Page 84 - Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery
P. 84

72                                                                      Ramin Moghadasi et al.


                and they could increase oil recovery by improving oil mobility. The abovementioned
                mechanisms assist the oil in flowing easily; however, immiscible gas injection has a
                lower recovery factor compared with miscible flooding with the same operational
                conditions [25,36].

                3.2.2.1 CO 2 Solubility in Oil
                CO 2 solubility in crude oil is mainly under control of saturation pressure, tempera-
                ture, and oil gravity. Generally, CO 2 solubility increases with pressure and API gravity
                and decreases with a rise in temperature. Oil composition and liquefaction pressure
                are two other factors that affect CO 2 solubility at temperatures less than CO 2 critical
                temperature. At this condition (i.e., subcritical CO 2 condition), CO 2 dissolves in oil
                as a gas rather than as a liquid. As CO 2 dissolves in oil, it affects oil viscosity, density,
                and IFT value, and it causes oil to swell. There are several correlations that can predict
                CO 2 solubility in crude oil.

                3.2.2.1.1 Simon and Graue [37]
                In 1965, they developed a graphical correlation for dead oils with temperatures rang-


                ing from 43.33 C to 121.1 C, pressures up to 15.86 MPa, and oil gravity from 12 to
                33 API. They presented solubility of CO 2 (mole fraction of CO 2 in a mixture of

                               ) as a function of fugacity, saturation pressure, and temperature at
                CO 2 1 oil, x CO 2
                Universal Oil Products Company (UOP) characterization factor (UOPK) equal to
                11.7. For oils with different UOP characterization, they proposed a correction factor.
                Simon and Graue [37] have reported an average deviation of 2.3% between their pre-
                dictions and experimental data.

                3.2.2.1.2 Mulliken and Sandler [38]
                In 1980, they argued about the inconvenience of the Simon and Graue [37] graphical
                method for reservoir simulation studies. They also stated that Simon’s method is
                among the methods that are not applicable for impure CO 2 or mixed gases.
                Considering such shortcomings, they tried to develop a theoretical basis for predicting
                the CO 2 solubility in crude oils with a wide range of application. They applied
                Peng Robinson’s (PR) equation-of-state (EOS), which is as follows:
                                           RT              a
                                      P 5       2                                      (3.1)
                                          V 2 b   VV 1 bÞ 1 bðV 2 bÞ
                                                    ð
                where for mixtures:
                                           X X
                                        a 5       x i x j ð1 2 δ ij Þða i a j Þ 1=2    (3.2)
                                              i   j
                                                    X
                                                b 5     x i b i                        (3.3)
   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89