PAPER 2009-023

Enhanced Gas Recovery: Effect of Reservoir

Heterogeneity on Gas-Gas Displacement
S.S.K. SIM, A.T. TURTA, A.K. SINGHAL, B.F. HAWKINS
Alberta Research Council

This  paper  is  accepted  for  the  Proceedings  of  the  Canadian  International  Petroleum  Conference  (CIPC)  2009,  Calgary, 
Alberta,  Canada,  16‐18  June  2009.    This  paper  will  be  considered  for  publication  in  Petroleum  Society  journals. 
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction. 

Abstract
Experimental results on the combined effect of reservoir
heterogeneity, dispersion and gravity segregation between the
injected and produced hydrocarbon gases on gas recovery
efficiency are presented in this paper.
Laboratory tests were conducted in both one-dimensional and
two-dimensional systems at ambient temperature and
pressures in the range of 700 kPa to 3500 kPa, conditions
typical of Alberta shallow gas reservoirs. The effect of
heterogeneity on Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR) in a system
containing two non-communicating intervals was investigated
with two parallel 2 m sand-packs of 5.4 and 2 Darcies (D).
Methane was recovered by injection of either CO2, or flue gas
from this heterogeneous system. The effect of gravity
segregation (between injected and produced gas) on EGR was
also investigated by means of a 2 dimensional physical model
containing upper and lower compartments with permeabilities
of 2 and 5 D, respectively. The layers were separated with a
thin barrier with moderate permeability allowing cross flow
and molecular diffusion between the two compartments.
Results show that cross flow and transverse dispersion help to
mitigate the adverse effects of heterogeneity during EGR.
Density difference between injected and produced gas can
either improve or reduce displacement efficiency depending on
reservoir geology. Effectiveness of various techniques to
mitigate the adverse impact of heterogeneity on EGR was also
investigated.
Introduction
In recent years, enhanced oil and gas recovery by waste
gas or CO2 injection has attracted much interest 1-7 because it is
considered as a feasible mean to not only improve hydrocarbon
recovery but also, to permanently store greenhouse gases
underground. Alberta Research Council has been operating a
joint Industry Participation (JIP) project on enhanced gas
recovery (EGR) for several years. This JIP project consisted of
several tasks including laboratory experimentation, numerical
simulation, economic evaluation, surface facility designs and
field pilot. The main resource targets of this EGR JIP program
are Alberta’s 4200 gas pools which are in different stages of
exploitation and many of them are approaching the end of their
production life. The laboratory program aims at achieving
better understanding of the gas-gas displacement process
within porous media so that contamination of hydrocarbon gas
by the injected waste gas can be mitigated. Results from
laboratory tests conducted with 2 meter long homogeneous
sand-pack to investigate factors such as pressure, displacing
gas properties, flow rate and gas solubility in water, on gas-gas
displacement efficiency were presented previously in the 2008
CIPC conference8. In the present paper, we present results
from displacement tests conducted in heterogeneous porous
media.

1

Experimental
Preparation of 2m long sand-packs and 2
dimensional physical model
A schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the
displacement tests 1-4 is presented in Figure 1. Two sand-
packs with different permeabilities of 5.4 and 2.0 D were
arranged in parallel to simulate two non-communicating layers
of a gas reservoir where the higher permeable layer was
located below the lower permeable layer. Properties of the
restored sand-packs are presented in Table 1. The equipment
and procedure were very similar to those described
previously8.
The 2 dimensional (2-D) physical model was constructed of
stainless steel. The dimension of the cavity was 38.1 x 39.4 x
11.4 cm. The cavity was equally divided into an upper and a
lower compartment with a thin steel plate. The plate was
perforated with 4 mm diameter holes (about one hole per inch)
to allow cross flow and dispersion of gas molecules between
the compartments. It was then overlain with a wire mesh to
prevent sand grains from passing through the holes. Each
compartment consists of one injector and one producer located
at the opposite end of the chamber. These injection and
production wells consisted of 38 cm long and 1 cm O.D.
stainless steel tubing with an inside diameter of 0.25 cm. One
end of the tube was blocked and small holes of 0.16 cm
diameter were drilled along the side of the tubing to allow
fluids to enter and exit the tubing. Wire mesh was wrapped
around the wells to prevent sand production. A schematic of
the experimental set-up is shown in Figure 2. The two
compartments were filled with silica sands of different particle
size distributions to create porous media of different
permeability. The silica sands used to fill the compartments are
the same type of sands used for packing the 2 m long sand-
packs. The target permeabilities of the two compartments were
5 D and 2 D respectively. After the model was evenly and
tightly packed, a net overburden pressure of 2 MPa was
applied to the porous media. The total pore volume of the 2-D
model was determined by Boyle’s law method. Porosities of
the two compartments calculated based on weight of silica
sand introduced into the compartments are listed in Table 2.
All the tests were conducted in the absence of connate water.
The permeability ratio between the two compartments was
determined by flowing methane through the model under
constant pressure drop condition and measuring the ratio of the
gas production rate from the two compartments with the help
of a tracer. As shown in Figure 2, a constant flowing stream of
ethane (at about 5% of the total volumetric flow rate through
the 2-D model) was injected into the flow line downstream of
the producer of the higher permeability compartment. This
mixture was directed through a gas sampling device from
which small samples were taken at specified intervals for
compositional analysis. The effluent from the lower
permeability compartment of the 2-D model is combined with
that of the higher permeability compartment further
downstream, resulting in dilution of the ethane content in the
mixture. By analyzing the ethane concentration in the effluent
of the high permeability compartment alone and the combined
effluent from both compartments, the ratio of the gas
production rate from the two compartments were calculated.
2
Results show that the permeability ratio between the two
compartments was 2.2.
Determination of the production rate ratio:
If A = total flow rate of methane and ethane in production line
from the high permeability compartment
B = percentage of ethane in the high permeability production
line.
C = percentage of ethane in the combined effluent from both
compartments.
RH = flow rate of methane in the high permeability
compartment
RL = flow rate of methane in the low permeability
compartment
RT = total flow rate of methane and ethane from both of the
compartments
Then RH = A*(1-B/100).
RT =A* (B/C).
Therefore, the flow rate of methane from the low permeability
compartment,
RL = RT - A = A*(B/C)-A
And, production rate ratio RH/R L = A*[(1-B/100)]/[A*(B/C-1]
= (1-B/100)/[(B/C)-1]
Results and Discussion
Effect of heterogeneity in a system with
non-communicating layers
Four tests were conducted in a non-communicating system
consisted of two parallel sand-packs with different
permeabilities of 4.5 D and 2.0 D. In Test 1, methane was
displaced with pure CO2 whereas a synthetic flue gas (86% N2,
14% CO2) was used to displace methane in Tests 2, 3 and 4.
All tests were conducted at 0.7 MPa and ambient temperature
with an interstitial flow velocity of 1-2 m/day in the presence
of irreducible water saturation.
Test 1: Displacement of CH4 with CO2 at
0.7 MPa in parallel sand-packs
(heterogeneous system with non-
communicating layers)
The sand-packs were first saturated with methane gas at 0.7
MPa and at irreducible water saturation. During Test 1, pure
CO2 was injected into both of the sand-packs simultaneously to
displace methane at 0.7 MPa. As expected, because of
differences in permeability, the flow velocity in the 5.4 D
sand- pack was higher than that of the 2.0 D sand-pack and
breakthrough of CO2 occurred much earlier from the 5.4 D
sand-pack. Figure 3 shows the composition of the produced
gas from each of the sand-packs and the methane recovery and
composition of the combined effluents. The main results are
included in Table 3. In Figure 3, it is shown that methane
recovery at 2% CO2 contamination (allowable CO2
concentration in sale gas) is 47% for the combined Original
Gas in Place (OGIP) of both the sand-packs. Methane
produced from the high permeability sand-pack accounted for
78% of its OGIP and this corresponds to 37% of combined
OGIP. Only 10% of methane recovered was from the low
permeability sand-pack.
These results are compared (Table 3) with tests conducted
previously (Test 7 reported in CIPC-paper 2008-145) in which
methane was displaced with CO2 gas in a homogeneous porous
media under similar conditions. Methane recovery from the
homogeneous sand-packs at 2% CO2 contamination was 81%
of OGIP. Thus, one can conclude that, in heterogeneous
reservoir with non-communicating intervals, earlier
breakthrough of the displacing gas from the higher permeable
interval will result in a significantly lower overall recovery of
marketable methane.
Test 2: Displacement of CH4 with flue gas
at 0.7 MPa in parallel sand-packs
(heterogeneous system non-
communicating layers)
In Test 2, displacement of methane by flue gas (14% CO2 and
86% N2) was conducted under conditions similar to those of
Test 1. Figure 4 presents the composition of the produced gas
from each of the sand-packs as well as the combined effluent.
It indicates that nitrogen concentration in the effluent from the
5.4 D sand-pack reached 20% (maximum concentration of N2
in sale gas) at 19 hours after the start of the displacement. The
main results of Test 2 are presented in Table 4. Methane
recoveries at nitrogen breakthrough and at 20% nitrogen
contamination are 42 % and 53 % OGIP of the combined sand-
packs, respectively. Breakthrough of CO2 was significantly
delayed due to its higher solubility in water and has lesser
effect on methane recovery. In comparison, a test conducted
earlier in a single homogeneous sand-pack (Test 8 of CIPC
paper 2008-145) under similar conditions gave recovery of
77% OGIP at 20% N2 contamination.
Test 3: Improvement of sweep efficiency
by water Injection as a remedial action
Test 3 was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of partial
formation blockage by injecting water to preferentially reduce
permeability to gas in the high permeability interval. The test
procedures employed in Test 3 were identical to that of Test 2
except, after the nitrogen concentration of the combined
effluent reached 20%, water was injected into the higher
permeability (5.4 D) sand-pack. Water was injected at a rate of
6.5 ml/hour until the N2 concentration of the combined effluent
reached 20% again. Cumulative volume of water injected
corresponded to approximately (8% PV). Injection of flue gas
into both sand-packs continued at the same total rate during the
period of water injection. Results from Test 3 are presented in
Figures 5 and Table 5 & 6.
From Figure 5, it can be seen that when the nitrogen
concentration in the combined effluent reached 20% for the
first time, the effluent gas from the high and low permeable
sand-packs contained 30% and 0% nitrogen, respectively.
Thus, the higher permeability sand-pack contributed to
approximately 75% of the combined gas flow. At this point in
3
time, the methane recovery from the high permeability sand-
pack accounted for approximately 86 % OGIP.
As soon as water entered into the high permeability sand-pack,
there was a rapid change in the effluent gas composition. The
nitrogen concentration of the combined effluent gas decreased
from 20% to 8.5% before increasing slowly back to 20%
during the next 12 hours. Based on the effluent composition, it
is estimated that the contribution to gas flow from the high
permeability sand-pack was reduced to about 25% of the total
gas flow. Since the effective permeability of the low
permeability sand-pack should remain unchanged at 2.0 D, it is
estimated that the high permeability sand-pack had decreased
to around 650 mD during the period of water injection. Thus,
by combating the preferential flow of flue gas through the high
permeability sand-pack by co-injecting a slug of water, the
methane recovery at 20% N2 content in the effluent increased
from 52% to 78% OGIP. This combined recovery of 78%
OGIP was comparable to that of a previous test (77% OGIP)
conducted in a homogeneous sand-pack. The significant
improvement in the methane recovery of Test #3 compared
with Test #2, indicates that formation blockage by selective
water injection to improve sweep efficiency during EGR can
be highly effective. However, it should be noted that as soon as
water injection into the high permeability sand-pack ceased,
the combined effluent showed a rapid increase in nitrogen
concentration (from 20% to 42%). This indicates that gas flow
within high permeability sand-pack had increased rapidly after
termination of water injection. Based on the composition of the
effluent gases, the high permeability sand-pack contributed
60% to the gas flow after termination of water injection. Thus,
the calculated effective gas permeability of higher permeability
sand-pack decreased from 5.4 D to approximately 3.0 D as a
result of injection of 78 ml of water (0.08PV of the 5.4 D sand-
pack) and an increase of water saturation from 18% to 25%. It
appears that formation blockage was mainly effective during
the period of water injection.
Test 4: Sweep efficiency improvement by
using foam to improve performance of
EGR in a heterogeneous system (non-
communicating layers)
While Tests 2 and 3 demonstrated that injection of a slug of
water in the high permeability sand-pack could improve
recovery from a heterogeneous system, Test 4 was conducted
to evaluate the effectiveness of partial formation blockage by
foam to preferentially reduce permeability to gas in the high
permeability interval. The test procedure employed in Test 4
was identical to that of Test 2 except that after the nitrogen
breakthrough, a solution containing 50 ppm (0.005 wt%) of a
commercial surfactant (AOS C1416) was injected into the flue
gas feed line upstream of the two parallel sand-packs. The flow
rate (0.08 ml/min) of surfactant solution was adjusted to be
approximately 10% of the in situ gas flow rate. As a result, the
quality of the foam being generated should be approximately
90%.
Since the permeability ratio of the two parallel sand-packs is
approximately 2.7:1 (5.4 D versus 2.0 D), it is anticipated that
the in situ gas rate of the 5.4 D sand-pack will be 2.7 times that
of the 2.0 D sand-pack. Accordingly, the foam created due to
mixing of the surfactant solution and flue gas will
preferentially flow to the higher permeability sand-pack
causing permeability reduction. This was confirmed as shown
in Figure 6. As indicated from the nitrogen content of the
effluent of each of the sand-packs, the flow rate of the 5.4 D
sand-pack was reduced to a level below that of the 2 D sand-
pack. The composition of the effluent from the 2 D sand-pack
is quite similar to that of the combined effluent indicating that
most of the produced gas consisted of effluent from the 2 D
sand-pack. Injection of the surfactant solution continued until
the nitrogen content of the combined effluent reached 20%. At
this point, the cumulative volume of surfactant injected was 60
ml corresponding to 2.7% of the combined pore volumes of the
parallel sand-packs. Methane recovery from the parallel sand-
pack at 20% N2 contamination was 78% OGIP of the
combined sand-packs. This shows that upon foam treatment,
we have drastically improved the performance of EGR by
partially mitigating the adverse effect of heterogeneity.
In Table 6, the efficiency of different blocking agents is
presented. The incremental gas recovery obtained by injection
of a slug of water was comparable to that of a slug of
surfactant. However, it should be noted that the water slug was
considerably larger (25% PV as compared to 2.7% PV in case
of the surfactant). Moreover, the surfactant concentration
required to block the high permeability interval was very low
(50 ppm) thus making it very attractive. In gas reservoirs,
application of foam technology appears very promising,
especially in the absence of crude oils which tends to de-
stabilize the foams.
2-Dimensional Physical Model: Effect of
gravity segregation and heterogeneity in
system with communicating intervals
In the preceding sections, the effect of reservoir heterogeneity
on EGR recovery was simulated by means of two linear sand-
packs of different permeability mimicking a two layer system
with non-communicating intervals. In this section, a 2-
dimensional model is prepared to model the situation where
the two intervals of different permeability are in
communication through a barrier of moderate permeability.
Four displacement tests were conducted in the absence of
connate water. The first three tests were conducted with the
higher permeability compartment located below the lower
permeability compartment mimicking a fining upwards
geology, whereas the fourth test was conducted with them
reversed mimicking a coarsening upward geology.
Test 5: Displacement of methane with
nitrogen at 0.7 MPa in 2-D model with
fining upwards geology
During Test 5, nitrogen was injected through the injection
wells of the two compartments of the 2-D model, which were
saturated with methane gas at 0.7 MPa and ambient
temperature. The effluents from the producers from both
compartments were directed into the same back-pressure
regulator. Figure 8 shows the effluent composition from the
producers of the two compartments. It is interesting to note
that, in spite of the relative large difference in permeability and
some difference in density (ρN2 = 8.9 g/L versus ρCH4 = 5.2
g/L), the breakthrough of nitrogen occurs at almost the same
time. Figure 7a presents the ratio of the flow velocity of
4
effluent from the two compartments. It indicates that the
relative flow rates of gas produced from the two compartments
remained relatively constant throughout the course of the
displacement. This observed similarity in the composition of
the produced gases suggested that extensive mixing of gases
occurred due to diffusion/dispersion of gas molecules between
the two compartments during the course of displacement. The
effect of diffusion–dispersion is larger than the combined
effect of heterogeneity and gravity segregation. It is therefore
concluded that at this pressure, the effect of gravity segregation
between injected gas and produced gas is not significant. As
indicated in Table 7, overall recovery of methane from this
heterogeneous 2-D model was 40% OGIP at 20% nitrogen
contamination. The reason for the low recovery of methane
from the 2-D model relative to the 2 m long parallel sand-
packs (53% OGIP in Test 2) can partly be attributed to its short
displacement length (40 cm).
Test 6: Displacement of methane with
nitrogen at 3.5 MPa (fining upwards
geology).
Three additional tests were conducted at a higher pressure of
3.5 MPa to investigate the effect of gas gravity on recovery
efficiency in a heterogeneous system. Test 6 was conducted
with the high permeability compartment located below the
lower permeability compartment. Figure 7b presents the
production rates from the high permeability compartment
relative to the low permeability compartment as a function of
time. It shows that, shortly after the displacement started, the
ratio of production rate in the lower compartment (5 D) to that
in the upper compartment (2 D) increases from the initial value
of 2 to a maximum value of nearly 14. This result shows that,
due to both gravity segregation and permeability difference,
most of the injected nitrogen, which is significantly denser
than methane at 3.5 MPa (ρN2 = 39.8 g/L versus ρCH4 = 24.3
g/L), tends to flow through the lower (higher permeability)
compartment i.e. underrides. The production rate ratio from the
two compartment return to the initial value of 2 after most of
the methane gas has been produced.
Composition of the effluent from the producers (Figure 9) also
indicates that the break-through times of nitrogen from the two
compartments are quite different. In contrast to Test 5 where
molecular diffusion led to significant mixing of the gases
between the two compartments, the lower molecular diffusivity
at a pressure of 3.5 MPa resulted in very little mixing.
Methane recovery in Test 6 from the 2-D model was 39.4% at
20% nitrogen contamination. This recovery is similar to that of
Test 5. It was anticipated that lower molecular diffusivity at a
high pressure of 3.5 MPa should lead to better recovery.
However, due to adverse gravity effect leading to severe
underriding of the displacing gas, the overall methane recovery
is similar to that of Test 5.
Test 7: Displacement of nitrogen by
methane at 3.5 MPa with fining upwards
geology.
In order to confirm our observation that gravity segregation
occurred during Test 6 at a pressure of 3.5 MPa due to the
density difference between nitrogen and methane, Test 7 was
conducted using methane to displace nitrogen, again at 3.5
MPa. In this case, it is anticipated that the injected methane gas
will tend to override the nitrogen gas and be directed to the
upper (lower permeability compartment). Results of Test 7 are
summarized in Table 8 and Figures 7c and 10.
Figure 7c presents the ratio of flow rates of the produced gas
from the two compartments. It shows that shortly after the test
started, the ratio of flow rate between the high permeability
and low permeability compartments decreased from the initial
value of 2 to a minimum of one. This result indicates that the
flow velocity of the two compartments is approaching the
same value due to the preferential flow of methane into the
upper (lower permeability) compartment. Figure 10 presents
the composition of effluent gas from the 2-D model. In
contrast of Test 6 which shows differences in breakthrough
time of displacing gas between the two compartments, the
composition of the produced gas from the two compartments
in Test 7 are quite similar. This indicates that the displacement
fronts of the two compartments in Test 7 are quite similar to
each other during the displacement and thus substantiating the
conclusions based on the flow velocity measurements.
The overall recovery of nitrogen at 20% displacing gas (CH4 in
this case) was 60% of OGIP. Thus, it is suggested that the
overriding of displacing gas into the lower permeability
compartment due to gravity segregation significantly reduced
the negative effect of reservoir heterogeneity.
Test 8: Displacement of methane with
nitrogen at 3.5 MPa (coarsening upwards
geology).
In Test 8, the 2D model was re-oriented such that the high
permeability compartment was located at the upper part of the
model. Nitrogen was injected to displace methane from the
model at 3.5 MPa, under identical flow conditions as that of
Test 6. Figure 11 presents the composition profile of the
produced gases from the individual compartments, as well as
that of the combined effluent. It indicates that the breakthrough
times of nitrogen from the two compartments are quite similar
and they occurred at about 3.1 hours after the start of the test.
This is compared with the N2 breakthrough time of 2.3 hours in
Test 6. As a result of delay in nitrogen breakthrough, the
methane recovery at 20% N2 contamination was 60% OGIP, as
opposed to 40% OGIP obtained in Test 6.
Figure 7d presents the flow rate ratios between the two
compartments during the course of Test 8. It shows that
shortly after the start of the test, the rate ratio between the high
and low permeability compartments decreased from the initial
value of 2.5 to about 1.3 and remained unchanged until about
80% of the OGIP had been recovered. These results indicate
that nitrogen flow into the lower permeability bottom
compartment was enhanced due to gravity effect thereby
mitigating the negative effect of reservoir heterogeneity. Table
9 summarizes the results from three tests conducted at 3.5
MPa.
5
The fact that the gas recovery of Test 7 – when using methane
to displace nitrogen in a fining upwards situation – is almost
identical to that of Test 8 (nitrogen displacing methane in a
coarsening upwards situation) clearly shows that the combined
effect of heterogeneity and gravity segregation is real and it
should be taken into account. If gravity segregation is
important over such short distances, definitely it is important
on the larger field scale.
Conclusions
Based on the experimental results described above, the
following conclusions were made:
1. Under identical flow conditions, recovery of marketable
methane by displacing with CO2 from a heterogeneous
system containing two parallel non-communicating sand-
packs of different permeability was lower than that of a
linear homogeneous sand-pack. As expected, most of the
recovered methane from the heterogeneous system was
produced from the higher permeability sand-pack.
2. Similarly, recovery of marketable methane by
displacement with flue gas from a heterogeneous system
was lower (52% OGIP) as compared to the recovery of
78% OGIP obtained from a linear homogeneous sand-
pack. Breakthrough of CO2 was delayed relative to
nitrogen and did not significantly affect methane recovery
3. In the laboratory, injection of water into the higher
permeability sand-pack of a heterogeneous system,
consisting of two parallel sand-packs, was effective in
improving the recovery of marketable methane by
mitigating the degree of heterogeneity. However, this
effectiveness was reduced after water injection had been
terminated.
4. Application a relatively small slug size (2.7% PV) of 90%
quality foam by co-injecting a dilute (50 ppm) surfactant
solution with the displacing flue gas was also shown in
the laboratory to improve methane recovery from a
heterogeneous system with non-communicating intervals.
5. The effect of gravity segregation between displaced and
displacing gases appears to be significant at a pressure of
3.5 MPa. This conclusion is based on results from three
separate experiments carried out with a 2-D physical
model containing two communicating compartments
packed with dry sand with different permeability. When
displacing methane with (nitrogen), gravity segregation
was observed due to the density difference between
methane and nitrogen at 3.5 MPa. Results also showed
that this gravity segregation is unfavorable to methane
recovery in a reservoir which is fining upwards but
favorable in a coarsening upwards reservoir.
6. When methane was displaced by nitrogen from the same
2-D physical model at a pressure of 0.7 MPa, the
composition of the effluent gases from the two
compartments with permeability ratio of two was very
similar. It is concluded that dispersion of gas between the
two compartments was occurring during the displacement
due to the relatively large molecular diffusion co-efficient
(estimated to be around 0.002 cm2/sec between N2 and
 CH4 based on numerical simulation results) prevailing at
0.7 MPa. The results suggested that molecular diffusion
between communicating intervals of a heterogeneous
system has partially mitigated the negative effect of
reservoir heterogeneity on gas-gas displacement

Acknowledgements

Financial support and permission to publish this paper by the

Joint Industry Project Participants (Devon, Nexen, Paramount
Resources, Suncor, BP, AERI, Alberta Advanced Education
and Technology, and ARC) are greatly appreciated

REFERENCES:
(1) Mehran Pooladi-Darvish, and et al, “ CO2 Injection
for Enhanced Gas Recovery and Geological Storage
of CO2 in the Long Coulee Glauconite F Pool,
Alberta”. SPE 115789, Presented at the 2008 SPE
conference at Denver, Co. 21-24 September 2008.
(2) Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and et al, “
Chromatographic Partitioning of H2S and CO2 in
Acid Gas Disposal”, presented at the CIPC
conference in Calgary, June 17-19 2008.
(3) Curtis Moldenburg, “ Carbon Sequestration in
Natural Gas Reservoirs: Enhanced Gas Recovery and
Natural Gas Storage” Proceedings, TOUGH
symposium 2003, Lawrence Berkerley National
Laboratory, Berkerley, California, May 12-14 2003.
(4) Oldenburg, C. M. “ Carbon Sequestration with
Enhanced Gas Recovery: Identifying Candidate Sites
for Pilot Study”, reported by Lawrence Berkerley
National Laboratory, funded by US DOE contract.
(5) Bert van de Meer, “ CO2 Storage and Testing
Enhanced Gas Recovery in K12-B Reservoir”
presented at 23rd world Gas conference Amsterdam
2006.
(6) Turta, A. T. Sim, S. K., Singhal, A. K., Hawkins, B.
F., “Basic Investigations on Enhanced Gas Recovery
by Gas-Gas Displacement”, JCPT. Vol. 47, No. 10,
p39-44, Oct. 2008.
(7) Singhal, A. K., Turta, A. T., Sim, S. K., Hawkins, B.
F., “Enhancing Natural Gas Recovery from Nearly
Depleted Gas Reservoirs by Injecting Waste Gases”
Paper presented at the 8th CIPC held in Calgary,
Alberta, June 12-14, 2007.
(8) Sim, S. K., Turta, S. T., Singhal, A. K., Hawkins, B.
F.,“ Enhanced Gas Recovery, Factors affecting Gas-
Gas Displacement Efficiency”, Paper presented at
the CIPC/SPE joint conference held in Calgary,
Alberta, June 17-19, 2008.
(9) Sim, S. K., Brunelle, B. P., Turta, A. T., Singhal, A.
K., “Enhanced Gas Recovery and CO2 Sequestration
by Injection of Exhaust Gases from Combustion of
Bitumen”, Paper presented at the SPE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, OK., USA, 19-
23, April, 2008

6
 Table 1: Properties of Sand-packs
Pack #1 pack #2
Particle size of silica sand 45-106 μm 53-250 μm
Length (cm) 43 43
Diameter (cm) 4.14 4.14
Air permeability (mD) 2000 5400
Porosity (%) 43 36.5
Pore volume (ml) 1157 982

Table 2: Properties of 2-D model

Lower permeability higher permeability compartment
compartment
Particle size of silica sand 45-106 μm 53-250 μm
Length (cm) 43 43
Diameter (cm) 4.14 4.14
Permeability ratio between the two 1 2.2
compartments
Porosity (%) 38 35
Pore volume (ml) 8400 7700

TABLE 3: EFFECT OF HETEROGENEITY ON EGR BY DISPLACEMENT WITH CO2

Swi Velocity Methane recovery @ 2% CO2
(% of combined OGIP)
Test No. System % m/day From 2.0 D From 5.4 D Entire system
sand-pack sand-pack

Test 1 Heterogeneous 27 1-3 10 37 47

Parallel sand-pack
Test 7 of CIPC Homogeneous 21 1.17 81
paper 2008-145 linear sand-pack

TABLE 4: EFFECT OF HETEROGENEITY ON EGR BY DISPLACEMENT WITH FLUE GAS

Swi Velocity Methane Recovery @ 20% N2
(% combined OGIP)
Test No. System % m/day From 2.0D From 5.4 D Entire system
sand-pack sand-pack
Test 2 Heterogeneous 15 1-3 14.3 38.7 53
Parallel sand-pack
Test-8 of CIPC Homogeneous 21 1.0 77
2008-145 Linear sand-pack

TABLE 5: EFFECT OF HETEROGENEITY ON RECOVERY EFFICIENCY @ 0.7 MPA

Test # Displacing Swi Velocity Methane Recovery @ 20% N2 (OGIP)
fluids
% m/day from 2.0 D From Combined
Sand-pack 5.4 D sand- Recovery
pack
2 Flue gas 18 1-2 25 84 52
3 Flue gas+slug 18 1-2 72 86 78
of water
? Flue gas 21 1.0 77 - 77
* Homogeneous system

7
 TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF BLOCKING AGENTS
Test No. Displacing gas Swi Velocity Methane recovery
Blocking agent (%) (m/day) (% combined OGIP)
Test 2 Flue gas /no blocking 15 1-3 53
agent
Test 3 Flue gas / water 18 1-2 78
Test 4 Flue gas / 15 1-3 78
Foam

TABLE 7: DISPLACEMENT OF METHANE WITH N2 FROM 2-D MODEL

Pressure Recovery @ Breakthrough ( % ) Recovery @ 20% N2 (%)
(MPa)
combined Upper Lower Combined
compartment compartment
(2 D) (5 D)
5 0.7 13.0 12.2 27.8 40.0
6 3.5 24.2 13.4 26.0 39.4

TABLE 8: DISPLACEMENT OF N2 WITH METHANE AT 500 PSI AND 1 M/DAY

Test Recovery @ Breakthrough Recovery of N2 @ 20% displacing gas (CH4)
No.
Upper Lower Combined Upper Lower Combined
compartment compartment compartment compartment
(2 D) (5 D) (2 D) (5 D)
15 11 22 33 22 38 60
Note: connate water saturation = 0

TABLE 9: COMBINED EFFECT OF GRAVITY AND HETEROGENEITY ON EGR

Description of Test conduct 3.5 MPa Breakthrough time Recovery at 20%
@ 1% injection gas (hr) contamination (OGIP)
Test 6 N2 displacing CH4 in fining upward 2- 2.3 40
D sand-pack
Test 7 CH4 displacing N2 in fining upward 2- 60
D sand-pack
Test 8 N2 displacing CH4 in coarsening 3.1 60
upward 2-D sand-pack

8
 2.0 Darcies

BPR
Flue gas
5.4 Darcies

GC
Sampling loop

Wet Test
Meter

Figure 1: Equipment Setup to Study Effect of Heterogeneity on EGR

Gas
chromatographic
sampling ports
To GC
To GC

2 Darcies
B

Mass 5 Darcies wet test meter

Flow
controller 15.5” To GC

Mass
Flow
controller

Ethane Injection

9
 Figure2: Flow Schematic of 2 D Model Tests

100

90

80

70

CH4 (combined)
60
Composition

CO2 (combined)
CH4 (Hi-perm)
50 CO2 (Hi-perm)
CH4(low perm)
40 CO2 (low perm)
CH4 recovery

30

20

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Time (hr)

Figure3: Effluent Composition and recovery during displacement of CH4 with CO2 in a
heterogeneous system Test 1

100

90

80
Composition(%), Recovery (% OGIP)

70
N2 (combined)
CH4 (combined)
60 CO2 (combined)
N2 (Hi perm)
50 CH4 (Hi perm)
(CO2 (Hi perm)
N2 (low perm)
40
CH4 (Low perm)
CO2 (low perm)
30 CH4 recovery

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (hrs)

Figure 4: Displacing CH4 with flue gas in Test 2 (heterogeneous system)

10
 100 16

90
14

80
12
% CH4, % N2, % CO2, recovery (%OGIP)

N2 (combined)
70
C1 combined)

Cum. CH4 produced (SL)

CO2 (combined)
10
60 N2 (low perm)
C1 (low perm)

50 CO2 (low perm) 8

N2 (high perm)
C1 (high perm)
40

Cumulative
CO2 (high perm) 6
Recovery (% OGIP)
30 Cum CH4 produced (SL)
water injection
4
20

2
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (h
(hrs)
rs)

Figure 5: Improvement of Sweep Efficiency with Water Blockage in Test 3

100

N2 (combined)
90
CH4 (combined)
CO2 (combined)
80
N2 (Hi perm)
CH4 (Hi perm)
Composition (%), Recovery (% OGIP)

70
CO2 (Hi perm)
N2 (low perm)
60
CH4 (low perm)

50

40

30

Injection of foam
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hr)

Figure 6: Blocking High Permeability Interval with Foam in Test 3

11
 3.5

3
te Ratios

2.5
Ra

1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

T ime (hr)

Figure 7a: Flow rate ratio of Test 5

14

12

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
T im e ( hrs )

Figure 7b: Flow rate ratio of Test 6

2.5
atio

2
R
Rate

1.5

1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (hr)

Figure 7C: Flow rate ratio of Test 7

3

2. 5
Rati os

2
Rate

1.5

1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (hr)

Figure 7D: Flow rate ratios of Test 8

12
 Time (hrs)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
100 100

90 90

80 80

CH4 Recovery ( % OGIP)

70 70
% CH4, % N2

60 % N2(combined) 60

% CH4 (combined)
50 50
%N2(2D upper)
% C1 (2D upper)
40 40
CH4 recovery (2D upper)
% N2 (5D lower)
30 30
% CH4 (5D lower)
CH4 recovery (5D lower)
20 20
CH4 recovery (combined)

10 10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
PV injected

Figure 8: Test 5: Displacement of Methane with N2 from heterogeneous 2-D model at 0.7 Mpa

100

90

80
% N2(combined, lab)
%CH4, % N2, Recovery (% OGIP)

70
% C1(combined, lab)

60 recovery (combined % OGIP)

50 % N2 (upper, 2D)

% C1 (upper, 2D)
40

% N2(lower, 5D)
30
% C1 (lower, 5D)
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (hr)

Figure 9: N2 Displacing CH4 @ 3.5 MPa from 2 D model in Test 6

13
 100

90

80

70
N2(combined)
CH4 (combined)
60
% CH4, % N2

N2 recovery (combined)

50 N2(low perm)
CH4 (low perm)
40 N2 (Hi perm)
CH4 (Hi perm)
30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (hr)

Figure 10: Displacing N2 with CH4 @ 3.5 MPa from 2D-model in Test # 7

100

90

80
Composition (%), recovery (% OGIP)

70 N2(combined)
CH4(combined)
60 N2(HI perm)
CH4(Hi perm)

50 N2(low perm)
CH4(low perm)
recovery(combined)
40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (hr)

Figure 11: Displacing CH4 with N2 @ 3.5 MPa from 2-D model in Test #8

14