Status of Miscible Displacement
Fred I. Stalkup Jr., SPE, ARCO Oil & Gas Co.
Summary
Methods for miscible flooding have been researched and
field tested since the early 1950's. This paper reviews
the technical state of the art and field behavior to date for
the major miscible processes: first-contact miscible,
condensing-gas drive, vaporizing-gas drive, and CO 2
flooding. Important technological areas selected for
review include phase behavior and miscibility,
sweepout, unit displacement efficiency, and process
design variations. COrflood technology is emphasized,
and several technical issues are identified that still need
to be resolved. Rules of thumb and ranges of conditions
are discussed for applicability of each process. A com-
parison is made of the incremental recovery and solvent
slug effectiveness observed in field trials of the different
processes. From the limited data available, there is no
clear-cut evidence that field results on average and for a
given slug size have been appreciably better or poorer for
one process compared with another.
Introduction
The search for an effective and economical solvent along
with development and field testing of miscible-flood
processes has continued since the early 1950's. Early
focus was on hydrocarbon solvents, and three types of
hydrocarbon-miscible processes were developed: the
first-contact miscible process; the vaporizing-gas drive
process, often called high-pressure gas drive; and the
condensing-gas drive process, sometimes called
enriched-gas drive.
First-contact miscible solvents mix directly with reser-
voir oils in all proportions and their mixtures always re-
main single phase. Other solvents are not directly misci-
ble with reservoir oils, but under appropriate conditions
of pressure and solvent composition these solvents can
achieve miscibility in-situ by mass transfer of oil and sol-
0149·2136/83/0004·9992$00.25
Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
APRIL 1983
vent components through repeated contact with the reser-
voir oil. Miscibility achieved in this manner is called
"multiple-contact" or "dynamic" miscibility. The
vaporIzmg-gas drive process achieves dynamic
miscibility by in-situ vaporization of the intermediate-
molecular-weight hydrocarbons from the reservoir oil in-
to the injected gas. Dynamic miscibility is achieved in
the condensing-gas drive process by in-situ transfer of
intermediate-molecular-weight hydrocarbons from the
injected gas into the reservoir oil.
Propane 01:' liquid petroleum gas (LPG) mixtures
typically were the solvents used in first-contact
hydrocarbon miscible flooding, whereas natural gas at
high pressure and natural gas with appreciable concen-
trations of intermediate-molecular-weight hydrocarbons
were injection fluids in vaporizing-gas drive and
condensing-gas drive floods. The high cost of propane,
LPG, or enriched hydrocarbon gas dictated that these
solvents be injected as slugs, which usually were driven
with natural gas. Flue gas and nitrogen also have been
found to achieve dynamic miscibility at high pressures
with some oils by the vaporizing-gas drive mechanism.
Hydrocarbon miscible processes have received exten-
sive field testing since the 1950's, primarily in the U.S.
and Canada. More than 100 projects were initiated dur-
ing this time period. \-9 The majority were small-scale
pilot tests involving one or at most a few injection wells;
however, a number of large projects were undertaken in-
volving several thousand acres or more (> 4 X 10 6 m 2 ).
A few projects tested flue-gas injection.
Recent miscible flooding interest in the U.S. has
centered on the CO 2 process, although use of CO 2 for
oil recovery is not a recent idea. Research dates to the
early 1950's. CO 2 has several advantages compared
with hydrocarbon solvents or flue gas. It often achieves
dynamic miscibility at a significantly lower pressure than
natural gas or flue gas, so more reservoirs can be
815
 SINGLE LIQUID
3600
PHASE

3200
100 VOL % C02

2800
;ff: REGION OF UPPER LIQUID IUL)
o
o AND LOWER LIQUID ILL)
'"
in
.3 2400
w
• SINGLE CONTACT POINTS

6 MULTIPLE CONTACT POINTS

a::
:::J
gJ 2000
w
a::
a. 0% V
1600
REGION OF UL. LL. GAS

1200 0% Ul
'----I--.--'l--REGION OF LL AND GAS
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2
800 VOLUME PERCENT
LOWER LIQUID PHASE

100 VOL % 100 VOL %

o 20 40 60 80 100 C7 L...L--"-----'''-------8.>L-_''----''-_'''--''-_-''-----''-~ C
MOLE PERCENT C02 ADDED s
Fig.1-Pressure vs. CO 2 concentration phase diagram for Fig. 2-Composite ternary diagram for the C0 2 IWasson crude
Wasson crude at 105°F (after Ref. 19). system at 2,000 psi a and 105°F (after Ref. 19).

miscibly flooded with CO 2 than with these other gases.
In addition, both the supply and cost of CO 2 may be
more favorable in the future than for hydrocarbon misci-
ble solvents. This is because large quantities are
available from natural deposits. 10, II Engineering studies
show that CO 2 from some of these deposits can be
developed and transported to favorably located oil fields
by pipeline at acceptable costs. II There has been
moderate field testing so far of CO 2 -miscible
flooding. 10
There are about 40 projects of all types currently ac-
tive. 12 Total production rate attributable to miscible
flooding probably is more than 100,000 BID (16000
m 3 /d) worldwide.
Technical State of the Art
Phase Behavior and Miscibility
Phase behavior requirements and mechanisms for
achieving miscibility in the hydrocarbon processes were
generally recognized by the late 1950's. Hutchinson and
Braun 13 described how multiple-contact miscibility was
achieved in the vaporizing-gas and condensing-gas drive
processes and discussed the factors affecting miscibility
for all the hydrocarbon processes. Pseudotemary
diagrams and pressure-composition diagrams were
shown to be useful ways for representing the phase
behavior of these systems.
Miscibility between solvent and driving gas normally
determines the minimum pressure required for first-
contact miscibility. Miscibility pressures generally range
from about 1,100 to 1,900 psi (7.6 to 13.1 MPa).
Condensing-gas drive miscibility depends on oil com-
position, enriched-gas composition, pressure, and
temperature. Miscibility pressure typically is in the range
of 1,500 to 3,000 psi (10.3 to 20.7 MPa) for oils of
30° API gravity (0.88 g/cm 3) or higher.
Vaporizing-gas drive miscibility with natural gas
depends on oil composition, temperature, and pressure.
High-gravity oils are required, generally >40° API
816
«0.83 g/cm 3); and 3,500 psi (24.1 MPa) is about the
lower limit for miscibility pressure, which may be
substantially higher than this. Phase relations with flue
gas or nitrogen are more unfavorable for dynamic
miscibility than for methane, causing a higher miscibility
pressure, although the pressure increase may be small
with some oils of high saturation pressure. 14,15
The mechanism by which CO 2 achieves dynamic
miscibility is not thoroughly understood at this time. The
bulk of evidence to date indicates that a vaporizing-gas
drive mechanism prevails when reservoir temperature is
greater than about 120°F (49°C). 16·18 However, CO 2 is
a much more powerful vaporizer of hydrocarbons than
natural gas or flue gas. Hydrocarbons as heavy as the
gasoline and gas/oil fractions are vaporized into the CO 2
front in addition to intermediate-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons, and, because of this, development of
vaporizing-gas drive miscibility with CO 2 can occur
with little or no C 2 through C 6 components present in
the crude oil. 18
At temperatures lower than about 120°F (49°C) the
situation becomes more complex. 17 ,19,20 This is il-
lustrated by the pressure-composition diagram of Fig. 1.
At pressures higher than about 1,600 psi (11.0 MPa) for
this particular CO 2 /oil system, two liquid phases coexist
in the multiphase region rather than the gas/liquid
equilibrium typical of vaporizing-gas drive systems. At
pressures between about 1, 150 and 1,400 psi (7.9 and
9.7 MPa), three phases can be in equilibrium-two liq-
uids and a gas. This type phase behavior has been
reported in the literature several times. 11,19,21,22
Gardner et al. 19 experimentally determined pseudoter-
nary diagrams to investigate the liquid/liquid and three-
phase regions of Fig. 1. Their diagrams are shown in
Figs. 2 and 3. At 2,000 psi (13.8 MPa), Fig. 2, two liq-
uid phases are in equilibrium. For phase behavior of the
type shown in this figure, dynamic miscibility can be
achieved in a manner analogous to the vaporizing-gas
drive miscibility for gas/liquid phase behavior.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 100 VOL % C02
• SINGLE CONTACT POINTS
l!:. MULTIPLE CONTACT POINTS
- PLAIT POINT
CRUDE
100VOl%~~~~dL~__~~__~~~~__~100VOl%
Cr
Fig. 3-Composite ternary diagram for the CO 2 /Wasson crude
system at 1,350 psia and 105°F (after Ref. 19).
Hydrocarbons are extracted from the oil into the
COz-rich liquid phase to create a miscible transition
zone.
Fig. 3 shows data at 1,350 psi (9.3 MPa), a pressure
where three phases were found in equilibrium on the
pressure-composition diagram. The pseudoternary
diagram hypothesized from these data shows four
subregions: three two-phase regions and one three-phase
region. Although slim-tube displacement experiments
showed that dynamic miscibility could be achieved at
this pressure, the exact mechanism has not been defined
clearly. A combination of vaporizing-gas drive and
condensing-gas drive mechanisms is suggested by the
phase behavior depicted in Fig. 3, but more work is
needed to verify or disprove this concept.
Miscibility pressure for some oils with CO 2 is as low
as 1,200 psi (8.3 MPa) , and miscibility pressure in-
creases with increasing reservoir temperature and
decreasing oil gravity. 11,23 As a rough rule of thumb,
reservoirs deeper than about 2,500 ft (762 m) containing
oils of 28° API or higher (0.89 g/cm 3 or lower) should
be evaluated as potential candidates for CO 2 miscible
flooding.
Sweepout
Solvents typically are less dense and less viscous than
reservoir oils. Laboratory research and field testing have
shown that gravity tonguing and viscous fingering are
more severe than in waterflooding because of these prop-
erties. As a result, sweepout usually is poorer than in
waterflooding for equivalent PV of fluid injected.
Sweepout depends on mobility ratio and on the ratio of
viscous (horizontal) and gravity (vertical) forces. Four
flow regimes are possible in the vertical cross section,
depending on the viscous/gravity force ratio.24 This is
shown schematically in Fig. 4.
At very low values of viscous/gravity force ratio
(Region I), the displacement is characterized by a single
gravity tongue or finger overriding the oil. The geometry
of this finger and vertical sweepout depend on the par-
ticular viscous/gravity ratio of the displacement. At
higher values of viscous/gravity ratio (Region II), the
APRIL 1983
LEGEND
U . FLUX, 8/0/FT2
i< 0 . VISCOSITY CP
X . LENGTH. FT
100
Y HEIGHT. FT
K PERMEABILITY, MD
80 tlp SOLVENT -OIL DENSITY
DIFFERENCE. GM CC
60
I-- III - - 1 - - - IV - - - -
M 65
40
M 27
=====r::======-
~=::-I~I III ---~ IV-
10 100 1000 10,000 100.000
u·~o' x
Ce VISCOUS/GRAVITY FORCE RATIO 2050 K 0tlp • Y
Fig. 4-Flow regimes in a two-dimensional, uniform linear
system.
displacement is still characterized by a single gravity
finger, but vertical sweepout becomes independent of the
value of the ratio until a critical value is exceeded.
Beyond this critical value, a transition region is en-
countered (Region III), where secondary fingers form
beneath the main gravity tongue. In this region sweepout
for a given value of PV injected increases sharply with
increasing values of the viscous/gravity ratio. Finally, a
value of viscous/gravity ratio is reached where the
displacement is entirely dominated by viscous fingering,
and vertical sweepout again becomes independent of the
viscous/gravity ratio (Region IV). The value of
viscous/gravity ratio at which transition occurs from one
flow region to another depends on the mobility ratio. 24
There are considerable published areal sweepout data
for flow dominated by viscous fingers 25-29 and some
vertical sweepout data for Region I and II flow
dominated by gravity tonguing. 30,31 There are few
published data for volumetric sweepout. 30 Data are
limited also for slug processes,32 tertiary recovery, 33
and dynamic miscible displacement. 34
Although several methods have been researched for
improving mobility ratio and, consequently, the
sweepout of horizontal miscible floods, 35-39 alternate in-
jection of water and solvent currently is the only method
being practiced in the field. 40 Even when gravity causes
the solvent and water to segregate partially, laboratory
experiments 4I and reservoir simulations 42 ,43 both show
that improved sweepout may result still from alternate
solvent/water injection. Solvent/water injection may
also be of benefit in tertiary-recovery flooding, even
though injection of more water into rock where the oil
saturation has already been driven to its residual value,
intuitively may seem counterproductive. 42,43 There have
been many field projects where operators reported that
solvent/water injection was beneficial in moderating pro-
duced GOR after solvent and drive-gas break-
through. 44 -52 Mobility of the solvent/water region was
measured directly in a recent field test and found to be
about as low as the mobility of drive water in the
preceding waterflood. 53 A potential disadvantage of sol-
vent/water injection is trapping of oil by water if overin-
817
jection of water should cause a high water saturation at
the miscible displacing front. This potential effect should
be evaluated carefully in selecting a solvent/water injec-
tion ratio.
Factors that affect CO 2 mobility are not completely
resolved at this time. Considering viscosity alone, a
substantially unfavorable mobility ratio would be ex-
pected in CO 2-miscible flooding. However, the com-
plex CO 2/oil phase behavior that has been reported at
relatively low reservoir temperatures raises the possibili-
ty of precipitation of liquid and/or solid phases in the
CO 2/oil transition zone that might reduce CO 2 mobility
below the level anticipated from normal viscosity and
relative permeability relations. Some laboratory flow ex-
periments are published that indicate reduced mobility in
the multi phase region. 54 Lower-than-expected CO 2 in-
jectivity was reported in several field tests,52.55 but
whether the field test behavior was caused only by a
near-well permeability reduction or whether it was
caused by a reduced CO 2 mobility throughout the swept
region has not been established conclusively. This is one
of the more important technical issues in CO 2 flooding
left to be resolved. Unnecessary injection of water or
overinjection, if some water should be required, not only
increases the complexity and expense of field operation
but also decreases injectivity unnecessarily and
lengthens project life. Also, water overinjection con-
ceivably could trap some oil and render it inaccessible to
the CO 2 ,
Data reported by Giraud 34 indicate that two-phase
flow in the miscible transition zone of a vaporizing-gas
drive can also reduce gas permeability and mobility
below that expected for a first-contact miscible solvent.
Densities of oil and CO 2 are similar at many reservoir
conditions, which tends to minimize segregation be-
tween these fluids in reservoirs that have not been
waterflooded. In reservoirs that have been waterflooded
or have had water injected with CO 2 to counteract the
effects of viscosity ratio and permeability stratification,
the density contrast between water and CO 2 may cause
segregation. 42,43
Unit Displacement Efficiency
Under some conditions all the oil may not be displaced
from a given volume of rock even though the solvent
composition and pressure are sufficient for miscibility
and even though the rock has been completely swept by
solvent. This undisplaced oil left in the solvent-swept
rock is analogous to the microscopic residual oil left after
waterflooding. In addition to subtracting from total oil
recovery, miscible-flood residual oil may cause reduced
solvent injectivity but an improved mobility ratio com-
pared with complete oil displacement. The causes for a
miscible-flood residual oil saturation are primarily (1)
trapping of oil by mobile water at water saturations
above the irreducible value, (2) bypassing of oil located
in dead-end pores and low-permeability occlusions that
are not flushed by solvent, and (3) precipitation of
hydrocarbons during vaporizing-gas drive or CO 2
flooding as a result of mixing into multiphase regions.
Laboratory tests have shown that in some water-wet
sandstones mobile water can trap and shield part of the
oil from a miscible solvent. 56-60 Reservoir simulations
show that this trapping can significantly reduce oil
818
recovery if water is overinjected during alternate sol-
vent/water injection. 43 Several studies with reservoir
rocks, however, have found little or no trapping of oil
caused by mobile water, at least for the water saturations
investigated, perhaps because of the mixed wettability of
these reservoir rocks. 49,57,61,62 Nevertheless, evaluation
of potential oil trapping is advisable if alternate sol-
vent/water injection is planned.
Oil can be bypassed by miscible solvents because of
dead-end pore structure and because of microscopic-to-
macroscopic permeability heterogeneities. Several
publications have shown the effect of laboratory core-
scale heterogeneities in carbonate cores. 62 ,63 There are
no data published so far showing a significant effect of
this sort in sandstones. Bypassed oil saturations ranging
from 0.13 to 25 % PV were reported for a series of cores
from one carbonate reservoir. 62 However, for reservoir
times and rates, some of the oil located in core-scale
hetero¥eneities may subsequently be recovered by diffu-
sion. 6 Techniques are not well developed for determin-
ing the amount of oil that may be permanently bypassed
because of pore structure.
Gardner et al. 19 published calculations showing that
the magnitude of residual oil saturation caused by liquid
precipitation in CO 2 floods depends on the size of the
multi phase region and on the degree of fluid mixing dur-
ing the displacement. This should be true for vaporizing-
gas drives as well.
There have been several field tests published where oil
saturations left behind solvent fronts were determined by
coring. A core taken 100 ft (30.5 m) from an injector in
the Seeligson condensing-gas drive flood showed good
permeability zones of this sandstone were essentially
swept clean of oil. 64 A pressure core taken behind the
enriched-gas front at South Swan Hills found an average
7.9% PV oil saturation in this carbonate formation. 65
Pressure cores taken in the Mead-Strawn sandstone
behind a CO 2 flood at distances of 50 and 100 ft (15.2
and 30.5 m) from an injection well had average oil
saturations of 10 and 5% PV stock-tank oil,66 and a
pressure core taken 35 ft (10.7 m) from a CO 2 injector in
the San Andres carbonate formation of west Texas found
oil saturations that varied from 3 to 30% PV stock-tank
oil. 67
Process Design Variations
Miscible floods have been designed for continuous sol-
vent injection, for solvent slugs driven by a miscible gas,
and for solvent slugs driven by water. In addition, many
process designs have called for alternate water injection
for mobility ratio improvement, either with the drive gas
alone or with both the solvent slug and drive gas.
Essentially all first-contact miscible projects have used
relatively small slugs of LPG, approximately 1 to 12 %
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV), driven by natural
gas. Laboratory research has shown that mixing of
oil/solvent/drive gas by dispersion,68 aggravated by
viscous fingering, gravity tonguing, and channeling
caused by stratification, can rapidly dilute small solvent
slugs to concentrations that are no longer miscible. 69
Fingering can also cause drive gas to physically breach a
solvent slug and directly contact oil, with which it is
immiscible. 26
Condensing-gas drive projects typically have used
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
larger slugs than in first-contact miscible flooding,
usually greater than 10% HCPV and driven by natural
gas. This is partly because the enriched-gas slug is less
concentrated in intermediate hydrocarbons and partly to
withstand fingering better. There have been several
gravity-stable condensing-gas drive projects in pinnacle
reefs where gravity was used to advantage to prevent
viscous fingering. 70,71 In these projects a primary design
consideration was to size the enriched-gas slug to with-
stand dilution caused by dispersion and reservoir
heterogeneities.
Continuous injection has been the rule in vaporizing-
gas drive projects, with produced gases being com-
pressed and reinjected.
The trend in CO 2 flood projects has been to drive
relatively large CO 2 slugs of 15 % HCPV or greater with
water. The objective here is to improve miscible
sweepout by achieving a favorable mobility ratio at the
trailing edge of the slug. The disadvantage of this
method, of course, is that the displacement of CO 2 by
water is immiscible, and a residual CO 2 saturation is left
in the reservoir. There has been at least one project
where CO 2 was driven by a miscible gas. 52 The
magnitude of oil recovery improvement attained by
miscible-gas drive over water drive and whether or not
this improvement justifies the added expense of the drive
gas are issues that are not completely resolved at this
time.
Field Test Behavior
First-Contact Miscible Projects
There have been more than 50 field tests of this method,
the majority being conducted in the 1950's and 1960's.
Most were small pilot tests involving one or at most a
few injection wells and with test sizes varying from
several tens to several hundred acres (50000 to 10 6
m 2 ), although a few projects were fieldwide in scope
and involved several thousand acres. Most tests were in
sandstones and most were secondary-recovery floods.
The majority of projects were in reservoirs that were
essentially horizontal; however, there have been several
gravity-stable floods in pinnacle reef reservoirs. 8,9,63,72
Solvent slug sizes were primarily in the I to 12 % HCPV
0
range. Oil gravities have ranged from 30 to 51 API
(0.88 to 0.78 g/cm 3) with the majority between 36 and
42 0 API (0.84 and 0.82 g/cm 3).
Field experience in secondary-recovery tests has
shown that the process will displace oil in reservoirs con-
taining an initial gas saturation and bank oil into a secon-
dary oil bank.73-75 Response resembles the response to
waterflooding - decreasing GaR's and increasing oil
productivity when the secondary oil bank arrives at pro-
ducing wells. In most projects in horizontal reservoirs,
rapid breakthrough of both solvent and lean hydrocarbon
drive gas occurred, such as the Pembina and Bisti tests
where solvent breakthrough was detected after injection
of about 0.1 HCPV of fluids. 76,77 Often, oil bank, sol-
vent, and drive-gas breakthrou~hs have occurred within
a short time of each other. 4 ,73 In some projects a
substantial fraction of the LPG was produced. Alternate
injection of water and lean gas slugs was believed to
slow the rate of GaR increase after breakthrough in
some projects. 44,45
Craig 2 compared recoveries from both LPG and
APRIL 1983
condensing-gas drive projects with recovery expected for
immiscible dry-gas injection, and, of 31 projects ana-
lyzed, he concluded that about 22 % had recovered an in-
cremental volume four times greater than the volume of
solvent slug, while incremental recovery did not even
equal the solvent slug volume in 26% of the projects. No
difference was found between LPG and rich-gas drive
projects.
There are only a few published attempts to compare
performance of secondary recovery first-contact miscible
flooding proiects with anticipated waterflood perfor-
mance. 44 ,45,18 In these instances the miscible floods
were believed to have recovered from 8 to 35 % more oil
than would have been achieved by primary production
followed by waterflooding.
Ultimate recovery for the Wizard Lake gravity-stable
flood is anticipated to be about 84% OOIP. 63 ,72 By late
1980, oil recovery had reached 61 % OOIP, about equal
to the recovery expected for continued primary depletion
by immiscible gas expansion and water drive.
Floods in waterflooded or partially waterflooded reser-
voirs give a relatively direct measure of incremental
recovery over waterflooding. Table I summarizes results
of seven tests of this type where data are available from
publications. 80-85 Slug sizes ranged from 4 to 12 %
HCPV, and incremental recovery actually measured at
the time the project analysis was published ranged from
3.7 to 13.5% OOIP at discovery. In one project in-
cremental recovery was projected by decline-curve
analysis ultimately to be as high as 34% OOIP. Oil
recovered per gross barrel of LPG injected varied from
about 0.5 to 1.5 STB/RB (1.5 stock-tank m 3/res m 3),
and although data were not always available on LPG
production and recovery, ratios of oil recovered per net
barrel of LPG injected were in the range of 1 to 2
STB/RB (l stock-tank m 3!res m 3) for the few tests
where this information was available.
All the tertiary recovery tests of Table I except in the
Phegly Unit were relatively small pilot tests involving at
the most a few injection wells. The entire 785-acre (3.2
x 10 6 m 2) Phegly Unit was flooded through II injec-
tion wells, and because of its size, this test may have the
greatest validity. 82 Incremental recovery was 3.7 %
OOIP for the 4 % HCPV LPG slug driven by alternate
lean-gas/water injection.
Breakthrough behavior for solvent and lean gas was
generally similar to the behavior found in secondary-
recovery floods. Rapid breakthroughs were typical, and
often both solvent and drive gas appeared at producing
wells almost simultaneously with first response of ter-
tiary oil or at least shortly thereafter. 81-84
Field test conditions were too varied to establish
anything but the roughest of correlations between slug
size and performance. Fig. 7 shows incremental
recovery vs. slug size for the tertiary-recovery tests.
Secondary-recovery tests at Pembina and Millican fields
performed poorly with slugs of I to 3 % HCPV and 1.5 %
HCPV, respectively. From the bulk of field experience,
a slug size of 4 to 5 % HCPV seems to be about the
minimum required for prudent design.
Condensing-Gas Drive Projects
There have been at least 19 condensing-gas
projects. 9,46-49,64,70,71,86-90 A few began in the
819
 TABLE 1-FIRST-CONTACT MISCIBLE TERTIARY RECOVERY TESTS

Oil Oil Viscosity Slug Incremental

Year Type Gravity Viscosity Ratio Depth Thickness Area Size' Recovery' OillGross Slug Oil/Net Slug
~_F_iel:-:-d-,----- _O_pe_ra_to_r _St_art_e_d --=-=-P_ro'-:ciec_t-,-,-,-- (OAPI) ~ ~ ~ _(_11)_ (acres) (% HCPV) (%OOIP) (STB/RB) (STB/RB)
Burkett Unit Phillips 1958 LPG~G~W 42 25 2,100 30 10 10 7.0 0.67
(KS)
Johnson Ohio 1958 37 1.1 18 4,600 10 164 5.5 5 to 34" >0.9
(NE)
South Ward Atlantic 1959 35 4 40 2,400 32 10 7.5 11.5 1.5 2.2
(TX)
Adena Clar A Union 1962 44 0.42 6.5 5,500 28 7 0.46 2.2
(CO)
Adena Hough Union 1963 44 0.42 6.5 5,500 28 80 12.5 0.6 1.2
A (CO)
Hibberd Pool Atlantic 1963 35 1.7 23 4,300 60 80 7.4 13.5 1.6 >3
South
Cuyama
(CA)
Phegly Unit Mobil 1964 37 3 30 4.900 8 785 4 3.7 0.85
*Treated area .
• • Ultimate estimated from decline-curve analysis.

mid-1950's, but the majority of projects started during
the 1960's and early 1970's.
Most of these tests were larger in scope than the bulk
of first-contact miscible tests, often involving hundreds
or occasionally thousands of acres. Some examples of
relatively large floods in horizontal reservoirs include
Seeligson [877 acres (3.5 X 10 6 m 2)]64 and Lilliedoll
[640 acres (2.6 x 10 6 m 2)] 90 in sandstones, and Ante
Creek [6,000 acres (24 X 10 6 m 2)), 47 South Swan Hills
[830 acres (3.4 x 10 6 m 2)), 49 and Levelland [1,190
acres (4.8 X 10 6 m 2)]48 in carbonates.
The condensing-gas drive projects have been
secondary-recovery floods predominantly. Oil gravities
ranged from 30 to 50° API (0.88 to 0.78 g/cm 3), and oil
viscosities generally have been less than about 2 cp
(0.002 Pa' s). Slug sizes have ranged from 2 to > 50 %
HCPV and were > 10% HCPV in the majority of
projects.
Gravity-stable displacements in reefal buildups have
been an important aspect of condensing-gas drive field
experience. Examples include Golden Spike 70 and
various pools of the Rainbow field,9,71 all in Alberta,
Canada, and the Intisar D reef in Libya. 79,92,93
The Ante Creek, South Swan Hills, Levelland, Cen-
tral Mallet, 91 Intisar D,79 and Rainbow field projects
were still active in 1981. Most of these projects were 7 to
13 years old at that time.
The character of response to enriched-gas injection has
been similar to that observed in first-contact miscible
floods. In secondary-recovery floods, GOR decreases as
the secondary oil bank arrives at producing wells and
then increases as solvent and drive gas break through.
Limited tertiary recovery testing shows the process will
displace waterflood residual oil to producing wells. 90,91
Rapid breakthroughs ·generally have been observed in
horizontal floods - after only 0.05 HCPV of injection at
South Swan Hills and Levelland. Average breakthrough
sweepout at Seeligson was about 23 %. Gas production
after breakthrough was moderated in some projects by
alternate injection of enriched-gas and water. 46,48,49
There has been a considerable range in observed/
estimated incremental oil recovery for condensing-gas
drive projects. From calculations and comparisons with
waterfloods in similar reservoirs, the 52 % HCPV slug
injected in the Seeligson secondary-recovery project was
estimated to have recovered 5 to 10% OOIP.64 On the
other hand, operators of the South Swan Hills and
Levelland secondary-recovery projects used reservoir
simulators to project incremental recoveries of 20 and
27% OOIP for slug sizes of approximately 15%
HCPV. 48 ,49 A later comparison of South Swan Hills
performance with waterfloods in similar fields did not
contradict the original projections. 65 A somewhat lower
recovery is anticipated currently for Levelland as a result
of recent, unpublished studies. The South Swan Hills
and Levelland floods are no more than half completed,
and it remains to be seen whether or not the projections
will be achieved.
Results are available also from several tertiary-
recovery tests. Incremental recovery in the Central
Mallet pilot test is 6 % OOIP after injection of about 20 %
HCPV slug. 91 Incremental recovery varied considerably
among the four patterns ultimately flooded at Lilliedoll
with a 15% HCPV slug, ranging from 0.2 to 1.6
STB/gross RB (0.2 to 1.6 stock-tank m 3/gross res m 3)
of enriched-gas injected and averaging 0.8 STB/RB (0.8
stock-tank m 3Ires m 3).90, *
Generally, the gravity-stable floods in the Canadian
pinnacle reefs appear to be performing satisfactorily, and
operator evaluations have ranged from "promising" to
"successful. ,,9 Projections made with a reservoir
simulator indicate that ultimate recovery for the Intisar D
reef in Libya could be 70% OOIP, or nearly 20 to 30%
OOIP higher than would be achieved by waterflood-
ing. 79 The Golden Spike flood in Canada was not suc-
cessful. Performance was severely affected by
permeability barriers to vertical flow that were un-
suspected when the project was begun but discovered
later by infill drilling. A subsequent analysis showed the
7.8% HCPV slug had only increased ultimate recovery
by about 3 % OOIP. 70
Vaporizing-Gas Drive Projects
At least 11 projects of this type can be identified in the
literature. They typically have been large-scale floods in-
volving thousands of surface acres. 94 ,96-104 Eight proj-
ects had more than 3,000 acres (12 X 10 6 m'2) under
flood, 94,96-100, 102, 103, 105 and as many as 22,600 acres
'Previously unpublished data. ARCO Oil & Gas Co. (1972).

820 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 2-RESULTS FROM SELECTED CO 2 FLOOD TESTS
Slug Size
Project (% HCPV)
SACROC main flood 12 to 15
Phases I and II
SAC ROC tertiary 10 to 18
pilot
Willard Wasson 20
Slaughter Estate 26
Twofreds 25 and
increasing
Little Creek' , 160
Levelland 736 50 and
increasing
• Calculated with miscible flood simulators utilizing test data.
"Based On total HCPV in test area including pinchout volume.
(91.5 X 10 6 m 2) are being flooded in the Fairway field
in east Texas. 96 Many of these projects have also been
operated for a long period of time. Six of the currently
active floods are more than 10 years old, three are more
than 14 years old, and the Block 31 flood has been in
operation for 29 years. All published vaporizing-gas
drive projects to date have tested secondary recovery.
Oil gravity typically was >40 API «0.83 g/cm 3).
0
For those projects where assessments by the operator
are available, the majority are considered to have per-
formed successfully. 6,9,94,96-99 Exceptionally high
ultimate recoveries will be achieved in several projects.
Recovery of more than 50% OOIP has been attained in
the Block 31 94 and Raleigh floods, 101 and this level of
recovery may be met or exceeded at Fairway. 96 An
ultimate recovery greater than 50% OOIP has been pro-
jected in at least three other projects. 102-104 Estimates of
incremental recovery over waterflooding are not
available. Some projects were in reservoirs that were not
considered particularly good candidates for waterflood-
ing because of low permeability and low water injectivi-
ty. Floods that were considered successful by the project
operator have been conducted in highly stratified car-
bonate and sandstone reservoirs as well as in less
heterogeneous reservoirs.
Continuous injection of solvent is an important dif-
ference between the vaporizing-gas drive field trials and
the condensing-gas and first-contact miscible field trials.
This is perhaps the single most important reason for the
relative success of vaporizing-gas drive floods. Because
solvent is injected continuously, there is no loss of
miscibility caused by breakdown of a small solvent slug,
and miscibility cannot be lost unless pressure at the gas
front falls below miscibility pressure. Overall viscosity
ratio between oil and driving gas has been more
favorable on average in vaporizing-gas drive floods than
in other hydrocarbon-miscible projects because higher
API gravity oils are required for miscibility, and this un-
doubtedly has also contributed to the relative success of
vaporizing-gas drive floods.
Alternate injection of water to reduce mobility ratio
was practiced in at least four projects 95,96,98, 100 and was
considered by the project operator to have a beneficial
effect on flood performance in three of these. 96,98,100
APRIL 1983
Incremental Gross
Breakthrough Recovery C0 2 /0il Ratio
(% HCPV) (%OOIP) (Mcf/STB)
2 to 5 7' 6 to 7*
5 3.5 15 to 20
10' 8 to 12' 5 to 7*
10 to 15 18 and 5 and
increasing decreasing
5 3 and 26
increasing
15 18 24
15 to 20 6 and 29 and
increasing decreasing
CO 2 Miscible Projects
There have been at least 36 tests of this process in the
U.S., and in early 1982 there were at least 28 active proj-
ects. With one exception, all were started in the 1970's
and 1980's. 5,6,9,12,50-52,55,66,91,106-117 Most projects
were small-scale tests of less than 100 acres (405 000
m 2), although three were large enough to be considered
commercial-size floods rather than pilot tests. 50,55,108
Unlike the hydrocarbon-miscible processes, the majority
of CO 2 floods have tested tertiary recovery. Two of the
largest floods, however, are predominantly secondary-
recovery floods: SAC ROC [33,000 acres (133 x 10 6
m 2)]50 and Crossett [1,700 acres (6.9 X 10 6 m 2)].55
CO 2 was injected continuously or in very large slugs
in at least five projects, similar to continuous injection of
the high-pressure l1;as solvent in vaporizing-gas drive
projects. SS, 106,108, ITo,114 Moderate slug sizes were in-
jected in the other projects, but in most of these tests no
attempt was made to achieve miscible displacement at
the trailing edge of the slug. 50 ,51,66,109,1l1-113 Instead,
the CO 2 slug was immiscibly driven with water, leaving
a residual CO 2 saturation in the reservoir. Alternate in-
jection of water with the CO 2 slul1; was tried in about
half the projects. IO ,50-52,91,107,111-IT3 Most floods have
been in low-relief, essentially horizontal reservoirs,
although two projects were carried out in high-relief
reservoirs and were designed to be gravity-stable. 110,114
Projects have been about equally divided between sand-
stone and carbonate formations. Oil gravities generally
have been in the range of 30 to 50° API (0.78 to 0.88
g/cm 3) with viscosities less than 2 cp (2 mPa·s).
Field trials have shown that C02 miscible flooding is
a method for both secondary and tertiary oil recovery. At
Crossett, oil was displaced and banked by CO 2 flooding
in a reservoir that had been produced by solution-gas
drive and contained a free gas saturation at the start of
CO 2 injection. 55 The ability of CO 2 to displace and to
recover some of the residual oil left after waterflooding
has been demonstrated by such tertiary-recovery field
tests as the Little Creek, 106 SACROC, 109 and Slaughter
Estate pilot tests,52,91 and by the Twofreds project. 108
Most projects, both secondary- and tertiary-recovery
floods, have experienced early CO 2 breakthroughs,
usually after injection of 0.05 to 0.2 HCPV total fluid
821
 20r--------.--------r--------r------~

0 >-
cr:
w 60 w 15
f-
aw >
x.<c--t- 0 ~
-,
50 c'<?' a
~ ~S
w 6
a N 'v\~
cr: 0 , , - WILLARD-WASSON (CALC.)
W 0 -' f- ,/' (20% SLUG)
a a 40 <{
z
f- w
10
~
a > w z a
w
0 >= 30 :::; cr:
cr: <{
Cl- -'
w w
cr: ~ I.
/, "
N~
:::; 20
a 5 / ' . / " " LEVELLAND 736 (50% SLUG)
0 ~
a ~
>!'"

~
a /, SACROC TERTIARY PILOT
f- 10 o'<<?' \i:: ( 10-18% SLUG)
Z
w ".if.
a 0
cr: o~~~--~--------~------~------~
w 0 05 1.0 15 2.0 o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
~
TOT AL HCPV INJECTED (C02' H2O) TOTAL HCPV INJECTED (C02+H20)

Fig. 5-C0 2 production in field tests. Fig. 6-lncremental oil production in CO 2 field tests.

(i.e., C02 or CO 2 plus water). This is illustrated in Fig.
5, which also shows that CO 2 production immediately
after breakthrough generally has not been excessive.
Corrective measures such as alternate water injec-
tion,50,51 zonal isolation, 50 and reducing the injection
pressure 5I have been partially successful in moderating
CO 2 production. Nonetheless, ultimate production of a
significant fraction of the CO 2 slug should be an-
ticipated, and facilities will be required for handling and
reinjecting the produced CO 2 , In some cases facilities
may be needed to extract the CO 2 from the total pro-
duced gas stream if the level of contamination would in-
terfere with displacement efficiency.
Table 2 shows incremental oil recovery and gross
CO 2/oil ratio for selected field trials. In this table gross
CO 2/oil ratio is defined as the ratio of total CO 2 injected
(makeup plus recycle) to the incremental oil recovery.
Fig. 6 shows incremental oil production history for
selected CO 2 projects.
Incremental recovery has ranged from a low of about
3.5% OOIP to a high of about 18% OOIP. Gross
CO 2 /oil ratio has ranged from 5 to 26 scf/STB (890 to
4630 std m 3 / stock-tank m 3 ). The Slaughter Estate
tertiary-recovery pilot test has been by far the best per-
former. 52,91 Ultimate recovery for the 26% HCPV slug
in this 12-acre (48 600-m 2 ) test is 18% OOIP and in-
creasing, while gross CO 2/oil ratio is about 5 Mcf/STB
(890 std m 3 / stock-tank m 3) and decreasing. In contrast,
ultimate recovery for the 80-acre (324 OOO-m 3)
SACROC tertiary recovery pilot test was only 3.5%
OOIP for a 10 to 18% HCPV slug at a gross CO 2/oil
ratio of 15 to 20 Mcf/STB (2670 to 3560 std m 3 / stock-
tank m 3 ). 109 CO 2/oil ratio will also be relatively high in
the Levelland No. 736, 1.5-acre (6070-m2) tertiary-
recovery test. CO 2 injected at Levelland currently
amounts to about 50% HCPV, but recovery is only 6%
OOIP. 91 The low recovery at Levelland for the large
slug size is attributed by the project operator to an unex-
pectedly low oil saturation in the thoroughly waterflood-
ed pilot test location. All three tests were in stratified
carbonate formations.
The largest field trial to date, the SAC ROC main
flood, 50 was a secondary-recovery flood, and there was
822
no direct measure of incremental oil. Simulator projec-
tions, after history matching performance, indicated an
ultimate recovery of about 7% OOIP for slug sizes that
varied between 12 and 15% HCPV.
Incremental production for the selected projects shown
in Fig. 7 began after injection of about 0.1 to 0.2 HCPV
of total fluid. After a period of almost linear increase in
incremental recovery with cumulative injection, the
recovery curves bend over and gradually approach the
ultimate recovery value. As in hydrocarbon-miscible
floods, first incremental recovery in the tertiary-recovery
CO 2 floods has occurred either shortly before or coin-
cidentally with C02 breakthrough, and the bulk of in-
cremental oil is produced concurrently with the C02.
Lower-than-anticipated CO 2 injectivity has been
observed in a number of field trials. 52,55 This seems to
be particularly true in the low-temperature carbonate
reservoirs of west Texas. Lower-than-anticipated water
injectivity has also been observed when CO 2 and water
were injected alternately. 52 However, injectivity in the
Willard Wasson test, even with alternate injection of
CO 2 and water, did not deteriorate appreciably after fill-
up.51
Operating problems have been more severe than in
waterflooding, with corrosion, leaks, and scaling being
mentioned in addition to precipitation of a heavy
hydrocarbon from the crude occasionally being ob-
served. Several excellent articles have been published
concerning operating practices in CO 2
floods. 50,51 ,55, 106, 118-121
Comparison of Processes
Incremental recovery and slug effectiveness in C02
floods are compared with these quantities from first-
contact and condensing-gas drive miscible floods in
Figs. 7 and 8 for selected projects where there are suffi-
cient data to make the comparisons. Slug effectiveness is
defined here to be the incremental oil recovered per gross
reservoir barrel of miscible fluid injected. In condensing-
gas drive projects, the miscible fluid was considered to
be the lean gas/LPG mixture injected, rather than the
LPG only. Conceptually, for a given process in a given
reservoir, incremental recovery should increase and slug
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 30
a. LEGEND:
0 25 • FIRST·CONTACT MISCIBLE
0
";? • RICH·GAS DRIVE
>-' .?

.
• C02 FLOOD LEGEND:
a: 20 .?
? ESTIMATED FROM SIMULATIONS
w
> .?
1 OR COMPARISONS BUT NOT 0 -
• FIRST ·CONT ACT MISCIBLE
0 MEASURED DIRECTLY -In • RICH·GAS DRIVE
()
w 15 ~a:

. 1 DIRECTION OF INCREASE • C02 FLOOD

a: a:cn
? ESTIMATED FROM SIMULATIONS
...J
«
.? C) 2
:::la:
1 OR COMPARISONS BUT NOT
I-
z 10 .1

. .?
. ...JC)
~,
MEASURED DIRECTLY

.1 . .-
w 1 DIRECTION OF INCREASE
~
w
a:
()
5
•?
1
.-
1
...J1n
-I-
o~

~
o O~--L---~--~--~--~--~--~~--~~
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 150 160 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 150 160
SLUG SIZE, % HCPV SLUG SIZE, % HCPV

Fig. 7-lncremental recovery from miscible·flood field tests. Fig. 8-Slug effectiveness in miscible-flood field tests.

effectiveness should decrease with increasing slug size,
and these concepts are roughly supported by Figs, 7
and 8.
It should be kept in mind that incremental recovery
and slug effectiveness depend on many other variables
besides slug size, such as reservoir heterogeneity,
temperature and pressure, crude oil composition, and
flow regime, to mention just a few. These conditions
varied widely between the tests shown in these figures,
which should introduce a substantial data-point scatter,
even for projects of a given process type, when results
are plotted as a function of slug size only, Comparisons
are further clouded because there is little overlap be-
tween slug sizes used in the first-contact miscible floods
and the other processes. Within the data scatter there is
no clear-cut evidence that on average a given process is
technically performing appreciably better or worse than
the others for a given slug size. This is not to say that one
process may not actually perform superior to the others
for given reservoir conditions, but no overall trend is evi-
dent in the composite field data.
The data of Fig. 8 suggest that enriched-gas slugs are
performing as effectively as would the same size first-
contact miscible slug. Admittedly the data to support this
conclusion are extremely limited, but if true, the LPG is
being utilized more effectively in the enriched-gas slugs
since they contain only 30 to 50% LPG.
Conclusions
1. After 30 years' research, there is a considerable
body of knowledge concerning the mechanisms of
miscibility and fluid flow. Even so, advances are needed
in a number of important areas such as: improved
understanding oflow-temperature CO 2 -flood miscibility
and of the factors affecting CO 2 mobility; improved
understanding of sweepout for tertiary recovery, slug
processes, and dynamic miscibility; and improved
predictive methods and/or guidelines for slug processes
for selecting between a miscible and immiscible drive
fluid and for estimating optimal slug size.
2. All the miscible processes are applicable for both
secondary or tertiary recovery in sandstone or carbonate
reservoirs.
3. In horizontal floods, relatively early solvent and
drive-gas breakthroughs should be expected for all proc-
esses, with production of the bulk of incremental oil con-
currently with solvent and drive gas.
4. Greatest field trial success to date has been
achieved with the vaporizing-gas drive method, probably
because the miscible fluid has been injected continuously
rather than as a slug and because mobility ratio for these
floods has been more favorable on average. The process
has had limited application, however, because of the
high miscibility-pressure requirement.
5. A low miscibility-pressure requirement often is a
significant advantage of COrmiscible flooding. This
process could have significant future application in areas
with economical CO 2 supplies from natural deposits or
surface sources.
6. Incremental recovery ranged from about 3 to 20%
OOIP for 16 first-contact miscible, condensing-gas
drive, and CO 2 -flood projects where this quantity could
be estimated from field data. Slug sizes of the miscible
injection fluids in these projects ranged from 4 to 160%
HCPV, and with few exceptions incremental recovery
was less than 1 STB/ gross RB (1 stock-tank m 3 / gross res
m 3) of miscible fluid injected, even for the smallest slug
sizes.
7. Within the data scatter for these 16 projects, there is
no clear-cut evidence that on average one process has
performed appreciably better or worse than another for a
given slug size.
References
1. Craig, F.F. Jr. and Owens, W.W.: "Miscible Slug Flooding-
A Review," 1. Pet. Tech. (April 1960) 11-15.
2. Craig, F.F. Jr.: "A Current Appraisal of Field Miscible Slug
Projects," 1. Pet. Tech. (May 1970) 529-36.
3. Brownscombe, E.R., McNeese, CR., and Miller, CC: "Im-
proved Oil Recovery by Miscible Displacement," Proc., Sixth
World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt, West Germany (1963) 2,563-75.
4. Craig, D.R. and Bray, J.A.: "Gas Injection and Miscible
Flooding," Proc., Eighth World Pet. Cong., Moscow (1971) 3,
275-85.
5. Bleakley, W.B.: "Journal Survey Shows Recovery Projects
Up," Oil and Gas 1. (March 25, 1974) 69-78.
6. "U .S. Pushes Enhanced-Recovery Effort," Inti. Petroleum En-
cyclopedia, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (1977) 282-94.
7. "Gas Miscible Projects Move at a Slow Pace," Oil and Gas 1.
(AprilS, 1976) 126-27.
~. "Canadian Enhanced-Recovery Activity Is Moderate, Centers on
Thermal Projects," Oil and Gas 1. (AprilS, 1976) 128-29.

APRIL 1983 823

 9. Matheny, S.L.: "EOR Methods Help Ultimate Recovery," Oil
and Gas J. (March 31, 1980) 79.
10. Stalkup, F.!.: "Carbon Dioxide Miscible Flooding: Past, Pres-
ent, and Outlook for the Future," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1978)
1102-12.
II. Stalkup, F.!.: "Carbon Dioxide Injection for Improved Oil
Recovery," Exploration and Economics of the Petroleum In-
dustry, Southwestern Legal Foundation, Matthew Bender, New
York City (1981) 18.
12. "Steam Dominates Enhanced Oil Recovery," Oil and Gas J.
(April 5, 1982) 139.
13. Hutchinson, e.A. Jr. and Braun. P.H.: "Phase Relations of
Miscible Displacement in Oil Recovery," AIChE J. (1961) 7,
64.
14. Koch, H.A. Jr. and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr.: "Miscible
Displacements of Reservoir Oil Using Flue Gas," Trans. , AIME
(1958) 213, 7-10.
15. McNeese, C.R.: "The High Pressure Gas Process and the Use of
Flue Gas," paper A-67 presented at the 1963 ACS Symposium
on Production and Exploration Chemistry, Los Angeles, March
3 I-April 5.
16. Rathmell, J.J., Stalkup, F.!., and Hassinger, R.C.: "A
Laboratory Investigation of Miscible Displacement by Carbon
Dioxide," paper SPE 3483 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
17. Metcalfe, R.S. and Yarborough, L.: "Effect of Phase Equilibria
on the CO 2 Displacement Mechanism," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug.
1979) 242-52.
18. Holm, L.W. and Josendal, V.A.: "Mechanisms of Oil Displace-
ment by Carbon Dioxide," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1974) 1427-36;
Trans., AIME, 257.
19. Gardner, J.W., Orr, F.M., and Patel, P.D.: "The Effect of
Phase Behavior on CO 0 Flood Displacement Efficiency," 1.
Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1981) 2067-81.
20. Orr, F.M., Yu, A.D., and Lein, c.L.: "Phase Behavior of COo
and Crude Oil in Low-Temperature Reservoirs," Soc. Pel. Eng~
J. (Aug. 1981) 480-92.
21. Shelton, J.L. and Yarborough, L.: "Multiple Phase Behavior in
Porous Media During CO 2 or Rich Gas Flooding," J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1977) 1171-78.
22. Yellig, W.F.: "Carbon Dioxide Displacement of a West Texas
Reservoir Oil," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Dec. 1982) 805-15.
23. Yellig, W.F. and Metcalfe, R.S.: "Determination and Prediction
of CO 2 Minimum Miscibility Pressures," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1980) 160-65.
24. Crane, F.E .. Kendall, H.A., and Gardner, G.H.F.: "Some Ex-
periments on the Flow of Miscible Fluids of Unequal Density
Through Porous Media," Soc. Pel. Eng. 1. (Dec. 1963) 277-80;
Trans., AIME, 228.
25. Blackwell, RJ., Rayne, J.R., and Terry, W.M.: "Factors In-
fluencing the Efficiency of Miscible Displacement," Trails.,
AIME (1959) 216, 1-8.
26. Habermann, B.: "The Efficiencies of Miscible Displacement as
a Function of Mobility Ratio," Trans .. AIME (1960) 219,
264-72.
27. Mahaffey, J.L., Rutherford, W.M., and Matthews, C.W.:
"Sweep Efficiency by Miscible Displacement in a Five-Spot,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (March 1966) 73-80; TraIlS., AIME, 237.
28. Slobod, R.L. and Caudle, B.H.: "X-Ray Shadowgraph Studies
of Areal Sweepout Efficiencies," Trails., AIME (1952) 195,
265-70.
29. Dyes, A.B., Caudle, B.H., and Erikson, R.A.: "Oil Production
After Breakthrough - As Influenced by Mobility Ratio,"
Trans., AIME (1954) 201. 81-86.
30. Craig, F.F. Jr. et al.: "A Laboratory Study of Gravity Segrega-
tion in Frontal Drives," Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 275-82.
31. Pozzi, A.L. and Blackwell, R.J.: "Design of Laboratory Models
for Study of Miscible Displacement," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March
1963) 28-40; Trans., AIME, 228.
32. Lacey, J.W., Faris, J.E., and Brinkman, F.H.: "Effect of Bank
Size on Oil Recovery of the High Pressure Gas-Driven LPG-
Bank Process," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961) 806-12; Trans.,
AIME,222.
33. Claridge, E.L.: "A Trapping Hele-Shaw Model for Miscible-
Immiscible Flooding Studies," paper SPE 4105 presented at the
1972 SPE Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
34. Giraud, A. et al.: "A Laboratory Investigation Confirms the
Relative Inefficiency of True Miscible Drives and Outlines New
824
Concepts for Maximizing Oil Recovery by Gas Injection," paper
SPE 3486 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual Meeting, New
Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
35. Perrine, R.L.: "Stability Theory and Its Use to Optimize Solvent
Recovery of Oil, " Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1961) 9-16; Trans.,
AIME,222.
36. Slobod, R.I.: "Use of Graded Viscosity Zone to Reduce Finger-
ing in Miscible Phase Displacement," Prod. Monthly (Aug.
1960) 12.
37. Claridge, E.L.: "A Method for the Design of Graded Viscosity
Banks," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1978) 315-24.
38. Bernard, G.G. and Holm, L.W.: "Use of Surfactant to Reduce
CO 2 Mobility in Oil Displacement," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug.
1980) 281-92.
39. Holm, L.W.: "Foam Injection Test in the Siggins Field, Il-
linois," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1970) 1499-1506.
40. Caudle, B.H. and Dyes, A.B.: "Improved Miscible Displace-
ment by Gas-Water Injection," Trans., AIME (1958) 213,
281-84.
41. Blackwell, RJ. el al.: "Recovery of Oil by Displacement with
Water-Solvent Mixtures," Trans., AIME (1960) 219, 291-300.
42. Warner, H.R.: "An Evaluation of Miscible CO 2 Flooding in
Watertlooded Sandstone Reservoirs," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1977)
1339-47.
43. Youngren, G.K. and Charlson, G.S.: "History Match Analysis
of the Little Creek CO 2 Pilot Test," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1980)
2042-52.
44. Gernert, J.M. and Brigham, W.E.: "Meadow Creek Unit Lakota
'B' Combination Water-Miscible Flood," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1964) 993-97.
45. Sessions, R.E.: "How Atlantic Operates the Slaughter Flood,"
Oil and Gas J. (July 4, 1960) 91-98.
46. Holloway, H.D. and Fitch, R.A.: "Performance of a Miscible
Flood with Alternate Gas-Water Displacements," J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1964) 372-76.
47. Griffith, J.D., Baiton, N., and Steffensen, R.J.: "Ante Creek-
A Miscible Flood Using Separate Gas and Water Injection," J.
Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1970) 1232-37.
48. Brannan, G. and Whitington, H.M. Jr.: "Enriched Gas Miscible
Flooding - A Case History of the Levelland Unit Secondary
Miscible Project," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1977) 919-24.
49. Griffith, J.D. and Home, A.L.: "South Swan Hills Solvent
Flood," Proc., Ninth World Pet. Cong., Tokyo (1975) 4,
269-78.
50. Kane, A.V.: "Performance Review of a Large Scale COrWAG
Project SACROC Unit - Kelly Snyder Field," J. Pet. Tech.
(Feb. 1979) 217-31.
51. Johnston, J.W.: "A Review of the Willard (San Andres) Unit
CO 2 Injection Project," paper SPE 6388 presented at the 1971
SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
TX, March 10-11.
52. Rowe, H.G., York, S.D., and Ader, J.e.: "Slaughter Estate
Unit Tertiary Pilot Perfonnance," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1982)
613-20.
53. Henry, R.L. et al.: "Utilization of Composition Observation
Wells in a West Texas CO 2 Pilot Flood," paper SPE 9786
presented at the 1981 SPEIDOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, April 5-8.
54. Henry, R.L. and Metcalfe, R.S.: "Multiple Phase Generation
During CO 2 Flooding," paper SPE 8812 presented at the 1980
SPEIDOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April
20-23; accepted for publication in Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
55. Pontius, S.B. and Tham, MJ.: "North Cross (Devonian) Unit
CO 2 Flood - Review of Flood Performance and Numerical
Simulation Model," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1978) 1706-16.
56. Raimondi, P. and Torcaso, M.A.: "Distribution of the Oil Phase
Obtained Upon Imbibition of Water," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March
1964) 49-55; Trans., AIME, 231.
57. Stalkup, F.I.: "Displacement of Oil by Solvent at High Water
Saturation," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Dec. 1970) 337-48; Trans.,
AIME,249.
58. Shelton, J.L. and Schneider, F.N.: "The Effects of Water Injec-
tion on Miscible Flooding Methods Using Hydrocarbons and
Carbon Dioxide," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1975) 217-26.
59. Fitzgerald, J.G. and Neilsen, R.F.: "Oil Recovery from a Con-
solidated Core by Light Hydrocarbons in the Presence of High
Water Saturations," Mineral Industries Experimental Station
Circular No. 66, Pennsylvania State U., University Park (1964)
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 171.
60. Raimondi, P., Torcaso, M.A., and Henderson, J.H.: "The Ef-
fect of Interstitial Water on the Mixing of Hydrocarbons During a
Miscible Displacement Process," Minerallnduslries Experimen-
tal Slalion Circular No. 61, Pennsy Ivania State U., University
Park (1961).
61. Christian, L.D. el al.: "Planning A Tertiary Oil Recovery Proj-
ect for Jay/LEC Fields Unit," J. Pel. Tech. (Aug. 1981)
1535-44.
62. Spence, A.P. and Watkins, R.W.: "The Effect of Microscopic
Core Heterogeneity on Miscible Flood Residual Oil Saturation,"
paper SPE 9229 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24; accepted for
publication in Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
63. Wizard Lake D-3A Pool-Engineering Sludy of Primary Perfor-
mance and Miscible Flooding, Texaco Exploration Co. Applica-
tion to Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Board, Calgary (Dec.
1968).
64. Walker, J.W. and Turner, J.L.: "Performance of Seeligson Zone
20B-07 Enriched-Gas-Drive Project," J. Pel. Tech. (April 1968)
369-73.
65. Griffith, J.D. and Cyca, L.G.: "Performance of South Swan
Hills Miscible Flood," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1981) 1319-26.
66. Holm, L.W. and O'Brien, L.J.: "Carbon Dioxide Test at the
Mead-Strawn Field," J. Pel. Tech. (April 1972) 431-42.
67. Bilhartz, H.L. and Charlson, G.S.: "Coring for In-Situ Satura-
tions in the Willard Unit CO 2 Flood Mini-Test," paper SPE
7050 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium on Improved
Methods for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-18.
68. Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.e.: "A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media," Soc. Pel. Eng. 1. (March 1963)
70-84; Trans., AIME, 228.
69. Koonce, K.T. and Blackwell, R.J.: "Idealized Behavior of Sol-
vent Banks in Stratified Reservoirs," Soc. Pel. Eng. J. (Dec.
1965) 318-28; Trans., AIME, 234.
70. Reitzel, G.A. and Calion, G.O.: "Pool Description and Perior-
mance Analysis Leads to Understanding Golden Spike's Miscible
Flood," J. Cdn. Pel. Tech. (April-June 1977) 39-48.
71. "Banff Shoots for 97 % Recovery at Rainbow Key," PeT. Eng.
(April 1969) 56-58.
72. Martin, W.E.: "The Wizard Lake D-3A Pool Miscible Flood,"
paper SPE 10026 presented at the 1982 SPE IntI. Petroleum Ex-
hibition and Technical Symposium, Beijing, China, March
19-22.
73. Moscrip, R. III: "Butane Injection in San Pedro Block D," Pel.
Eng. (Sept. 1958) B-IO-B-24.
74. Jenks, L.H., Campbell, J.B., and Binder, G.G. Jr.: "A Field
Test of the Gas-Driven Liquid Propane Method of Oil
Recovery," Trans., AIME (1957) 210,34-39.
75. Sturdivant, W.e.: "Pilot Propane Project Completed in West
Texas Reef," J. Pel. Tech. (May 1959) 27-30.
76. "Biggest Miscible Flood Turned to Water at Pembina," Oilweek
(Aug. 1961).
77. Ramsey, E.H.: "Operating a Miscible Flood, Central Bistri
Unit," Prod. Monthly (Sept. 1961) 12-15.
78. Marrs, D.G.: "Field Results of Miscible-Displacement Using
Liquid Propane Driven by Gas, Parks Field Unit, Midland Coun-
ty, Texas," J. Pel. Tech. (April 1961) 327-32.
79. Des Brisay, e.L. et al.: "Review of Miscible Flood Performance
Intisar 'D' Field, Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," J.
Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1982) 1651-60.
80. Cordiner, F.S. and Popp, M.P.: "Application of Miscible Phase
Displacement Techniques to a Water-Drive Reservoir, Johnson
Field, Cheyenne County, Nebraska," Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1962) 144.
81. Holm, L.W.: "Propane-Gas-Water Miscible Floods in Watered-
Out Areas of the Adena Field, Colorado," J. Pel. Tech. (Oct.
1972) 1264-70.
82. Connally, e.A. Jf.: "Tertiary Miscible Flood in Phegley Unit,
Washington County, Colorado," paper SPE 3775 presented at
the 1972 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April
16-19.
83. Blanton, J.R., McCaskill, N., and Herbeck, E.F.: "Performance
of a Propane Slug Pilot in a Watered-Out Sand - South Ward
Field," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1970) 1209-14.
84. Weimer, R.F.: "LPG-Gas Injection Recovery Process, Burkett
Unit, Greenwood County, Kansas," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1963)
1067-72.
APRIL 1983
85. Chambers, F.T.: "Tertiary Oil Recovery Combination Water-
Gas Miscible Flood - Hibbard Pool," Prod. Monlhly (Jan.
1968) 17.
86. "Miscible Drives: A Growing Tool for Oil Recovery," Oil and
Gas J. (March 23, 1959) 64-69.
87. Morgan, J.T. and Thompson, J.E.: "Reservoir Study of the
Camp Sand, Haynesville Field, Louisiana," paper SPE 7553
presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3.
88. "Propane and Ethane Enriched Gas Injected in the 14-12 Sand at
the South Coles Levee Field," paper presented at the 1961 API
Spring Meeting; Abstract in World Oil (May 1961) 135.
89. Bouck, L.S., Hearn, C.L., and Dohy, G.: "Performance of a
Miscible Flood in the Bear Lake Cardium Unit, Pembina Field,
Alberta, Canada," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1975) 672-78.
90. Coan, S.W.: "Profitable Miscible Flood in a Watered-Out
Reservoir," Oil and Gas J. (Dec. 12, 1966) Ill.
91. Enhanced Oil-Recovery Field Reports, SPE, Dallas (1975-81).
92. Des Brisay, C.L. and Daniel, E.L.: "Supplemental Recovery
Development of the Intisar 'A' and 'D' Reef Fields, Libyan Arab
Republic," J. Pel. Tech. (July 1972) 785-91.
93. Des Brisay, e.L., Gray, J.W., and Spivak, A.: "Miscible Flood
Performance of the Intisar 'D' Reef Field, Libyan Arab
Republic," J. Pel. Tech. (Aug. 1975) 935-42.
94. Herbeck, E.R. and Blanton, J.R.: "Ten Years of Miscible
Displacement in Block 31 Field," J. Pel. Tech. (June 1961)
543-49.
95. Tittle, R.M. and From, K.T.: "Success of Flue Gas Program at
Neale Field," paper SPE 1907 presented at the 1967 SPE Annual
Meeting, Houston, Oct. 1-4.
96. Lackland, S.D. and Hurford, G.T.: "Advanced Technology Im-
proves Recovery at Fairway," J. Pel. Tech. (March 1973)
354-58.
97. Pottier, J. el al.: "The High Pressure Injection of Miscible Gas at
Hassi-Messaoud," Proc., Third World Pet. Cong., The Hague
(1967) 3. 533-44.
98. Dyes, A.B. et al.: "Alternate Injection of HPG and Water - A
Two Well Pilot," paper SPE 4082 presented at the 1972 SPE An-
nual Meeting, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
99. Burt, R.A. Jr.: "High Pressure Miscible Gas Displacement Proj-
ect, Bridger Lake Unit, Summit County," paper SPE 3487
presented at the 1971 SPE Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Oct.
3-6.
100. Cone, C.: "Case History of the University Block 9 (Wolfcamp)
Field - A Gas-Water Injection Secondary Recovery Project," J.
Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1970) 1485-91.
101. Meltzer, B.D., Hurdle, J.M., and Cassingham, R.W.: "An Effi-
cient Gas Displacement Project - Raleigh Field, Mississippi,"
1. Pel. Tech. (May 1965) 509-14.
102. Eckles, W.W., Prihoda, e., and Holden, W.W.: "Unique
Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery for Very High-Pressure Wilcox
Sands Uses Cryogenic Nitrogen and Methane Mixture," J. Pel.
Tech. (June 1981) 971-84.
103. Christian, L.D. et al.: "Planning a Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
for Jay-LEC Fields Unit," J. Pel. Tech. (Aug. 1981) 1535-44.
104. Haag, J.W.: "Analysis and Design of a Deep Reservoir, High
Volume Nitrogen Injection Project in the R-l Sand, Lake Barre
Field," paper SPE 10159 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.
105. "Oklahoma Field Gets Flue Gas Injection," Oil and Gas J.
(Sept. 12, 1977) 54.
106. Hansen, P.W.: "A CO 2 Tertiary Recovery Pilot, Little Creek
Field, Mississippi," paper SPE 6747 presented at the 1977 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct.
9-12.
107. Graham, B.D. el al.: "Design and Implementation of a
Levelland Unit CO 2 Tertiary Pilot," paper SPE 8831 presented
at the 1980 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, April 20-23.
108. Thrash, J.e.: "Twofreds Field - A Tertiary Oil Recovery Proj-
ect," paper SPE 8382 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
109. Graue, P.J. and Blevins, T.R.: "SACROC Tertiary CO 2 Pilot
Project," paper SPE 7090 presented at the 1978 SPE Symposium
on Improved Methods for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19.
110. Perry, G.E.: "Weeks Island'S' Sand Reservoir B Gravity Stable
Miscible CO 2 Displacement, Iberia Parish, Louisiana," Proc.,
ERDA Symposium on Enhanced Oil, Gas Recovery, and Im-
825
 proved Drilling Methods, Tulsa (1979). 119. Frey, R.P.: "Operating Practices in the North Cross CO 2
Ill. Conner, W.D.: "Granny's Creek CO 2 Injection Project, Clay Flood," Proc., 22nd Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short
County, West Virginia," Proc., ERDA Symposium on En- Course, Texas Tech. U., Lubbock (1975) 165-68.
hanced Oil, Gas Recovery, and Improved Drilling Methods, 120. Adams, G.H. and Rowe, H.G.: "Slaughter Estate Unit CO 2
Tulsa (1977). Pilot - Surface and Downhole Equipment Construction and
112. San Filippo, G.P. and Guckert, L.G.S.: "Development of a Pilot Operation in the Presence of H 2 S," 1. Pel. Tech. (June 1981)
Carbon Dioxide Flood in the Rock Creek-Big Injun Field, Roane 1065-74.
County, West Virginia," Proc., ERDA Symposium on En- 121. Newton, L.E. Jr. and McClay, R.A.: "Corrosion and Operation
hanced Oil, Gas Recovery, and Improved Drilling Methods, Problems, CO 2 Project, SAC ROC Unit." paper SPE 6391
Tulsa (1977). presented at the 1977 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
113. Beeler, P.F.: "West Virginia CO 2 Oil Recovery Project Interim Conference, Midland, March 10-11.
Report," Proc., ERDA Symposium on Enhanced Oil, Gas
Recovery, and Improved Drilling Methods, Tulsa (1977).
114. Goodrich, 1.H.: "Review and Analysis of Past and Ongoing Car- SI Metric Conversion Factors
bon Dioxide Injection Field Tests," paper SPE 8832 presented at
the 1980 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, °API 141.5/(131.5+ ° API) g/ em 3
April 20-23. bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
115. Palmer, F.S., Nute, A.J., and Peterson, R.L.: "Implementation ep x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
of a Gravity-Stable, Miscible CO 2 Flood in the 8000-Foot Sand,
ell ft x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
Bay St. Elaine Field," paper SPE 10160 presented at the 1981
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
Oct. 5-7. of (OF-32)/1.8 °C
116. Watts, R.J. el al.: "A Single CO 2 Injection Well Minitest in a psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
Low-Permeability Eastern Carbonate Reservoir," 1. Pel. Tech. sq ft x 9.290304* E-02 m2
(Aug. 1982) 1781-88.
117. Desch, J.B. el al.: "Enhanced Oil Recovery by CO 2 Miscible *Conversion factor is exact. SPEJ
Displacement in the Little Knife Field, Billings County, North
Dakota," paper SPE 10696 presented at the 1982 SPE/DOE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 4-7.
118. Crockett, D.H.: "A Profile Control Program Utilized in the
Original manuscript received in Society of Pelroleum Engineers office Aug. 31, 1981.
SAC ROC Unit CO 2 Injection Program," Proc., 22nd Annual Paper accepted for publication Dec. 14, 1982. Revised manuscript received Feb. 9,
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech. U., Lubbock 1983. Paper (SPE 9992) first presenled at the 1982 SPE IntI. Petroleum Exhibition
(1975) 159-64. and Technical Symposium held in Beijing, China, March 18-26.

826 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY