed for the core floods
conducted by Shokoya (2005) and analyzed in Chapter 2. During the second gas
flood, only 0.08 cm3 of liquid were recovered, confirming that the current
saturation state approximates the residual liquid saturation to gas flood. The final
water saturation after gas expansion is close to the previously determined
connate saturation, but the rapid expansion of the gas may have withdrawn water
in excess to that recovered by a stable immiscible displacement, and so it was
114
necessary to restore the initial saturation condition for Experiment # 2 as it was
done for Experiment # 1: displacing oil until negligible water saturation was
achieved, starting from residual oil saturation.
After Floods 9A and 9B (water injection), So was 0.3132, which falls very
closely to the accepted Sorw value of 31.0%. Once more than 9.0 PV of oil were
flowed through the core, a final water saturation of 0.3807 was reached, which
compares very well to the final saturation after the gas-equilibrated oil flood
reported in Table 3.10 (Sw=0.3830). These facts allow the conclusion that
saturation endpoints are kept constant after flooding gas, expanding it to
atmospheric pressure and re-pressurizing the system.
The raw data as logged by the data acquisition system during Flood 8A is
presented in Figure 3.28. It can be observed that the measured pressure drop
exhibited a high level of scattering after gas breakthrough (around 150 minutes
elapsed). This is due to the high compressibility of gas. The BPR valve requires a
small pressure differential to open and close. This differential pressure is
achieved with a small volume of liquid, due to its low compressibility. The same
differential pressure needs a greater volume of gas in order for the valve to open
and close. As a consequence, when the injected gas reaches the BPR valve, it
starts to open and close in cycles, thus causing sudden compression and
expansion of the gas in the porous medium, finally affecting the pressure drop
across the core.
In order to obtain representative pressure drop values for relative
permeability determination, averaging is necessary over time intervals that
contain a number of cycles. However, the cycles were longer during the two-
phase period after breakthrough, and pressure variation was more pronounced
during this time, making it difficult to obtain representative values for pressure
drop. Averaging was then conducted over shorter periods of time containing at
least one valve cycle, and smoothing of the pressure drop curve was carried out
after that. As the mobile liquid was driven out of the core, the cycles became of
shorter duration and variations in pressure drop became lower. After nearly 1,200
115
minutes, pore pressure and pressure drop reached approximately stable values,
suggesting that an endpoint had been attained.
Pressure and Pressure Drop Raw Data for Experiment # 1

3500 17
3400 15
3300 13
Overburden Pressure
3200 11
Pressure Drop, psi

Pressure, psig
3100 9
3000 7
2900 High DP 5
2800 3
2700 1
Low DP
Back Pressure
2600 -1
Injection & Exit Pressure
2500 -3
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.28: Pressure and pressure drop raw data for Experiment # 1
Figure 3.29 displays the cumulative mass of liquid and volume of gas as
directly observed over the test time. The trend followed by the earliest cumulative
liquid points indicates that the displacement flow rate is increasing. This is a
consequence of the injected gas being compressed to initially open the BPR
valve and thus developing a flow rate through the core which is lower than the
injection rate. PVI and pressure drop data need to be corrected by this situation.
Analysis of the early pressure and pressure drop data was useful to determine
the times when the BPR opened and when gas entered the core, as illustrated in
Section 3.3.3.2 (Figure 3.11), to calculate the zero PVI time. At nearly 300
minutes elapsed there was a high gas and liquid rate, coinciding with a sudden
drop in pore pressure, as observed in Figure 3.28. Although no other sudden
depressurizations of the core of this magnitude were observed, smoothing of the
116
cumulative liquid curve is necessary in order to obtain consistent data for
determining relative permeability curves by both the analytical method and
numerical simulation.
Raw Data for Experiment # 1: Liquid & Gas Volume

24 72
21 63
18 54
Gas volume, liters

Liquid mass, g
15 45
High flow rates
12 due to core 36
depressurization Cumulative Liquid
9 27
Cumulative Gas
6 18
3 9
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.29: Cumulative liquid mass and gas volume measured during
Experiment # 1
The corrected and smoothed cumulative liquid volume at reservoir

conditions, cumulative gas volume at standard conditions and pressure drop are
reported in Table 3.14. The total volume of liquid displaced after corrections
(21.99 cm3) is in close agreement with the value determined by mass balance
(21.53 cm3). The volume of gas inside the core as calculated by gas expansion
at atmospheric conditions resulted to be 22.30 cm3. To estimate this value, a
constant composition of the gas as pressure drops had to be assumed, allowing
for a higher level of error. The agreement between the three values confirms that
the uncertainty in saturations is less than 1% of the pore volume, even when a
highly-compressible fluid is employed.
117
Table 3.14: Corrected data for the determination of relative permeability
curves for Experiment # 1
Pore Cum. Cum.

Pressure
Volumes Liquid, Gas, Std.
3 Drop, kPa
Injected res. cm Liters
0.0000 0.00 0.000 39.31
0.0142 0.54 0.008 45.53
0.0285 1.81 0.025 44.12
0.0451 3.10 0.041 39.41
0.0639 4.39 0.058 34.12
0.0990 6.71 0.082 27.61
0.1528 9.27 0.114 22.82
0.1779 10.16 0.124 21.24
0.2239 11.68 0.210 19.86
0.2309 11.84 0.218 19.72
0.2417 12.15 0.228 19.58
0.2485 12.31 0.232 19.51
0.2592 12.52 0.239 19.41
0.2730 12.89 0.249 19.31
0.3079 13.62 0.358 19.17
0.3252 13.99 0.465 19.10
0.3431 14.35 0.553 18.99
0.3608 14.72 0.587 18.89
0.3784 14.88 0.684 18.79
0.4028 15.19 0.858 18.65
0.4284 15.38 1.035 18.51
0.4675 15.82 1.098 18.27
0.5020 16.19 1.169 18.03
0.5429 16.50 1.312 17.75
0.5980 16.97 1.627 17.41
0.6575 17.44 2.022 17.00
0.7269 17.71 2.426 16.55
0.8002 18.07 3.411 16.17
0.9084 18.63 4.914 15.65
0.9706 18.93 5.356 15.31
1.0592 19.28 6.041 14.86
1.1545 19.64 6.874 14.51
1.2618 19.96 7.797 14.17
1.3831 20.24 8.814 13.75
2.5977 21.35 19.753 11.13
4.5464 21.94 38.402 9.31
4.7580 21.96 40.430 9.23
5.1677 21.98 44.262 9.11
5.6089 21.99 48.629 9.03
5.8292 21.99 50.665 9.01
5.9371 21.99 51.712 9.01
6.0485 21.99 52.780 9.01
The JBN method was applied to determine the liquid-gas relative

permeability curves, using Table 3.14 as input data. The resulting krg and krl as a
function of gas saturation are shown in Table 3.15. A plot of these points and the
best-fit Corey correlation curves is presented in Figure 3.30. These curves serve
118
as a first approximation for the reservoir simulation match assuming that all of the
liquid recovered corresponds to oil. Despite the points not following a monotonic
variation with saturation, a general trend can be perceived with small scattering,
implying that the experimental and analysis methods are appropriate for
determining relative permeability of a highly compressible fluid by means of the
JBN technique.
Table 3.15: Liquid-gas relative permeability as function of gas saturation

determined by the JBN method
Sg krg krl
0.0000 0.0000 0.3330
0.0300 0.0022 0.2304
0.0583 0.0041 0.1922
0.0649 0.0055 0.2186
0.1007 0.0079 0.1627
0.0775 0.0072 0.2258
0.0994 0.0086 0.1845
0.1127 0.0093 0.1572
0.0853 0.0081 0.2189
0.1082 0.0097 0.1813
0.1074 0.0097 0.1828
0.1109 0.0096 0.1718
0.1097 0.0095 0.1735
0.1741 0.0120 0.0748
0.1514 0.0112 0.1083
0.1843 0.0124 0.0632
0.1604 0.0114 0.0929
0.1643 0.0113 0.0868
0.1866 0.0120 0.0631
0.1795 0.0120 0.0712
0.1852 0.0119 0.0646
0.2265 0.0129 0.0313
0.2130 0.0132 0.0433
0.2114 0.0134 0.0452
0.2148 0.0130 0.0415
0.2292 0.0135 0.0340
0.2301 0.0147 0.0362
0.2462 0.0153 0.0283
0.2576 0.0152 0.0222
0.2873 0.0171 0.0096
0.3114 0.0213 0.0039
0.3253 0.0262 0.0016
0.3287 0.0277 0.0009
0.3314 0.0286 0.0003
0.3328 0.0286 0.0000
119
Gas-Liquid Kr for Experiment #1 (JBN Method)

0.40 0.040
Krlg JBN
0.35 krocw 0.360 0.035
Krlg Corey
Sgr 0
Krg JBN
Liquid Relative Perm., Fraction
Slr 0.667
Gas Relative Perm., Fraction

0.30 Krg Corey 0.030
krgcl 0.0286
0.25 al 2.10 0.025
ag 1.70
0.20 0.020
0.15 0.015
0.10 0.010
0.05 0.005
0.00 0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Fiugre 3.30: Gas-liquid kr curves obtained from the JBN method and fitting
Corey correlation curves
The liquid relative permeability is well represented by the Corey

correlation, exhibiting a krocw value of 0.360. As this parameter is shared with the
oil-water kr curves, a modification to the latest determined krow drainage curve
(water saturation decreasing) in Figure 3.26 (for Flood 7A, krocw=0.430) had to be
introduced for reservoir simulation. The krw curve was not affected. The relative
permeability to gas phase as calculated by the JBN method exhibits a change in
curvature that cannot be reproduced by the Corey correlation. krg at residual
liquid saturation was found to be 0.0286, while the extrapolation at connate water
saturation (needed for reservoir simulation as krgcw) corresponded to 0.0897 with
a curvature exponent of 1.70. Subtracting from the residual liquid saturation of
0.667 the connate water saturation (0.348), a residual oil saturation to gas flood
(Sorg) of 0.319 is obtained.
Using the gas-liquid Corey-correlation curves that matched the JBN-
calculated relative permeabilities as gas-oil curves, and the drainage oil-water
120
curves obtained for Flood 7A as the initial set of variables for reservoir simulation
match, the fitting procedure was conducted, resulting in the parameters shown in
Table 3.16 and the match observed in Figure 3.31. In addition to reducing the
value of krocw, the connate water saturation was reduced to 0.325, as opposed to
0.348 from Flood 7A. All of the other parameters were kept constant. The oil-gas
kr curves were slightly modified from those obtained by the JBN method. Sorg was
reduced to 0.311 (from 0.319) and Krgcw to 0.0720 (from 0.0897).
Table 3.16: Corey correlation parameters defining the kr curves resulting

from the reservoir simulation match of Experiment # 1
Oil-Water Oil-Gas
Swr 0.3250 Sorg 0.3110
Sorw 0.3100 Sgr 0
krocw 0.3600 krgcw 0.0720
krwro 0.0420 aog 1.85
aow 2.50 ag 1.33
aw 2.60
Experiment # 1 - Reservoir Simulation Match

22 55
20 50
18 45
Press. Drop, kPa or Cum. Gas, Std. l

3
16 40
Cumulative Liquid, res. cm
14 35
12 30
10 CumLiq Exp CumLiq Sim 25

DP Exp CumGas Exp
8 DP Sim CumGas Sim 20
6 15
4 10
2 5
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Figure 3.31: Reservoir simulation match of Experiment # 1
121
Hysteresis in relative permeability curves was not considered, owing to the
fact that the displacement in Experiment # 1 followed a monotonic variation in
saturation: gas saturation increasing, oil and water saturation decreasing.
The main discrepancy in Figure 3.31 resides in the match of gas volume.
It was observed that the volume registered by the wet test gas-meter (WTM) was
sensitive to small variations in the water level in its chamber. A water level is
marked for calibration, but rapid flow rates may displace water out of the
chamber when the BPR valve opens, reducing the volume of water in the
chamber in an imperceptible way, but causing systematic error in the
measurement of gas volume. It is estimated that under these circumstances, the
error would be up to 3%. To reduce this error for the following tests, the level was
monitored and water was added if necessary, but judgment in determining the
correct level still remained as a source of error. In addition to that, when
comparing the measured and simulated gas volumes, it has to be considered
that the volume at standard conditions depends on the density of gas at
operating conditions. If the calculated density is higher than the actual density,
the calculated volume will be higher for the same volume of gas occupying the
porous medium. This appeared to be the case for the experiments carried out.
Due to that, attention was paid to the final saturation in order to obtain a
consistent match, while it was attempted to keep the calculated volume of gas
produced within 3% of the measured values. Considering that and all other
sources of error discussed for the two-phase floods, it can be concluded that the
match observed in Figure 3.31 corresponds to a good reproduction of the test
within the experimental limits of uncertainty.
To sum up, despite the high compressibility of gas and the consequent
high dispersion in pressure drop and collected volume data, the experimental
and analysis methods proved adequate to obtain the relative permeability curves
by matching the experimental response with reservoir simulation.
For the analysis of the remaining experiments, the JBN method cannot be
applied since more than one fluid is injected sequentially to the core.
122
This experiment explored the effects of oil re-saturation after gas injection.
Initial water saturation was set to near irreducible state. As a consequence, only
a small amount of brine was expected to be displaced out of the core. The fluids
were not equilibrated with each other, in an effort to assess the impact of mass
transfer on the characterization of relative permeability at reservoir conditions.
Gas injection was performed to saturate the core without breaking
through, then a batch of oil was displaced, and finally gas was injected
continuously until negligible liquid production and pressure drop variation was
observed. Corrections to the raw data were carried out as explained in 3.4.2.1.
The test was simulated using the compositional simulators GEM and STARS,
and the experimental data was matched while adjusting the gas-oil relative
permeability curve parameters in Corey’s correlation. STARS was used to match
the data by making use of the Beattie, Boberg and McNab (BBM) hysteresis
method for the gas phase relative permeability, while GEM was employed to
match the experimental data without using hysteresis.
Flue gas stored in the high pressure reservoirs was transferred into
previously-evacuated Cylinder # 1. The top of this container was connected
directly to the manifold valve downstream of Cylinder # 3, bypassing Cylinder #
2. Meanwhile, Cylinder # 3 was filled with non-equilibrated oil to its full capacity.
The cylinders’ compartment was closed and temperature was raised to the
operating value of 80˚C. Pressure in both cylinders was adjusted to the operating
pressure of 2,563 psia.
The oil in the injection lines between the manifold valve downstream of
Cylinder # 3 and the core holder injection valve was not evacuated this time. This
was done in order to provide more dead volume of oil to be displaced before gas
123
first entered the core, and then allow for the injection rate to be fully developed in
the core at that moment. In addition to that, the core holder production valve was
kept closed until the pressure in the core was higher than the BPR valve opening
pressure.
A volume of gas equivalent to less than 0.25 PV (later determined to be
0.233 PV effective) was displaced through the core and then, without stopping
the pump, oil injection from Cylinder # 3 was started. An amount of oil
corresponding to 0.318 PV was displaced, to later return to gas injection until
negligible liquid production and pressure drop variation was observed. In total,
6.34 PV were displaced through the core in this experiment.
In preparation for Experiment # 3, the system was cooled down to room
temperature and the gas in the core was expanded to atmospheric conditions.
The expanded volume was measured at several pressure steps, as described in
3.4.2.1, and produced liquid volumes were also determined. An oil flood at near
atmospheric pressure was carried out to displace as much of the continuous gas
phase in the core as possible. Next, the system was pressurized with oil and
temperature returned to 80˚C. Discontinuous gas still remaining in the core would
be compressed to negligible volume and/or dissolved in the oil at this point. An
additional displacement of oil was conducted at operating conditions to check for
a stable pressure drop to develop. Gas-equilibrated brine was then displaced to
residual oil saturation. After stopping the pump and letting the fluids reach a
static condition, an extra water flood was carried out. Then, gas-equilibrated oil
was injected until negligible water production, a stable pressure drop and a
constant producing gas-liquid ratio were attained. An additional oil flood was
carried out after a static condition was achieved. Since Experiment # 3 was
designed to be conducted with equilibrated fluids starting at near-connate water
saturation, at this point the system was ready to start that test.
The raw data obtained from Experiment # 2 was processed and the
resulting pressure drop, cumulative liquid volume at reservoir conditions, and
cumulative gas volume at standard conditions data as a function of PVI were
124
reproduced using reservoir simulation. In order to simulate the test in STARS, the
EOS model used in the compositional simulator GEM had to be simplified to
adhere to the input for STARS, including a table of gas-liquid equilibrium
constants varying with pressure and temperature, as well as the required
properties for each of the pseudo-components. The WinProp package facilitated
this procedure. Because the range of variation of pressure during the test was
anticipated to be small, the simpler compositional calculations of STARS were
not expected to increase the uncertainty in the calculation of fluid properties.
A matching procedure similar to that described for Experiment # 1 was
carried out in GEM. Another match was obtained in STARS, varying the same
oil-gas (and oil-water, as needed) relative permeability curve parameters, but
including also the gas-phase hysteresis parameters required for the BBM
method. The BBM method is explained in detail in Appendix B.
Table 3.17 reports the mass balance for the displacements conducted
since the beginning of Experiment # 2 to right before the start of Experiment # 3.
Flood 11A identifies the gas-oil-gas sequence corresponding to Experiment # 2,
while Flood 11B refers to the gas expansion to atmospheric conditions. The
injection of dead oil to displace gas at near-atmospheric pressure was named as
Flood 12. Floods 13A and 13B correspond to the displacement of gas-
equilibrated brine at operating conditions, and finally, Floods 14A and 14B relate
to the injection of gas-equilibrated oil to achieve a near-connate water saturation
condition for the beginning of Experiment # 3.
The amount of water recovered during Flood 11A at reservoir conditions
(0.98 cm3) agrees with that produced during Experiment # 1 (1.06 cm3), and so
does the final water saturation achieved (0.3657 in this test compared to 0.3666
in the previous one), indicating steadiness in the flow behavior between different
displacements and suggesting once again that the mass balance method is
125
highly precise. On the other hand, the final gas and oil saturations differ by
approximately 4% of the pore volume. The reported 18.07 cm3 of oil displaced
out of the core correspond to the net loss in oil volume from the core considering
the mass recovered, the volume injected and the initial volume in the lines. The
reason for the disparity in the final gas saturation may reside in the uncertainty of
the injected volume of oil due to the compressibility of the gas partially filling the
system during the oil injection time. However, this uncertainty can only partially
explain the difference in gas saturation. The analysis of relative permeability
curves can provide a better insight in this issue.
Table 3.17: Initial and final saturation of Experiment # 2 and subsequent

gas expansion, dead oil, gas-equilibrated water and oil floods
Disp. Disp.
# Sw So 3 3 Sw So Sg
cm res. cm
11A Gas-Oil-Gas Flood 6.34 0.3807 0.6193 18.07 0.98 0.3657 0.3403 0.2940
11B Gas Expansion 0.00 0.3657 0.3403 3.60 0.47 0.3584 0.2847 0.3569
12 Oil Flood at Atm. P. 1.44 0.3584 0.2847 1.50 0.3352 0.6648 0.0000
13A Gas-Equilibrated Water Flood 5.83 0.3352 0.6648 23.19 0.6933 0.3067 0.0000
13B Extra Water Flood 0.60 0.6933 0.3067 0.06 0.6943 0.3057 0.0000
14A Gas-Equilibrated Oil Flood 7.14 0.6943 0.3057 19.24 0.3972 0.6028 0.0000
14B Extra Oil Flood 1.94 0.3972 0.6028 0.19 0.3942 0.6058 0.0000
Floods 13A and 13B displaced more than 6 PV of equilibrated brine,

leading to a final (residual) oil saturation of 0.3057. In turn, Floods 14A and 14B
yielded a final water saturation of 0.3942 after more than 9 PVI. This value is
high when compared to the initial Sw at the beginning of Experiment # 2 (0.3807),
but the difference may be explained by either cumulative errors in mass balance
or the systematic reduction in krw after oil drainage, as shown during the two-
phase displacements. The final relative permeability characterization offers a
manner to examine what might be the right explanation for this observation.
126

3500 17
3400 15
3300 13
Overburden Pressure
3200 11
Pressure Drop, psi

Pressure, psig
3100 9
3000 7
High DP
2900 5
2800 3
2700 Low DP 1
Back Pressure
2600 -1
2500 -3
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.32: Pressure and pressure drop raw data for Experiment# 2
Raw Data for Exp. # 2: Cumulative Liquid & Gas

40 64
35 56
30 48
Gas volume, liters
Liquid Mass, g
25 40
20 32
Cumulative Liquid
15 Cumulative Gas 24
10 16
5 8
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.33: Cumulative liquid mass and gas volume for Experiment # 2
127
Figures 3.32 and 3.33 present the raw data for Experiment # 2. Figure
3.32 displays the pressure and pressure drop history as reported by the data
acquisition system, while Figure 3.33 shows the cumulative mass of liquid and
volume of gas as directly observed. After approximately 1400 minutes elapsed,
the pressure drop appeared to have stabilized, while the production of liquid
became negligible. The high dispersion of the pressure drop measurements after
gas breakthrough observed during Experiment # 1 is also observed in this test.
The pore pressure stabilized at an unexpectedly higher value (above 2600 psig)
due to an unusual pressure differential between the exit pressure and the BPR
valve. Corrections were applied to PVI in order to account for the compression of
gas in the core.
Table 3.18 reports the corrected data: cumulative liquid volume at
reservoir conditions, cumulative gas volume at standard conditions, and pressure
drop as function of PVI. Figure 3.34 represents the reservoir simulation match
obtained with GEM, while Figure 3.35 shows the match attained with STARS
including hysteresis of the gas phase. Despite the final oil recovery calculated by
the simulator in the gas-hysteresis case being lower than that from the base
case, the mass of oil recovered matches the experimental data. This appears to
be a consequence of the mass transfer within the core, since the density of
produced oil varies with time and averages a different value from that observed
during the displacement with equilibrated fluids. Other than that, there is no
appreciable difference in match quality when the two simulations are compared.
Although this may lead one to think that relative permeability to gas phase does
not strongly depend on saturation history, comparison between the experimental
and simulated responses in a more detailed manner is necessary.
128
Table 3.18: Corrected data for Experiment # 2
Pore Cum.
Cum. Gas, Pressure
Volumes Liquid,
3 Std. Liters Drop, kPa
Injected res. cm
0.0103 0.66 0.000 36.71
0.0238 1.66 0.000 58.13
0.0664 4.28 0.000 56.22
0.0903 5.36 0.000 44.73
0.1121 6.31 0.000 35.92
0.1341 7.31 0.000 32.67
0.1598 8.72 0.000 30.39
0.1899 10.31 0.000 27.52
0.2121 11.48 0.000 25.51
0.2342 12.35 0.000 24.94
0.2366 12.43 0.000 29.99
0.2529 13.02 0.000 64.34
0.2673 13.24 0.000 75.30
0.2772 13.36 0.069 60.41
0.2856 13.45 0.108 48.50
0.2925 13.55 0.157 71.16
0.3026 13.68 0.245 46.23
0.3167 13.78 0.291 34.39
0.3344 13.97 0.375 26.30
0.3562 14.22 0.520 27.00
0.3776 14.68 0.660 31.64
0.3958 15.12 0.705 32.74
0.4172 15.73 0.740 31.92
0.4318 16.14 0.770 33.70
0.4461 16.59 0.787 37.29
0.4606 17.03 0.795 38.31
0.4642 17.15 0.797 41.19
0.5125 18.78 0.846 37.23
0.5405 19.91 0.901 39.71
0.5501 20.37 0.928 43.43
0.5655 21.09 0.972 49.31
0.5870 22.17 1.006 56.63
0.6122 23.44 1.044 60.57
0.6337 24.52 1.071 64.26
0.6557 25.88 1.099 65.60
0.6774 27.37 1.130 65.69
0.6954 28.56 1.157 55.33
0.7136 29.75 1.182 46.10
0.7322 30.63 1.201 41.96
0.7503 30.80 1.239 38.94
0.7646 31.15 1.350 31.93
0.7759 31.39 1.419 32.61
0.8011 31.95 1.591 31.31
0.8408 32.60 1.880 28.19
0.8802 33.12 2.210 26.83
0.9602 34.04 2.959 26.16
1.0251 34.58 3.562 23.67
1.1070 35.13 4.318 23.09
1.2110 35.64 5.389 23.10
1.8396 37.94 11.557 20.42
1.9739 38.12 12.748 21.57
4.0718 39.47 32.419 18.66
4.3877 39.48 35.362 17.75
4.6354 39.49 37.537 16.93
4.9097 39.51 39.917 17.37
5.2589 39.55 43.105 17.08
5.5770 39.60 46.092 17.26
5.9265 39.65 49.354 17.76
6.1879 39.65 51.841 17.32
6.2872 39.65 52.782 17.21
6.3279 39.65 52.989 16.14
129
Experiment # 2 Match in GEM - No Hysteresis

44 55
40 50
36 45
P. Drop, kPa or Cum. Gas, Std. l

3
32 40
28 35
24 30
20 25
16 20
12 15
8 10
CumLiq Exp CumLiq Sim
4 P.Drop Exp CumGas Exp 5
P.Drop Sim CumGas Sim
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Figure 3.34: Reservoir simulation match of Experiment # 2: No hysteresis

case
Experiment # 2 Match in STARS - Krg Hysteresis by BBM Method

44 55
40 50
36 45
P. Drop, kPa or Cum. Gas, Std. l

3
32 40
28 35
24 30
20 25
16 20
12 15
8 10
CumLiq Exp CumLiq Sim
4 P.Drop Exp CumGas Exp 5
P.Drop Sim CumGas Sim
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Figure 3.35: Experiment # 2 reservoir simulation match using hysteresis
130
Only the calculated pressure drop curves exhibit differences that call for
meticulous examination. A comparison of the experimental and calculated
pressure drop curves for the first PVI is presented in Figure 3.36. It can be
observed that none of the simulations was able to reproduce the initial behavior
(sharp increase in pressure drop) during oil flood and the last gas flood.
However, the use of krg hysteresis improved the match during the first gas flood
without varying the trends afterwards.
Comparison Between Pressure Drop Matches: Without
Gas Hysteresis and Using the BBM Method, Exp. # 2
80
st
1 Gas Oil nd
2 Gas
70 Injection Injection Injection
60
Pressure Drop, kPa
50
40
30
20 P.Drop Exp
P.Drop Sim NoHyst
P.Drop Sim BBM
10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 3.36: Experiment # 2 reservoir simulation prediction comparison for

the first PVI
The initial increase in pressure drop once oil injection was started could be
replicated using an imbibition gas relative permeability curve (krgi in the BBM
method) which is several orders of magnitude lower than krg values at low gas
saturations. Yet, the calculated pressure drop values tend to increase as oil is
injected, deviating from the measurements after 0.30 PVI. The experimental data
131
shows that there is a definite hysteretic trend between 0.23 and 0.30 PVI, but it is
reversed after that. A model considering hysteresis in krg is able to reproduce a
stagnation of the gas phase when liquid re-saturates the porous medium by
reducing krg at nearly the same gas saturation, producing a higher pressure drop.
This stagnation cannot be reversed by the model unless the gas saturation
increases again. It is evident that while an increase in gas saturation was not
calculated by the model during the oil injection stage, the experimental data
shows that a change in the gas phase flow pattern occurred which caused a
sudden reduction in pressure drop in that period. A physical mechanism that
could create that reversal in relative permeability is the reconnection of the liquid
flow path when liquid is injected, reducing the mobility of gas phase, but later
creating a compression effect on the gas, making it overcome its stagnation and
ultimately facilitating the displacement of gas by liquid, just as a model without
hysteresis would predict. In fewer words, the reduction in krg due to the gas
saturation reversal occurred temporarily and was later overturned. As the trend
change occurred without reversing the sign of saturation variation, the model
cannot properly simulate the phenomenon. Since the low pressure drop period
lasted longer than the high pressure drop one, a model without hysteresis in gas
phase could reproduce better the overall behavior than a model with strong
hysteresis.
The initial trend after the second gas injection period (0.55-0.75 PVI) could
not be replicated by the simulation model either. As gas saturation starts to
increase, the hysteresis theory predicts that the oil phase could experience a
reduction in its relative permeability. This is what the experimental data suggests
when pressure drop suddenly increases as soon as gas starts to be injected.
However, the simulator does not have the capability to apply hysteresis on the oil
phase when a gas saturation reversal occurs. On the contrary, the simulated
curves calculate a reduction in pressure drop as a consequence of the gas phase
increasing its saturation and returning to the krg drainage curve, which values are
higher than krgi at the same saturation values. Only after gas breaks through at
132
around 0.75 PVI, the calculated and measured pressure drop values start to
agree. Unlike the variation in pressure drop during oil injection, the measured
values vary smoothly with PVI. This suggests that the reduction in the relative
permeability of oil phase as a consequence of a gas saturation reversal (from
imbibition to drainage) is sustained, while the reduction in the relative
permeability of gas phase due to the shift from drainage to imbibition may be
reversed by mechanisms affecting the distribution and continuity of phases in the
porous medium.
The relative permeability curve parameters resulting from the match of
Experiment # 2 are presented in Table 3.19. Comparing the oil-water curve
parameters for the no-hysteresis case to those obtained for Experiment # 1
(Table 3.15), the parameters are practically identical. The high water saturation
value after Flood 14B still needs to be contrasted with the oil-water curves
resulting from the match of Experiment # 3 to conclude whether it was a product
of mass balance error or a result of the reduction of krw as a consequence of one
more cycle of oil drainage being conducted. Meanwhile, a reduction in oil relative
permeability endpoint from 0.36 to 0.32 was needed in order to improve the
match in the gas hysteresis case. The increase in connate water saturation from
0.325 to 0.345 allowed reproducing the initial pressure drop with higher precision.
The rest of the oil-water relative permeability parameters were not modified from
the no-hysteresis to the gas hysteresis simulation models.
Table 3.19: Corey correlation parameters resulting from the match of
Experiment # 2: Hysteresis and no-hysteresis cases
Oil-Water Oil-Gas
NoHys GasHys NoHys GasHys
Swr 0.3250 0.3450 Sorg 0.4100 0.4150
Sorw 0.3100 0.3100 Sgr 0 0
krocw 0.3700 0.3200 krgcw 0.0550 0.0680
krwro 0.0420 0.0420 aog 2.60 1.70
aow 2.50 2.50 ag 1.40 1.50
aw 2.60 2.60 agi 2.10
133
The oil-gas relative permeability curves exhibit some differences,
especially in the oil curvature exponent (aog), which was lower in the hysteresis
case in order for the pressure drop not to increase out of proportion when the
saturation history reverted to imbibition. On the other hand, the gas curvature
exponent of the imbibition curve (agi) does not show a considerable difference
with that of the drainage curve (2.1 compared to 1.5), supporting the observation
that hysteresis does not cause an appreciable difference in the calculated
response, as can be seen in Figure 3.36.
From Experiment # 1 to Experiment # 2 the residual oil saturation to gas
flood (Sorg) increased from 31% to 41% of the pore volume. The trapping of gas
as a discontinuous phase after the oil flood may have prevented the gas injected
afterward to reach those zones and then encounter less oil available to displace.
The final pressure drop in this test (around 16 kPa) was higher than that of
Experiment # 1 (9 kPa) for the same injection rate, which supports the
observation of a higher residual liquid saturation. The value of krgcw drops from
0.072 to 0.055 from the past to the current test, while ag increases slightly from
1.33 to 1.40. The composite effect is a reduction in krg at all gas saturation
values, although the difference is not as substantial as that of the krog curves.
In addition to agi, the BBM method requires more parameters to calculate
krg, as explained in Appendix B. Two dimensionless scanning curve exponents
determine the position and curvature of the krg scanning curves. These variables
are named as ENGD and ENGI. ENGI determines how close to the krgi curve the
values of krg become when gas saturation decreases (imbibition), while ENGD
controls the proximity to the drainage curve of the krg values when gas saturation
increases (drainage). The values employed in the simulation of Experiment # 2
were: ENGI = 0.2, ENGD = 0.7. As these values are lower than 1.0, during
imbibition the krg values fall closer to the drainage curve, while during drainage,
they lie in the proximity of the imbibition curve. Nevertheless, there is a net
reduction in krg from drainage to imbibition and a net increase from imbibition to
drainage. A third parameter called RNG determines whether the simulation starts
134
on the drainage (RNG = 1.0) or imbibition (RNG = 0.0) gas relative permeability
curves. For the simulation of this displacement, as gas was the first fluid to be
injected, RNG was set to be 1.0.
In summary, the results of Experiment # 2 showed that oil-water relative
permeability curves were virtually unchanged from one three-phase test to the
next. The only appreciable effect that mass transfer between the oil and gas
phases in the core had on the characterization of relative permeabilities resided
in the difficulty of establishing a relationship between the mass of oil recovered
and the equivalent gas saturation in the core, due to the variation in oil density
along the test. The re-saturation of oil after gas injection produced hysteretic
effects that were transitory and therefore not viable to model with the available
hysteresis models. Hysteresis proved useful to improve the quality of match
during particular intervals, but did not significantly change the simulated trends
when compared to the results from the no-hysteresis case. Experimentally
speaking, there was evidence of hysteresis in oil relative permeability under a
gas saturation reversal (from imbibition to drainage), but the reservoir simulator
only has the capability to apply hysteresis on kro under a water saturation
reversal. A significant increase in Sorg from the first to the second tests appears
to be explained by trapping of the gas phase. Gas injected after the oil flood does
not easily displace oil from areas where gas from the first flood has been trapped
by the injection of oil.
To this point, water had been flowing at very low rates in the core, at
saturations close to Swr. In the following tests, simultaneous flow of oil, water and
gas are to be explored.
In this experiment, the displacement of oil and water by the gas phase
was investigated. An amount of gas-equilibrated brine (later determined to be
0.207 PV) was injected before flooding with flue gas (previously equilibrated with
135
oil and brine) until negligible liquid production and a stable pressure drop was
achieved.
Corrections to the raw data consisting of cumulative volumes of oil, brine
and gas, as well as pressure drop were applied, according to the observations
made in the previous two tests. The reservoir simulator GEM was used to
simulate and match the corrected data. Hysteresis in water and oil saturation was
also attempted in STARS to improve the match considering the water saturation
reversal.
The cylinder arrangement prepared for Experiment # 1 and shown in

Figure 3.27 was employed in this test. Meanwhile, Cylinder # 3 was filled with
gas-equilibrated brine. A volume of brine equivalent to less than 0.22 PV (later
determined to be 0.207 PV effective) was displaced through the core and then,
without stopping the pump, gas started to be injected. A total of 8.36 PV were
flowed through the core, and the experiment was terminated once the liquid
production rate became negligible and pressure drop achieved a stable value.
In order to prepare the system for the following experiment, the procedure
to restore the near-connate water saturation condition was carried out, as
explained in Section 3.4.3.1. First, gas was expanded to atmospheric pressure
while measuring its volume at successive pressure steps. Then, oil was injected
at atmospheric pressure and room temperature to remove most of the continuous
gas saturation and replace it by oil. Pressurizing and heating up was conducted
to compress and dissolve the remaining gas. Gas-equilibrated brine was later
injected until the endpoint was reached. Next, gas-equilibrated oil was flooded
until a stable gas-liquid ratio, pressure drop and negligible water production was
observed.
The raw data was corrected to obtain the cumulative volumes of water and
oil at reservoir conditions, the cumulative volume of gas at standard conditions
136
and pressure drop as a function of PVI. The experiment was simulated using
GEM without including hysteresis on any phase, and the oil-water and oil-gas
relative permeability curve parameters were adjusted to match the experimental
response as precisely as possible. As during water injection there is an imbibition
process, but then gas is injected and both oil and water saturation start to
decrease establishing a drainage process, the water saturation reversal was
expected to have an effect on the mobility of phases. Consequently, hysteresis
on both oil and water relative permeability was taken into account by employing
the BBM method in the simulator STARS.
The material balance based on produced mass of liquids and converted to

equivalent volume at reservoir conditions for the displacements corresponding to
Experiment # 3 and the restoring of a near-connate water saturation condition for
the following test is presented in Table 3.20. The sequence of brine and gas
injection corresponding to Experiment # 3 is regarded as Flood 15A, while Flood
15B refers to the expansion of gas to atmospheric pressure at room temperature.
Flood 16 refers to the oil flood at atmospheric pressure at the producing end of
the core. The injection of gas-equilibrated brine at operating conditions
corresponds to Floods 17A and 17B, and lastly, the injection of gas-equilibrated
oil at operating conditions is reported as Floods 18A and 18B.
The reported net displaced volume of water in Flood 15A is a negative
value since the mass of water injected was higher than the mass of water
produced. This was expected since water is the wetting phase, and thus it is
more difficult to displace with a high-mobility fluid, as is gas. The final gas
saturation of 0.2563 is low when compared to that from previous tests, but
supported by the gas volume calculations made from the expansion of gas to
atmospheric pressure. In the case that the match of relative permeability reveals
a significant reduction in Sorg, it would be an indication that the oil-gas relative
137
permeability curves (especially the krog curve) are cycle-dependent. It is
expected, in the case that no cycle dependency is present, that Sorg would be
lower than that of Experiment # 2, and closer to that of Experiment # 1, since no
gas trapping mechanism is developed in this test.
Table 3.20: Initial and final saturations for Experiment # 3 and subsequent
gas expansion, dead oil, and equilibrated water and oil floods
Disp. Disp.
cm res. cm
15A Water-Gas Flood 8.36 0.3942 0.6058 19.20 -2.84 0.4381 0.3093 0.2526
15B Gas Expansion 0.00 0.4381 0.3093 3.85 2.72 0.3961 0.2498 0.3541
16 Oil Flood Atm 2.43 0.3961 0.2498 3.80 0.3374 0.6626 0.0000
17A Water Flood 5.49 0.3374 0.6626 22.64 0.6870 0.3130 0.0000
17B Water Flood Extra 1.00 0.6870 0.3130 0.08 0.6883 0.3117 0.0000
18A Oil Flood 7.05 0.6883 0.3117 20.05 0.3787 0.6213 0.0000
18B Oil Flood Extra 1.50 0.3787 0.6213 0.15 0.3763 0.6237 0.0000
After nearly 6.5 PVI, the residual oil saturation to gas-equilibrated brine
flood resulted to be 0.3117. Once again, this value is very consistent around the
accepted Sorw of 31%, and confirms the certainty of mass balance and the high
stability of the displacement of oil by water in this rock specimen. Gas-
equilibrated oil flood totaling more than 8.5 PVI yielded a final water saturation of
0.3763. The variance of this saturation value has been shown to be higher, which
is explained by the fact that the displacement of water by oil is unstable (mobility
ratio higher than unity), and therefore it is more easily affected by the distribution
of phases in the porous medium, leading to viscous fingering and other micro
scale effects.
Figure 3.37 displays the pressure and pressure drop behavior during
Experiment # 3 as obtained from the data acquisition system, while Figure 3.38
exhibits the cumulative amounts of oil, water and gas as observed along the test.
Despite having displaced more than 8 PV of gas through the core, a steady state
condition does not appear to have developed. The pressure drop data shows
138
that, unlike the first two tests, the BPR valve opening and closing cycles were still
present at the end of this displacement, while incremental liquid production
continued to be measured (although the rate was very low). The higher amount
of liquid produced during the gas expansion (almost 6.6 cm3) compared to that
from the previous tests (2.6 cm3 for the first one and 4.1 cm3 for the second one)
supports the observation that residual liquid saturation was far from being
reached in this test. Limitations in the available volume of gas to be injected
caused the test to end without attaining the desired condition. This partially
explains the low final gas saturation, but still needs to be confirmed with the
relative permeability curve parameters obtained by reservoir simulation.

3500 26
3400 23
3300 Overburden Pressure 20
3200 17
Pressure Drop, psi

Pressure, psig
3100 14
3000 11
High DP
2900 8
2800 5
2700 2
Back Pressure Low DP
2600 -1
2500 -4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Elapsed Time, min
139
Raw Data for Exp. # 3: Cumulative Oil, Water & Gas

21 84
18 72
15 60
Gas Volume, liters

Liquid Mass, g
12 48
9 36
6 24
Cumulative Oil
Cumulative Water
3 12
Cumulative Gas
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.38: Cumulative masses of oil and water and volume of gas as
measured for Experiment # 3
The corrected data composed of cumulative volumes of oil and water at

reservoir conditions, cumulative volume of gas at standard conditions and
pressure drop as a function of PVI is reported in Table 3.21. The match obtained
with the reservoir simulator GEM is presented in Figure 3.39. Meanwhile, the
match attained with the reservoir simulator STARS using the BBM method for
hysteresis on oil and water phases is depicted in Figure 3.40. The match of the
experimental trends at later times in Figure 3.40 is more favorable than that of
Figure 3.39, as noticed by the improvement in the prediction of water and gas
volumes, although the difference is not large. Figure 3.41 focuses on the first
pore volume injected and displays the gas and water volume curves, comparing
the experimental data with the two simulated responses. In this comparison, it is
apparent that the model including hysteresis deviates from the experimental gas
volume at early times. All in all, the inclusion of oil and water hysteresis as a
consequence of the water saturation reversal did not significantly change the
goodness of the match. As a consequence, it is possible to conclude that the
140
formulation of dependence on saturation history is not necessary for simulating
situations where a water saturation reversal occurs in the current rock-fluid
system.

Pore Cum. Cum. Cum.
Pressure
Volumes Oil, res. Water, Gas, Std.
3 3 Drop, kPa
Injected cm res. cm Liters
0.0055 0.35 0.00 0.010 52.01
0.0275 1.73 0.01 0.035 53.41
0.0606 3.92 0.01 0.071 58.07
0.0790 5.02 0.01 0.089 62.22
0.1010 6.50 0.02 0.106 65.16
0.1194 7.27 0.02 0.115 69.51
0.1452 8.04 0.02 0.126 82.89
0.1633 9.03 0.02 0.139 90.10
0.1716 10.23 0.03 0.163 96.53
0.1830 11.04 0.03 0.185 110.66
0.1955 12.14 0.03 0.207 125.48
0.2062 13.14 0.04 0.225 144.10
0.2071 13.21 0.04 0.226 145.93
0.2240 14.52 0.04 0.249 181.33
0.2469 16.10 0.05 0.275 153.06
0.2686 17.42 0.05 0.296 126.86
0.2871 18.35 0.05 0.311 104.11
0.3033 18.65 0.07 0.318 90.32
0.3129 18.91 0.24 0.338 84.12
0.3162 19.00 0.43 0.368 77.91
0.3203 19.05 0.57 0.391 73.77
0.3418 19.20 0.97 0.460 59.92
0.3738 19.34 1.46 0.554 46.33
0.3955 19.38 1.73 0.611 40.47
0.4025 19.39 1.82 0.634 38.82
0.4385 19.42 2.19 0.831 34.75
0.4749 19.46 2.48 1.066 33.99
0.5292 19.50 2.85 1.504 33.30
0.5730 19.53 3.11 1.816 32.89
0.6564 19.58 3.54 2.388 31.85
0.6692 19.58 3.60 2.463 31.16
0.7551 19.62 4.00 3.124 30.34
0.8785 19.66 4.47 4.137 28.75
1.0083 19.70 4.87 5.160 27.79
1.1645 19.74 5.24 6.438 26.75
1.3141 19.76 5.55 7.656 26.20
1.4713 19.78 5.86 9.006 25.44
1.4808 19.78 5.88 9.110 25.37
1.6282 19.80 6.11 10.413 24.89
1.8426 19.82 6.43 12.263 24.34
2.7367 19.89 7.41 20.257 22.41
4.5241 19.97 8.46 36.074 19.79
4.5928 19.97 8.49 36.702 19.72
4.8398 19.99 8.59 38.907 19.44
5.6511 20.05 8.78 46.313 18.55
7.1523 20.29 9.04 60.112 17.37
8.3558 20.57 9.19 70.822 16.55
141

21 182
18 156
P.Drop, kPa or Cum. Gas, Std Liters

3
Cumulative Water or Oil, res. cm
15 CumOil Exp CumLiq Sim 130

CumWat Exp CumWat Sim
P.Drop Exp CumGas Exp
12 P.Drop Sim CumGas Sim 104
9 78
6 52
3 26
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Figure 3.39: Match of Experiment # 3: Simulation without hysteresis
Experiment # 3 Match in STARS - BBM Method

21 182
18 156
P.Drop, kPa or Cum. Gas, Std.Liters

3
15 CumOil Exp CumLiq Sim 130

9 78
6 52
3 26
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Figure 3.40: Match of Experiment # 3: Simulation including hysteresis
142
Experiment # 3 Match - Comparison Between Hysteresis and No
Hysteresis Cases
5.0 7.0
CumWat Exp CumWat No Hys
4.5 CumGas Hyst CumWat Hyst 6.3
CumGas Exp CumGas No Hys

4.0 5.6
3
Cumulative Gas, Std. Liters

Cumulative Water, res. cm
3.5 4.9
3.0 4.2
2.5 3.5
2.0 2.8
1.5 2.1
1.0 1.4
0.5 0.7
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 3.41: Comparison of simulator predictions for Experiment # 3 at

early times
Table 3.22 presents the adjusted oil-water and oil-gas relative permeability
parameters used to match the experimental data as shown in Figures 3.39 and
3.40. The values of oil and water curvature exponents for the imbibition curves
are very close to those for the drainage curves. This corroborates that the
hysteresis effect was minimal and that a model without hysteresis is suitable to
reproduce the flow of three phases for the current flow configuration.
Table 3.22: Corey correlation parameters for the match of Experiment # 3

Oil-Water Oil-Gas
NoHys Hyst NoHys Hyst
Swr 0.3250 0.3250 Sorg 0.330 0.360
Sorw 0.3100 0.3100 Sgr 0 0
krocw 0.4400 0.4400 krgcw 0.0930 0.0850
krwro 0.0200 0.0240 aog 5.20 4.40
aow 1.70 1.70 ag 1.70 1.70
aw 3.40 3.90
aowi 1.80
awi 3.70
143
There was an appreciable change in relative permeability curve
parameters from the previous experiment (reported in Table 3.19). The water
relative permeability endpoint, krwro, experienced a reduction from 0.042 to 0.020.
Previously, during the two- and three-phase displacements, reductions in this
endpoint were observed as a consequence of the cycle-dependency of water
relative permeability. The uncertainty of this parameter is low since the pressure
drop curve was reproduced with good precision. The oil relative permeability
endpoint (krocw) increased from 0.37 to 0.44, while the curvature exponents
changed from being virtually equal (aow=2.5, aw=2.6) in Experiment # 2 to
substantially different (aow=1.7, aw=3.4) in this test. All of the changes were in the
direction of increasing krow and reducing krw. Since the first two experiments were
carried out at very low water saturations, it was expected that the tendency of the
rock of becoming more water-wet as more cycles of oil drainage and water
imbibition were performed, were going to become evident in this displacement.
This helps in explaining the higher water saturations obtained after oil flooding,
when compared to those exhibited during the two-phase experiments.
As expected, Sorg was determined to be lower than that of Experiment # 2
(0.330 now versus 0.415 before), but slightly higher than that of the first test,
when Sorg = 0.311. The possibility for this endpoint to be identical to that from
Experiment # 1 exists, considering that the final oil saturation in this test was
substantially higher than that attained in the first experiment, and thus, the
extrapolation from the saturations at which the experiment was matched to the
endpoint is more uncertain for the present test. On the other hand, as explained
before, the higher value obtained from Experiment # 2 responds to the gas
trapping during the oil flood phase. The gas relative permeability endpoint also
presents better agreement to that from Experiment # 1 than to that from the
second test. Both curvature exponents (aog and ag) have consistently increased
from 1.85 and 1.33 (respectively) in the first test, to 2.60 and 1.40 in the second,
and to 5.20 and 1.70 in this experiment. This suggests that oil-gas relative
144
permeability curves change every time that gas saturation completes a cycle,
and had not reached stability.
The modeling of oil and water hysteresis with the BBM technique required
the use of interpolating parameters to obtain the scanning curves. ENWI and
ENWD represent dimensionless scanning curve exponents for the non-wetting
phase (oil) when a water saturation reversal occurs from drainage to imbibition
and from imbibition to drainage, respectively. Both parameters were set at a
value of 20, which indicates a very rapid change from one curve to the other,
considering that a typical value for these exponents is 1.0. EWTI and EWTD are
the dimensionless scanning curve exponents for the wetting phase (water) when
a water saturation reversal occurs from drainage to imbibition and from imbibition
to drainage, respectively. Their values were also fixed to be 20. Once these
parameters were fixed, the critical parameters to adjust were the imbibition curve
curvature exponents: awi and aowi, reducing the number of parameters to modify
to obtain the match. In addition to that, it was specified that the phases would
start on the imbibition curves by setting the parameters RNW and RWT to be
zero.
Summarizing the findings of the analysis of this test, it can be concluded
that despite water saturation being high when the gas flood started, the relative
permeability curves obtained were similar to those obtained during Experiment #
1. The rock continues to be increasingly water-wet at every imbibition/drainage
cycle, while oil-gas relative permeability shows cycle-dependency which has not
been stabilized to this point. The difference in characterization from that of
Experiment # 2 leads to the conclusion that gas trapping affects the relative
permeability curves necessary to simulate the phase flow without hysteresis.
Finally, a water saturation reversal did not generate hysteretic effects in the
porous medium.
The next experiment investigates the injection sequence that appears to
be the most alike to a typical HPAI flow situation.
145
In addition to the displacement of oil and water by gas, the re-imbibition of

liquid phase (oil) after gas had been injected, was studied in this experiment.
Approximately the same amount of gas-equilibrated brine injected in Experiment
# 3 was used at the beginning of this test (later determined to be 0.212 PV),
followed by the injection of 0.229 PV of gas and 0.313 PV of gas-equilibrated oil
(similar to the first gas injection and consequent oil flood during Experiment # 2),
and the final injection of gas until negligible liquid production and a stable
pressure drop was achieved.
The raw data was corrected to obtain the cumulative volumes of oil and
brine at reservoir conditions, the cumulative volume of gas at standard conditions
and pressure drop as a function of PVI. The reservoir simulator GEM was
employed to reproduce the experimental data as accurately as possible. STARS
was also used in conjunction with the BBM method to explore the need of
considering hysteresis on the relative permeability of oil, water and gas.
Cylinders # 1 and 2 were employed to inject gas dynamically equilibrated

with oil and brine, as in experiments # 1 and 3. Cylinder # 3 was filled with gas-
equilibrated brine, and an external cylinder was used to displace gas-equilibrated
oil into the core. The cylinder was kept at the operating pressure and room
temperature, but the injection line downstream was kept in the cylinders
compartment for the oil to be at the operating temperature when reaching the
core. Once the desired amount of each fluid was injected, the valves were
operated to change to the next fluid in the sequence, without stopping the pump.
A total of 8.82 PV were injected through the core.
146
Since this was the last experiment to be conducted, the expansion of gas
to atmospheric pressure at room temperature was carried out, and then the
system was bled down and the core was dismounted.
The corrected data was matched using both GEM and STARS reservoir
simulators. As at least three saturation reversals occurred in this experiment
(water saturation reversal from water injection to gas injection, then gas
saturation reversal from gas injection to oil injection, and another gas saturation
reversal from oil injection to gas injection), hysteresis on oil and water phases
during a water saturation reversal and on gas phase during a gas saturation
reversal, were explored in the simulator in STARS using the BBM method.
In Table 3.23 the mass balance for Experiment # 4 (Flood 19) is

presented. The net volumes of oil and brine withdrawn from the core are similar
to those from Experiment # 3 (Flood 15A in Table 3.20). The final water
saturation is lower than that of the previous test, mainly due to the volume of oil
injected, which displaces water more efficiently than gas does. The higher oil
saturation (0.3297 now versus 0.3093 before) is also explained by the oil
injection, which was absent from the previous test, and is more comparable to
that from Experiment # 2 (0.3403), considering that such test included oil re-
saturation. The final gas saturation of 0.2409 is the lowest of all the tests
performed, suggesting a higher residual oil saturation to gas flood. However, this
would have to be confirmed with the relative permeability parameters resulting
from the match of the experimental data.
Table 3.23: Initial and final saturation for Experiment # 4 from mass balance
Disp. Disp.
cm res. cm
Water-Gas-Oil-
19 8.82 0.3763 0.6237 19.04 -3.44 0.4294 0.3297 0.2409
Gas Flood
147
Figure 3.42 presents the pressure and pressure drop raw data obtained
for Experiment # 4. At around 200 minutes (during the oil flood) the pressure
drop was above the full-scale values of both differential pressure transducers. To
obtain representative values during this high drop pressure period, the difference
between injection and exit pressure (as measured by the absolute pressure
transducers) was correlated to the values measured by the high DP transducer,
and the relationship was applied to calculate high DP from the available
difference in absolute pressure. In intervals where there is high DP data but the
low DP transducer was isolated, a correlation between high DP and low DP was
applied to calculate the corresponding low DP. This way, all of the pressure drop
values measured from the three sources were normalized to equivalent values of
the low DP transducer, in order to obtain a continuous and consistent curve. The
pressure drop curve appeared to be stable after nearly 2,000 minutes elapsed,
but the high degree of dispersion does not allow stating a definite conclusion.
Pres sure and Pres sure Dr op Ra w Data for Exper ime nt # 4

3400 35
3300
Overburden Pressure 30
3200 25
P.Drop above max.
3100 transducer DP 20
psii
Pressure Drop, ps
Pressure, psig
3000 15
2900 10
2800 High DP 5
2700 0
Back Pressure Low
Lo w DP
2600 -5
2500
Injection & Exit Pressure -10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
Elapsed Time, mi
min
n
148
In Figure 3.43, the uncorrected cumulative mass of oil and water, and
cumulative volume of gas are shown. The trends at later times indicate that
further liquid could have been produced out of the core if the experiment had
continued. This implies that an endpoint was not reached. The test was
terminated due to limitations in the amount of gas available to be injected.
Raw Data for Exp. # 4: Cumulative Oil, Water & Gas

40 96
35 84
30 72
Cumulative Oil
Gas Volume, liters

25 Cumulative Water 60
Liquid Mass, g
Cumulative Gas
20 48
15 36
10 24
5 12
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
Elapsed Time, min
Figure 3.43: Cumulative oil and water mass, and gas volume measured for
Experiment # 4
The corrected cumulative volumes of oil and water at operating conditions,

cumulative volume of gas at standard conditions and pressure drop as function of
PVI are reported in Table 3.24. The pressure drop data, after normalizing,
correction by static pressure drop, averaging and smoothing, shows that a stable
value at the end of the displacement was not achieved, contrasting with what
appeared to be the case when observing the raw data.
149
Pore Cum. Cum. Cum.
Pressure
Volumes Oil, res. Water, Gas, Std.
3 3 Drop, kPa
Injected cm res. cm Liters
0.0065 0.41 0.00 0.007 37.70
0.0317 1.98 0.00 0.035 39.38
0.0537 3.35 0.00 0.058 42.13
0.0790 4.93 0.00 0.086 45.78
0.1073 6.65 0.00 0.116 52.02
0.1420 8.82 0.00 0.154 54.22
0.1625 10.52 0.00 0.184 82.10
0.1928 12.22 0.00 0.214 86.83
0.2116 13.42 0.00 0.235 97.04
0.2180 13.82 0.00 0.241 100.49
0.2463 15.71 0.00 0.274 83.72
0.2684 17.10 0.04 0.290 66.28
0.2905 18.22 0.16 0.331 61.30
0.2999 18.54 0.21 0.371 54.76
0.3220 18.93 0.28 0.521 50.44
0.3377 19.14 0.33 0.621 47.34
0.3566 19.40 0.40 0.738 49.12
0.3693 19.54 0.44 0.805 41.39
0.3979 19.88 0.54 0.997 34.31
0.4203 20.18 0.65 1.124 31.19
0.4408 20.31 0.71 1.263 80.63
0.4442 20.33 0.72 1.286 88.84
0.4714 20.38 1.14 1.458 214.63
0.5065 20.40 3.42 1.502 261.86
0.5384 20.45 4.84 1.522 247.26
0.5576 20.53 5.77 1.541 196.23
0.5831 21.08 6.73 1.569 168.16
0.6119 22.28 7.29 1.603 168.73
0.6438 23.65 7.57 1.635 156.93
0.6757 24.54 7.61 1.650 89.82
0.6981 25.59 7.67 1.671 137.01
0.7178 27.06 7.86 1.705 149.26
0.7411 28.08 8.02 1.735 111.90
0.7541 28.77 8.12 1.753 101.87
0.7653 29.36 8.21 1.768 93.25
0.7968 31.13 8.43 1.811 66.10
0.8220 32.35 8.57 1.864 67.23
0.8472 33.29 8.72 1.978 69.08
0.8692 34.07 8.87 2.093 61.17
0.9197 34.99 9.09 2.460 53.02
0.9639 35.42 9.22 2.703 36.44
1.0017 35.65 9.34 3.077 46.09
1.0490 35.85 9.49 3.299 43.34
1.0963 36.10 9.63 3.656 29.87
1.1593 36.45 9.80 4.095 28.83
1.2159 36.74 9.88 4.430 29.72
1.3926 37.49 10.06 5.483 25.46
1.5754 37.77 10.09 6.823 18.13
1.9316 38.20 10.13 10.062 16.84
2.0042 38.27 10.13 10.668 15.15
2.4315 38.62 10.16 14.467 11.96
4.2137 39.76 10.21 31.054 10.73
4.8972 39.94 10.22 37.367 9.81
5.4602 40.08 10.22 42.598 9.84
6.0545 40.23 10.22 48.122 9.37
6.9180 40.42 10.23 56.126 8.81
8.7143 40.79 10.24 73.324 8.60
8.8110 40.80 10.24 73.795 7.92
150
Figure 3.44 depicts the match obtained by reservoir simulation of this test
in GEM, without employing hysteresis in relative permeability. It is apparent that
the model could not satisfactorily reproduce the production and pressure drop
behavior at all stages during the experiment. Figure 3.45 shows the match for the
first PVI, where the variations in trends are more dramatic. During water and the
first gas injection periods, the agreement between the model and the
experimental data is adequate, as expected from the good match in Experiment
# 3. However, a major deviation is observed after the start of oil injection. The
model without hysteresis could not suitably predict either the steep raise in
pressure drop or the increase in water phase flow rate presented after 0.44 PVI.
What this directly implies is that the gas saturation reversal that occurred once oil
started to be injected affected the flow behavior and that hysteresis in relative
permeability might be useful to replicate the experimental trends. The boost in
pressure drop indicates that at least one of the fluids in the porous medium
appreciably reduced its mobility. The increase in water rate evidences that the
reduction in mobility of the other one or two phases improved the mobility of
water phase. Theory states that upon a gas saturation reversal from drainage to
imbibition, krg would be reduced.
151

44 275
40 250
36 225

Cumulative Liquid, res. cm 3
32 200
CumOil Exp CumLiq Sim
28 175
20 125
16 100
12 75
8 50
4 25
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Figure 3.44: Match of Experiment # 4 without employing hysteresis
Experiment # 4 Match: 0 to 1 PVI - No Hysteresis

40 280
CumOil Sim CumWat Sim
CumOil Exp CumWat Exp
P.Drop Sim
P.Drop Exp
35 245
Oil
Injection
Cumulative Water or Oil, res. cm3
30 210
Water Gas Gas
Injection Injection Injection Pressure Drop, kPa
25 175
20 140
15 105
10 70
5 35
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 3.45: Match of Experiment # 4 (0-1 PVI) without using hysteresis
152
In Figure 3.46 the match obtained with the reservoir simulator STARS and
considering hysteresis on krg by means of the BBM method is displayed. It is
noticeable that the quality of the match was improved. In the later times, the
calculated oil recovery deviates from the experimental points. It is believed that
sudden depressurization of the core due to the BPR cycles caused an
appreciable amount of oil to be produced during the overnight interval from 2.5 to
4.0 PVI approximately, probably causing trapped gas to expand and displace
additional oil to that movable under smooth constant rate displacement
conditions.
Figure 3.47 provides a closer look to the first pore volume injected. The
improvement in the reproduction of experimental performance is significant,
especially in the pressure drop and cumulative water curves. Despite the
deviation still noticed, the match was considered to be optimal based on the
following observations: First, the higher the pressure drop value, the more
uncertain, since the differential pressure transducers were at its top reading and
the reported value represents an extrapolation of the previously explained
correlation, and thus, it is possible to state that the pressure drop curve has been
matched within its uncertainty range. Second, in order to increase the calculated
pressure drop, a higher level of hysteresis of gas phase would have to be
introduced, causing a higher mobility of oil and water phases, which would make
the cumulative oil curve deviate from the experimental data during the oil
injection phase. This represents a limitation of the numerical simulator to
reproduce the experiment rather than an excessive uncertainty of the values
measured during the high pressure drop period. And finally, the match attained
is considered to be within the experimental range of uncertainty for the
cumulative liquid volumes, considering all sources of error and the limitations of
the relative permeability curve and hysteresis models. After the second gas
saturation reversal, the model replicates very well the experimental trends.
153
Experiment # 4 Match in STARS: BBM Method
44 220
40 200
36 180

3
32 160
CumOil Exp CumLiq Sim
28 140
20 100
16 80
12 60
8 40
4 20
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Figure 3.46: Match of Experiment # 4 employing hysteresis
Experiment # 4 Match: 0 to 1 PVI - BBM Hysteresis Model

40 280
CumOil Sim CumWat Sim
CumOil Exp CumWat Exp
P.Drop Sim
P.Drop Exp
35 245
Oil
Injection
Cumulative Water or Oil, res. cm3
30 210
Water Gas Gas
Injection Injection Injection
25 175 Pressure Drop, kPa
20 140
15 105
10 70
5 35
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Pore Volumes Injected, PVI
Figure 3.47: Match of Experiment # 4 (0-1 PVI) using hysteresis
154
The match of the cumulative gas curve for the first PVI is depicted in
Figure 3.48. This plot confirms the occurrence of hysteresis in gas phase kr, as
noticed by the drastic reduction in gas flow rate from the trend followed after gas
breakthrough (at around 0.30 PVI) to the trend displayed after the start of oil
injection. This evidences that when liquid re-saturates the porous medium
previously flooded by gas, continuity in the liquid flow path is reestablished,
causing a reduction in the mobility of gas phase, which is only restored once gas
saturation starts to increase again (unlike Experiment # 2). The arrow in Figure
3.44 signals the change in prediction of cumulative gas from the model that does
not consider hysteresis to the model including the BBM method. The model
without hysteresis predicts that gas production rate does not change until it has
displaced most of the free gas in the core. Meanwhile, the model that uses the
BBM method calculates a reduction in gas rate more promptly after the start of oil
injection. The experimental results strongly suggest that gas relative permeability
is sensitive to changes in the direction of gas saturation variation.
Experiment # 4 Match: BBM Hysteresis Model

4.0
3.5 CumGas Exp

CumGas Hyst BBM Oil
CumGas No Hys Injection
3.0
Cumulative gas, Std. Liters
2.5
2.0
Water Gas
Injection Injection
1.5
1.0
Gas
Injection
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 3.48: Comparison of cumulative gas predictions for Experiment # 4

including and not including hysteresis
155
Table 3.25 reports the relative permeability curve parameters resulting
from the match of both reservoir simulator models: considering and without
considering hysteresis. As it was the case for Experiment # 3, differences
between the two models in oil-water relative permeability curves are minor, and
the curvature exponents for the imbibition curves (aowi and awi) are very similar to
those obtained for the drainage curves, indicating that water saturation reversals
cause small hysteretic effects. The oil and water relative permeability endpoints
are very consistent with those obtained from Experiment # 3, suggesting that the
rock achieved equilibrium with the fluids after several imbibition and drainage
cycles were performed.
Table 3.25: kr Corey correlation parameters obtained for Experiment # 4

Oil-Water Oil-Gas
NoHys Hyst NoHys Hyst
Swr 0.3450 0.3450 Sorg 0.4050 0.2850
Sorw 0.3070 0.3070 Sgr 0 0
krocw 0.4200 0.4400 krgcw 0.0930 0.1160
krwro 0.0250 0.0280 aog 2.10 4.20
aow 1.85 1.80 ag 1.50 1.65
aw 2.60 3.10 agi 7.00
aowi 1.86
awi 2.30
The more significant differences occurred between gas-oil relative

permeability curve parameters. The gas curvature exponent for the imbibition
curve (agi) was found to be 7.0, substantially different from that for the drainage
curve, which was determined to be 1.65. This demonstrates the necessity of
hysteresis to properly represent the trends of the experimental data. The model
simulated with GEM used parameters that are very similar to those from the
match of Experiment # 2: Sorg for this test was 0.405, and for Experiment # 2 was
0.410, while the curvature exponents were 2.1 and 1.5 (for oil and water curves
respectively) for this test, and 2.6 and 1.4 for the previous one. The substantial
difference was in krgcw, which for this experiment was higher (0.093) when
compared to that of the second test (0.055). One explanation for this difference in
156
krgcw is that before Experiment # 2, gas could have not been totally removed from
the porous medium after expansion to atmospheric pressure and oil flood, and
hence, the trapped gas from the previous test remained opposing resistance to
the flow of all phases. This hypothesis is supported by the low value of krocw
observed during the second test. Since the model without hysteresis did not
adequately reproduce the experimental performance, the analysis of the
parameters obtained by the simulation model in STARS becomes of higher
importance to formulate an improved characterization of relative permeability.
The relative permeability curve parameters for the model that considered
hysteresis exhibit agreement with those from Experiment # 3. The curvature
exponents went from aog = 5.20, ag = 1.70 in the previous test to aog = 4.20, ag =
1.65 in this experiment. The increasing trend of these parameters pointed out in
Section 3.4.4.2 appears to have ceased, and stability in gas-oil relative
permeability with every drainage/imbibition cycle seems to have been attained.
Despite Sorg being lower than that from all previous displacements, the value of
0.285 found for this test compares better to the values of 0.311 and 0.330
obtained for experiments 1 and 3 than to the value of 0.410 from the match of
Experiment # 2. The same trend is observed for the parameter krgcw, which
resulted to be 0.072 for Experiment # 1, 0.055 for Experiment # 2, 0.093 for
Experiment # 3 and 0.116 for Experiment # 4. Table 3.26 summarizes the
relative permeability curve parameters obtained from all four 3-phase
displacements conducted.
157
Table 3.26: Summary of kr parameters obtained for the three-phase
experiments
Oil-Water
Exp.#1 Exp. # 2 Exp. # 3 Exp. # 4
NoHys NoHys Hyst NoHys Hyst NoHys Hyst
Swr 0.325 0.325 0.345 0.325 0.325 0.345 0.345
Sorw 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.307 0.307
krocw 0.360 0.370 0.320 0.440 0.440 0.420 0.440
krwro 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.020 0.024 0.025 0.028
aow 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.70 1.70 1.85 1.80
aw 2.60 2.60 2.60 3.40 3.90 2.60 3.10
aowi 1.80 1.86
awi 3.70 2.30
Oil-Gas
Exp.#1 Exp. # 2 Exp. # 3 Exp. # 4
NoHys NoHys Hyst NoHys Hyst NoHys Hyst
Sorg 0.311 0.410 0.415 0.330 0.360 0.405 0.285
Sgr 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
krgcw 0.072 0.055 0.068 0.093 0.085 0.093 0.116
aog 1.85 2.60 1.70 5.20 4.40 2.10 4.20
ag 1.33 1.40 1.50 1.70 1.70 1.50 1.65
agi 2.10 7.00
A graphic comparison of oil-water relative permeability curves (drainage

case) for the four 3-phase experiments is depicted in Figure 3.49. The trend of
reduction in krw and increase in krow with every cycle is evident in this graph.
Curves from the last two tests are practically identical, suggesting that stability
between the rock and the liquids has been reached. The likeness between the
curves from the first and second tests has more to do with the fact that they were
conducted at very low water saturation and then, krw and krow at high water
saturations were highly uncertain. The imbibition curves (for tests 3 and 4, where
Sw reversals occurred) were not compared since the difference with the drainage
ones was found to be little.
158
Comparison of water-oil relative permeability curves: All 4 Tests
1.E+00
1.E-01
Fractio
1.E-02
1.E-03
Krow Exp1 Krw Exp1

Krow Exp2 Krw Exp2
1.E-04
Krow Exp3 Krw Exp3
Krow Exp4 Krw Exp4
1.E-05
0 .3 0 0.35 0 .4 0 0.45 0 .5 0 0 .5 5 0 .6 0 0 .6 5 0 .7 0
Figure 3.49: Comparison of oil-water kr curves from all three-phase tests
In Figure 3.50, the oil-gas relative permeability curves (drainage case)

obtained for the three-phase displacements are displayed. The krg curves from all
displacements follow the same variation, and fall within a reasonably narrow
range, indicating that cycle dependency was rather small. This also implies that a
krg curve obtained from a displacement at connate water saturation can be used
to model three-phase behavior under a variety of processes.
On the other hand, the variation of krog curves does not appear to respond
to a predictable dependency on the number of cycles or the kind of process
carried out. The explanation for this scattering is that the effective relative
permeability to oil (kro), which is the mid-phase (gas being the non-wetting phase
and water, the wetting phase), is calculated by the three-phase relative
permeability routine employed by the simulators: the second Stone’s method,
based on krow and krog values, and this technique does not necessarily provide
the most convenient interpolation for kro. Meanwhile, the values of krw and krg are
obtained directly from the two-phase curves. The fact that very different values of
Sorg were calculated for the displacements exacerbates the dispersion in krog
159
curves. In the case where gas saturation reversals occurred (Experiment # 2 and
# 4), since the simulator does not have the capability to apply hysteresis on the
oil phase, the krog curve had to be adjusted to match the overall behavior of the
test. As krow curves were deliberately allowed a small level of variation during the
match, most of the aforementioned effects were reflected on krog curves, causing
the dispersion observed in Figure 3.50.
Comparison of gas-oil relative permeability curves: All 4 Tests

1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03
Krg Exp1 Krg Exp2
Krg Exp3 Krg Exp4
1.E-04 Krog Exp1 Krog Exp2
Krog Exp3 Krog Exp4
1.E-05
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Figure 3.50: Comparison of oil-gas (drainage) kr curves from all three-phase

tests
The oil-water scanning curve exponent values were kept the same as in
Experiment # 3: ENWI = ENWD = EWTI = EWTD = 20. The gas hysteresis
scanning curve exponents were set to be ENGI = ENGD = 8.0. Figure 3.51
shows the imbibition and drainage gas relative permeability curves determined
for Experiment # 4 and the simulated krg values as calculated by the BBM
method for a particular block in the grid. During the first gas flood, krg values
follow the drainage curve. Once Sg starts to decrease (first saturation reversal
due to oil injection), a scanning curve is followed, deviating from the drainage
160
and tending toward the imbibition curve. At the saturation reversal, krg was close
to 10-2, but at the end of the scanning curve, it reached values near 10-5. The
reduction in gas phase relative permeability from drainage to imbibition for the
slug of oil injected was nearly 1,000-fold. A new Sg reversal occurs due to the
second gas injection, and krg values tend toward the drainage curve again. The
degree of hysteresis observed demands a proper characterization of relative
permeability curves including history dependency to properly simulate a process
where a gas saturation reversal may occur.
krg vs. Sg Variation for a Particular Grid Block - Exp. # 4

1.E-01
1st Gas
Gas Relative Permeability, Fraction
1.E-02 Drainage
Liquid
1.E-03
imbibition
1.E-04
Krg Drainage Curve

1.E-05 2nd Gas
Drainage Krgi Imbibition Curve
Krg GridCell 1,1,34

1.E-06
1.E-07
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure 3.51: krg vs. Sg history plot for a particular block in the simulation
grid as calculated by the BBM method, featuring the drainage and
imbibition krg curves
In summary, a complex flow sequence including liquid re-saturation and

three-phase flow could be satisfactorily replicated with reservoir simulation
employing the BBM method for hysteresis in relative permeability for the gas
phase when a gas saturation reversal occurs and for the water and oil phases
161
when a water saturation reversal occurs. A model without hysteresis was not
successful in simulating a drastic decrease in gas flow rate, increase in liquid
flow rate and increase in pressure drop, once oil was injected, causing a shift
from gas drainage to imbibition. The level of hysteresis determined for the oil and
water phases was minor, and permitted only fine-tuning improvements in the
prediction of production performance. Meanwhile, the level of hysteresis found
for the gas phase was high, producing noticeable changes in the prediction of oil,
water and gas volumes, as well as pressure drop.
3.5 Concluding Remarks
The experiments and methodology of analysis employed permitted the

characterization of three-phase relative permeability by adjusting parameters
from the oil-water and oil-gas curves aimed at matching experimental production
and pressure drop data. Saturation endpoints were determined with precision
and observed to be repeatable. Relative permeability endpoints and curvature
exponents exhibited dependency on the number of imbibition/drainage cycles
performed but stabilized near the end of the experimental program.
Hysteresis was also evaluated by adjusting parameters associated with
the model used. The stability of the relative permeability parameters toward the
final tests performed allowed determining with good precision the level of
hysteresis needed to properly replicate the gathered data. Although during the
two-phase tests the relative permeability to oil exhibited saturation history
dependency, the three-phase experiments revealed that upon a water saturation
reversal, the modeling of oil and water hysteresis did not significantly improve the
predictions. Meanwhile, it was concluded that relative permeability to gas phase
needs to be modeled with hysteresis, and that, at the reservoir conditions
investigated, a strong reduction in krg follows a gas saturation reversal from
drainage to imbibition.
162
Considering that during HPAI, a liquid front produced by the condensation
of vaporized oil and water from the combustion zone is formed re-saturating the
gas-flooded region of liquid, the characterization of gas relative permeability for
both imbibition and drainage cases becomes important to properly model the
production performance of this process. Under the experimental conditions
explored in this study, it was clearly demonstrated that the difference in
prediction is considerable. In order to evaluate the effect of this improved relative
permeability characterization in a process where heat causes the vaporization,
condensation and re-saturation of liquids, the main findings of this study (degree
of hysteresis needed to reproduce the experimental behavior of a gas saturation
reversal) need to be applied to the simulation of a combustion tube experiment.
Such is the objective of the next chapter in this dissertation.
163
Chapter Four: NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF A COMBUSTION TUBE TEST
WITH AN IMPROVED RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CHARACTERIZATION
The experimental work carried out and described in the previous chapter
allowed one to conclude that saturation history has a strong impact on pressure
drop and fluid phase rates, particularly for a gas saturation reversal. However,
the level of liquid re-saturation was not evaluated nor compared to that under
typical HPAI conditions.
The objective of this chapter is to compare the responses of a numerical
reservoir simulator subject to two relative permeability characterizations: one
independent of saturation history and one including the hysteretic effect observed
in Chapter three. By replicating the temperature, pressure and saturation
conditions observed for a real combustion tube test, the extent of liquid re-
saturation due to evaporation and posterior condensation is evaluated, and the
responses of the two models, compared against each other and against the
experimental liquid and gas production and pressure drop are analyzed.
Information on the CT test is available since its early stages (sand
packing, water imbibition, oil drainage, pressurizing, heating to reservoir
temperature, inert gas injection, pre-heating to ignition temperature), covering the
air injection period and the posterior purge with inert gas, and also including post
mortem analysis of the residual liquids in the sand pack after unpacking. All this
data was considered in order to reproduce as closely as possible the conditions
of the experiment with the simulator, and a match of liquid production before air
injection was carried out to obtain a representative set of relative permeability
curves. The temperature profiles were also subjected to matching to obtain
realistic fluid properties and saturations aiming at achieving representative
predictions. However, a careful characterization of the reaction model was not a
priority, and a single reaction per hydrocarbon component was defined and used
with minor changes during the matching process. The oil-water and oil-gas kr
curves were maintained for the two predictions, while for the history-dependent
164
case the gas hysteresis parameters found for the match of Experiment # 4 in the
previous chapter were included.
4.1 Combustion Tube Test Data
Data from a dry combustion tube test conducted on a sand pack of

crushed reservoir material, synthetic production brine and stock tank oil (the
same oil used during the two- and three-phase experiments, referred as to Oil 2
in this document) was available for this study.
The 6-ft (1.829 m) long, 4-in (10.16 cm) internal diameter combustion tube
was packed with sand and oriented vertically resulting in a porous medium of
1,700 md in absolute permeability to brine and 42.6% porosity. Oil was then
forced through the sand pack from the top of the tube at room temperature until it
broke through. At this point, the saturations were determined to be 46.2% of oil
and 53.8% of water. Then, the temperature was increased to 77˚C and helium
was injected to pressurize the sand pack to the specified run pressure of 12,400
kPag, and to establish gas communication through the core prior to the start of
continuous helium injection.
Approximately 2.8 hours before the start of air injection, a constant
injection rate of helium corresponding to 31.3 m3(ST)/m2h was initiated and kept
until switching to air injection. Normal air (22.29% O2) injection commenced at an
equivalent flux of 31.0 m3(ST)/m2h. A total of 24 thermocouples were installed
throughout the combustion tube: 12 located at the centerline and 12 more at the
wall. Right before the start of air injection, the temperature of the uppermost
centerline thermocouple was registered to be 350˚C. Air injection was then
stopped after 5.68 hours and followed by helium injection until 8.4 hours, when
the system was bled down.
The following information from the test was made available for this study:
• Packing data (mass of incremental core material added to the pack
and depth from the production and injection points)
165
• Initial masses and saturations of oil and water in the core and in lines
prior to start of inert gas flood
• Masses of oil and water in the core and in lines at the start of air
injection, and saturations of oil, water and gas
• Gas injection and production history
• Produced gas composition
• Incremental air and fuel parameters (fuel consumption, air injection –
equivalent air based on nitrogen produced-, air to fuel ratio, H/C ratio
of fuel)
• Cumulative air-fuel calculations (total fuel consumed, total air
required, mass of carbon and hydrogen in combustion products, air to
fuel ratio, air requirement, fuel requirement, H/C ratio, overall oxygen
utilization)
• Liquid production history (masses of water and oil produced, and
percentage of water in emulsion phase)
• Sand pack properties after burn (mid-depth of sample, weight of
sample, weight percentages of oil, water and coke)
• Produced oil analyses (CHNS mass percent composition, density at
25˚C, viscosity at 15˚C, 25˚C and 40˚C, and mass percentage of
asphaltenes, 325˚C distillate and 325˚C residue fractions)
• Produced water analyses (pH, anions and cations concentration, total
solids)
• Pressure variation at each of 8 pressure taps located along the tube
• Temperature history for each of the 24 thermocouples installed
The following data was directly used for reservoir simulation matching:
(reported time corresponds to hours elapsed since the start of air injection)
• Masses and saturations of oil and water in the core and in lines prior
to start of inert gas flood and at the start of air injection, as shown in
Table 4.1
166
Table 4.1: Summary of oil and water in the system
inert gas injection

Oil mass in core 2344.8 g
Before start of
Water mass in core 3700.9 g
Oil mass in lines 204.7 g
Water mass in lines 218.8 g
Oil saturation 0.462
Water saturation 0.538
Oil mass in core 1207.1 g
At the start of air

Water mass in core 3282.5 g
injection
Oil mass in lines 102.3 g
Water mass in lines 218.8 g
Oil saturation 0.242
Water saturation 0.487
Gas saturation 0.271
• Cumulative injected and produced gas, reported in Table 4.2.

• Liquid production history, detailed in Table 4.3
Table 4.2: Cumulative injected and produced gas

Cum. Gas Cum. Gas
Time
Injected Produced
(h) (Std. l) (Std. l)
-2.80 0.0 0.0
-2.78 2.0 0.8
-2.50 71.2 69.0
-2.00 193.2 178.6
-1.50 315.2 300.6
-1.00 437.2 422.8
-0.50 559.2 545.0
-0.02 677.2 659.1
0.00 681.3 660.0
0.50 802.2 781.1
1.00 923.1 878.5
1.52 1048.1 992.4
2.00 1164.9 1098.4
2.50 1285.9 1208.4
3.00 1406.8 1318.6
3.50 1527.7 1408.7
4.00 1648.6 1514.4
4.50 1769.6 1619.7
5.00 1890.5 1749.6
5.50 2011.4 1863.2
5.67 2051.7 1903.9
5.68 2055.8 1904.7
167
Table 4.3: Liquid production history
Cumulative Cumulative
Time
Produced Oil Produced Water
(h) (g) (g)
-4.87 0.0 0.0
-4.77 175.2 185.7
-4.55 486.0 338.8
-3.62 856.2 347.5
-2.75 1042.5 376.0
0.25 1240.1 418.4
2.55 1556.7 460.2
3.17 1773.9 623.0
3.88 1835.5 1144.5
4.60 1881.6 1652.9
6.00 1891.1 2173.3
• Pressure drop (calculated as the difference between the uppermost

and the lowermost pressure taps, located at the injection and
production points respectively), presented in Table 4.4
• Centerline thermocouple history, reported in Table 4.5 –before the
start of air injection- and Table 4.6 –after the start of air injection-
Table 4.4: Pressure drop history

Pressure Pressure
Time Time
Drop Drop
(h) (kPa) (h) (kPa)
0.12 40 3.13 74
0.28 46 3.3 112
0.45 46 3.47 79
0.62 52 3.64 125
0.79 65 3.8 72
0.95 67 3.97 69
1.12 91 4.14 68
1.29 77 4.31 82
1.46 79 4.47 67
1.62 88 4.64 42
1.79 87 4.81 33
1.96 94 4.98 35
2.13 96 5.15 31
2.29 130 5.31 32
2.46 89 5.48 34
2.63 110 5.65 33
2.8 129 5.82 26
2.97 111
168
Table 4.5: Temperature history before air injection
Time Temperature of Centerline Thermocouple (˚C)

(h) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-5.36 26 26 27 26 27 26 27 26 27 26 26 27
-5.19 26 27 27 26 27 26 27 27 27 27 27 28
-5.02 26 26 26 28 26 27 26 26 27 26 27 27
-4.85 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 27 26 27 25
-4.69 25 28 27 27 27 27 26 27 26 27 26 26
-4.52 26 34 34 33 32 32 31 33 31 31 32 42
-4.35 27 41 43 41 41 40 38 40 38 37 42 52
-4.18 47 47 50 50 48 47 45 50 45 45 47 54
-4.01 52 54 55 55 53 53 50 55 50 50 53 58
-3.85 58 58 62 59 61 57 58 58 58 55 60 63
-3.68 62 67 67 69 66 65 62 67 62 63 66 71
-3.51 64 72 71 71 71 68 68 70 67 67 71 73
-3.34 66 75 74 74 74 72 71 73 71 70 75 75
-3.18 68 76 75 77 75 75 73 75 73 74 79 76
-3.01 69 79 76 80 76 76 74 76 75 76 82 78
-2.84 70 78 77 77 78 76 76 79 76 79 84 81
-2.67 70 81 80 77 80 76 79 76 80 79 86 82
-2.50 72 80 78 80 80 79 77 77 80 81 86 82
-2.34 72 81 80 78 80 76 79 79 80 81 87 82
-2.17 82 81 80 81 81 77 76 77 80 82 86 82
-2.00 101 82 78 80 80 77 80 79 80 82 87 83
-1.83 127 81 78 81 80 80 76 79 80 83 86 81
-1.66 151 83 81 78 81 79 77 78 81 81 87 83
-1.49 180 84 78 81 80 80 76 77 80 83 86 81
-1.41 193 86 81 78 81 77 77 78 80 82 87 83
-1.33 201 88 80 81 80 78 77 77 80 82 87 80
-1.24 207 89 80 80 81 78 76 76 81 82 87 81
-1.16 209 90 79 81 78 81 75 79 79 83 86 80
-1.07 229 93 80 81 80 77 79 76 80 82 87 80
-0.99 245 94 81 80 81 80 76 77 80 82 86 81
-0.90 255 97 81 78 81 77 76 76 80 82 86 82
-0.82 269 100 80 81 80 78 76 76 79 82 86 81
-0.73 279 102 80 81 80 77 77 76 79 82 86 79
-0.65 289 105 78 82 80 81 75 77 78 83 85 77
-0.56 299 109 79 81 80 80 75 77 80 82 86 78
-0.48 309 113 78 82 80 80 76 76 78 83 86 77
-0.40 323 116 81 80 81 80 75 79 79 83 85 81
-0.31 332 122 78 82 80 81 75 77 80 81 86 77
-0.23 339 127 82 78 81 77 77 76 80 82 86 81
-0.14 346 129 78 83 80 79 76 76 79 82 86 76
-0.06 351 133 82 78 82 78 77 78 80 82 86 81
169
Table 4.6: Temperature history after air injection
Time Temperature of Centerline Thermocouple (˚C)
(h) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.03 356 138 81 81 80 79 76 77 79 83 86 76
0.11 361 143 81 82 80 81 75 77 79 83 85 77
0.20 421 147 82 80 81 81 75 79 80 82 85 80
0.28 498 152 81 82 80 81 76 77 79 82 86 76
0.37 493 155 83 82 80 78 77 76 80 81 87 77
0.45 489 158 84 78 81 80 77 78 80 82 86 82
0.54 482 162 84 81 81 81 77 78 79 82 87 80
0.62 474 176 83 83 80 81 76 77 79 82 86 76
0.79 456 215 86 82 81 82 76 79 79 83 85 76
0.87 447 227 90 80 82 81 76 79 80 82 86 78
0.96 438 234 92 81 81 82 76 80 79 84 85 77
1.04 428 241 108 80 82 81 76 79 80 83 86 80
1.13 419 246 135 81 82 81 77 79 79 84 85 77
1.21 409 258 149 81 81 78 80 76 79 82 86 79
1.38 392 278 163 82 82 82 77 77 79 84 85 77
1.47 384 285 181 82 82 82 77 79 79 83 86 81
1.55 377 290 200 88 81 82 76 79 79 84 86 78
1.64 367 296 209 96 81 81 78 77 80 82 87 81
1.72 360 299 228 102 82 82 77 79 79 83 86 82
1.89 345 300 251 130 81 81 77 77 80 82 86 83
1.98 338 299 257 141 81 82 77 79 79 83 85 84
2.06 331 299 263 160 81 83 76 79 79 84 85 82
2.14 322 300 276 175 83 80 80 76 80 82 86 84
2.23 318 298 288 193 83 82 77 77 79 83 85 81
2.31 311 297 292 202 87 82 77 79 79 84 84 82
2.48 297 299 271 240 118 80 81 76 81 82 86 83
2.57 291 297 259 277 129 80 80 79 80 83 85 84
2.65 287 296 243 287 144 82 78 80 80 84 84 85
2.74 280 296 232 297 163 87 80 77 81 82 85 84
2.82 276 292 224 305 200 103 81 77 81 82 85 82
2.99 265 289 232 288 244 130 80 79 80 84 84 87
3.07 261 287 236 278 255 163 81 80 80 84 83 84
3.16 256 287 239 267 272 182 88 79 81 82 85 87
3.24 252 284 239 257 289 199 99 80 80 83 84 85
3.33 246 282 241 247 296 218 110 83 80 83 83 86
3.41 243 280 240 242 298 236 122 108 80 83 84 85
3.58 235 274 237 238 293 271 151 184 81 81 85 85
3.67 230 272 237 237 288 279 170 190 82 81 85 86
3.75 226 270 235 237 282 289 190 196 83 81 85 86
3.84 221 269 234 236 277 295 207 205 103 82 84 88
3.92 219 264 233 235 267 302 224 214 148 81 85 84
4.09 211 258 229 232 258 301 256 270 191 82 85 86
4.17 207 256 228 229 259 298 270 273 210 83 84 86
4.26 203 254 226 226 262 289 279 278 226 88 83 87
4.34 200 250 224 224 262 283 285 286 248 95 86 86
4.43 198 246 223 223 264 277 290 295 258 107 89 85
4.51 195 243 222 220 264 273 292 300 270 122 94 84
4.68 189 238 218 217 261 270 297 301 287 159 103 97
4.77 186 235 217 214 260 270 294 303 291 182 108 110
4.85 185 231 213 214 256 270 292 302 297 199 114 125
4.94 181 229 211 213 254 270 288 300 300 217 118 142
5.02 179 225 210 210 252 271 281 300 301 233 125 151
5.19 174 220 206 207 247 269 269 290 301 267 133 185
5.27 170 218 205 204 246 268 267 286 298 284 138 201
5.36 168 215 203 202 243 266 266 280 297 293 144 218
5.44 166 211 201 200 242 265 264 278 294 295 152 226
5.53 165 207 199 199 238 263 263 273 290 299 162 229
5.61 162 205 197 197 236 260 263 268 287 301 170 233
5.70 160 203 196 195 232 259 261 264 286 300 180 230
5.87 157 197 190 192 229 253 262 262 285 302 197 210
170
The thermocouple locations measured from the top of the tube are
presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Thermocouple locations

Thermo- Location
couple # (m)
1 0.095
2 0.247
3 0.400
4 0.552
5 0.705
6 0.857
7 1.009
8 1.162
9 1.314
10 1.467
11 1.619
12 1.771
4.2 Simulation Model
The CT test was modeled by building and running a simulation data file in
the thermal reservoir simulator STARS. The rock, compositional and reaction
models are first described. Then, the methodology used to obtain representative
oil-gas and water-gas kr curves from experimental data and to adjust the heating
sequence to the temperatures recorded is explained.
4.2.1 Rock properties
A one-dimensional grid composed of 72 grid blocks in the vertical direction

was used to simulate the combustion tube. The square cross-sectional area
corresponds to the reported traverse area of the tube. The top grid block has a
depth of 3.16 cm, while the rest of the cells are 2.54 cm (1 inch) deep in order for
the grid block centers to coincide with the thermocouple locations reported in
Table 4.7. This way, temperatures are monitored for the cells 4 (thermocouple 1),
171
10 (thermocouple 2), … , 6m-2 (thermocouple m), … , 70 (thermocouple 12).
Porosity and permeability are specified as reported in Section 2.1.
4.2.2 Compositional model
A total of 12 components were used for the simulation of the CT test,

including: water, 9 condensable components (nitrogen, carbon dioxide and seven
hydrocarbon fractions), and two non-condensable gases: helium and oxygen.
This model differs from that used to match Experiment # 4 in Chapter 3 only in
the use of the two non-condensable gases. Consequently, the properties of the
hydrocarbon fractions are the same as those reported in Table 3.6.
In order to generate the equilibrium ratio table for the nine non-
condensable components, an overall composition resulting from the mixing of
75% mole oil and 25% mole flue gas was employed. This overall composition
was considered to be typical of a gas flood at the mean temperature and
pressure conditions in the test. The table was generated by conducting liquid
vapour equilibrium calculations with the EOS (via WinProp) at four equally-
spaced pressures between 90 and 18,705 kPa, and nine equally-spaced
temperatures between 20 and 580˚C, and reporting the K-values for each
component at each condition for use in STARS. At 300˚C (typical peak
temperature) and 12,500 kPa the oil-gas interfacial tension was calculated to be
2.6 dyn/cm, suggesting that at this condition the displacement would still be in
the immiscible range (considering the results obtained in Chapter 2).
To assign other properties such as: liquid compressibility at constant
temperature (CP), thermal expansion correlation’s first coefficient (CT1), gas
heat capacity correlation coefficients (CPG1, CPG2, CPG3 and CPG4) and the
first coefficient in vaporization enthalpy correlation (HVR) to each of the
hydrocarbon components, the values suggested in the simulator manual for
single-carbon number fractions were used to generate correlations for each
property as a function of carbon number (n). Then, a carbon number was found
172
for each fraction based on the molecular weight and the assumed H/C ratio, and
the value of each property was assigned based on the corresponding correlation.
The selection of H/C ratios will be explained in Section 4.2.3. The resulting
properties used for the thermal simulator are displayed in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Liquid density and fluid enthalpy correlation coefficients

n CP CT1 CPG1 CPG2 CPG3 CPG4 HVR
C4-C5 4.60 2.91E-06 1.42E-03 3.0 0.41 -5.00E-05 1.50E-08 3500
C6-C7 6.66 2.09E-06 1.04E-03 -4.8 0.63 -3.40E-04 7.10E-08 4300
C8-C11 9.64 1.52E-06 7.75E-04 -2.4 0.83 -3.40E-04 1.00E-07 5400
C12-C16 13.92 9.42E-07 5.34E-04 -11 1.31 -7.50E-04 1.60E-07 6900
C17-C22 19.91 7.51E-07 4.31E-04 -22 1.92 -1.00E-03 2.50E-07 8500
C23-C29 25.81 6.96E-07 3.67E-04 -30 2.50 -1.50E-03 3.50E-07 9972
C30+ 38.46 -1.44E-07 -2.71E-05 -53 4.00 -2.50E-03 5.50E-07 12732
4.2.3 Reaction model
One combustion reaction was defined per hydrocarbon component, which

consisted of complete combustion producing carbon dioxide and water. The
stoichiometric coefficients for the reactions were assigned considering one mole
of fuel reacting, and based on the assumed H/C ratios. The two lightest
components were assumed to react in the gas phase, while the rest of them were
set to react in the liquid phase. The lighter components were given a higher H/C
ratio, tending to the paraffin proportion of (2n+2)/n, while the heavier components
were assigned a lower H/C ratio, tending to the aromatic value of 1.0. H/C ratios
and reaction phase were not modified to obtain a more precise representation of
the temperature profiles, since a good approximation to the temperature
conditions could be obtained by fitting other parameters such as the activation
energy and pre-exponential factor. The values of H/C ratios and stoichiometric
coefficients used in the CT simulation are reported in Table 4.9. The following
generic combustion reaction was used:
CnHm + pO 2 → nCO 2 + qH 2O 4.2.3.1
173
Table 4.9: H/C ratios and stoichiometric coefficients employed

MW H/C
n m p q
(g/mol) ratio
C4-C5 66.7 2.2 4.70 10.33 7.28 5.17
Vapor
C6-C7 93.2 2.0 6.66 13.31 9.99 6.66
C8-C11 130.1 1.8 9.43 16.97 13.67 8.48
C12-C16 186.5 1.4 13.92 19.49 18.79 9.74
Liquid
C17-C22 264.8 1.3 19.91 25.88 26.38 12.94
C23-C29 343.3 1.3 25.81 33.56 34.20 16.78
C30+ 500.0 1.0 38.46 38.46 48.08 19.23
Reaction enthalpies were assigned according to a correlation of heat

combustion of single-carbon number fractions of hydrocarbons, as a function of
carbon number. Applying the carbon number in Table 4.9 (n) to find the heat of
combustion per gram of fuel and then multiplying by the molecular weight of each
fraction, the reaction enthalpy values were found. These values are reported in
Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Reaction enthalpies

MW Hr Hr
(g/mol) (kJ/g) (kJ/mol)
C4-C5 66.7 45.22 3016
C6-C7 93.2 45.01 4195
C8-C11 130.1 44.69 5814
C12-C16 186.5 44.40 8280
C17-C22 264.8 44.24 11713
C23-C29 343.3 43.99 15103
C30+ 500.0 43.71 21855
Orders of reaction were considered to be 1.0 for both fuel and oxygen.
Activation energy (Ea) and pre-exponential factor (A) of each reaction’s Arrhenius
kinetic equation were treated as fitting variables to match the experimental
temperature profiles. However, it was defined that a positive variation of Ea with
molecular weight would apply, considering the fact that lighter fractions start
displaying exothermic behaviour at lower temperatures.
174
4.2.4 Relative permeability and heating sequence match
The inert gas (helium) flood preceding the air injection stage of the test
provides a three-phase flow situation which could be employed to adjust the oil-
water and oil-gas relative permeability curves. Meanwhile, in order to reach ideal
conditions for the development of a vigorous combustion front once the air
injection starts, the temperature at the injection end has to be significantly raised
during the helium injection period. This implies that the matching of relative
permeability and heating sequence must be carried out simultaneously.
Before the start of continuous gas injection, the sand pack was
pressurized with helium and heated up to an initial temperature of 77˚C. Water
and oil were withdrawn from the core during this stage. To properly simulate the
process, a careful analysis of the timing of events was conducted, resulting in the
following simulation strategy:
• As temperature starts to be reported at -5.33 hours, this time was
considered as time zero for reservoir simulation. At this time,
saturations are as reported “before start of inert gas injection” in Table
4.1, pressure at the uppermost block is atmospheric and temperature is
that reported of 26˚C. Meanwhile, helium starts to be injected at a very
low rate to pressurize the system to the operating pressure of 12,500
kPaa without letting any fluid out of the bottom of the tube
• Considering that soon after -5.00 hours the test records indicate that
“operating pressure was reached”, and that at -4.77 hours a total of 360
g of liquid are reported as produced, the injection rate set in the
previous step was modified to match the reported produced mass
• At -4.52 hours, temperature starts to increase, and then at this time,
heaters are turned on. The heat delivery is adjusted so the calculated
temperature matches the experimental data. At the same time, oil-water
175
kr curve parameters are adjusted to match the water cut. The Corey
correlation was employed, as described in previous chapters
• Posterior reports of water and oil produced are employed to refine the
oil-water relative permeability curves, and the position and intensity of
the heaters is modified to match the experimental temperature
• At -2.78 hours continuous helium injection starts and at -2.00 hours
preheating of the top section is initiated. Gas production starts to be
reported soon after -2.78 hours. These events are taken into account in
order to match the saturations, temperature profile, pressure drop, total
liquid and gas production right before air injection by adjusting: the
position, heat delivery and heating time of the numerical heaters, gas-
oil and oil-water relative permeability curve parameters
• Finally, a fine tuning is carried out to improve the overall match
throughout the preliminaries of the test
Having adjusted the previous steps to air injection, the matching of the
exothermal reaction parameters described in the previous section could
be conducted. No further modification of relative permeability or other
parameters was carried out from this point forward. The simulator
prediction was then compared to the experimental data, and the second
prediction –employing a gas hysteresis model- was run without modifying
any other parameter. The gas hysteresis parameters were those used in
Experiment # 4: Agi=7.0, ENGI = ENGD = 8.0 and RNG = 1.0. The results
of each of these predictions and analysis of their comparison are
presented in the following section.
176
4.3 Results and Discussion
The oil-water and oil-gas relative permeability curve parameters that

matched the production of gas, oil and water before the start of air injection are
displayed in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Oil-water and oil-gas kr parameters for the CT test simulation
Oil-Water Oil-Gas
Swr 0.468 Sorg 0.140

Sorw 0.250 Sgr 0
krocw 0.350 krgcw 0.100
krwro 0.800 aog 1.90
aow 3.40 ag 2.40
aw 1.95
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 present the match obtained for the cumulative liquid
and gas, respectively, before the start of air injection.
Cumulative Liquid before the start of air injection

1400
Oil, Experimental
Water, Experimental
1200 Oil, Calculated
Water, Calculated
Cumulative Oil or Water, g
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
Run Time, h
Figure 4.1: Liquid production match before the start of air injection
177
Cumulative Gas before the start of air injection

750
600
Cumulative Gas, Std Liters Gas, Experimental
Gas, Calculated
450
300
150
0
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Run Time, h
Figure 4.2: Gas production match before the start of air injection
No reports of produced oil and water masses were made between -2.75
and +0.25 hours, making it difficult to assess the appropriateness of the match
soon before the start of air injection. However, after performing the simulation for
the air flood period, it was observed that the liquid masses reported at +0.25
hours were satisfactorily matched, despite the overestimation of produced gas
between -1.5 and 0.0 hours.
The kinetic parameters found for each of the seven chemical reactions
defined are presented in Table 4.12. Figures 4.3 to 4.5 depict the match of the
temperature profiles for thermocouples 1 to 10 (the bottom two thermocouples
did not detect a significant increase in temperature during the air flood period).
The components reacting in the vapour phase were assigned the same
activation energy and pre-exponential factor to simplify the match. A higher value
for Ea of the liquid phase reactions, and a distinctively higher value for that of the
C30+ fraction were needed to improve the matching of temperature profiles.
178
Table 4.12: Kinetic parameters resulting from the matching of temperature
profiles
A
Ea
(1/[day
(J/mol)
*kPa])
C4-C5 2.0E+15 130000
C6-C7 2.0E+15 130000
C8-C11 2.0E+15 130000
C12-C16 1.0E+15 160000
C17-C22 1.0E+15 170000
C23-C29 2.0E+15 170000
C30+ 3.0E+17 210000
Temperature Matching, CT Test

550
T1, Experimental
T1, Calculated
T2, Experimental
450 T2, Calculated
T4, Experimental
T4, Calculated
Temperature, C
350
250
150
50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Run Time, hours
Figure 4.3: Temperature profile matching for thermocouples 1, 2 and 4
179

350
T3, Exp.
T3, Calc.
300 T5, Exp.
T5, Calc.
T7, Exp.
T7, Calc.
250 T9, Exp.
Temperature, C
T9, Calc.
200
150
100
50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Run Time, hours
Figure 4.4: Temperature profile matching for thermocouples 3, 5, 7 and 9

350
T6, Exp.
T6, Calc.
300 T8, Exp.
T8, Calc.
250 T10, Exp.
Temperature, C
T10, Calc.
200
150
100
50
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Run Time, hours
Figure 4.5: Temperature profile matching for thermocouples 6, 8 and 10
180
The kinetic parameters employed allowed predicting with good accuracy
the peak temperatures for most of the thermocouple locations. However, it was
observed that when the combustion front reached every region, the model
predicted a much faster increase in temperature than that registered by the
thermocouples. Several attempts were made to reduce the variation of
temperature in time for a particular location (modifying parameters to reduce the
reaction rate), but the simulator response continued to be virtually the same. It is
apparent that low temperature oxidation (LTO) reactions –which were not
considered for the simulation model-, may have reduced the partial pressure of
oxygen at the front location, resulting in a diminished rate of reaction.
A comparison of the overall combustion parameters revealed the
goodness of the model. Although the total amount of fuel consumed was
reported to be 131.4 g, this value includes hydrocarbons oxidized after the end of
air injection. The oxygen still stored in the combustion tube, as displaced by the
purge helium, reacted with more fuel than that predicted by the simulator at the
end of air injection. Estimates by two different methods yielded fuel
consumptions at 5.68 hours of 99 and 103 g. The simulator calculation for the
mass of hydrocarbon consumed as fuel at 5.68 hours was 98.9 g, suggesting
good agreement. On the other hand, the stabilized oxygen concentration in the
producing gas stream was calculated to be 0.36%, while the measured values
averaged 0.34% over the stabilized period.
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 correspond to the comparison of the simulator
response between the model with a conventional set of relative permeability
curves and the model including hysteresis on gas phase relative permeability.
Figure 4.6 displays the predictions of liquid production, while Figure 4.7 depicts
the predictions of gas production.
181
Cumulative Liquid Comparison between Models

2700
Oil, Experimental
2400 Water, Experimental
Oil, Hysteresis
2100
Water, Hysteresis
Cumulative Oil or Water, g
1800 Oil, Conventional
Water, Conventional
1500
1200
900
600
300
0
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Run Time, h
Figure 4.6: Oil and water production comparison between the models
Cumulative Gas Comparison between Models

2000
1800 Experimental Data

Hysteresis Model
1600 Conventional Model
Cumulative Gas, Std Liters
1400
1200
1000
800
600
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Run Time, h
Figure 4.7: Cumulative gas production comparison between the models
182
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 evidence that despite having obtained a good match
of cumulative volumes of oil, water and gas before the start of air flood, the
conventional model did not perform well in the period following the injection of air.
In comparison with the conventional kr model, the inclusion of gas phase
hysteresis in relative permeability improved the prediction of oil and gas volumes,
while the calculated water volumes were very similar. The reduction in gas phase
mobility due to the reversal in saturation increases the oil rate at early times after
the start of air injection, which could not be modelled using a conventional kr
approach.
It is noticeable that while experimental data shows a very low water rate
before 3.0 h, both simulation models predict a rapid increase in water rate soon
after air starts to be injected. This result suggests a strong variation of the flow
distribution from the initial temperature state to the predominantly higher
temperature around the combustion front. Water relative permeability hysteresis
or temperature-dependent kr curves might be needed to properly simulate the
flow conditions throughout the test.
At the operating pressure of 12,500 kPa, the steam temperature is 328˚C.
During the air flood, only at the top thermocouple the temperature was higher
than 310˚C, reaching more than 500˚C due to the preheating at more than
350˚C, as presented in Figure 4.3. The examination of simulated temperature,
saturation and molar fraction profile at the end of air injection (corresponding to
the enhanced kr model) displayed in Figure 4.8 reveals that the top half of the
tube has been swept off of liquids, which is supported by the post-mortem
analysis, reporting an average water saturation at the top half of 2.5% and oil
saturation in the same zone of 0.1%. Figure 4.8 also shows that temperatures in
excess of 250˚C coexist with high water saturations in the bottom half. The post
mortem averages for the bottom half of the tube were: Sw = 19.9% and So =
1.7%. This allows one to conclude that the evaporation of water is a more direct
consequence of fresh air stripping water vapour off the liquid water bank
upstream of the combustion front than of direct water vaporization at the high
183
temperature site. Consequently, the excess water production calculated by the
model may be explained by an overprediction in the amount of water that can be
transferred into the gas phase (related to the equilibrium ratios). Higher
vaporization implies higher saturation at the water bank, higher mobility of the
water, and finally, higher volumes of water recovered. This feature cannot be
modified by changing parameters in the model, since the equilibrium properties
of water are defined internally by the simulator. Modification to reaction
parameters to reduce the reaction temperature and evaporate less water was
attempted, but resulted in poor match of temperature profile, total fuel consumed
and oxygen concentration in the production gas.
Figure 4.8: Simulated temperature, saturation and molar fraction profiles at

the end of air injection
The high prediction of produced water may also be related to the elevated
uncertainty associated to the fractional flow of liquid at high gas saturation, given
the lack of experimental data during the late period of helium injection. Figure 4.8
184
shows that gas displacing water is the typical scenario in the bottom half of the
tube. This situation lies out of the saturation range for which the relative
permeability curves were determined. In fewer words, the characterization of kr
for a HPAI process requires the consideration of a broad spectrum of saturation
conditions, including the displacement of water by gas at high temperature.
Despite the difficulties in modelling the flow of three-phases in the CT test,
it was manifest that the model including hysteresis on the gas phase improved
the prediction when compared to a conventional kr approach. Figure 4.9 shows
that the improvement is also evident in the prediction of pressure drop.
Pressure Drop Comparison between Models

150
135
120
105
Pressure Drop, kPa
90
75
60
45
30
15
Experimental Data Conventional Model Hysteresis Model
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Run Time, h
Figure 4.9: Pressure drop comparison between the models
Both models work well at the beginning and the end of the air flood, but
the level of hysteresis applied to the gas phase allows a better fit of the
experimental data during most of the air injection time. This observation, joined to
the improvement in gas volume prediction seen in Figure 4.7, leads to the
conclusion that a reduction in gas relative permeability occurs during the oil
185
banking process. To visualize the magnitude of the saturation changes, the
saturation, gas relative permeability and temperature history for a grid block
located near the production end of the tube (cell 1,1,69 – 4th from the bottom up)
are displayed in Figure 4.10, as calculated by the conventional kr model, and
Figure 4.11, as determined by the model including gas phase hysteresis.
Both predictions feature a gas saturation reversal before the start of air
injection. This is due to the preheating near the injection end, which causes liquid
to evaporate in the heated area and condensate downstream, increasing the
saturation of liquid and reducing that of gas. However, from the first saturation
reversal, the predictions begin to differ due to the more marked reduction in krg
during liquid re-imbibition calculated by the model including hysteresis. Later, the
distillation front reaches the grid block location, as manifest by a new Sg reversal,
this time from imbibition to drainage. Then, the effect of liquid banking becomes
stronger and gas saturation starts to decrease in a slow fashion, until the main
liquid front reaches the location of interest. The biggest difference between the
two models occurs at the moment when the liquid re-saturation front arrives. The
conventional model predicts a sharp decrease in Sg (of nearly 10% of the pore
volume) and corresponding increase in liquid saturation, while the enhanced
model calculates a change in saturation of 1-2% and then a gradual increase
until the end of the test. It is also noticeable that the liquid re-imbibition front
takes longer to reach the producing end in the case of saturation-history
independent krg. The gas relative permeability calculated by the enhanced model
is lower than that predicted by the conventional model throughout the air flood
period. The combined effect of these last two situations is what enables the
enhanced model to predict a higher oil production rate soon after the start of air
injection, as observed in the experimental data.
186
Air injection
starts

calculated by the conventional kr model
Air injection
starts

determined by the model including hysteresis
187
The gas relative permeability history as a function of gas saturation for an
upper cell in the grid (near the middle-height point) as calculated by the
enhanced kr model is presented in Figure 4.12. In this block the high temperature
front sweeps the area after the arrival of the liquid re-imbibition front, causing a
new saturation reversal from imbibition to drainage.
krg vs. Sg History for a Particular Grid Block (1,1,34)

0.1
Drainage Curve
rg )
Relative Permeability to Gas (K
0.01
Imbibition Curve
Krg-Sg Path
0.001
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Gas Saturation (Sg )
Figure 4.12: krg history as a function of Sg for a grid block located at mid
height
Initially, during helium injection, krg follows the drainage curve. Then, it
starts moving towards the imbibition curve as gas saturation starts to decrease. A
couple of small saturation reversals (as that observed soon after the start of air
injection in Figures 4.10 and 4.11) occur within 1-2% change in saturation to later
descend to the minimum Sg value caused by the arrival of the re-imbibition front.
Finally, upon the appearance of the high-temperature front, gas saturation is
quickly increased and krg tends towards the drainage curve once more.
The gas relative permeability behaviour in Figure 4.12 keeps a significant
resemblance to that in Figure 3.51 (Experiment # 4). However, the drop in krg in
188
the simulation of the CT test is lower than one order of magnitude (from 0.024 at
the first saturation reversal to 0.0055 at the last saturation reversal), while that of
the simulation of Experiment # 4 is close to 3 orders of magnitude. In both cases
the simulator prediction was considerably improved by using the same hysteresis
parameters.
4.4 Concluding Remarks
The matching of three-phase data during the preliminary inert gas injection
of a CT test was not sufficient to predict the flow behaviour during the air flood
stage. Nevertheless, it was observed that the inclusion of saturation-history
dependent gas relative permeability enhanced the simulator prediction by
reproducing an increase in oil production rate soon after the start of air injection
and providing a higher level of agreement with the experimental data for
cumulative gas and pressure drop throughout the test.
The temperature histories at twelve locations along the tube were
matched with reasonable accuracy employing a single combustion reaction per
hydrocarbon component. Similarly, the overall combustion parameters reported
for the CT test were closely reproduced.
Experimental data and numerical simulation were employed to confirm
that the re-imbibition of liquids (caused by the high-temperature front evaporating
and later condensing them) appreciably affects the phase flow behaviour in
HPAI, and that history-dependent relative permeability curves may be used to
improve the simulator predictions.
189
Chapter Five: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
In this dissertation the flow of oil, gas and water in porous media at typical
HPAI conditions and its characterization through oil-water and oil-gas relative
permeability curves was investigated using both numerical simulation and
experimental data.
Some of the situations explored included:
• The use of experimental data on flue gas displacing light oil to
propose a variation between oil-gas kr curves and oil-gas IFT
• The analysis of CT experimental data including the steps previous
to air flood to assess the impact of self-heat generation on the
overall oil recovery
• The testing of a core sample under typical HPAI conditions and
diverse two- and three-phase flow schemes to obtain cumulative
volumes and pressure drop data for modelling with numerical
simulation
• The matching of two- and three-phase experimental data with
relative permeability characterizations with and without saturation
history dependency
• The simulation of a CT test using both conventional and saturation-
history dependent kr curves and its comparison with the reported
CT results
5.2 Conclusions
From the analysis of the experimental and simulation data obtained and
used in this study, the following conclusions were attained:
190
1. Near-miscible behaviour implying reduction in residual oil saturation
and increase in oil phase mobility could be observed in slim tube
displacements (flue gas/light oil) conducted at high pressures..
However, in systems including connate water –core flood
displacements- the variation in oil-gas kr parameters was minimal at
the same oil-gas IFT values
2. Considering that IFT is a function of pressure, temperature and
composition, and provided that at operating conditions oil and gas
develop near-miscible behaviour, the simulation of HPAI using IFT-
dependent relative permeability curves could be employed in
isothermal simulators to model the enhanced displacement
efficiency observed when high temperatures are present
3. Based on a careful characterization of relative permeability in a CT
test and the predictions generated by numerical simulation, it was
observed that the high temperature front caused by the oxidation
reactions contributes significantly more than immiscible
displacement by flue gas to the overall oil recovery
4. The three-phase core flood apparatus built, together with the
methodologies of analysis employed allowed the characterization of
oil-water and oil-gas relative permeability curves for both history-
independent and history-dependent cases, with high reproducibility
of saturation and relative permeability endpoints
5. Despite the core specimen evaluated being preferentially water-wet
and displaying hysteretic behaviour in two-phase displacements,
the use of hysteresis on water saturation did not appreciably
improve the quality of the match for three-phase situations including
water saturation reversals
6. A significant reduction in gas phase mobility was evident after a gas
saturation reversal occurred. A considerable improvement in the
191
match of three-phase data was obtained by employing gas-phase
hysteresis on relative permeability
7. Numerical simulation of a CT test conducted on a light oil honouring
the experimental rates of injection, oil, water and gas recovered
volumes and pre-heating temperature during the preliminary steps
to air injection, and heat generation during the air flood period,
confirmed that a moving zone of liquid re-imbibition is developed,
changing the sign of gas saturation variation
8. The use of a saturation history dependent krg characterization
improved the agreement between the simulated and experimental
volumes of oil and gas produced, as well as pressure drop across
the combustion tube
9. Despite the fact that the porous medium employed in the three-
phase core flood experiments differ to that used in the CT test, and
noting the difference in the scale size, the use of hysteresis in gas
relative permeability was necessary for reproducing both sets of
three-phase data. This strongly suggests that the use of this feature
in thermal reservoir simulation could lead to more accurate
predictions of HPAI production performance
5.3 Recommendations
The following are recommendations for improving the modelling of HPAI

process:
1. Considering the fact that the high-temperature combustion front is
responsible for most of the oil recovery in HPAI, the isothermal
simulation of this process, in addition to not capturing properly the
physics, is very likely to underestimate the production performance,
in the case that high-temperature zones are developed at reservoir
192
conditions. Consequently, thermal simulation of this process is
encouraged
2. A variety of flow situations including saturation reversals should be
tested in order to properly characterize the relative permeability
curves for reservoir simulation
3. Regardless of the model selected to predict the performance of
HPAI, gas phase hysteresis should be considered
4. A purely predictive simulation model for HPAI in the field scale
needs to be able to predict whether ignition will occur at a given
condition, as well as the eventual extinction of the combustion front
based on relationships between reaction rate and air flux, the
proper characterization of low-temperature oxidation (LTO)
reactions, and the adequate use of upscaling procedures. This
implies that additional research efforts are needed to obtain an
appropriate predictive simulation model for HPAI, and that
meanwhile, assumptions like the development and sustainment of a
vigorous combustion front are necessary to provide an estimate of
the process performance using a thermal simulator
5. Considering the last recommendation, running predictions
assuming several possible values for peak temperatures would be
helpful in providing a range of production scenarios
The following are recommendations for future research work in this area:
1. Experimentally evaluate the changes in oil-gas kr parameters for
flue gas/light oil systems that result in lower oil-gas IFT (below 1.0
dyne/cm)
2. Conduct three-phase flow experiments at the temperature and
saturation conditions occurring inside a combustion tube (based on
the profiles predicted by simulation, provided that the overall
production performance and temperature profiles have been
history-matched) to improve the relative permeability model
193
3. Run thermal simulator predictions of HPAI in the field scale with
both conventional and enhanced krg characterizations to investigate
the implications of saturation history dependency on factors such
as front velocity, fuel consumption, vertical and areal sweep
efficiency, among others
4. Conduct sensitivity studies based on a series of peak temperatures
to assess the variability of the process performance
5. History-match HPAI field data using a relative permeability
characterization that includes hysteresis on the gas phase
6. Study the influence of saturation history dependency on the flow
behaviour in other EOR processes, e.g. the development of an oil
front during the injection of a polymer/alkaline/surfactant mixture
194
References
1. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Applied Science

Publishers, London, 1979.
2. Beattie, C. I., Boberg, T. C., and McNab, G. S.: Reservoir Simulation of Cyclic
Steam Stimulation in the Cold Lake Oil Sands , SPE Reservoir Engineering,
Vol. 6, Number 2, May 1991, pp. 200-206
3. Belgrave, J.D.M., Moore, R.G., Ursenbach, M.G., and Bennion, D.W.: A

Comprehensive Approach to In-Situ Combustion Modeling, Paper SPE 20250
presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium of Enhanced Oil Recovery
held In Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-25, 1990
4. Cinar, Y., and Orr, F.M.: Measurement of Three-Phase Relative Permeability

with IFT Variation, Paper SPE 89419 presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-21 April,
2004
5. Clara, C., Durandeau, M., Quenault, G., Nguyen, T.H.: Laboratory Studies for
Light Oil Air Injection Projects: Potential Application in Handil Field, Paper
SPE 54377 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, April 20-22, 1999
6. Computer Modeling Group, STARS: Advanced Process and Thermal

Reservoir Simulator, User’s guide. Version 2007
7. De Zwart, A.H., van Batenburg, D.W., Blom, C.P.A., Tsolakidis, T., Glandt,
C.A., and Boerrigter, P.: The Modeling Challenge of High Pressure Air
Injection, Paper SPE 113917 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19-23 April 2008
8. Dria, D.E., Pope, G.A., and Sephernoori, K.: Three-Phase Gas/Oil/Brine

Relative Permeabilities Measured under CO2 Flooding Conditions, Society of
Petroleum Engineers’ Reservoir Engineering Journal, May 1993, 143-150
9. Duiveman, M.W., Herwin H., and Grivot, P.: Integrated Management of

Water, Lean Gas, and Air Injection: The Successful Ingredients to EOR
Projects on the Mature Handil Field, Paper SPE 93858 presented at the Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia,
April 5-7, 2005
10. Fayers, F.J., and Matthews, J.D.: Evaluation of Normalized Stone’s Methods
for Estimating Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities, Society of Petroleum
195
Engineers Journal, April 1984
11. Fraim, M.L., Moffitt, P.D., and Yannimaras, D.V.: Laboratory Testing and
Simulation Results for High Pressure Air Injection in a Waterflooded North
Sea Oil Reservoir, Paper SPE 38905 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, October 5-8, 1997
12. Germain, P. and Geyelin, J.L.: Air Injection Into a Light Oil Reservoir: The
Horse Creek Project, Paper SPE 37782 presented at the Middle East Show
held in Bahrain, 15-18 March 1997
13. Gillham, T.H., Cerveny, B.W., Turek, E.A., and Yannimaras, D.V.: Keys to
Increasing Production via Air Injection in Gulf Coast Light Oil Reservoirs,
Paper SPE 38848, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, October 5-8, 1997
14. Glandt, C.A., Pieterson, R., Dombrowski, A., and Balzarini, A.: Coral Creek
Field Study: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Potential of High-Pressure
Air Injection in a Mature Waterflood Project, Paper SPE 52198 presented at
the Mid-Continent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
March 28-31, 1999
15. Grabowski, J,W., Vinsome, P.K., Lin, R.C., Behie, A., and Rubin, B.: A Fully
Implicit General Purpose Finite Difference Thermal Model For In-Situ
Combustion and Steam, paper SPE 8396 presented at the 54th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, September
1979
16. Greaves, M., Ren, S.R., Rathbone, R.R., Fishlock T., and Ireland, R.:
Improved Residual Light Oil Recovery by Air Injection (LTO process), Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, January 2000, Volume 39, No. 1
17. Greaves, M., Wilson, A., Al-Honi, M., and Lockett, A.D.: Improved Recovery
of Light-Medium Heavy Oils in Heterogeneous Reservoirs Using Air
Injection/In Situ Combustion, Paper SPE 35693, presented at the Western
Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, May 22-24, 1996
18. Huijgens, R.J.M. and Hagoort, J.: Interfacial Tension of Nitrogen-Volatile Oil
Systems, Paper SPE 26643 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, October 3-6, 1993
19. Hwang, M.K., Jones, W.R. and Odeh, A.S.: An In-Situ Combustion Process
Simulator With a Moving-Front Representation, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, April 1982, pp. 271-279
196
20. Islam, M.R., Chakma, A., and Farouq Ali, S.M.: State-of-the-Art of In-Situ
Combustion Modeling and Operations, Paper SPE 18755 presented at the
California Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, April 5-7, 1989
21. Islam, M.R., Erno, B.P., and Davis, D.: Hot Gas and Waterflood Equivalence
of In Situ Combustion, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
October 1992, Volume 31, No. 8
22. Johnson, E. F., Bossler, D. P. and Naumann, V. O.: Calculation of Relative

Permeability from Displacement Experiments, Transactions AIME (1959), Vol.
216, 370
23. Juan, E.S., Sanchez, A., Del Monte, A., Moore, R.G., Mehta, S.A., and
Ursenbach, M.G.: Laboratory Screening for Air Injection-Based IOR in Two
Waterflooded Light Oil Reservoirs, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, January 2005, Volume 44, No. 1
24. Kuhlman, M.I.: Simulation of Light-Oil Air Injection Into Viscous-Dominated

and Gravity-Stable Reservoirs, Paper SPE 59331 presented at the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 3-5, 2000
25. Kumar, V.K., Fassihi, M.R., and Yannimaras, D.V.: Case History and
Appraisal of the Medicine Pole Hills Unit Air-Injection Project, SPE Reservoir
Engineering Journal, August 1995, pp. 198-202
26. Lacroix, S., Delaplace, P., Borbiaux, B., and Foulon, D.: Simulation of Air
Injection in Light-Oil Fractured Reservoirs: Setting-Up a Predictive Dual
Porosity Model, Paper SPE 89931 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, September 26-29, 2004
27. Maini, B. B., Personal Communication, 2009
28. Montes, A.R., Moore, R.G., Mehta, S.A., and Gutierrez, D.: Is High-Pressure
Air Injection (HPAI) Simply a Flue-Gas Flood?, Paper 2008-180 Presented at
the Canadian International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 17-19 June, 2008
29. Moore, R.G., Mehta, S.A., and Ursenbach, M.G.: A Guide to High Pressure
Air Injection (HPAI) Based Oil Recovery, Paper SPE 75207 presented at the
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
April 13-17, 2002
30. Nordtvedt, J.E., Ebeltoft, E., Iversen, J.E., Sylte, A., Urkedal, H., Vatne, K.O.,
and Watson, A.T.: Determination of Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities
197
from Displacement Experiments, SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1997
31. Oak, M.J.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Intermediate-Wet Berea

Sandstone, Paper SPE 22599 presented at the Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991
32. Oak, M.J., Baker, L.E., and Thomas, D.C.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability
of Berea Sandstone, Journal of Petroleum Technology, August, 1990
33. Pascual, M., Crosta, D., Lacentre, P., and Coombe, D.: Air Injection into a
Mature Waterflooded Light Oil Reservoir. Laboratory and Simulation Results
for Barrancas Field, Argentina, Paper SPE 94092 presented at the
Europec/EAGE Annual Conference held in Madrid, Spain, June 13-16, 2005
34. Rubin, B. and Vinsome, P.K.W.: The Simulation of the In-Situ Combustion
Process in One Dimension Using a Highly Implicit Finite-Difference Scheme,
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, October-December 1980,
Montreal
35. Saraf, D.N. and Fatt, I.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability Measurement
Using a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Technique for Estimating Fluid
Saturation, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, September, 1967
36. Saraf, D.N., Batycky, J.P., Jackson, C.H., and Fisher, D.B.: An Experimental
Investigation of Three-Phase Flow of Water-Oil-Gas Mixtures Through Water-
Wet Sandstones, Paper SPE 10761 Presented at the California Regional
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Francisco, CA,
March 24-26, 1982
37. Sarem, A.M.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability Measurements by

Unsteady-State Method, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, September
1966, pp. 199-205
38. Society of Petroleum Engineers: Glossary of Industry Terms, at the Internet:

http://www.spe.org/spe/jsp/basic/0,,1104_1710,00.html
39. Shokoya, O.S.: Enhanced Recovery of Conventional Crude Oils with Flue
Gas, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Calgary, April 2005
40. Surguchev, L.M., Koundin, A., and Yannimaras, D.: Air Injection - Cost
Effective IOR Method to Improve Oil Recovery from Depleted and
Waterflooded Fields, Paper SPE 57296 presented at the Asia Pacific IOR
Conference, October 25-26, 1999
198
41. Tiffin, D.L. and Yannimaras, D.V.: The In-Situ Combustion Performance of
Light Oils As a Function of Pressure (1000 to 6000 psig), In Situ 21(1), 1997
42. Tingas, J., Greaves, M., and Young, T.J.: Field Scale Simulation Study of In-
Situ Combustion in High Pressure Light Oil Reservoirs, Paper SPE 35395
presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 21-24, 1996
43. U.S. Department of Energy: In Situ Combustion Handbook, Principles and

Practice, National Petroleum Technology Office,. Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1999
44. Watts, B.C., Hall, T.F., and Petri, D.J.: The Horse Creek Air Injection Project:
An Overview, Paper SPE 38359 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting held in Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21, 1997
45. Yannimaras, D.V. and Tiffin, D.L.: Screening of Oils for In-Situ Combustion at
Reservoir Conditions via Accelerating Rate Calorimetry, Paper SPE 27791
presented at the SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 17-20, 1994
199
APPENDIX A: JBN METHOD FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
DETERMINATION BASED ON UNSTEADY STATE DISPLACEMENTS
On the basis of the Buckley-Leverett model, Johnson, Bossler and

Naumann (1959) developed an approach to calculate relative permeabilities from
displacement experiments. Let D and d denote the displacing and displaced
phase respectively. In their work, the following important relationships were
obtained.
dS avg
= fd (SL ) (A-1)
dWi
qµ dL
Ir = (A-2)
Δpk
ti
∫
q dt
0
Wi = (A-3)
ALφ
⎡
1
⎤
d
⎢ ⎥
⎣
WiIr ⎦
=
fd (SL ) (A-4)
⎡
1
⎤
k rd (SL )
d
⎢ ⎥
⎣
Wi ⎦
The average water saturation, Savg in equation A-1 can be found from a
material balance for displacing (D) phase content in the porous media. The result
is shown as
Qd
S avg = SDr + (A-5)
ALφ
But also, from the frontal advancement equation, Savg can be related to the
fractional flow of the displaced phase:
S avg = SL + Wi fd (SL ) (A-6)
The fractional flow is related to the relative permeabilities by

200
−1
⎡ k µ ⎤
fD =
1 −
fd =
⎢1 +
rd D ⎥ (A-7)
⎣ k rD µ d ⎦
The steps used to estimate the relative permeabilities are summarized as
follows.
1. Use Equation A-5 to calculate Savg
2. Use Equation A-3 to calculate W i
3. Use Equation A-2 to calculate Ir
⎡ 1 ⎤
d⎢
dS avg ⎣
WiIr ⎥⎦
4. Estimate derivatives
and
dWi ⎡ 1⎤
d⎢ ⎥
⎣
Wi ⎦
5. Use Equations A-1 and A-4 to calculate krd(SL)

6. Use Equation A-7 to calculate krD(SL)
7. Use Equation A-6 to calculate SL
With the exception of the estimation of derivatives in Step 4, all other
steps are straightforward calculations.
In the particular case of water imbibition starting at connate water
saturation and oil, D would represent the water phase and d, the oil phase.
Meanwhile, for gas drainage at connate water saturation and oil, D would be the
gas phase and d would represent the oil phase.
201
APPENDIX B: THE BBM METHOD FOR RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
HYSTERESIS
Figure B.1 presents the path followed by the non-wetting phase relative
permeability of a particular location in the reservoir in comparison to the drainage
and imbibition curves, as calculated by the Beattie, Boberg and McNabb (BBM)
method (1991).
Figure B.1: Non-wetting phase relative permeability as calculated by the

BBM method (After Computer Modelling Group, 2007)
The example shown is for a two-phase oil/water system, where oil is the
non-wetting phase, but could be used for gas/liquid systems, considering gas as
the non-wetting phase. The displacement starts along the drainage curve from A
to B, reaching a saturation reversal and then moving along a scanning curve
interpolated between the drainage and imbibition lines. Once the system reaches
the point C, oil saturation starts to increase again, and then a new scanning
202
curve is defined, and new scanning curves are drawn as new saturation
reversals occur.
In Figure B.2, the path followed by the wetting phase relative permeability
is drawn. The construction of scanning curves and the interpolating parameters
involved are explained next.
Figure B.2: Wetting phase relative permeability as calculated by the BBM

method (After Computer Modelling Group, 2007)
According to the BBM method, using a normalized water (wetting-phase)

saturation and oil relative permeability
S w − S wc
Sw = (B-1)
1− S wc − S orw
k row (S w )
k row = (B-2)
k row (S wc )
Hysteretic relative permeabilities to oil on the scanning curve are
computed by the following formulae:
203
When Sw increasing:
enwi
⎛ 1− S
w ⎞
scan
k row =
imbib
k
row +
(rnw )⎜ ⎟ ⎛⎜ k row
drain
− k row ⎞⎟
imbib
(B-3)
⎝
( )
⎜
1− S w
p
⎟
⎝
⎠
When Sw decreasing:
enwd
⎛ S
w ⎞
scan
k row = k row
drain
−
(1
−
rnw )⎜ ⎟ ⎛⎜ k row
drain
− k
row ⎞⎟
imbib
(B-4)
( )
⎜
S w
⎝
p
⎟
⎝
⎠
In Equations B-3 and B-4, the subscript ‘p’ denotes the value at the point
where the last saturation reversal occurred and ‘rnw’ is defined as
⎛⎜ k row
scan ⎞
⎟ − ⎛⎜ k row ⎞⎟
imbib
⎝ ⎠p ⎝ ⎠p
rnw =
(B-5)
⎛⎜ k
row
drain ⎞
⎟ −
⎛⎜ k
row ⎞⎟
imbib
⎝
⎠
p ⎝
⎠
p
Once the normalized values are known, the relative permeability can
easily be recovered from Equations B-1 and B-2.
For the case of gas-oil relative permeability curves, gas takes the place of
oil and oil replaces water in the previous expressions, while engi, engd and rng
replace enwi, enwd and rnw, respectively.
On the other hand, the hysteretic relative permeabilities to water (wetting
phase) on the scanning curve are computed by the following formulae:
When Sw increasing:
ewti
⎛ 1− S
w ⎞
scan
k rw =
imbib
k
rw −
(rwt)⎜ ⎟ ⎛⎜ k imbib
rw −
k
rw ⎞⎟
drain
(B-6)
⎝
( )
⎜ 1− S w
p
⎟
⎝
⎠
When Sw decreasing:
ewtd
⎛ S
w ⎞
scan
k rw =
drain
k rw +
(1
−
rwt)⎜ ⎟ ⎛⎜ k imbib
rw −
k
rw ⎞⎟
drain
(B-7)
( )
⎜ Sw
⎝
p
⎟
⎝
⎠
In Equations B-6 and B-7, the subscript ‘p’ again denotes the value at the
point where the last saturation reversal occurred and ‘rwt’ is
204
⎛⎜ k
imbib
rw
⎞⎟ −
⎛⎜ k
rw
scan ⎞
⎟
⎝ ⎠p ⎝ ⎠p
rwt =
(B-8)
⎛⎜ k
imbib
rw
⎞⎟ −
⎛⎜ k
rw
drain ⎞
⎟
⎝ ⎠p ⎝ ⎠p

Niz Velasquez PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Niz Velasquez PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

A Numerical and Physical Study of Relative Permeability in High-Pressure Air

Eider Niz Velásquez

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

© Eider Niz Velásquez 2009

Copyright remains with the author.

Theses and dissertations available in the University of Calgary Institutional

not be copied or reproduced, except as permitted by copyright laws, without

written authority of the copyright owner. Any commercial use or publication is

by the University of Calgary Archives.

Please contact the University of Calgary Archives for further information,

Telephone: (403) 220-7271

High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) is a complex enhanced oil recovery

interfacial tension or temperature. Recommendations to improve the numerical

Table of Contents .................................................................................................vi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ix

List of Figures and Illustrations ............................................................................ xii

List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature ............................................. xvi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1

1.2 Review of Previous Research ..................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Physical modeling of HPAI .................................................................. 3

1.2.2 Numerical modeling of HPAI ............................................................... 6

1.2.3 Three-phase flow in porous media and relative permeability for

HPAI simulation .................................................................................. 10

1.2.4 Summary of literature review............................................................. 13

1.3 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................... 15

1.4 Objective of the Study............................................................................... 16

1.5 Organization of the Dissertation................................................................ 17

CHAPTER TWO: ASSESSMENT OF THE OIL RECOVERY MECHANISMS

2.1 Interfacial Tension Dependency of Gas-Oil Relative Permeability for

2.1.1 Experimental data ............................................................................. 22

2.1.3 Results and discussion...................................................................... 25

2.1.3.1 Compositional model................................................................ 25

2.1.3.2 Relative permeability model ..................................................... 29

2.1.3.3 Variation of relative permeability parameters with IFT.............. 37

2.1.4 Concluding remarks .......................................................................... 43

2.2 Contribution of Combustion Reactions to the Oil Recovery in HPAI

under Controlled Conditions .................................................................... 44

2.2.1 Experimental data ............................................................................. 45

2.2.3 Results and discussion...................................................................... 49

2.2.4 Concluding remarks .......................................................................... 55

CHAPTER THREE: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THREE-PHASE FLOW AT

HPAI RESERVOIR CONDITIONS.............................................................. 57

3.1 Experimental Setup................................................................................... 58

3.2 Determination of Rock and Fluid Properties ............................................. 61

3.2.1 Preliminary procedures ..................................................................... 62

3.2.2 Rock porosity and permeability ......................................................... 66

3.3 Two-Phase Displacements ....................................................................... 73

3.3.1 Experimental procedures .................................................................. 73

3.3.2 Methods of analysis .......................................................................... 75

3.3.2.1 Mass balance and saturation determination............................. 75

3.3.2.2 Processing of raw data............................................................. 76

3.3.2.3 Determination of relative permeability curves........................... 77

3.3.3 Results and discussion...................................................................... 78

3.3.3.1 Mass balance and saturation determination............................. 79

3.3.3.2 Detailed results for a particular displacement........................... 81

3.3.3.3 Overall relative permeability results for the two-phase

3.4 Three-Phase Displacements................................................................... 100

3.4.1 Preliminary procedures ................................................................... 101

3.4.1.1 Flue gas preparation .............................................................. 101