SPE 167217

Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-puff Processes in Tight Oil

Formations
Chengyao Song, SPE, and Daoyong Yang, SPE, University of Regina

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference-Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 5–7 November 2013.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Techniques have been developed to experimentally and numerically evaluate performance of CO2 huff-n-puff processes
for unlocking resources from tight oil formations. Experimentally, core samples collected from a tight formation with a
permeability range of 0.27-0.83 mD are used to conduct a series of coreflooding experiments. The performance of four
recovery schemes, i.e., waterflooding, immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff, near-miscible CO2 huff-n-puff, and miscible CO2 huff-n-
puff processes, is evaluated with the tight core samples. The waterflooding process leads to a higher oil recovery factor in
comparison with the immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff process, while both the near-miscible and miscible CO2 huff-n-puff
processes result in higher recovery efficiency compared to that of waterflooding. Theoretically, numerical simulation is
performed to match the experimental measurements obtained in the different recovery schemes. There exists a generally good
agreement between the experimental measurements and simulated results. The tuned numerical model is then employed to
optimize the injection pressure and soaking time during CO2 huff-n-puff processes. It is found that the optimum injection
pressure of the CO2 huff-n-puff process can be set around the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) between crude oil and
CO2, while the soaking time can be optimized for maximizing oil recovery.

Introduction
With the escalating energy consumption, reserves of conventional oil keep depleting. The large amount of
unconventional resources has attracted more attention recently. In North America, unconventional oil reserves, including oil
shale, heavy oil, oilsands, and tight oil are estimated to be over 200 billion barrels. Such reserves are nearly two times larger
than the currently recoverable conventional oil resources. The tight oil resources account for 30 billion barrels, widely
distributed in 24 oil reservoirs (Forrest et al., 2011). However, low permeability of the tight oil formations prevents it from
being effectively recovered with the conventional methods. The primary recovery remains low to only 5-10% of original oil
in place (OOIP), though long horizontal wells have been drilled and massively fractured (Christensen et al., 2001). The
conventional waterflooding is not suitable to develop tight oil formations due mainly to the extremely low injectivity.
Conventional CO2 flooding schemes (e.g., continuous CO2 flooding and water-alternating-CO2 (CO2-WAG) flooding) have
shown favourable recovery potential from either laboratory investigations or field applications, but huge CO2 consumption
and early breakthrough limited their extensive applications (Kane, 1979; Bellveau et al., 1993). On the other hand, CO2 huff-
n-puff processes are found to achieve good recovery performance for some tight oil reservoirs (Haskin and Alston, 1989),
while the underlying mechanisms in such tight formations have not been well understood. In addition, how to optimize the
operational parameters of a CO2 huff-n-puff process remains unanswered. Thus, it is of practical and fundamental importance
to evaluate performance of CO2 huff-n-puff processes for unlocking resources from tight oil formations.
During the CO2 huff-n-puff process, CO2 is usually injected into reservoir at a certain pressure. Then the injection wells
are shut in to allow CO2 and crude oil to soak for a period of time prior to being switched back on for production
(MacAllister, 1989). By contacting with CO2, crude oil volume is swollen, its viscosity is decreased, interfacial tension is
reduced, crude oil is driven by solution gas, and light-components are extracted to the injected CO2 phase, while mechanisms
of solution gas drive and light-components extraction prove to be dominant for recovering the tight oil (Ghedan, 2009). The
reservoirs with relatively small pool size and poor flowability between wells prove to be the most suitable for the CO2 huff-n-
puff processes to enhance oil recovery (Liu et al., 2005). So far, few attempts have been made to evaluate recovery
performance of CO2 huff-n-puff processes in tight oil formations, though they may perform rather differently under low or
ultralow permeability conditions.
2 SPE 167217

In this paper, coreflooding experiments are conducted to evaluate performance of CO2 huff-n-puff processes in tight oil
reservoirs. Experimentally, four scenarios of core displacement experiments, including waterflooding (Scenario #1),
immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff process (Scenario #2), near-miscible CO2 huff-n-puff process (Scenario #3), and miscible CO2
huff-n-puff process (Scenario #4), have been conducted. Theoretically, numerical simulation is performed to match the
production history and pressure profiles for each scenario. Then, sensitivity analysis is carried out to examine effect of varied
operational parameters including injection pressure and soaking time on the recovery performance.

Experimental
Materials
The oil sample and reservoir brine are collected from the Bakken formation of southern Saskatchewan. The
compositional analysis of dead oil is presented in Table 1. It is found that most components are lighter than C15, resulting in
both low density and low viscosity of 801.2 kg/m3 and 2.17 cP under 20oC and atmospheric pressure, respectively (see Table
2). The minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) between the crude oil and CO2 is experimentally determined to be 9.7 MPa
under reservoir temperature of 63oC. Synthetic water is prepared according to the compositional analysis of reservoir
produced water as shown in Table 3. The density and viscosity are measured to be 1108.7 kg/m3 and 1.24 cP, respectively.
The core samples used in the experiments are collected from the Bakken formation of southern Saskatchewan. The core plugs
are cut out from the core samples with a diameter of 1.5 inch, while their permeabilities range from 0.27-0.83 mD. The
research grade CO2 (Praxair, Canada) used in the experiments has a purity of 99.998%.

Experimental setup
The experimental setup used in this study consists of four subsystems including injection subsystem, displacement
subsystem, production subsystem, and temperature control subsystem (see Figure 1). In the fluid injection subsystem,
synthetic water, oil and CO2 are stored in the transfer cylinders, which are injected into the core plugs at a constant rate by
high pressure syringe pump (500 HO, ISCO Inc., USA) with an accuracy of 0.001 cc/min or 1 kPa, respectively. A core plug
is placed in the coreholder (Core Lab, USA) with maximum operating pressure of 5500 psi. High pressure nitrogen (Praxair,
Canada) is used to supply overburden pressure to the coreholder, which is usually 3.0 MPa higher than the injection pressure.
In the production subsystem, a backpressure regulator (BPR) (EBIHP1, Equilibar, USA) is used to maintain the pre-specified
production pressure. The produced water and oil are collected by using an oil sample collector with a measurement accuracy
of 0.05 cc, while the gas production is measured by using a gas flow meter (DFM26S, Aalborg, USA) with an measurement
accuracy of 1 cc/min. Constant experimental temperature is maintained by using an air bath, a heater (HG1100, Makita,
Canada) and a temperature controller (Diqi-Sense, USA) with a controlling accuracy of 0.1 oC.

Experimental procedure
Prior to coreflooding experiments, porosity of core plugs is measured. The core plugs are first completely evacuated by
using a vacuum pump for 24 h, and then the synthetic brine is injected into the core plugs. Consequently, porosity can be
determined as the ratio of brine volume inside the core plugs to its bulk volume.
As for measuring absolute permeability, the following procedure is adopted. The synthetic water is injected into the core
plugs at different rates ranging from 0.100-0.500 cc/min, while the corresponding pressure drop is measured. Accordingly,
linear regression method is used to determine the absolute permeability by applying the Darcy’s law. Subsequently, the
collected light oil is injected into the coreholder with a constant rate low to 0.050 cc/min in order to reach the irreducible
water saturation. Then initial oil saturation is calculated according to previous test results. The measured porosity,
permeability and initial oil saturation of core samples are listed in Table 4.
Waterflooding is conducted in Scenario #1, where water is injected at 0.100 cc/min, while oil is produced at 11.5 MPa.
During the CO2 huff-n-puff processes, CO2 is injected into coreholder with a constant pressure for 3 h at first. Subsequently,
crude oil and the injected CO2 are soaked for 6 h in the coreholder. Finally, oil is produced under the constant pressure for 1
h. Three scenarios of experiments have been designed to examine the effects of CO2 huff-n-puff processes for development
of tight oil formations. Scenario #2 is conducted under immiscible conditions, where CO2 is injected under a constant
pressure of 7.0 MPa. Scenario #3 is conducted under near-miscible condition with a constant CO2 injection pressure of 9.3
MPa. Scenario #4 is conducted under miscible condition, where the CO2 injection pressure is maintained at 14.0 MPa in
order to reach the miscible conditions throughout the experiment.
As for Scenarios #2-4, CO2 injection pressure and amount of the injected CO2 are continuously monitored during the
CO2 injection period. Subsequently, system pressure is measured throughout the soaking processes. Finally, the production
pressure, cumulative oil production and cumulative gas production are measured, respectively.

Numerical Simulation
In order to further investigate the mechanisms governing CO2 huff-n-puff processes in tight oil formations, numerical
simulation is applied to match the cumulative oil production history and pressure history in Scenarios #1-4. A PVT model of
the oil sample is built by using CMG Winprop module (version 2009, Computer Modelling Group Ltd.) according to the
laboratory oil analysis results. Subsequently, the oil production profiles and experimental pressure profiles are matched by
using the CMG GEM simulator (version 2009, Computer Modelling Group Ltd.). A grid system of 10×1×1 is used to
SPE 167217 3

represent the physical model in the experiments, resulting in a grid block size of 0.66×3.37×3.37 cm for Scenario #1,
0.61×3.37×3.37 cm for Scenario #2, 0.64×3.37×3.37 cm for Scenario #3 and 0.63×3.38×3.38 cm for Scenario #4,
respectively (see Figures 2a-d).
Homogeneous distribution of oil saturation, water saturation, porosity, and absolute permeability are assumed in each
scenario. Relative permeability and capillary pressure in numerical models are tuned to match the experimental pressure
history and oil production history. By using the well-tuned numerical models, sensitivity analysis is conducted to examine
effects of injection pressure and soaking time on the recovery performance of CO2 huff-n-puff processes in tight oil
formations.

Results and Discussions

Experimental measurements
Scenario #1
Scenario #1 evaluates performance of waterflooding in tight oil formation. Figure 3 shows the measured oil recovery,
cumulative water production, and pressure drop as a function of the injected pore volume (PV) of water, respectively. As can
be seen from Figure 3, at the beginning, oil is recovered continuously, while no water is produced for the first 0.36 PV of
water injected. After water breakthrough occurs, oil production rate starts to decline while the cumulative water production
starts to rise rapidly. Little incremental oil is produced after water breaks through, resulting in a low ultimate recovery of 51.5
% of original oil in place (OOIP) in this scenario. The low ultimate oil recovery is mainly attributed to the low permeability
of the core samples used. As also can be seen from Figure 3, the response of pressure drop agrees well with the oil recovery
and cumulative water production profiles. The measured pressure drop increases with the PV of water injected until water
breakthrough occurs around 0.36 PV of water injected.

Scenario #2
Performance of immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff process is evaluated in Scenario #2, where CO2 is injected into the
coreholder for 3 h with a constant pressure of 7.0 MPa. Once the CO2 injection is terminated, crude oil and CO2 are soaked
for 6 h under a constant temperature. Subsequently, oil starts to produce for 1 h. A total of six cycles are repeated in this
scenario. Figure 4 shows the measured oil recovery, cumulative gas production and pressure drop as a function of time,
respectively. The recovery profile indicates that most oil is produced during the first two cycles, followed by a much lower
recovery after the third cycle. During the soaking process, the system pressure tends to decrease, though its decrease in the
first cycle is minor compared to the others. This may be ascribed to the fact that the pores in the cores are filled with oil and
water initially, resulting in little CO2 injected into core sample during first cycle. As for the second cycle, pressure decrease
during the soaking period is significantly improved due to more CO2 is injected into the core sample and dissolved into crude
oil. From the third cycle to the sixth cycle, the pressure decrease during the soaking process becomes less significant again.
This is because residual oil saturation in the core sample is much lower than those of the previous cycles. The ultimate
recovery factor of immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff process is only 42.8% of OOIP, indicating a significantly lower recovery
compared to that of waterflooding. This is attributed to the combinational effects: a) CO2 and oil are immiscible; and b) CO2
huff-n-puff process is only able to affect a limited region around the wells.

Scenario #3
In order to examine effect of injection pressures on recovery performance, near-miscible CO2 huff-n-puff injection is
conducted in Scenario #3, where the injection strategy is same as that of Scenario #2. Although no clear definition is
provided, a pressure ranging from 0.1-2.0 MPa lower than MMP of crude oil is generally considered as near-miscible
condition (Dong et al., 2011). A total of four cycles are conducted in Scenario #3, while the injection pressure increases to
9.3 MPa throughout the experiment. The oil recovery, cumulative gas production and system pressure as a function of time
are depicted in Figure 5, where most oil is produced in the first two cycles. The oil production starts to decrease from the
third cycle, while the pressure decrease in the second cycle is more obvious compared to the other cycles. This finding is
same as that in Scenario #2. The ultimate oil recovery is 63.0% of OOIP in Scenario #3. This may be due to the higher
injecting pressure, leading to more CO2 dissolved into crude oil, and thus a higher ultimate oil recovery.

Scenario #4
Recovery performance of miscible CO2 huff-n-puff injection is evaluated in Scenario #4 with a constant injection
pressure of 14.0 MPa. The injection strategy is same as that of Scenario #3. As observed in Figure 6, the pressure drop
maintains a similar trend as Scenarios #2 and #3, while the ultimate recovery factor is measured to be 61.0% of OOIP.
Compared to Scenario #2, the slightly lower recovery factor indicates that the miscible CO2 huff-n-puff process does not lead
to a higher recovery, though the injection pressure is higher than the MMP of 9.7 MPa. This implies that recovery
performance of CO2 huff-n-puff process under near-miscible condition is fairly close to that of miscible condition and that it
is unnecessary to overemphasize the pressure effect.
4 SPE 167217

History matching
As mentioned previously, the relative permeability curves and capillary pressure curves are tuned to history match the
experimental measurements in Scenarios #1-4. Figure 7 plots the tuned water and oil relative permeability curves and the
tuned capillary pressure curve for the waterflooding process in Scenario #1, respectively. As can be seen in Figure 7, the
water relative permeability is rather low in the water saturation ranging from 0.32 to 0.50. This is because the water phase
effective permeability remains low under low water saturation condition. The oil relative permeability shows very low values
in the water saturation range of 0.60-0.77. This is due to the low oil saturation, leading to a low oil phase effective
permeability in the corresponding water saturation range. Figure 8 presents the history matching results for Scenario #1,
where the cumulative oil production history and injection pressure history are generally well matched, while a slight
mismatch is found after water breakthrough for the cumulative oil production. This may be caused by the non-uniform
distribution of oil saturation in the core sample, resulting in slight inconsistency with oil production (Zhang et al., 2012).
Figures 9a and b show the tuned water and oil relative permeability curves, gas and liquid relative permeability curves,
and capillary pressure curves for the immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff process of Scenario #2, respectively. The history matching
results are shown in Figure 10. It is found that there exists an excellent agreement between the experimentally measured and
numerically simulated profiles with respect to oil production and pressure.
Figures 11a and b illustrate the tuned relative permeability curves and capillary pressure curves for the near-miscible
CO2 huff-n-puff process (i.e., Scenario #3), respectively. It is found from relative permeability curves that water phase
relative permeability is always lower than 0.35, indicating a water-wet property of core sample used in experiments. Also, the
simulated results are more sensitive to gas and liquid relative permeability curves, compared to water and oil relative
permeability curves. Figure 12 presents the history matching results of the measured pressure and cumulative oil production
throughout the experiment. An excellent agreement between the experimentally measured and numerically simulated
production profiles is obtained.
The tuned water and oil relative permeability curves, gas and liquid relative permeability curves, and capillary pressure
curves for miscible CO2 huff-n-puff process (i.e., Scenario #4) are shown in Figures 13a and b, respectively. The history
matching results for the miscible CO2 huff-n-puff process are depicted in Figure 14. The experimentally measured and
numerically simulated pressure profile and cumulative oil production profile have been well matched, indicating the EOR
mechanisms of CO2 huff-n-puff processes in tight oil formations (i.e., swelling effect, viscosity reduction, interfacial tension
reduction, solution gas drive, and light-components extraction) have been effectively simulated.

Sensitivity analysis
Injection pressure
Since good history matching results are obtained from Scenario #4, the correspondingly tuned numerical model is
utilized to examine the effect of injection pressure on recovery performance of CO2 huff-n-puff processes. The injection
pressure ranges from 5.0 to 25.0 MPa. As can be seen from Figure 15, six cycles are performed during the simulation. As for
the first five cycles, cumulative oil production increases with the injection pressure. However, the enhancement effect of oil
recovery becomes less significant when the injection pressure is higher than 9.0 MPa. This is attributed to the fact that it is
difficult for the recovery performance of CO2 injection to be significantly improved when the injection pressure is higher
than the MMP between crude oil and CO2. Finally, six sets of simulation in this study results in very similar ultimate
recovery factor under various injection pressures. This means that CO2 huff-n-puff processes in tight oil formations usually
result in similar recovery factors under both miscible and immiscible conditions, provided that the huff-n-puff processes last
long enough (Zhang et al., 2006).

Soaking time
The displacement model from Scenario #4 is also applied to examine effect of soaking time on recovery performance
during CO2 huff-n-puff process. The simulation results are illustrated in Figure 16. The injection pressure is set to be 14.0
MPa throughout the simulation, while the soaking time changes from 3 to 9 h. It is found that the oil recovery is enhanced
when soaking time increases from 3 to 6 h, while the ultimate recovery factor keeps nearly constant with a further increase of
soaking time from 6 to 9 h. This means no more CO2 is able to be dissolved into crude oil when soaking time is longer than 6
h, then a further increase of the soaking time will hardly contribute to the improvement of oil recovery.

Conclusions
One set of waterflooding together with three sets of CO2 huff-n-puff experiments are conducted under immiscible, near-
miscible and miscible conditions, respectively. Compared to waterflooding, recovery performance is significantly enhanced
by CO2 huff-n-puff processes, while both near-miscible and miscible CO2 huff-n-puff processes obtain superior recovery
performance compared to the immiscible CO2 huff-n-puff process. It is also found from laboratory experiments that a further
increase of injection pressure higher than the MMP between crude oil and CO2 will not lead to an obvious increase of the
ultimate oil recovery factor. Theoretically, displacement models are developed to match the experimentally measured oil
production and pressure profiles for the four scenarios of experiments. A general good agreement between the simulation
results and experimental measurements is obtained, indicating the underlying mechanisms governing CO2 huff-n-puff
processes in tight oil formations, including swelling effect, viscosity reduction, interfacial tension reduction, solution gas
SPE 167217 5

drive, and light-components extraction, have been incorporated. Sensitivity analysis on the injection-production strategies is
further applied in order to maximize oil recovery from tight oil formations. It is found that a higher injection pressure will
lead to an improvement of oil recovery in tight oil formations for the first four cycles, while a longer soaking time usually
results in a higher recovery factor, provided that it remains shorter than a certain value.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of
Canada and an innovation fund from the Petroleum Technology Research Center (PTRC) to Dr. Yang. Also, the authors
would like to acknowledge the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) for providing the analytical results for the crude oil
and field brine.

References
Bellveau, D.; Payne, D.A.; and Mundry, M. Waterflood and CO2 Flood of the Fractured Midale Field. Journal of Petroleum
Technology1993, 45(9), 881-887.
Christensen, J.R.; Stenby, E.H.; and Skauge, A. Review of WAG Field Experience. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
2001, 4(2), 97-106.
Computer Modeling Group Ltd., 2009. WinProp and GEM Program, Calgary, AB, Canada
Dong, M.; Huang, S.S.; and Srivastava, R. A Laboratory Study on Near-miscible CO2 Injection in Steelman Reservoir.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 2001, 40(2), 53-61.
Forrest, J.; Birn, K.; Brink, S.; Comb, T.J.; Cuthbert, B.; Dunbar, R.B.; Harju, J.A.; Isaace, E.; Jones, F.; Khanna, P.; Snarr,
D.G.; Sorensen, J.A.; Wall, T.J.; and Whitney, D. Working Document of the NPC North American Resource
Development Study-Unconventional Oil. Paper No. 1-6, prepared for the U.S. National Petroleum Council (NPC),
September, 2011.
Ghedan, S. Global Laboratory Experience of CO2-EOR Flooding. Paper SPE 125581, presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Conference, Dhabi, UAE, October 19-21, 2009.
Haskin, H.K. and Alston, R.B. An Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-puff Tests in Texas. Journal of Petroleum Technology 1989,
41(2), 177-184.
Kane, A.V. Performance Review of a Large-scale CO2-WAG Enhance Recovery Project, SACROC Unit-Kelly-Snyder Field.
Journal of Petroleum Technology 1979, 31(2), 217-231.
Liu, H.; Wang, M.C.; Zhou, X. and Zhang, Y.P. EOR Simulation for CO2 Huff-n-puff Process. Paper 205-120, presented at
the Petroleum Society’s 6th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Canada, June 7-9, 2005.
MacAllister, D.J. Evaluation of CO2 Flood Performance: North Coles Levee CO2 Pilot, Kern County, California. Journal of
Petroleum Technology 1989, 41(2), 185-194.
Zhang, Y.P.; Sayegh, S.G.; Huang, S.S. and Dong, M. Laboratory Investigation of Enhanced Light Oil Recovery by
CO2/Flue Gas Huff-n-puff Process. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 2006, 45(2), 24-32.
Zhang, Y.; Song, C.; Zheng, S.; and Yang, D. Simultaneous Estimation of Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for
Tight Formations from Displacement Experiments. Paper SPE 162663, presented at the SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, AB, October 30-November 1, 2012.
6 SPE 167217

Table 1. Compositional analysis results of cleaned dead oil

Component wt% Component wt% Component wt%
C1 0.00 C8 10.16 C20 2.36
C2 0.00 C9 5.79 C21 0.05
C3 0.13 C10 6.06 C22 4.03
i-C4 0.14 C11 5.34 C23 1.97
n-C4 0.56 C12 4.75 C24 1.62
i-C5 0.34 C13 4.78 C25 1.57
n-C5 0.56 C14 4.07 C26 1.43
Other C5 0.05 C15 4.14 C27 1.30
i-C6 0.43 C16 3.48 C28 1.23
n-C6 0.42 C17 3.23 C29 0.94
Other C6 0.47 C18 3.15 C30 0.94
C7 10.74 C19 2.68 C31+ 11.08

Table 2. Physical properties of cleaned dead oil

o
at 15 C 805.0
3 o
Density (kg/m ) at 20 C 801.2
o
at 30 C 793.1
o
at 15 C 2.54
o
Viscosity (mPa·s) at 20 C 2.17
o
at 30 C 2.22
Acid number (mg-KOH/g) 0.40
Molecular weight (g/mol) 162

Table 3. Properties of reservoir produced water

Property Value Major components (mg/L) Value
o
at 15 C 1110.2 Chloride 94340
3 o
Density (kg/m ) at 20 C 1108.7 Sulphate 4100
o
at 40 C 1099.6 Sodium 56200
o
at 15 C 1.41 Potassium 1500
o
Viscosity (mPa·s) at 20 C 1.24 Magnesium 460
o
at 40 C 0.85 Calcium 1900
o
Refractive index at 25 C 1.3590 Iron 1.0
o
Conductivity (mS) at 25 C 125.4 Barium 0.25
o
pH at 25 C 6.87 Manganese 0.61
o
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) at 180 C 16370

Table 4. Measured porosity, permeability and initial oil saturation of Scenarios #1-4
Scenario Porosity (%) Permeability (mD) Initial oil saturation (%)
#1 23.1 0.27 55.2
#2 18.6 0.56 42.9
#3 23.1 0.81 64.2
#4 20.7 0.83 59.6
SPE 167217 7

Figure 1. Digital picture of the experimental setup.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of 3D view of the core plugs: (a) Scenario #1, (b) Scenario #2, (c) Scenario
#3, and (d) Scenario #4.
8 SPE 167217

Figure 3. Measured oil recovery, cumulative water production, and pressure drop versus pore volume of
water injected for Scenario #1.

Figure 4. Measured oil recovery, cumulative gas production, and pressure versus time for Scenario #2.
SPE 167217 9

Figure 5. Measured oil recovery, cumulative gas production, and pressure versus time for Scenario #3.

Figure 6. Measured oil recovery, cumulative gas production, and pressure versus time for Scenario #4.
10 SPE 167217

Figure 7. Water and oil relative permeability and capillary pressure versus water saturation for Scenario
#1.

Figure 8. Measured and simulated oil production and injection pressure versus time for Scenario #1.
SPE 167217 11

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Relative permeability for (a) Water-oil system and its capillary pressure and (b) Gas-liquid
system and its capillary pressure for Scenario #2.
12 SPE 167217

Figure 10. Measured and simulated oil production and pressure versus time for Scenario #2.
SPE 167217 13

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Relative permeability for (a) Water-oil system and its capillary pressure and (b) Gas-liquid
system and its capillary pressure for Scenario #3.
14 SPE 167217

Figure 12. Measured and simulated oil production and pressure versus time for Scenario #3.
SPE 167217 15

(a)

(b)

Figure 13. Relative permeability for (a) Water-oil system and its capillary pressure and (b) Gas-liquid
system and its capillary pressure for Scenario #4.
16 SPE 167217

Figure 14. Measured and simulated oil production and pressure versus time for Scenario #4.

Figure 15. Simulated production profiles with different injection pressures for Scenario #4.
SPE 167217 17

Figure 16. Simulated production profiles with different soaking times for Scenario #4.