SPE 59338

Evaluation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure and Composition for Terra Nova Offshore
Project Using the New Vanishing Interfacial Tension Technique
D.N. Rao, SPE, Louisiana State University, and J.I. Lee, SPE, Petro-Canada Oil and Gas

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 35 April 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Terra Nova oil pool is the second largest oil pool discovered in
the Grand Banks of the Canadian East Coast and is under
development with production startup target date in late 2000.
As a part of the oil recovery process selection criteria,
miscibility conditions were determined for Terra Nova oil
with various enrichment levels of gas available from the
offshore production facilities, using the newly developed
Vanishing Interfacial Tension (VIT) technique.
The VIT technique is based on the concept that the
interfacial tension between the gas and crude oil phases at
reservoir temperature must reduce to zero as these two phases
approach the point of miscibility. The concept of zerointerfacial tension at miscibility is, in turn, based on the wellaccepted fact that the interface between the phases must
vanish, as they become miscible with one another. Thus, the
minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) and minimum
miscibility composition (MMC) can be determined precisely
by measuring gas-oil interfacial tension as a function of
pressure and gas composition, down to as low an interfacial
tension as the measurement technique allows, and then
extrapolating the data to zero interfacial tension.
This paper presents the details of this new VIT technique
and its evaluation against slim-tube tests, and discusses its
application to the Terra Nova gas injection scheme. The
interfacial tension data obtained at reservoir conditions using
the computerized axi-symmetric drop shape analysis technique
are presented as a function of pressure, gas composition, and
the mode of gas-oil contact (first contact or equilibrium). In
addition to providing visual evidence of miscibility as the
point of zero interfacial tension is approached, the VIT

technique is rapid in that it enables the experimental

determination of MMP and MMC within about 2-3 days as
against 4-6 weeks required by the slim-tube technique.
Introduction
Nearly two-thirds of the original oil in place is left behind in
reservoirs at the end of primary recovery and secondary
waterfloods. This amounts to a staggering 351 billion barrels
of unrecovered, known-to-exist oil in the US alone and two
trillion barrels of oil in the world (Green and Willhite, 1998).
Gas injection EOR projects account for about 40% of EOR
production in the US, with the remaining 60% of EOR
production coming from steam injection projects (Moritis,
1998). For gas injection projects to be successful
economically, they need to be operated at or near the
conditions required for miscibility between reservoir crude oil
and injected gas. Hence the need to asses gas/oil miscibility
pressures and compositions at the operating temperature.
The following are some definitions of miscibility
appearing in the literature. Miscible displacement is a process
where there is an absence of phase boundary or interface
between the displaced and displaing fluids (Benham et. al.,
1965). Two fluids are miscible when all mixtures of these two
fluids in all proportions remain in a single phase without any
interfaces, and consequently with no interfacial tension,
between the fluids (Stalkup, 1983). Miscibility is that physical
condition between two or more fluids which permits them to
mix in all proportions without the existence of an interface
(Holm, 1987). Two fluids that mix together in all proportions
within a single fluid phase are miscible (Lake, 1989).
These definitions clearly convey a consensus that
miscibility refers to the absence of an interface between the
injected fluids and the reservoir crude oil. The absence of an
interface means, in terms of a measurable variable, the value
of the interfacial tension between the displacing and displaced
fluids is zero. Therefore, it may be argued that the condition of
zero interfacial tension is necessary and sufficient to attain
miscibility (Rao, 1997). However, none of the presently used
techniques for miscibility evaluation, namely the slim-tube
test, the rising bubble technique, or the method of constructing
pressure-composition diagram, is capable of yielding direct
and quantitative information on interfacial tension. Hence the
vanishing interfacial tension (VIT) technique, being presented

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

in this paper, fills a void that has been existing in miscibility

determination.
The fundamental premise of the VIT technique is that the
approach to miscibility between two fluids can be closely
observed by simply following the behavior of their interfacial
tension as a function of either perssure or composition. The
details of the development of the VIT technique and its
comparison with slim-tube tests are provided elsewhere (Rao,
1997). The VIT technique has been utilized in optimizing the
injection gas composition for the Rainbow Keg River miscible
flood in Alberta (Rao et. al., 1999). In this paper we provide
experimental results obtained by applying the VIT technique
to determine minimum micisibility pressure and composition
for the Terra Nova offshore formation.
The Terra Nova oil field is the second largest oil pool
discovered in the Grand Banks Jeanne dArc basin of
Canadian east coast in a water depth of about 95 meters,
located 350 kilometers east-southeast of St. Johns,
Newfoundland, 35 kilometers southeast of Hibernia. It was
discovered in 1984 and by 1988 a total of nine wells were
drilled to delineate the pool. Six of the nine wells drilled were
successful.
In December 1995, Petro-Canada, as project operator,
announced a project of nearly 400 million barrels of oil
reserves.
This was followed by a project sanction
announcement in February 1998. Currently an FPSO (steel
floating production, storage and offloading) vessel is under
construction. Development wells are being drilled for an
average rate of 115,000 barrels of oil per day starting late
2000.
This study was conducted as part of a depetion plan to
select the most economical oil recovery mechanism.
Waterflood, solution gas injection and enriched gas injection
or miscible flood were in consideration. The project was
approved for waterflooding the majority of the pool and
solution gas injection in part of the pool for gas conservation
purposes.
Apparatus and Procedures
The apparatus used and the experimental procedures followed
in this study are quite similar to those reported previously
(Rao, 97). Figure 1 shows the schematic of the high-pressure
optical cell and its accessories used in the experiments. The
salient features are repeated here for sake of completeness.
The experimental system consists of a high-pressure hightemperature cell, made up of titanium and Hastelloy parts,
with glass windows on opposite sides. The cell is capable of
operating at pressures up to 70 MPa and temperatures up to
200oC. The glass windows allow the capture of drop/bubble
profile images by using a light source on one side and a
camera system on the opposite side. Elevated pressures are
achieved through the use of fluids handling system consisting
of pistoned pressure-vessels, high-pressure pumps and a
backpressure regulator. Elevated temperatures are achieved by
using an oven as a source of heat. The camera system is
connected to an NTSC monitor and a personal computer
equipped with an image capture board and the image analysis

SPE 59338

software used in calculating interfacial tensions. A side arm is

used to position an inert ruby sphere at the desired location
within the view of the camera for the purpose of image
calibration. The cell housing also contains a live oil reservoir
equipped with a piston driven by high pressure water to enable
the maintenance of the fluids at reservoir temperatures and
pressures at all times during the course of the experiments as
well as to flow the oil in the form of droplets within the field
of view of the camera which sends the drop profile images to
be captured by the computer.
The density of live oil was measured using a PAAR DMA
45 density meter equipped with a PAAR DMA 512 external
cell. The external cell is connected to a high-temperature
circulating bath, which is capable of maintaining the cell at the
desired temperature. The outlet of the cell is connected to a
backpressure regulator. The inlet of the cell is connected to a
high-pressure pistoned vessel connected to a pump, which
introduces the fluids into the cell at the desired pressure.
The density of the gas phase, at each pressure or
enrichment level, was calculated using a commercial property
package (CMGPROP, 1995) by feeding the program with the
chromatographic compositional analysis of the gas samples
collected from the optical cell.
The pendant drop technique was used in this study which
consists of oil drops hanging from a capillary tube within the
surrounding gas space as shown in Fig. 1. The image of the
drop profile is then captured in a frame buffer and its digital
representation is then saved on the computer hard-drive. After
a set of images has been saved on the computer hard-drive,
each image is individually recalled, digitized, and analyzed for
IFT using the Axisymmetric Drop Shape Analysis (ADSA)
calculation procedure (Rotenburg et. al., 1983).
Compositions and Phase Behavior of Terra Nova
Fluids
The compositions of the Terra Nova live oil, and the five
solvent gas mixtures are given in Table 1. In order to account
for phase behavior effects during the interfacial tension
measurements, two phase envelopes were calculated, using
CMGPROP property package, for the four gas mixtures as
shown in Figure 2. None of the gas mixtures exhibit a twophase behavior at the reservoir temperature of 96oC except the
rich gas mixture containing 50% C2+, which was not used in
any of the experiments. This facilitated single-phase additions
of rich gas to lean gas contained in the optical cell during
enrichment experiments.
Gas-Oil Equilibrium Time Determination
The time required for attaining gas/oil equilibrium was
determined by analyzing gas samples taken from the cell at
different times during the experiments in the first pressure
series using the 21% C2+ gas mixture. The results are plotted
in Figure 3. As can be seen, the C2+ enrichment level and the
molecular weight of the gas displayed very little change with
pressure over an aging time range of 1.5 hours to 65.5 hours.
Hence a time of at least 1.5 hours was allowed in all the tests
for reaching gas/oil equilibrium. The density change observed

SPE 59338

EVALUATION OF MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION FOR TERRA

NOVA OFFSHORE PROJECT USING THE NEW VANISHING INTERFACIAL TENSION TECHNIQUE

in Figure 3 can be attributed to the pressure changes imposed

on the system. Part of the reason for the little change in gas
composition with pressure appears to be the injection of
original gas mixture (containing 21% C2+) to accomplish the
desired pressure increases. The procedure, of course, is similar
to that of a slim-tube run where a gas of a given composition
is continuously injected to carry out the displacement.
However, whatever change that occurs in the gas composition
due to the system pressure change and the effect of pressure
itself are well accounted for (through measured compositions)
in the calculation of the gas density which is used as an input
in calculating the gas/oil interfacial tension using the ADSA
technique.
Determination of Minimum Miscibility Pressures at
Reservoir Temperature
Tables 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, and 6B show the actual composition of
the solvent gas mixtures prepared for use in the following
series of experiments. These tables also give the composition
of gas samples taken from the optical cell at various times
during the experiments. The high-pressure optical cell was
charged with the gas mixture of desired composition and the
cell brought to the reservoir temperature (96oC). The
temperature was observed to be constant at 96oC throughout
the duration of this study. Then about 6 ml (or about 10% of
cell volume) of the live oil was added to the cell. During this
live oil addition, the drop profile images of the first few drops
of live oil were captured on a video tape for later
determination of 'first contact' interfacial tension. The gas and
live oil are then allowed to interact for over 18 hours
(overnight) in each of the experiments for attaining gas/oil
equilibrium. Fresh live oil, which is maintained at reservoir
temperature and desired pressure of operation in a pistonedpressure vessel within the housing around the optical cell, is
then allowed to enter the gas phase in the optical cell in the
form of small pendent drops from a capillary tube. These drop
profile images are first recorded on a video recorder and then
analyzed using the Axisymmetric Drop Shape Analysis
(ADSA) technique to determine gas/oil interfacial tension.
The pressure in the optical cell is then increased to the next
desired value by injecting the gas mixture contained in the
heated (to 96oC) barrel of a high-pressure hand-pump. The gas
phase in the optical cell is then sampled, after allowing 1.5
hours for oil/gas equilibrium, and analyzed on a gas
chromatograph. The composition from the chromatographic
analyses is then fed to the CMGPROP property package to
calculate the gas density at the operating temperature and
pressure as well as the gas molecular weight and the pseudo
critical temperature and pressure. The gas and oil densities are
needed in calculating interfacial tension using the ADSA
procedure.
Figure 4 shows the gas/oil interfacial tensions measured at
varying pressure levels in the cell for all the three C2+
enrichment levels of 9.3%, 21.4%, and 29.4%. It also includes
the results of a repeat test conducted with 20.7% C2+ gas
mixture. Linear least-square lines were fitted to each set of

data and extrapolated to zero gas/oil interfacial tension to

determine the minimum miscibility pressures. The MMP was
found to be 62.9 MPa when the C2+ content of the gas phase
varied from 9.08% to 9.49%, 57.8 MPa when the C2+
concentration range was 21.24% to 21.65%, and 31.8 MPa at
the C2+ concentration range of 28.9% to 29.8%. When the cell
was charged with the gas phase containing 41.2% C2+ fraction,
only the first contact interfacial tension could be measured to
be 0.44 mN/m at 26.2 MPa. When the gas phase was
equilibrated with about 6 ml of live oil in the optical cell to
determine the equilibrium interfacial tension, gas/oil interface
was observed to be unstable as the oil became miscible with
the gas phase as soon as it emerged from the tip of the
capillary tube. Thus, even at the starting pressure of 26.2 MPa,
gas phase containing 41.2% C2+ was considered to be miscible
with the live crude oil.
It can be noticed in Figure 4 that the linear regression line
corresponding to the 21.4% C2+ data set has a different slope
than the other two lines. Hence it was decided to repeat this
test by recombining a new gas mixture and restarting the
measurements in a thoroughly cleaned experimental system.
The new set of data, which are also plotted in Figure 4, lie
very close to the old set clearly indicating the good
reproducibility of these measurements. The new MMP for the
20.7% C2+ gas was found by extrapolation to be 57.2 MPa
which differed from the previously determined value (of 57.8
MPa) by about 1%.
The three rows of drop images shown in Figure 6
correspond to the three C2+ enrichment levels in these tests.
The pressures at which miscibility was visibly evident, as
shown by the drop images in the last column of Figure 6, are
also indicated by arrows in Figure 4. It can be seen that in all
three cases the MMP at zero interfacial tension was higher (by
about 3-5%) of the visually observed misibility pressure.
Thus, MMP from the VIT technique appears to be slightly
conservative and well supported by visual observations.
Determination of Minimum Miscibility Composition
at Reservoir Pressure and Temperature
The next series of gas/oil interfacial tension measurements
were conducted with the objective of optimizing the injection
gas composition to attain miscibility with the reservoir crude
oil. For these measurements both the pressure and temperature
in the optical cell were kept constant at the field operating
conditions of 30 MPa and 96oC. The cell was first filled with
the lean gas mixture (containing 9.49% of C2+ fraction). About
6 ml of live oil was added to the cell and the two phases were
allowed to reach equilibrium overnight. A gas sample was
taken from the cell and analyzed and its composition used in
calculating the CO2 + C2+ concentration, and its density for
use in the interfacial tension calculations. Fresh live crude oil
drops were then brought into the previously equilibrated gas
phase, the drop images were captured on a video tape for later
ADSA analyses for obtaining interfacial tension. A rich gas
mixture (previously prepared and its composition is given in
the last column of Table 1) containing 48% C2+ fraction, was

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

then added by means of a high-pressure hand-pump to the gas

phase in the optical cell to reach the next desired enrichment
level. The system was allowed to age for, at least, 2 hours to
equilibrate before beginning the interfacial tension
measurements. Table 7 shows the negligible change in
composition of the gas phase at 1.5 hours and 18.5 hours of
aging subsequent to the addition of the rich gas to the optical
cell. Fresh live crude oil drops were then allowed to flow into
the cell at a low flow rate and the images of the drops were
again captured on a videotape for later ADSA analyses. This
procedure of adding calculated amounts of the rich gas to the
optical cell, allowing 2 hours for equilibrium at the new
enrichment level and capturing images of fresh live crude oil
drops flowing into the equilibrated gas phase and calculating
the gas/oil interfacial tension was repeated at each enrichment
level. The results are presented in Table 8 and plotted in
Figure 5. Figure 5 also includes the 'first contact' interfacial
tension data measured at 26.2 MPa during the MMP
determination steps. Each of the two data sets in Figure 5 is
fitted with a linear least squares line, which when extended to
the zero interfacial tension axis gives the minimum miscibility
composition (MMC). From these interfacial tension data, a
minimum enrichment of 32.33 mole% of (CO2 + C2+) for the
equilibrium miscibility, and a minimum enrichment of 42.68
mole% of (CO2 + C2+) for the 'first contact' miscibility are
obtained. The 'first contact' data set shows a wider scatter,
which is perhaps due to the very nature of these first contact
experiments. However, the estimated MMC of 42.68 mole%
appears to be a conservative value, considering the fact that
the measured interfacial tension value of 0.44 mN/m at 41.4
mole% C2+ is relatively high for the close-to-miscible behavior
observed during the test. The difference between the 'first
contact' and equilibrium MMCs is about 10-mole% in C2+
concentration. It is interesting to note here that a difference of
9 mole% C2+ was observed between the 'first contact' and
equilibrium MMCs (both being measured at the same pressure
of 14.8 MPa) in another study (Rao, et al., 1999) conducted
for the Rainbow Lake F pool. That study also reported a
similar difference of 9-mole% between first and multiple
contact miscibility compositions calculated from a ternary
diagram generated using a commercial PVT package. In this
Terra Nova study, the difference was 10.35 mole% (somewhat
higher than the 9 mole% of Rainbow study) due mainly to the
fact that the 'first contact' data was measured at 26.2 MPa and
the equilibrium data was measured at 30 MPa. It is reasonable
to expect a lower difference than 10.35 mole% had both data
sets been measured at the same pressure.
Visual Observations of Miscibility
The fact that the VIT technique makes use of an optical cell
(for interfacial tension determinations) provides an advantage
in that visual observations of miscibility can be made
simultaneously during the experiments. Figure 6 shows some
examples of images of actual live oil pendent drops suspended
in solvent gas phase at different pressures and varying gas
phase compositions. The pressure, composition and interfacial
tension data are also shown on these images. The approach to

SPE 59338

miscibility is clearly evident as interfacial tension decreases.

The last column of images displays miscible conditions clearly
because of the absence of an interface between gas and oil
phases. These visually observed miscibility pressures were
identified in Figure 4 for comparison with MMP at the point
of zero interfacial tension. As noted before, the zerointerfacial-tension pressures were about 3-5% higher than the
visual miscibility pressures. Hence the MMP and MMC values
from the VIT technique appear to be slightly conservative and
well supported by actual visual observations of miscibility.
Summary and Conclusions
A simple, recently developed technique, called the Vanishing
Interfacial Tension (VIT) technique, has been utilized in this
study to determine minimum miscibility pressure and
composition for the Terra Nova offshore field.
The main feature of the VIT technique, which clearly
distinguishes it from the conventional slim-tube, rising bubble
and phase behavior techniques, is that it determines miscibility
solely on the basis of the vanishing interfacial tension as the
injected gas phase approaches miscibility with the crude oil in
the reservoir, due to the imposed pressure or composition
changes. Since the technique involves visual image capture
and analysis for interfacial tension measurements, it enables
visual observations of the approach to miscibility between the
phases, at actual reservoir conditions. This provides evidence
for miscibility determined from the VIT technique. In this
paper we have presented the minimum miscibility pressures
and compositions (MMPs and MMCs) determined using the
VIT technique along with visual observations of miscibility
for three different field gases with the Terra Nova live crude
oil at reservoir temperature of 96oC.
The MMP was found to be 62.9 MPa when the C2+ content
of the gas phase varied from 9.08% to 9.49%, 57.8 MPa when
the C2+ concentration range was 21.24% to 21.65%, and 31.8
MPa at the C2+ concentration of 28.9% to 29.4%. A repeat test
confirmed the MMP within about 1% indicating the
reproducibility of the VIT technique. These MMPs were
within 3-5% of the pressures at which miscibility was visually
observed in the optical cell during the tests.
The injection gas composition was optimized for
miscibility by conducting VIT tests at varying gas
compositions at the operating pressure of 30 MPa and
temperature of 96oC. The minimum miscibility composition
(MMC) of the injection gas in a gas/oil equilibrium mode at
these conditions was found to be 32.33 mole% C2+ .
Additional data were recorded during several of the
experiments to enable the determination of the 'first contact'
miscibility composition. These data were measured at the
starting pressure of 26.2 MPa during pressure series
experiments, and at the reservoir temperature of 96oC. From
these limited number of data points, the 'first contact' MMC
was estimated to be about 42.7 mole% C2+ . Similar
differences between first contact and equilibrium enrichments
of the gas phase were observed in another field application of
the VIT technique.

SPE 59338

EVALUATION OF MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION FOR TERRA

NOVA OFFSHORE PROJECT USING THE NEW VANISHING INTERFACIAL TENSION TECHNIQUE

This study has demonstrated that the VIT technique is

rapid, reproducible and quantitative in addition to providing
visual evidence of miscibility between injected gas and
reservoir live oil.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Petro-Canada Oil and
Gas for permission to publish this work. Sincere thanks are
due to Marcel Girard of Petroleum Recovery Institute for
making the interfacial tension measurements, and Jeanette
Wooden and Rajesh Pillai of Louisiana State University for
their help in preparing this paper.
References
1. Benham, A.L., Dowden, W. E., Kunzman, W.J.: Miscible Fluid
Displacement Prediction of Miscibility, Petroleum
Transactions Reprint Series No. 8, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, 1965, 123.
2. Computer Modelling Group, CMGPROP 95.00, Phase Behavior
Package Users Guide, Calgary, Canada, November 8, 1994.
3. Green, D. W., and Willhite, G.P.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE
Textbook Series, 1998.
4. Holm, L. W.:Miscible Displacement, in H.B. Bradley (Ed.),
Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, TX USA, 1987, 45-1.

5. Lake, L. W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, 1989, 234.
6. Moritis, G.: EOR Oil Production Up Slightly, Oil and Gas
Journal, April 20, 1998, 49.
7. Rao, D.N., McIntyre, F.J., and Fong, D.K.: "Application of a
New Technique to Optimize Injection Gas Composition for the
Rainbow Keg River 'F' Pool Miscible Flood," Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Petroleum Societys 50th
Anniversary Special Edition, 38 (13), 1999.
8. Rao, D.N.: A New Technique of Vanishing Interfacial Tension
for Miscibility determination, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 139,
1997, 311.
9. Rotenberg, Y., Boruvka, L., Neumann, A.W., Determination of
Surface Tension and Contact Angle from the Shapes of
Axisymmetric Fluid Interfaces, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 93 (1),
1983, 169.
10. Stalkup, F. I. Jr.: Miscible Displacement, SPE Monograph
Vol. 8, SPE of AIME, New York, 1983.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

dyne 1.0*
E-02 = mN
ft 3.048*
E-01 = m
(F-32)/1.8
= C
psi 6.894757
E-03 = MPa

Table 1: Compositions of Terra Nova Fluids used in Phase Behavior Calculations

Mole% in

Mole% in 40%

30% C2+

C2+

Solvent

Solvent

0.33

0.22

1.10

1.13

78.80

90.11

5.37

8.82

5.44

7.15

i-Butane

0.98

n-Butane

2.85

i-Pentane

Mole% in

Mole% in

Mole% in

Live Oil

Solution Gas

Reinjected Gas

Mole% in 50%

Mole% in Rich

C2+ Solvent

Gas used

Nitrogen

0.15

0.27

Carbon Dioxide

0.69

1.18

0.17

0.12

0.21

1.14

1.15

Methane

45.06

1.18

69.75

59.57

49.95

51.55

Ethane
Propane

6.01

9.40

11.09

12.69

12.80

2.09

9.48

13.17

16.66

16.31

0.84

0.12

1.40

2.04

2.65

2.63

2.02

0.21

3.75

5.51

7.18

6.71

1.24

0.37

0.02

1.06

1.58

2.07

2.12

n-Pentane

1.80

0.40

0.0

1.34

2.01

2.63

2.35

n-Hexane

9.13

0.15

0.0

2.33

3.49

4.59

3.86

Component

Heptanes plus

27.29

0.0

0.0

0.16

0.23

0.30

0.29

Total

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

CO2 + C2+ (mole%)

54.79

20.93

9.56

30.03

40.26

49.93

48.24

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

SPE 59338

Table 2A: Effect of Pressure on Equilibrium Gas/Oil InterfacialTension at 96oC for the Terra Nova Live Oil against a Gas
Mixture with C2+ of 9.08-9.49 mole% (IFT in mN/m)
Drop #

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa

(First
Contact)

26.20 MPa

31.0

36.0

41.0

46.0

51.0

56.0

60.7

(Equilibrium)

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

4.41

3.83

3.47

2.81

2.46

1.96

1.47

0.66

4.11

3.89

3.43

3.09

2.00

2.22

0.84

0.89

4.39

3.86

3.47

2.88

2.28

1.34

1.34

0.45

4.60

3.81

3.38

2.65

2.49

1.96

0.97

0.96

4.04

3.87

3.25

2.40

2.54

1.88

1.20

0.84

4.12

3.84

3.41

3.00

2.37

1.73

1.60

0.66

4.61

3.86

3.42

2.90

2.59

1.57

1.06

4.00

3.76

3.37

2.93

2.10

1.82

0.77

Unable to
capture drops.
Approaching
miscibility.
See
Photograph in

4.74

3.92

3.40

2.91

2.35

1.79

10

4.41

3.82

3.28

2.90

2.56

2.16

11

4.45

3.87

12

4.53

3.88

Average:

4.37

3.85

3.39

2.83

2.37

1.84

1.16

0.74

Std. Dev'n:

0.23

0.04

0.07

0.18

0.19

0.25

0.28

0.17

Fig. 6.

2.66

Table 2B: Chromatographic Analysis Gas Composition (in Mole%) Corresponding to Table 2A
Component

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa

26.20 MPa

(First

(Equili-

Contact)

brium)

C1

90.53

C2

5.672

C3

41.0

46.0

51.0

56.0

60.7

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

90.324

90.324

90.281

90.281

90.325

90.104

5.715

5.715

5.728

5.728

5.734

5.729

1.929

1.96

1.96

2.012

2.012

1.986

2.155

0.151

0.151

0.15

0.15

0.149

0.149

0.15

0.156

.153

0.229

0.229

0.224

0.224

0.224

0.224

0.227

0.238

31.0 MPa

36.0 MPa

90.43

90.43

5.722

5.722

2.001

1.929

i-C4

.118

n-C4
i-C5

0.00

0.039

0.039

0.034

0.034

0.042

0.042

0.040

0.043

n-C5

0.081

0.062

0.062

0.054

0.054

0.063

0.063

0.061

0.069

n-C6

0.065

0.128

0.128

0.133

0.133

0.127

0.127

0.118

0.094

n-C7

0.058

0.026

0.026

0.042

0.042

0.071

0.071

0.074

0.066

CO2

0.93

0.937

0.937

0.958

0.958

0.956

0.956

0.938

0.94

N2

0.391

0.347

0.347

0.406

0.406

0.347

0.347

0.347

0.405

C2+

9.08

9.22

9.22

9.27

9.27

9.37

9.37

9.33

9.49

0.1660

0.1660

0.1904

0.2130

0.2328

0.2505

0.2682

0.2825

0.2947

17.96

18.02

18.02

18.06

18.06

18.08

18.08

18.07

18.11

6.39

6.46

6.46

6.48

6.48

6.5

6.5

6.49

6.53

-60.98

-60.41

-60.41

-60.47

-60.47

-60.36

-60.36

-60.46

-59.91

Gas Density (g/cc)

(from CMGPROP)
Mixture Mol. Wt.
(g.mol)
Critical Pressure
(MPa)
Critical Temperature (oC)

SPE 59338

EVALUATION OF MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION FOR TERRA

NOVA OFFSHORE PROJECT USING THE NEW VANISHING INTERFACIAL TENSION TECHNIQUE

Table 3A: Effect of Pressure on Equilibrium Gas/Oil Interfacial Tension at 96oC for the Terra Nova Live Oil
against a Gas Mixture with C2+ of 20.4-20.66 mole% (IFT in mN/m)
Drop #

Pressure (MPa)

26.2 MPa (First

26.20 MPa

34.0

40.0

45.0

45.0

50.0

Contact)

(Equilibrium)

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

2.79

2.15

1.67

1.61

0.59

0.40

0.28

2.46

1.97

1.46

0.80

1.33

0.65

0.63

2.9

1.75

1.94

1.3

0.42

1.15

2.83

1.95

1.68

1.15

0.63

0.93

2.98

1.8

1.90

1.41

0.41

0.56

2.74

1.73

1.32

1.61

2.93

1.98

0.82

2.04

1.21

1.93

0.82

1.15

10
Average:

2.80

1.92

1.66

1.31

0.82

0.74

0.46

Std. Dev'n:

0.16

0.13

0.22

0.28

0.32

0.27

0.18

Table 3B: Chromatographic Analysis Gas Composition (in Mole%) Corresponding to Table 3A
Component

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa

26.20 MPa

34.0

40.0

45.0

45.0

50.0

(First ontact)

(Equilibrium)

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

C1

78.99

78.99

78.99

78.99

79.317

79.317

79.317

C2

8.33

8.33

8.33

8.33

8.32

8.32

8.32

C3

6.63

6.63

6.63

6.63

6.969

6.969

6.969
0.823

i-C4

0.82

0.82

0.82

0.82

0.823

0.823

n-C4

1.94

1.94

1.94

1.94

1.95

1.95

1.95

i-C5

0.47

0.47

0.47

0.47

0.471

0.471

0.471

n-C5

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.567

0.567

0.567

n-C6

0.89

0.89

0.89

0.89

0.44

0.44

0.44

n-C7

0.243

0.243

0.243

0.243

0.123

0.123

0.123

CO2

0.728

0.728

0.728

0.728

0.754

0.754

0.754

N2

0.348

0.348

0.348

0.348

0.28

0.28

0.28

C2+

20.66

20.66

20.66

20.66

20.40

20.40

20.40

0.2130

0.2130

0.2573

0.2840

0.3028

0.3028

0.3193

Mixture Mol. Wt. (g.mol)

21.85

21.85

21.85

21.85

21.57

21.57

21.57

Critical Pressure (MPa)

10.65

10.65

10.65

10.65

10.00

10.00

10.00

-22.96

-22.96

-22.96

-22.96

-24.03

-24.03

-24.03

Gas Density (g/cc) (from

CMGPROP)

Critical Temperature ( C)

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

SPE 59338

Table 4A: Effect of Pressure on Equilibrium Gas/Oil

Interfacial Tension at 96oC for the Terra Nova Live Oil
against a Gas Mixture with C2+ of 21.24-21.65 mole% (IFT in mN/m)
Drop #

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa

26.20 MPa

(First Contact)

(Equilibrium)

34.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

3.38

3.14

1.83

1.59

1.47

0.74

0.37

2.10

1.53

1.34

0.77

0.52

2.11

1.93

1.61

1.22

1.02

0.59

2.15

2.10

1.89

1.58

1.47

0.80

0.49

2.29

2.14

1.92

1.57

1.32

0.86

0.57

2.19

2.08

2.04

1.54

1.24

0.96

0.46

2.22

2.10

2.06

1.50

1.46

0.86

0.48

2.13

2.10

2.06

1.68

0.53

2.34

2.16

2.08

1.60

0.51

10

2.26

2.11

1.90

1.53

11

2.25

1.96

12

2.27

2.11

13

2.25

2.04

14

2.26

15,16

2.15,2.12

27.2 MPa

29.0 MPa

2.14

2.06

2.22

2.04

3.34

2.03

3.11

3.07

Average:

3.21

2.20

2.09

1.98

1.57

1.36

0.86

0.50

Std. Dev'n:

0.13

0.08

0.05

0.09

0.05

0.10

0.09

0.06

Table 4B: Chromatographic Analysis Gas Composition (in Mole%) Corresponding to Table 4A
Component

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa

26.20 MPa

27.2

29.0

34.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

(First Contact)

(Equilibrium)

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

C1

78.337

78.115

78.115

78.086

78.397

78.397

78.405

78.038

C2

8.793

8.707

8.707

8.714

8.799

8.799

8.822

8.858

C3

7.044

6.963

6.963

6.907

6.994

6.994

7.044

6.948

i-C4

0.896

0.862

0.862

0.88

0.864

0.864

0.87

0.912

n-C4

2.021

2.518

2.518

2.60

2.054

2.054

2.003

2.194

i-C5

0.626

0.577

0.577

0.585

0.564

0.564

0.559

0.651

n-C5

0.479

0.456

0.456

0.45

0.436

0.436

0.448

0.527

n-C6

0.202

0.262

0.262

0.212

0.25

0.25

0.221

0.302

n-C7

0.101

0.012

0.012

0.006

0.051

0.051

0.048

0.025

CO2

1.235

1.226

1.226

1.217

1.234

1.234

1.226

1.236

N2

0.265

0.303

0.303

0.343

0.358

0.358

0.355

0.309

C2+

21.40

21.58

21.58

21.57

21.25

21.25

21.24

21.65

0.2126

0.2126

0.2186

0.2295

0.2559

0.2829

0.3018

0.3184

21.71

21.79

21.79

21.79

21.63

21.63

21.61

21.82

9.89

9.96

9.96

9.95

9.82

9.82

9.78

10.00

-22.64

-21.32

-21.32

-21.26

-23.3

-23.3

-23.42

-21.33

Gas Density (g/cc)

(from CMGPROP)
Mixture Mol. Wt.
(g/mol)
Critical Pressure (MPa)
Critical Temperature
(oC)

SPE 59338

EVALUATION OF MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION FOR TERRA

NOVA OFFSHORE PROJECT USING THE NEW VANISHING INTERFACIAL TENSION TECHNIQUE

Table 5A: Effect of Pressure on Equilibrium Gas/Oil Interfacial Tension at 96oC for the Terra Nova Live Oil
against a Gas Mixture with C2+ of 28.90-29.80 mole% (IFT in mN/m)
Drop #
26.2 MPa (First
Contact)
1.01
1.15
0.95
0.80
1.02
1.26
1.18
1.16
1.19
1.10
1.12
1.04
1.08
0.12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average:
Std. Dev'n:

26.20 MPa
(Equilibrium)
1.10
1.13
0.97
1.01
1.06
1.07
0.94
1.10
1.02
0.97
1.08
0.94
1.03
0.06

27.2
MPa
0.76
0.74
0.75
0.85
0.84
0.78
0.79
0.69
0.75
0.91

Pressure (MPa)
28.2
MPa
0.58
0.66
0.53
0.65
0.57
0.56
0.63
0.60
0.70

0.79
0.06

0.61
0.05

28.5
MPa
0.71
0.55
0.63
0.55
0.69
0.66
0.64
0.67
0.54

29.6
MPa
0.37
0.47
0.44
0.38
0.49
0.46
0.35
0.33
0.33

0.63
0.06

0.40
0.06

30.6
MPa

Unable to
capture
drops.
Approaching
miscibility.
See
photograph
in Fig. 6

Table 5B: Chromatographic Analysis Gas Composition (in Mole%) Corresponding to Table 5A
Component
o

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa (First Contact)

26.20 MPa

27.2

28.2

28.5

29.6

30.6

(Equilibrium)

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

MPa

C1

69.977

70.653

70.653

70.744

70.27

70.27

70.437

C2

9.324

9.335

9.335

9.352

9.335

9.335

9.319

C3

9.354

9.31

9.31

9.477

9.606

9.606

9.86

i-C4

1.504

1.434

1.434

1.458

1.493

1.493

1.423

n-C4

3.134

2.946

2.946

2.977

3.122

3.122

2.935

i-C5

1.224

1.085

1.085

1.083

1.198

1.198

1.133

n-C5

1.576

1.354

1.354

1.402

1.51

1.51

1.433

n-C6

2.351

2.297

2.297

1.795

1.839

1.839

1.849

n-C7

0.199

0.165

0.165

0.212

0.207

0.207

0.159

CO2

1.137

1.105

1.105

1.124

1.114

1.114

1.126

N2

0.22

0.315

0.315

0.358

0.308

0.308

0.327

C2+

29.803

29.032

29.032

28.90

29.42

29.42

29.24

0.2646

0.2594

0.2657

0.2695

0.2747

0.2816

0.2872

25.66

25.27

25.27

25.08

25.32

25.32

25.17

Critical Pressure (MPa)

12.8

12.69

12.69

12.45

12.53

12.53

12.42

Critical Temperature (oC)

18.4

14.27

14.27

12.17

14.82

14.82

13.28

Gas Density (g/cc) (from

CMGPROP)
Mixture Mol. Wt. (g/mol)

10

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

SPE 59338

Table 6A: Effect of Pressure on Equilibrium Gas/Oil Interfacial Tension at 96oC for the Terra Nova Live Oil against a Gas
Mixture with C2+ of 41.20 mole% (IFT in mN/m)
Drop #

Pressure (MPa)

26.2 MPa (First Contact)

0.37

0.40

0.27

0.51

0.36

0.57

0.50

8,9

0.50, 0.63

10,11

0.70, 0.42

11,12

0.22, 0.23

Average:

0.44

Std. Dev'n:

0.14

26.20 MPa (Equilibrium)

Unable to capture drops. Approaching miscibility.

Table 6B: Chromatographic Analysis Gas Composition (in Mole%) Corresponding to Table 6A
Component
o

Pressure (MPa)
26.2 MPa (First Contact)

26.20 MPa (Equilibrium)

C1

58.599

58.754

C2

11.281

11.297

C3

13.964

13.947

i-C4

1.863

1.862

n-C4

5.534

5.506

i-C5

1.716

1.691

n-C5

2.21

2.161

n-C6

2.975

2.75

n-C7

0.54

0.629

CO2

1.12

1.123

N2

0.197

0.28

C2+

41.20

40.97

Gas Density (g/cc) (from CMGPROP)

0.3209

0.3209

Mixture Mol. Wt. (g/mol)

29.74

29.74

Critical Pressure (MPa)

12.28

12.28

54.23

54.23

Critical Temperature ( C)

SPE 59338

EVALUATION OF MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION FOR TERRA

NOVA OFFSHORE PROJECT USING THE NEW VANISHING INTERFACIAL TENSION TECHNIQUE

11

Table 7: Effect of Aging Time on Gas Composition in the Interfacial Tension Cell
Component

Gas Analysis (mole%)

Aging Time after Rich Gas Addition = 1.5 hours

Aging Time after Rich Gas Addition = 18.5 hours

C1

87.77

87.67

C2

5.95

5.85

C3

2.68

2.48

iC4

0.28

0.23

nC4

0.65

0.49

iC5

0.36

nC5

0.40

1.05

C6

0.58

0.54
0.24

C7

0.09

CO2

0.93

0.92

N2

0.31

0.54

Total:

100.00

100.00

C2+ (= 100-C1-N2)

11.92

11.79

Table 8: Effect of Gas Composition on Equilibrium Gas/Oil Interfacial Tension at 30 MPa and 96oC for the Terra Nova Live
Oil (IFT in mN/m)
Drop #

C2+ Concentration in Gas Phase (mole %)

9.49

11.79

14.22

18.57

24.64

27.77

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9, 10
11, 12

3.21
3.24
3.21
3.15
3.14
3.19
3.20
3.19

3.06
3.02
3.13
3.00
3.11
3.14
3.08
3.07
3.15, 3.14
3.06, 3.09

2.65
2.58
2.60
2.59
2.67
2.63
2.60
2.49
2.59, 2.63
2.58

2.01
1.99
1.89
2.04
1.92
2.09
2.11
1.98
1.97, 2.14
2.07

1.13
1.20
1.44
0.85
1.10
0.88
0.85
1.06
1.21, 1.01
1.11, 1.13

0.61
0.66
0.55
0.88
0.67
0.99
0.44
0.68
0.90, 0.89
0.84

Average:
Std. Dev'n:

3.19
0.03

3.09
0.05

2.60
0.05

2.02
0.08

1.07
0.20

0.73
0.16

75.10
8.72
7.78
1.15
2.88
0.80
0.87
1.21
0.19
1.04
0.26

71.98
9.14
8.78
1.31
3.30
1.01
1.17
1.74
0.30
1.02
0.25

Chromatographic Analysis of Gas from IFT Cell (mole %)

C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
n-C6
n-C7
CO2
N2

90.10
5.73
2.16
0.16
0.24
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.94
0.40

87.67
5.85
2.48
0.23
0.49
0.0
1.05
0.54
0.24
0.92
0.54

85.45
6.62
3.84
0.45
1.06
0.28
0.37
0.44
0.18
0.98
0.32

81.14
7.50
5.32
0.75
1.83
0.51
0.59
0.92
0.15
1.00
0.28

C2+ (mole%)

9.49

11.79

14.22

18.57

24.64

27.77

Density (g/cc)
Mol. Wt. (g/mol)
Crit. P (MPa)
Crit. T (oC)

0.1877
18.11
6.5
-59.9

0.2031
19.35
7.5
-57.0

0.2093
19.83
8.3
-46.9

0.2294
21.38
10.1
-29.6

0.2565
23.41
11.7
-5.37

0.2743
24.74
12.5
8.9

12

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

SPE 59338

SPE 59338

EVALUATION OF MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION FOR TERRA

NOVA OFFSHORE PROJECT USING THE NEW VANISHING INTERFACIAL TENSION TECHNIQUE

13

14

D.N. Rao, J.I. Lee

SPE 59338

C2+ = 9.30%

P(MPa) = 26.2
IFT(mN/m) = 3.85

P(MPa) = 36
IFT(mN/m) = 2.83

P(MPa) = 51
IFT(mN/m) = 1.16

P(MPa) = 56
IFT(mN/m) = 0.74

P(MPa) = 60.7
IFT(mN/m) ~
~0

P(MPa) = 26.2
IFT(mN/m) = 3.21

P(MPa) = 34
IFT(mN/m) = 1.57

P(MPa) = 40
IFT(mN/m) = 1.36

P(MPa) = 50
IFT(mN/m) = 0.50

P(MPa) = 55
IFT(mN/m) ~
~0

P(MPa) = 26.2
IFT(mN/m) = 1.08

P(MPa) = 27.2
IFT(mN/m) = 0.79

P(MPa) = 28.2
IFT(mN/m) = 0.61

P(MPa) = 28.5
IFT(mN/m) = 0.63

P(MPa) = 30.6
~0
IFT(mN/m) ~

C2+ = 21.4%

C2+ = 29.4%

Figure 6 : Video Images of Terra Nova Live Crude Oil Drops at Different Pressures and Solvent Gas Compositions