Authors : Mashingil, Makwin John; Mamuda Isiaka; Dwaiyibak Reuben Steven; Sumde Patrick Gau

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4nvfur8x

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/35u28b2c

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun1030

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Miscible gas injection is the widely applied enhanced oil recovery method. Among the gases which fines application in gas injection, CO2 gas is leading in worldwide application. The availability, cost efficient and miscible ability of CO2 even at lower pressure as compare to other gases has given it the edge. Enhanced oil recovery has become necessary for oil and gas industry in order to meet the global demand in energy of the fossil source and to remain in business. This is because primary and secondary recovery techniques can only recover about 35 to 45% of OOIP. Total of 1078 reservoir fields all located in United State of America were screened and evaluated as potential candidates for miscible CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Oil properties such as oil viscosity and oil API gravity were considered for the screening exercise. Whereas reservoir properties such as oil saturation, and reservoir depth were also used to screened the reservoir field data. Taber et al., 1997 recommended screening criteria were used and a new range for parameters used in the screening were suggested for better productivity based on the output of the screening carried out. The minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) which represents the minimum pressure at which the final recovery reaches 90-95% with 1.2PV CO2 injection, is estimated for the reservoir fields and it gives a range of 942 psi to 3156 psi. The plot of MMP with temperature shows that MMP increases with increasing temperature and vice versa.

Keywords : CO2, Enhanced Oil Recovery, Screening Criteria, MMP.

References :

1. Taber J.J, Martin F.D & Seright R.S (1997): EOR Screening Criteria Revisited-Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 35835.
2. Taber J.J, Martin F.D & Seright R.S (1997): EOR Screening Criteria Revisited-Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 39234.
3. Shaw, J., & Bachu, S. (2002, September 1). Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO₂-Flood EOR and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/02-09-05.
4. Shuli C, Wenxiang W. & Jiabin T. (2011). Study on Minimum Miscibility pressure and Oil Displacement Law for CO₂ Flooding. Advanced materials Research Online. Vols. 391-392. Pp 1051-1054. ISSN: 1662-8985. Doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.391-392.1051.
5. Ghedan S. (2009). Global Laboratory Experience of CO₂ Flooding. Journal of Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 125581.
6. Ennin E. & Grigg R.B. (2016): CO₂ Flooding and Minimum Miscibility Pressure Study in Texas Farnsworth Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 180854-MS.
7. Al-Mjeni R, Cherukupali P., Wunnick J.V., Edwards J., Felber B.J., Gurpinar O., Hirasaki G.J., Milner C.A., Jackson C., Kristensen M.R., Lim F., Ramamoorthy R. (2011). Has the Time Come for EOR? Oil Field Review Winter 2010/2011: 22 No 4.
8. Sheng J.J (2013). Enhanced oil recovery field case studies. Golf Professional Publisher UK.ISBN: 978-0-12-386545-8.
9. Yellig W.F & Metcalfe R.S. (1978): Determination and Prediction of CO₂ Minimum Miscibility Pressures. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 7477.