Research Article

Energy Exploration & Exploitation

0(0) 1–17
A new empirical correlation of ! The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/0144598719898572
minimum miscibility pressure journals.sagepub.com/home/eea

for produced gas reinjection

Congge He1 , Zifei Fan1, Chenshuo Zhang2,

Anzhu Xu1, Lun Zhao1, Erhui Luo1 and
Xing Zeng1

Abstract
Minimum miscible pressure is a key parameter to screen and design miscible gas injection
projects. The aim of this paper is to establish a correlation with only a few input parameters
to easily and accurately predict minimum miscible pressure for the reinjection of produced gas
with high acidic components. First, the critical parameters of equation of state for each compo-
nent of the crude oil were obtained through fitting pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) exper-
imental results. Based on the analytically calculated minimum miscible pressures from mixing-cell
method, an empirical correlation for predicting minimum miscible pressure in the displacement of
crude oil by produced gas was regressed. Finally, the correlation’s accuracy was tested by com-
paring the minimum miscible pressures predicted from the new proposed correlation to other
previous correlations and 20 experimental slim-tube minimum miscible pressures of 12 oil
samples. The results indicate that the analytically calculated minimum miscible pressures from
the mixing-cell method have a relative error of 0.5% compared to the slim-tube experiment
results, which supports its reliability. Furthermore, the new proposed correlation is observed to
be superior in terms of the average relative error being only 6.4% for all the 75 analytically
calculated minimum miscible pressures and 20 experimental slim-tube minimum miscible pres-
sures, which is lower than the average relative error obtained from other previous correlations.

Keywords
Minimum miscible pressure, empirical correlation, mixing-cell method, slim-tube experiment,
produced gas reinjection

1
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, Beijing, China
2
Strategic Research Center of Oil and Gas Resources, MNR, Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Congge He, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, Beijing, 20 Xueyuan Road, Haidian,
Beijing 100083, China.
Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and
distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and
Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

Introduction
Gas flooding is regarded as a promising enhanced oil recovery method for oil reservoirs by
achieving miscibility (Arne et al., 2000; Chen, 1995; Knut and Lars, 2002; Murty and Al-
Khayat, 1989; Teletzke et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2013). Recently, the most common injec-
tion mediums are hydrocarbon (lean gas, enriched gas), CO2, and N2 (Chen et al., 2011;
Kulkarni and Rao, 2005; Lai et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2019; Meng et al., 2018; Sabyrzhan
et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2019). The minimum miscible pressure (MMP) of hydrocarbon
injection is always low (Nikolay et al., 2017; Olawale and Hoffman, 2014). CO2 often is
used as injection gas not only because it can achieve miscibility with crude oil at relatively
low reservoir pressure, but also because there are potential environmental benefits of reduc-
ing the greenhouse effect (Hrvoje et al., 2009; Izgec et al., 2005; Li et al., 2006; Song et al.,
2019; Sumeer and Xingru, 2014). N2 (flue gas) also is used as injection medium because of its
low price and extensive source even though it is more difficult to achieve miscibility than
CO2 (Sayegh et al., 1987).
The injection gases usually are not miscible upon the first contact with the reservoir crude
oil. However, miscibility can be developed gradually with multi-contact by a mass transfer
of components between the gaseous and liquid phases (Guo et al., 2010; Johns et al., 1994;
Zhu et al., 2015). There are three multi-contact mechanisms (Tang et al., 2004): the vapor-
izing gas drive (VGD), the condensing gas drive (CGD), and combined condensing/vapor-
izing drive (CV). In the VGD process, generally referred to as lean gas drive, miscibility
develops at the flood front. In the CGD process, commonly referred to as enriched gas drive,
miscibility develops at the injection point. In the CV process, miscibility develops at the
middle of transition zone (Stalkup, 1987; Tang et al., 2005; Zick, 1986).
MMP is a key parameter to design gas flooding project. It can be calculated by using
experimental method, analytical calculation, compositional simulation, and empirical correla-
tion (Ahmed, 1997; Abiodun et al., 2012). The slim-tube experiment is commonly used to
determine the MMP for a given crude oil displaced by gas. MMP is often graphically obtained
by the inflection point or intersection of two lines that define immiscible and miscible perfor-
mance regimes on a plot of pressure versus recovery (Yuan et al., 2004). Although slim-tube
experiment is the preferred method for testing MMP since both condensing and vaporizing
mechanisms can be captured, it is expensive and time-consuming. Analytical calculation and
compositional simulation are faster; however, they rely on the accurate fluid characterization
by equation of state (EOS). Empirical correlation usually involves simple formulae developed
by regressions of slim-tube experimental data. As those correlations are usually derived based
on the specific reservoir conditions of crude oil and injection gas, they are limited to oil and
injection gas of similar type. Although empirical correlation may be less accurate than other
methods, it can quickly predict MMP and screen potential reservoir for miscible gas flooding,
particularly when detailed fluid characterizations are not available.
Many correlations to predict MMP of enriched gas, lean gas, N2, and CO2 have been built.
Benham et al. (1960) established some graphical correlations based on calculated critical
temperatures and pressures of selected fluids system to predict the approximate conditions
for a miscible displacement of reservoir fluid by enriched gas. Based on Benham et al.’s
data, Glaso (1985) derived MMP prediction correlations for hydrocarbon, CO2, and N2 gas
miscible flooding as the function of temperature, C7þ molecular weight of the oil, C2–C6
molecular weight, and C1 mole percent of the gas. Kuo (1985) established a correlation for
the enriched gas which consists of methane and intermediates, such as ethane to butane, based
He et al. 3

on Peng–Robinson EOS to generate phase envelopes for selected gas/oil systems. Firoozabadi
and Aziz (1986) built a correlation for estimating MMP of nitrogen and lean gas based on 13
measured slim-tube experimental data. Eakin and Mitch (1988) established a correlation of
MMP based on 102 measured data with rising bubble apparatus. Several CO2 MMP correla-
tions have been published. Yelling and Metcalfe (1980), Metcalfe (1982), Alston et al. (1985),
Sebastian et al. (1985), Dong and Huang (2000), Yuan et al. (2004), Shokir (2007), Johns et al.
(2009), Zhang et al. (2016), and Lai et al. (2017) established different MMP correlations for
pure CO2 and impure CO2. Rutherford (1962) found that miscibility between reservoir oil and
displacing gas is a function of the pseudocritical temperature of the injected fluid. Jacobson
(1972) found this to be true if the critical temperature of H2S and CO2 was adjusted slightly by
multiplying a factor of 0.85. Glaso (1990) established a correlation for estimating the MMP of
nitrogen based on 18 measured MMP data. Yurkiw and Flock (1994) evaluated 15 MMP
correlations for rich gas, lean gas, and nitrogen and their results support the applicability of
EOS-based methods for accurate MMP predictions.
Produced gas (PG) reinjection is an effective developing method and has been applied in
many oilfields (Chen et al., 2017a, 2017b; Kassenov and Kaliyev, 2016; Li et al., 2016;
Zakaria, 2011). The PG is usually a mixture of CO2, H2S, C1, and C2–C6. There are a
fairly large number of reservoirs where the molecular percentages of acid gas components
(CO2, H2S) are high in the PG (Xu et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016). The developed corre-
lations may not be applicable for the prediction of MMP of the PG with high acidic gas
components. Therefore, this paper intends to establish a correlation to easily and accurately
predict MMP for the reinjection of PG with high acidic gas components. First, the critical
parameters of the EOS for each component of the crude oil were obtained through fitting
pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) experimental results. On this basis, an empirical corre-
lation for predicting MMP in the displacement of crude oil by PG was regressed. Finally, the
correlation accuracy was tested by comparing the MMPs predicted from the new proposed
correlation to the ones in other previous correlations and 20 experimental slim-tube MMPs.

Proposed correlation for MMP

MMP calculation using analytical method
Based on its characterization, the crude oil (A) of oilfield K in Kazakhstan, with high H2S and
CO2 content, was divided into nine pseudo-components. In oilfield K, the PG was reinjected
into the reservoir to maintain the reservoir pressure and enhance oil recovery. The composition
of oil A and PG is given in Table 1. The C20þ fraction of the crude oil has a density of 907 kg/
m3. The reservoir temperature of oilfield K is 212 F. The parameters of the EOS were adjusted
using Eclipse PVTi (developed by Schlumberger) to match the laboratory’s PVT data.
Molecular weight of the plus fraction was adjusted to match the oil density. The critical
parameters of the EOS for each component after adjustment are presented in Table 1.
As slim-tube experiment is expensive and time-consuming, we used the mixing-cell
method to calculate MMP. The mixing-cell method is that a series of PVT cells are inter-
connected and initially filled with oil and the gas is mixed in the upper cell at a trial pressure
and the equilibrium phases are calculated assuming that complete mixing occurs within the
cell (Abiodun et al., 2012; Tadesse et al., 2012). The mixing-cell method, by multiple con-
tacts of equilibrium gas and oil with fresh gas and oil to find the key tie, has the advantage of
high precision and quick calculating speed. The MMP of oil A displaced by PG is 4038 psi as
4 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

Table 1. The pseudo-composition of crude oil and produced gas and the critical parameters of EOS.

Oil A composition Produced gas (PG) Molecular Acentric

Components (mol%) composition (mol%) weight (g/mol) Pc (psi) Tc ( F) factor

H2S 14.69 17.42 34.08 1296 212 0.1

CO2 4.12 4.92 44.01 1072 88 0.23
C1 49.36 59.03 16.04 667 117 0.01
C2 7.32 8.7 30.07 708 90 0.1
C3–4 7.22 8.05 49.81 592 280 0.17
C5–6 3.04 1.72 77.11 473 438 0.26
C7–10 6.5 0.16 113.34 392 879 0.34
C11–20 5.34 0 190.08 280 898 0.51
C20þ 2.41 0 437.91 177 1177 0.8
EOS: equation of state.

Table 2. Composition of different reservoir fluids and injection gases.

Oil A Oil B Oil C Gas PG Gas A Gas B Gas C Gas D

Components (mol%) (mol%) (mol%) (mol%) (mol%) (mol%) (mol%) (mol%)

H2S 14.69 9.73 11.14 17.42 4.25 8.5 12.76 21.26

CO2 4.12 2.73 3.12 4.92 1.2 2.4 3.6 6
CH4 49.36 32.69 37.42 59.03 90 80 70 50
C2 7.32 4.85 5.55 8.7 2.12 4.25 6.37 10.62
C3–4 7.22 14.73 5.47 8.05 1.96 3.93 5.89 9.82
C5–6 3.04 6.2 2.3 1.88 0.46 0.92 1.38 2.29
C7–10 6.5 13.26 7 0 0 0 0 0
C11–19 5.34 10.89 14 0 0 0 0 0
C20þ 2.41 4.92 14 0 0 0 0 0

determined by the mixing-cell method. Compared to the slim-tube experiment result of

4060 psi, a relative error of 0.5% supports the reliability and correctness of the mixing-
cell method. Based on the original reservoir fluid, two oil and four gas samples are virtually
manufactured by changing the components’ composition, as shown in Table 2. The analyt-
ical MMPs of oils A, B, and C displaced by gases PG, A, B, C, and D at temperatures 90,
150, 212, 270, and 330 F are calculated by the mixing-cell method. The results are presented
in Table 3.

The new correlation of MMP

The MMPs of oils A, B, and C displaced by gases PG, A, B, C, and D at temperatures 90,
150, 212, 270, and 330 F are also calculated by currently used correlations (shown in
Appendix 1), and the results are presented in Table 3. Figure 1 shows the comparison
between the analytically calculated MMPs and the predicted MMPs from several currently
used correlations. As shown, the MMP predicted by correlations varies significantly. The
maximum (average) relative error for the 75 analytically calculated MMPs is 104.3% (22%)
for Abbas correlation, 180.8% (32.7%) for Kuo correlation, 326.2% (61.7%) for Glaso
He et al. 5

Table 3. Comparison of MMPs estimated from correlations to analytical calculated MMPs.

Injection Analytical MMP Abbas MMP Kuo MMP Glaso MMP Eakin MMP
Oil gas T ( F) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)

A A 90 4408 3327 3972 5646 3774

A A 150 5091 3541 4648 9986 4012
A A 212 5291 3740 5962 14,470 4225
A A 270 5335 3897 7864 18,664 4400
A A 330 5397 4036 10,786 23,004 4559
A B 90 3959 3327 3246 3094 3599
A B 150 4528 3541 3798 5505 3830
A B 212 4878 3740 4873 7996 4037
A B 270 5008 3897 6427 10,327 4206
A B 330 5001 4036 8815 12,737 4361
A C 90 3294 3327 2574 1827 3447
A C 150 3950 3541 3011 3165 3670
A C 212 4392 3740 3863 4548 3869
A C 270 4618 3897 5095 5841 4032
A C 330 4689 4036 6988 7179 4182
A PG 90 2843 3327 1923 1248 3306
A PG 150 3550 3541 2251 1950 3518
A PG 212 4038 3740 2887 2675 3709
A PG 270 4302 3897 3808 3353 3865
A PG 330 4433 4036 5223 4054 4007
A D 90 2143 3327 1451 1121 3208
A D 150 2855 3541 1697 1534 3412
A D 212 3402 3740 2177 1962 3594
A D 270 3750 3897 2872 2362 3743
A D 330 3957 4036 3939 2775 3880
B A 90 4627 3345 3987 5646 3774
B A 150 5117 3572 4665 9986 4012
B A 212 5380 3777 5984 14,470 4225
B A 270 5539 3937 7893 18,664 4400
B A 330 5616 4078 10,826 23,004 4559
B B 90 3709 3345 3258 3094 3599
B B 150 4280 3572 3812 5505 3830
B B 212 4631 3777 4890 7996 4037
B B 270 4855 3937 6450 10,327 4206
B B 330 4969 4078 8847 12,737 4361
B C 90 2980 3345 2583 1827 3447
B C 150 3624 3572 3022 3165 3670
B C 212 4056 3777 3877 4548 3869
B C 270 4272 3937 5114 5841 4032
B C 330 4331 4078 7014 7179 4182
B PG 90 2372 3345 1931 1248 3306
B PG 150 3065 3572 2259 1950 3518
B PG 212 3568 3777 2898 2675 3709
B PG 270 3860 3937 3822 3353 3865
B PG 330 3996 4078 5242 4054 4007
(continued)
6 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

Table 3. Continued.
Injection Analytical MMP Abbas MMP Kuo MMP Glaso MMP Eakin MMP
Oil gas T ( F) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)

B D 90 1739 3345 1456 1121 3208

B D 150 2455 3572 1704 1534 3412
B D 212 2999 3777 2185 1962 3594
B D 270 3339 3937 2882 2362 3743
B D 330 3535 4078 3953 2775 3880
C A 90 4831 4965 6091 4231 4937
C A 150 5464 5355 7128 7454 5312
C A 212 5655 5611 9143 10,784 5651
C A 270 5928 5785 12,060 13,900 5930
C A 330 5890 5927 16,540 17,123 6188
C B 90 4095 4965 4978 2686 4478
C B 150 4728 5355 5825 4740 4829
C B 212 5136 5611 7472 6862 5146
C B 270 5388 5785 9855 8848 5409
C B 330 5478 5927 13,517 10,902 5651
C C 90 3548 4965 3946 1775 4077
C C 150 4308 5355 4618 3084 4404
C C 212 4711 5611 5923 4437 4700
C C 270 5034 5785 7813 5702 4945
C C 330 5198 5927 10,716 7012 5172
C PG 90 2796 4965 2950 1237 3697
C PG 150 3595 5355 3451 2035 3998
C PG 212 4127 5611 4427 2861 4271
C PG 270 4437 5785 5840 3633 4498
C PG 330 4669 5927 8009 4431 4707
C D 90 2430 4965 2224 1024 3426
C D 150 3244 5355 2603 1557 3706
C D 212 3811 5611 3339 2107 3961
C D 270 4090 5785 4404 2622 4172
C D 330 4369 5927 6040 3155 4367
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.

correlation, and 84.5% (11.9%) for Eakin correlation. Although Eakin correlation is the
most reliable among these four correlations, it is still not sufficiently accurate; in some cases,
the relative errors are over 1400 psi. Thus, a new correlation is required to predict MMPs for
PG reinjections.
As for other correlations, we selected four input parameters for predicting MMP: tem-
perature, molecular weight of heptane plus in the oil, molecular weight, and molecular
percentage of intermediates (C2–C6, CO2, and H2S) in the gas. We found a good fit for
the analytically calculated MMPs as shown in Figure 2. The equation for fit is
!2 !
1000yC2þ 1000yC2þ
pm ¼ 13155  14665 þ 6042:2 (1)
MO1:25
C
 MG0:5
C
 T0:7 MO1:25
C
 MG0:5
C
 T0:7
7þ 2þ 7þ 2þ
He et al. 7

Figure 1. Comparison of analytical calculated MMPs with predicted MMPs from currently used
correlations. (a) Abbas correlation, (b) Kuo correlation, (c) Glaso correlation, and (d) Eakin correlation.
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.

Figure 2. The new proposed correlation based on analytical calculated MMPs.

MMP: minimum miscible pressure.
8 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

where pm is the MMP (psi); T is the temperature ( F); MOC7þ is the molecular weight of
heptane plus in the oil; MGC2þ is the molecular weight of intermediates defined by C2–C6,
CO2, and H2S in the displacing gas; and yC2þ is the molecular percentage of intermediates in
the displacing gas (mol%).

Figure 3. Comparison of analytical calculated MMPs with predicted MMPs from the new developed cor-
relation.
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.

Figure 4. Comparison of experimental slim-tube MMPs with predicted MMPs from currently used
correlations. (a) Abbas correlation, (b) Kuo correlation, (c) Glaso correlation, and (d) Eakin correlation.
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.
 He et al.

Table 4. Comparison of MMPs estimated from correlations to slim-tube MMPs.

Slim-tube Abbas Kuo Glaso Eakin MMP from

MOC7þ C1þN2 yC2þ MGC2þ MMP MMP MMP MMP MMP equation (1)
Reference T ( F) (g/mol) (mol%) (mol%) (g/mol) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)

Glaso (1985) 210 231 73.3 26 39.05 5100 4849 5171 5679 4138 4575
Lee and Reitzel (1982) 217 193 86.6 13 36.20 4902 4835 6249 8775 4147 5062
Lee and Reitzel (1982) 215 204 86.6 13 36.20 5076 4950 6510 8613 4310 5117
Lee and Reitzel (1982) 222 191 86.6 13 36.20 5497 5507 6194 9440 4133 5064
Firoozabadi and Aziz (1986) 200 209 83.2 15 37.25 5800 5609 5795 7433 4118 4983
Firoozabadi and Aziz (1986) 225 250 90.3 10 33.52 6000 6011 9936 11,955 5305 5505
Deffrenne et al. (1961) 250 197 64.8 35 37.16 3700 3511 4844 4319 3928 3991
Deffrenne et al. (1961) 250 197 60.0 40 30.00 3400 3511 5600 4580 3966 3566
Deffrenne et al. (1961) 250 197 80.0 20 30.00 3600 3511 9169 8177 4261 4663
Meltzer et al. (1965) 258 190 91.7 8 42.40 5400 5343 6882 14,097 4349 5521
Shelton and Yarborough (1977) 105 243 32.9 67 36.43 2000 5383 991 1155 2371 2118
Frimodig et al. (1983) 130 183 69.1 31 40.13 3400 3847 2681 2781 3313 3301
Kuo (1985) 132 302 65.0 35 44.00 3880 9166 3999 3020 3454 4276
Kuo (1985) 132 302 62.4 38 44.00 3650 9166 3729 2756 3288 4164
Kuo (1985) 132 302 54.3 46 44.00 2916 9166 2938 2063 2814 3835
Kuo (1985) 170 215 53.1 47 38.14 2400 5906 2447 2312 3469 3173
Kuo (1985) 206 215 53.1 47 38.14 2680 6038 2841 2768 3595 3442
Metcalfe (1982) 105 206 20.0 80 39.00 1754 5020 – – 3298 2027
Metcalfe (1982) 135 206 10.0 90 39.00 1505 5213 – – 3317 1975
Metcalfe (1982) 135 206 20.0 80 39.00 1800 5213 – – 3396 1965
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.
9
10 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

The maximum relative error and the average relative error of the new proposed
correlation for the 75 analytically calculated MMPs are 19.5 and 4.8%, respectively.
The correlation coefficient of the new correlation is 0.9514. Figure 3 and Figure 4 shows
the comparison of the analytically calculated MMPs and the predicted MMPs from the
newly developed correlation. As shown, the new proposed correlation is superior to the
other four correlations.

Verification of the new correlation

There are some published data providing the results of slim-tube experiments with 12 oil
samples (shown in Table 4) which were used to test the accuracy of the new correlation. The
new proposed correlation and the other four correlations predicted the slim-tube MMPs.
The results are presented in Table 4. Figures 4 and 5 compare the experimental slim-tube
MMPs with the predicted MMPs of the developed and currently used correlations. The
maximum (average) relative error for the 20 experimental slim-tube MMPs is 246% (80%)
for Abbas correlation, 155% (29%) for Kuo correlation, 161% (50%) for Glaso correlation,
120% (30%) for Eakin correlation, and 32% (14%) for the new proposed correlation. This
illustrates that the new proposed correlation is more accurate than all other correlations in
predicting MMP.
In order to improve the accuracy of prediction, the 75 analytical calculated MMPs and 20
experimental slim-tube MMPs from displacement tests reported in the literatures were
regressed to obtain a new correlation (shown in Figure 6) as follows
!2 !
1000yC2þ 1000yC2þ
pm ¼ 13483  15285 þ 6092:4 (2)
MOC  MG0:5
1:25
C
 T0:7 MOC  MG0:5
1:25
C
 T0:7
7þ 2þ 7þ 2þ

The new correlation incorporating the slim-tube MMPs has the average relative error of
4.6% for the 75 analytical calculated MMPs, of 11% for the 20 experimental slim-tube

Figure 5. Comparison of experimental slim-tube MMPs with predicted MMPs from the new developed
correlation.
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.
He et al. 11

Figure 6. The new proposed correlation based on analytical calculated MMPs and experimental slim-tube
MMPs.
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.

Figure 7. Comparison of analytical calculated MMPs and experimental slim-tube MMPs with predicted
MMPs from the new developed correlation.
MMP: minimum miscible pressure.

MMPs and of 6.4% for all 95 MMPs (shown in Figure 7). The correlation coefficient of the
new correlation is 0.9244. It should be pointed out that the new proposed correlation is
based on the characteristics of 15 oil samples and therefore it is limited to oils of similar
type. In other words, the new proposed correlation is limited to the conditions of MOC7þ
ranging from 183 to 302 g/mol, MGC2þ ranging from 30 to 44 g/mol, the molecular per-
centage of C1 ranging from 10 to 91.7%, the molecular percentage of CO2 ranging from 0 to
45%, the molecular percentage of H2S ranging from 0 to 45%, and the reservoir temper-
ature ranging from 90 to 330 F.
12 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

Conclusions
An empirical correlation for predicting MMP in the displacement of crude oil by PG was
regressed based on 75 analytical calculated MMPs from mixing-cell method and 20 exper-
imental slim-tube MMPs. The following conclusions can be summarized from the results of
this work:

1. Good agreement between the analytically calculated MMP from the mixing-cell method
and the results of the slim-tube experiment, with a relative error of 0.5% indicates that
the analytically calculated MMPs with a wide range of temperatures and reservoir fluids
can be used to develop an empirical correlation.
2. The new proposed correlation with an average relative error of 6.4% for all the 75 MMPs
shows its accuracy. The proposed correlation’s predictions are more precise than other
previous correlations.
3. The new proposed correlation is limited to the conditions of MOC7þ ranging from 183 to
302 g/mol, MGC2þ ranging from 30 to 44 g/mol, the molecular percentage of C1 ranging
from 10 to 91.7%, the molecular percentage of CO2 ranging from 0 to 45%, the molec-
ular percentage of H2S ranging from 0 to 45%, and the reservoir temperature ranging
from 90 to 330 F.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the Major Projects of China (2017ZX05030).

ORCID iD
Congge He https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5826-5341

References
Abiodun M, Shameem S, Habib M, et al. (2012) A new look at the minimum miscibility pressure
(MMP) determination from slimtube measurements. In: The 8th SPE improved oil recovery sym-
posium, Oklahoma, USA, 14–18 April 2012.
Ahmed T (1997) A generalized methodology for minimum miscibility pressure. In: The 5th Latin
American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference and exhibition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
30 August–3 September 1997.
Alston RB, Kokolis GP and James CF (1985) CO2 minimum miscibility pressure: A correlation for
impure CO2 streams and live oil systems. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 24: 268–274.
Arne S, Norsk H and Leonid S (2000) Gas injection in Paleo oil zone. In: SPE annual technical
conference and exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
Benham AL, Dowden WE and Kunzman WJ (1960) Miscible fluid displacement-prediction of misci-
bility. Petroleum Transactions, AIME 219: 229–237.
Chen H (1995) Gas injection in the Safah field, Oman. In: SPE Middle East oil show, Bahrain, 11–14
March 1995.
He et al. 13

Chen H, Zhang X, Chen Y, et al. (2017a) Study on pressure interval of near-miscible flooding by
production gas re-injection in QHD offshore oilfield. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
157: 340–348.
Chen H, Zhang X, Mei Y, et al. (2017b) Feasibility of near-miscible flooding by production gas
reinjection with varying CO2 content in Qinhuangdao oilfield. In: Carbon management technology
conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 17–20 July 2017.
Chen W, Tang Y, Liang T, et al. (2011) Mechanism study of supercritical CO2’s dynamic miscible
flooding process. Drilling & Production Technology 34(3): 77–80.
Deffrenne P, Marle C, Pacsirszki J, et al. (1961) The determination of pressures of miscibility. In: 36th
Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME in Dallas, 8–11 October 1961.
Dong M and Huang S (2000) Effect of solution gas in oil on CO2 minimum miscibility pressure.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 39(11): 53–61.
Eakin BE and Mitch FJ (1988) Measurement and correlation of miscibility pressures of reservoir oils.
In: Annual technical conference and exhibition of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, TX, 2–5
October 1988.
Firoozabadi A and Aziz K (1986) Analysis and correlation of nitrogen and lean-gas miscibility pres-
sure. SPE Reservoir Engineering 26: 575–582.
Frimodig J, Reese N and Williams C (1983) Carbon dioxide flooding evaluation of high-pour-point,
Paraffinic red wash reservoir oil. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 23: 587–594.
Glaso O (1985) Generalized minimum miscibility pressure correlation. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal 25: 927–934.
Glaso O (1990) Miscible displacement: Recovery tests with nitrogen. SPE Reservoir Engineering 30:
61–68.
Guo P, Sun L, Sun L, et al. (2010) Influences of injection gas on physical behavior of crude. Journal of
Southwest Petroleum Institute 22(3): 57–64.
Hrvoje G, Steve C and Simo B (2009) CO2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs. In: SPE offshore
Europe oil and gas conference and exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 8–11 September 2009.
Izgec O, Demiral B, Bertin H, et al. (2005) CO2 injection in carbonates. In: SPE western regional
meeting, Irvine, USA, 30 March–1 April 2005.
Jacobson H (1972) Acid gases and their contribution to miscibility. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology 11: 56–59.
Johns RT, Ahmadi K, Zhou D, et al. (2009) A practical method for minimum miscibility pressure
estimation of contaminated gas mixtures. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.
Johns RT, Fayers FJ and Orr FM (1994) Effect of gas enrichment and dispersion on nearly miscible
displacements in condensing/vaporizing drives. SPE Advanced Technology Series 2(2): 26–34.
Kassenov A and Kaliyev B (2016) Characterization of gas reinjection at Karachaganak field,
Kazakhstan. In: SPE annual Caspian technical conference and exhibition, Astana, Kazakhstan,
1–3 November 2016.
Knut U and Lars H (2002) Miscible gas injection in fractured reservoirs. In: SPE/DOE improved oil
recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 13–17 April 2002.
Kulkarni MM and Rao DN (2005) Experimental investigation of miscible secondary gas injection. In:
SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9–12 October 2005.
Kuo SS (1985) Prediction of miscibility for the enriched-gas drive process. In: The 60th annual technical
conference and exhibition of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Las Vegas, NV, 22–25 September 1985.
Lai F, Li Z, Fu Y, et al. (2015) A simulation research on evaluation of development in shale oil
reservoirs by near-miscible CO2 flooding. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 14(2): 702–713.
Lai F, Li Z and Hu X (2017) Improved minimum miscibility pressure correlation for CO2 flooding
using various oil components and their effects. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 14(2):
331–340.
14 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

Lee J and Reitzel G (1982) High pressure, dry gas miscible flood-Brazeau river nisku oil pools. Journal
of Petroleum Technology 34: 2503–2509.
Li M, Shan W, Liu X, et al. (2006) Laboratory study on miscible oil displacement mechanism of
supercritical carbon dioxide. Acta Petrolei Sinica 27(3): 80–83.
Li X, Yin Y, Yang Z, et al. (2016) Produced gas reinjection based cyclic solvent processes for foamy oil
reservoirs in the eastern Orinoco belt, Venezuela. In: SPE Canada heavy oil technical conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 7–9 June 2016.
Liu N, Ju B, Yang Y, et al. (2019) A novel method of bidirectional displacement with artificial nitrogen
gas cap and edge water for enhanced oil recovery: Experimental and simulation approaches. Energy
Exploration & Exploitation 37(4): 1185–1204.
Meng F, Lei Q, Sun Y, et al. (2018) Law of CO2 immiscible front movement in low-permeability oil
reservoir. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Science & Technology Edition) 40(3):
121–128.
Meltzer B, Hurdle J, Cassingham R (1965) An efficient gas displacement project- Raleigh field,
Mississippi. Journal of Petroleum Technology 17: 509–514.
Metcalfe RS (1982) Effects of impurities on minimum miscibility pressures and minimum enrichment
levels for CO2 and rich-gas displacements. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 22: 219–225.
Murty C and Al-Khayat S (1989) Gas injection in a saturated oil reservoir. In: SPE Middle East oil
technical conference and exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 11–14 March 1989.
Nikolay G, Vitaly K, Maiia V, et al. (2017) EOR miscible gas project in oil-gas condensate field. In:
SPE Russian petroleum technology conference, Moscow, Russia, 16–18 October 2017.
Olawale A and Hoffman BT (2014) Minimum miscibility pressure studies in the Bakken. In: SPE
improved oil recovery symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12–16 April 2014.
Rutherford WM (1962) Miscibility relationship in the displacement of oil by light hydrocarbons.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 2: 267–274.
Sabyrzhan D, Aizada A, Dave B, et al. (2010) Tengiz sour gas injection project. In: Caspian carbonates
technology conference, Atyrau, Kazakhstan, 8–10 November 2010.
Sayegh SG, Wang ST and Najjman J (1987) Multiple contact phase behavior in the displacement of
crude oil with nitrogen and enriched nitrogen. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 26: 31–39.
Sebastian HM, Wenger RS and Renner TA (1985) Correlation of minimum miscibility pressure for
impure CO2 streams. Journal of Petroleum Technology 37: 2076–2082.
Shelton J and Yarborough L (1977) Multiple phase behavior in porous media during CO2 or rich-gas
flooding. Journal of Petroleum Technology 29: 1171–1178.
Shokir E (2007) CO2-oil minimum miscibility pressure model for impure and pure CO2 streams. In:
offshore Mediterranean conference and exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, 28–30 March 2007.
Song Z, Li Y, Song Y, et al. (2019) A critical review of CO2 enhanced oil recovery in tight oil reservoirs
of North America and China. In: SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & gas conference and exhibition,
Bali, Indonesia, 29–31 October 2019.
Stalkup FI (1987) Displacement behavior of the condensing/vaporizing gas drive process. In: The 62th
annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, TX, 27–30 September 1987.
Sumeer K and Xingru W (2014) CO2 injection for enhanced gas recovery. In: SPE Western North
American and regional meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA, 16–18 April 2014.
Tadesse W, Shawket GG, Tamona MG, et al. (2012) Minimum miscibility pressure determination:
Modified multiple mixing cell method. In: SPE EOR conference, Muscat, Oman, 16–18 April 2012.
Tang Y, Sun L, Zhou Y, et al. (2004) On evaluation method of miscible gas-flooding mechanism.
Xinjiang Petroleum Geology 25(4): 414–417.
Tang Y, Sun L, Zhou Y, et al. (2005) Mechanism evaluation of condensing/vaporizing miscible flood-
ing with hydrocarbon rich gas injection. Petroleum Exploration and Development 32(2): 133–136.
Teletzke GF, Patel PD and Chen AL (2005) Methodology for miscible gas injection EOR screening.
In: SPE international improved oil recovery conference in Asia pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–6
December 2005.
He et al. 15

Wu S, Fan T, Zhao L, et al. (2019) A case study of miscible CO2 flooding in a giant middle east
carbonate reservoir. In: SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & gas conference and exhibition, Bali,
Indonesia, 29–31 October 2019.
Xu A, Mu L, Zhao L, et al. (2015) Analysis of miscibility of high sour component (H2S and CO2)
content gas flooding under abnormal reservoir pressure. In: Asia pacific oil & gas conference and
exhibition, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20–22 October 2015.
Yelling WF and Metcalfe RS (1980) Determination and prediction of CO2 minimum miscibility
pressures. Journal of Petroleum Technology 32: 160–168.
Yuan H, Johns RT, Egwuenu AM, et al. (2004) Improved MMP correlations for CO2 floods using
analytical gas flooding theory. In: SPE/DOE 14th symposium on improved oil recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, 17–21 April 2004.
Yurkiw FJ and Flock DL (1994) A comparative investigation of minimum miscibility pressure corre-
lations for enhanced oil recovery. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 8: 35–41.
Zakaria A (2011) Optimizing simulation studies for miscible gas injection process using horizontal
wells. In: SPE enhanced oil recovery conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19–21 July 2011.
Zhang C, Fan Z, Xu A, et al. (2016) The influence of sour gas on MMP and the composition opti-
mization for solution gas reinjection in volatile oil reservoir. Science Technology and Engineering
16(11): 54–58.
Zhang K, Alexander D, He R, et al. (2016) Correlation for CO2 minimum miscibility pressure in tight
oil reservoirs. In: SPE Trinidad and Tobago section energy resources conference, Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, 13–15 June 2016.
Zhang P, Brodie J, Daae V, et al. (2013) BP North Sea miscible gas injection projects review. In: SPE
offshore Europe oil and gas conference and exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 3–6 September 2013.
Zhu L, Liao X, Zhao X, et al. (2015) Effects of different gases on hydrocarbon miscible displacements.
Journal of Shaanxi University of Science & Technology 33(5): 100–105.
Zick AA (1986) A combined condensing/vaporizing mechanism in the displacement of oil by enriched
gases. In: The 61st annual technical conference and exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 5–8 October 1986.

Appendix
Notation

A, B, C, D, E constants of Kuo’s correlation in equation (4)

C1 molecular percentage of methane in injection gas (mol%)
MGC2þ molecular weight of intermediates in the displacing gas (g/mol)
MOC7þ molecular weight of heptane plus in the oil (g/mol)
pc pseudocritical pressure (psi)
PC2–C5 molecular percentage of intermediates (C2–C5, CO2, and H2S) (mol%)
pm MMP (psi)
T temperature ( F)
Tr reduced temperature of displacing gas
x molecular weight of C2–C6 in injection gas (g/mol)
y corrected molecular weight of heptane plus in the oil (g/mol)
yC1 molecular percentage of methane and nitrogen in the gas (mol%)
yC2þ molecular percentage of intermediates in the displacing gas (mol%)
yCO2 molecular percentage of CO2 in the gas (mol%)
yH2S molecular percentage of H2S and ethane plus in the gas (mol%)
16 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 0(0)

Appendix 1. MMP correlations for hydrocarbon in literatures

This appendix presents several correlations for hydrocarbon gases in the literatures.
For N2 and lean gases, Firoozabadi and Aziz (1986) proposed a correlation as
   2
PC2C5 PC2C5
pm ¼ 9433  188  10 3
þ 1430  10 3
(3)
MOC7þ T0:25 MOC7þ T0:25

where pm is the MMP (psi); MOC7þ is the molecular weight of heptane plus in the oil; PC2–C5
is the molecular percentage of intermediates defined by C2–C5, CO2, and H2S (mol%); and
T is the temperature ( F).
For enriched-gas drive process, Kuo (1985) built a correlation as

logC1 ¼ ðA þ B  TÞlogT þ Clogpm þ DlogMOC5þ þ ðE þ F  MGC2þ ÞlogMGC2þ (4)

where pm is the MMP (psi); T is the temperature ( F); C1 is the molecular percentage of
methane in injection gas (mol%); MOC5þ is the molecular weight of pentane plus in the oil;
MGC2þ is the molecular weight of C2–C4 fractions in the displacing gas; and A, B, C, D, E
are constants and they equal to 0.19899861, 0.00055769, 0.58347828, 0.62406453,
0.57821035, and 0.00058948, respectively. Application of this correlation is limited to con-
ditions of temperatures between 130 and 260 F, pressures between 1500 and 4000 psi, res-
ervoir fluid C5þ molecular weights between 160 and 300, and injection gas C2–C4 molecular
weights between 35 and 58.
Glaso (1985) developed the following equations to predict MMP of hydrocarbon gas/oil
system based on Benham et al.’s (1960) data
 
43636:9  175:196y  ð322:296  1:276yÞC1
pm;x¼34 ¼ 0:145  1:703 (5)
þ ð7:77  1012 MOC7þ 5:258 e319:8C1 y ÞT
 
37941:8  132:641y  ð557:876  1:882yÞC1
pm;x¼44 ¼ 0:145  1:058 (6)
þ ð11:721  109 MOC7þ 3:73 e13:567C1 y ÞT
 
51276:3  177:216y  ð506:868  1:475yÞC1
pm;x¼54 ¼ 0:145  1:109 (7)
þ ð33:922  1014 y5:52 e21:706C1 y ÞT

where pm is the MMP (psi); x is the molecular weight of C2–C6 in injection gas (g/mol); C1 is
the molecular percentage of methane in injection gas (mol%); T is the temperature ( F); and
y is the corrected molecular weight of heptane plus in the oil, which can be obtained by
!6:588
2:622
y¼ (8)
c0:846
o;C7þ

where co,C7þ is the specific gravity of C7þ in the oil.

He et al. 17

Prediction of the MMP by use of injection gas with molecular weight of C2–C6 other than
the values (34, 44, and 54) given in equations (5) to (7) is obtained by interpolation.
Eakin and Mitch (1988) proposed a MMP correlation based on the observation of 102
rising bubble data. The correlation is

lnðpm =pc Þ ¼ ð0:1697  0:06912=Tr ÞyC1 MOC7þ 0:5

þ ð2:3865  0:005955MOC7þ =Tr ÞyC2þ

þ ð0:1776  0:01023=Tr ÞyN2 MOC7þ 0:5

þ ð0:01221MOC7þ  0:0005899MOC7þ 1:5 =Tr ÞyCO2 (9)
þ ð101:429=MOC7þ þ 0:00375MOC7þ =Tr ÞyH2S

where pm is the MMP (psi); pc is the pseudocritical pressure (psi); Tr is the reduced temper-
ature of displacing gas; MOC7þ is the molecular weight of heptane plus in the oil; and yC1,
yCO2, yH2S, and yC2þ are molecular fraction of methane and nitrogen, CO2, H2S, and ethane
plus in the displacing gas fraction.