SPE 93478

Use of Genetic Algorithm To Predict Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) Between Flue
Gases and Oil in Design of Flue Gas Injection Project
M.K. Emera, SPE, and H.K. Sarma, SPE, Australian School of Petroleum, U. of Adelaide

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Bahrain, 1215 March 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
There is an increasing global awareness of the detrimental
effects of industrial flue gases on the environment. As a
consequence, much emphasis is being placed to harness flue
gases that contain high CO2 concentrations and sequester them
in suitable geological formations. A plausible means of
sequestrating flue gases is to inject them into petroleum
reservoirs while also enhancing oil recovery. An a priori
understanding of the pressure at which various flue gas
components, notably CO2, become miscible with reservoir
fluids is critical to the design and implementation of a flue gas
injection project.
A new genetic algorithm (GA)-based correlation has been
developed to estimate the flue gas-oil MMP. In developing
this correlation, the GA software developed in our earlier work
has been modified to account for various component gases in
the flue gas stream. The correlation estimates the MMP as a
function of the injected gas solvency in the oil. The solvency,
in turn, is related to critical properties of the injected gas. The
correlation has been successfully validated against published
experimental data and several correlations in the literature. It
yielded the best match with an average error of 4.7% and a
standard deviation of 6.3%, followed by Sebastian et al.
correlation with 13.1% error and 22.0% standard deviation and
Alston et al. correlation with 14.1% error and 43.2% standard
deviation.
An advantage of the GA-based correlation over other
correlations is that it can be used for gas mixtures with higher
N2 concentrations (tested up to 20 mole%) and with non-CO2
component concentrations of H2S, N2, SOx, O2, and C1-C4 up
to 78 mole% with a higher accuracy. Equally important, it
could be a useful tool when experimental data are not
available and/or when developing an optimal and economical
laboratory program to estimate the flue gas-oil MMP.

Introduction
CO2 miscible flooding is among the more widely applied
non-thermal EOR techniques. Among gas injection processes,
CO2 is preferred to hydrocarbon gases (HC) because of its
lower cost, high displacement efficiency, and the potential for
concomitant environmental benefits through its disposal in
petroleum reservoir. Key factors that affect CO2 flooding are
reservoir temperature, oil characteristics, reservoir pressure
and the purity of injected CO2 itself. Field case histories from
CO2 floods in Permian Basin, West Texas suggest that CO2
purity should not be viewed as too rigid constraint, as the use
of low purity CO2 stream could also be economic and effective
in enhancing oil recovery. In fact, certain impurities, such as
H2S and SOx, could contribute towards attaining CO2-oil
miscibility at lower pressure, while the presence of C1 and N2
increases the MMP. However, from an operational
perspective, it is often the remaining low percentages of nonCO2 gases that are more difficult and costly to remove,
requiring expensive gas separation facilities. Safety and
compression cost considerations, also, justify near-miscible
CO2 flood applications for some reservoirs. Therefore, the
potential of injecting flue gases containing both CO2 and nonCO2 components (H2S, N2, SOx, O2, and C1-C4) could be an
attractive option, provided the flue gas composition does not
affect the process performance adversely and their overall
impact on miscibility with the oil, separation/purification at
the surface, and subsequent re-injection is evaluated and well
understood.
The objective of this study is to develop a more reliable
flue gas-oil MMP correlation using the GA approach and to
compare its efficiency against other commonly used
correlations as listed in Table 1. The software designed in our
earlier work (1) to develop a MMP correlation for pure CO2 and
oil has been modified to account for flue gases, which also
contain non-CO2 components. The GA software used in this
study has been presented in the flowchart provided in Fig. 1.
This figure also presents the stopping criterion under which
the fitness of the solution is decided and accepted.
Factors Affecting the Flue Gas-Oil MMP
The factors that affect flue gas-oil MMP are reservoir
temperature, oil characteristics, and injected gas composition.
For reservoir temperature, there exists a distinct
proportionality between reservoir temperature and MMP
because MMP increases as the reservoir temperature
increases (2). The MMP also increases with high molecular

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93478

weight (MW) oil and oils containing higher concentrations of

C1 and N2. However, the presence of intermediates (C2-C4)
decreases the MMP.
The existence of non-CO2 components (e.g., H2S, SOx, and
C2-C4) whose critical temperatures are higher than that of CO2
(31C) causes an improvement in the solubility of flue gas in
the reservoir oil (3, 4). This results in an increased injected gas
pseudocritical temperature and a lower MMP. On the other
hand, the existence of the components (e.g., N2, O2, and C1)
with lower critical temperatures causes a reduction in the
solubility of flue gas in the reservoir oil and has the opposite
effect.
Wilson (5) stated that the pseudocritical temperature of the
injected gas affects MMP and it could be used as a parameter
in a miscibility correlation. Likewise, Rutherford (6) found,
empirically, that the HC gas-oil MMP in HC miscible floods
was a function of the pseudocritical temperature of the
injected gas at a constant pressure. Jacobson (7), also, suggested
a similar scheme of using the pseudocritical temperature as a
correlation parameter for acid gases (CO2 with H2S)-oil MMP
prediction. However, instead of using actual values, apparent
critical temperatures were used for non-HC components as
correlation parameters. Alston et al. (2) followed a similar
approach to correlate flue gas-oil MMP using the
pseudocritical temperature of the injected gas, where apparent
critical temperatures for C2 and H2S components were also
used to determine the pseudocritical temperature using the
weight-fraction mixing rule. They found that the weightfraction mixing rule gave better results than the mole-fraction
method. Similarly, Kovarik (8) presented a correlation that is
also based on the pseudocritical temperature. In addition to the
weight-fraction mixing rule, he used the mole-fraction rule to
determine the pseudocritical temperature and found that the
two methods presented similar results. Moreover, Sebastian et
al. (9), also, used the mole-fraction mixing rule to determine the
injected gas pseudocritical temperature in developing their
flue gas-oil MMP correlation. They also used an apparent
critical temperature (51.67C) for H2S. Dong (3) presented a
similar approach to that of Sebastian et al. but instead of using
apparent critical temperatures; he used a factor with non-CO2
components (H2S, SO2, O2, N2, and C1) in determining the
injected gas pseudocritical temperature to represent the
strength of these components in changing the apparent critical
temperature of the injected flue gas relative to pure CO2.
Besides the pseudocritical temperature, Eakin and
Mitch (10), also, used the injected gas pseudocritical pressure in
developing their correlation, as they stated that the change in
the rising bubbles in the rising bubble apparatus (RBA) and
also the low value of the interfacial tension between the
injected gas and crude oil would occur only near the critical
point.
GA-based Flue Gas-Oil MMP Correlation
The GA-based correlation to predict flue gas-oil MMP is
based on the injected flue gas pseudocritical properties
(pseudocritical temperature and pressure), in addition to the
CO2 pseudocritical properties, and CO2-oil MMP (could be
determined experimentally or through the CO2-oil MMP
correlations that available in the literature). This correlation

uses the weight-fraction mixing rule in determining

pseudocritical pressure and temperature. A multiplying factor
(MFi) was used to adjust the injected gas pseudocritical
temperature to present the best fit among the pseudocritical
properties (pressure and temperature) and MMP. This factor
was used, with different values (based on the gas component),
for the components: SO2, H2S, C2, C1, and N2. The GA-based
flue gas-oil MMP correlation and the MFi values are presented
as follows:
Pr, flue gas
Pr, CO2

= 3.406 + 5.786 (

+ 20.48 (

1.8TCW + 32
1.8TCW + 32 2
) - 23.0 (
)
1.8TC, CO2 + 32
1.8TC, CO2 + 32

1.8TCW + 32 4
1.8TCW + 32 3
)
) - 5.7 (
1.8TC, CO2 + 32
1.8TC, CO2 + 32

(1)
where,
Pr, flue gas =

MMP flue gas

P CW

n
PCW = w i PCi
i=1
MMPCO2
Pr, CO2 =
PC,CO2
n
TCW = MFi w T
i ci
i=1
Values of MFi are as below:
Components
SO2
H 2S
CO2
C2
C1
N2
All other injected gas
components

MFi (multiplying factor)

0.3
0.59
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.9

1.0

GA-based Flue Gas-Oil MMP Correlation Test

The GA-based flue gas-oil correlation was tested against
the literature data and other correlations in the literature
(Table 2 and Fig. 2 present the literature data used in this
study and the GA-based correlation prediction results). It is
found that GA-based correlation yields the best prediction
among all other tested correlations (2,3,8,9,10). Our correlation
yielded an average error of 4.7% and standard deviation (of
calculated MMP/experimental MMP) equal to 6.3%. On the
other hand, Alston et al. correlation presented an average error
equal to 14.1% and standard deviation equal to 43.2%. Also,
Sebastian et al. correlation presented an average error equal to
13.1% and standard deviation equal to 22.0%. Table 3
presents a comparison among our GA-based correlation
accuracy and that of the two correlations with a closer match
to ours (e.g., Alston et al. and Sebastian et al.). This
comparison is also presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. Table 3,

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93478

also, extends the comparison to other tested correlations,

notably those of Kovarik, Dong, and Eakin-Mitch correlations.
These correlations yielded lower accuracy.
It is possible to note from Table 3 that the maximum error
of Alston et al. correlation prediction is 311.6% (for the
injected flue gas that is composed of 80 mole% of CO2 and 20
mole% of N2). This high error occurs because Alston et al.
correlation should not be used for flue gas streams containing
more than 8 mole% of N2. However, if this particular data
point (as identified within the circle in Fig. 3) is excluded
from our accuracy test, the GA-based correlation still yields a
better accuracy with an average error of 4.8% and standard
deviation equal to 6.34% compared to that of Alston et al.
correlation, which results in average error of 9.4% and
standard deviation equal to 18.2%. Sebastian et al. correlation
gives an average error of 12.7% with a standard deviation
equal to 21.45%. As shown in Table 3, the other tested
correlations yield even higher errors.
Discussion
The GA-based correlation to predict flue gas-oil MMP
could be superior to other correlations commonly used. This
correlation is based on the solvency of the injected gas into
reservoir oil. As injected gas solvency into oil depends on the
critical properties (pseudocritical temperature and pressure) of
the injected gas, so the GA-based correlation is a function of
the pseudocritical temperatures and pressures of the injected
flue gases and pure CO2 besides CO2-oil MMP. A multiplying
factor was used in developing this correlation to present a
better relationship between MMP and the pseudocritical
properties of the injected gas. The difference between this
relationship before and after using this multiplying factor in
the correlation development is explained in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6,
respectively. With the exception of C2, the multiplying factor
is qualitatively proportional to the equilibrium constants of the
injected gas non-CO2 components (e.g. SO2, H2S, C1, and N2).
From Table 3, it is evident that the GA-based correlation
presents better prediction accuracy with different types of nonCO2 components that may co-exist with CO2 in the flue gas
stream (e.g., H2S, N2, SOx, O2, and C1-C4). This correlation
was tested for the existence of up to 78 mole% of non-CO2
components and up to 20 mole% of N2 in the injected gas and
presented high prediction accuracy. On the other hand,
although Alston et al. correlation presented adequate results
for the existence of different types of non-CO2 components
(e.g., C1- C4 and H2S) in the injected gas, its performance for
flue gas streams that contain N2 was, however, inadequate;
especially for injected gas streams containing more than 8
mole% of N2 (this is one of its limitations). Furthermore,
Alston et al. correlation is unable to deal with the existence of
SO2 in the flue gas. For Sebastian et al. correlation, its
performance for flue gases that contain N2 and/or SO2 was not
adequate. Also, the existence of high fractions of non-CO2
components (more than 55 mole%) in the injected flue gas
presented lower prediction accuracy. For other tested
correlations, their errors were much higher than the foregoing
correlations (GA-based, Alston et al., and Sebastian et al.
correlations).
Notwithstanding above general observations and the
caution that must be applied with regard to the uncertainties

and accuracies in data gathered from the literature and

experiments (due to use of different experimental apparatuses,
different
miscibility
criteria,
and
experimental
procedures/errors including larger incremental pressure steps
to determine MMP), the GA-based flue gas-oil MMP was
successful in yielding the best prediction of the flue gas-oil
MMP among all other correlations tested during the course of
this study.
Conclusions
A GA-based correlation has been developed to predict the
flue gas-oil MMP and has been successfully validated using
data available in the public domain. Based on preceding
discussions, the following conclusions are drawn:

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

The flue gas-oil MMP is a function of the solvency of

the injected flue gas into reservoir oil. The injected
gas solvency into oil depends on the critical
properties (pseudocritical temperature and pressure)
of the injected gas and the GA-based correlation
accounts for these properties for both injected flue
gas and pure CO2.
The use of the multiplying factor improves the
relationship between MMP and pseudocritical
properties of the injected gas.
The GA-based correlation presented an average error
of 4.7% with a standard deviation (of calculated
MMP/experimental MMP) equal to 6.3%. On the
other hand, Alston et al. correlation presented an
average error of 14.1% and standard deviation equal
to 43.2%, while Sebastian et al. correlation presented
an average error of 13.1% and standard deviation
equal to 22.0%. The errors with other tested
correlations were much higher.
GA-based correlation could be used for higher N2
content (tested up to 20 mole% based on the available
data) and higher non-CO2 component fractions
(tested up to 78 mole%).
When data from standard or similar experimental
procedures are used, the accuracy of the GA-based
correlation could be further enhanced. In such
situations, it could be used with even greater
confidence and with lower error.
In the absence of any measured site-specific MMP
data, GA-based correlation could be used as an
effective and convenient predictive tool to
guesstimate the MMP for initial design calculations.
In addition, it could also contribute towards designing
a more efficient and economical experimental
programs.

Nomenclatures
CO2 density at MMP, g/cm3
MMP
API
Oil gravity API
Ci
Carbon number
Exp. MMP
Experimental minimum miscibility pressure,
MPa
F
Weighting composition parameter
SFi
Dong (1999) factor representing the strength

www.petroman.ir

Fit (i)
MFi
FR
I
Ki
M
Minj.
MMPcal.
MMPcal. (i,j)
MMPexp.
MMPexp. (i,j)
MMPflue gas
MMPCO2
MWC7+
n
nn
P (m)
P (c)
PC, CO2
PC, inj.
PCi
Pcm
PCW
Pfit(i,j)
Pr, flue gas
Pr, CO2
STD
Tac
TC, CO2
TC, inj.
Tci
TCi
Tcm
TCM
TCW
Tcw
Tpc
Tr

SPE 93478

of species i in changing the apparent critical

temperature of the mixture relative to the
critical temperature of pure CO2
Average fitness of chromosome i, where the
chromosome has many fitness values based on
the number of data available (j)
Multiplying factor of the injected gas
component i
Mole percent of C2 to C6 in the reservoir fluid,
%
Oil characterization index
Normalized partition coefficient for carbon
number i
Average molecular weight of the oil
Molecular weight of the injected gas
Calculated minimum miscibility pressure, MPa
Calculated value of CO2-oil MMP of
chromosome i based on the variables values
of the data number j
Experimental minimum miscibility pressure,
MPa
Experimental value of CO2-oil MMP of
chromosome i based on the variables values
of the data number j
Flue gas-oil MMP, MPa
CO2-oil MMP, MPa
C7+molecular weight
Number of non-CO2 components & GA
population size
Number of available data points
Mutation probability
Crossover probability
CO2 critical pressure, MPa
Injected gas critical pressure, MPa
Critical pressure of the gas component i, MPa
Mole average pseudocritical pressure, MPa
Weight average pseudocritical pressure, MPa
Fitness function of data number j of
chromosome i, fraction
Reduced flue gas minimum miscibility
pressure, fraction
Reduced CO2 minimum miscibility pressure,
fraction
Standard deviation, %
Mole average pseudocritical temperature with
using factor SFi, K
Critical temperature of pure CO2 gas, C
Injected gas critical temperature, K
Critical temperature of the gas component i,
C
Critical temperature, K
Mole average pseudocritical temperature, C
Mole average pseudocritical temperature, K
Weight average pseudocritical temperature
with using the Multiplying factor (MFi), C
Weight average pseudocritical temperature, C
Pseudocritical temperature (may be weight
average or mole average), C
Reduced reservoir temperature, C

Reservoir temperature, C
Reservoir temperature, K
Weight fraction of component i, fraction
Normalized weighting fraction of component i
in the C2+ fractions of crude oil
Mole fraction of gas component i
Mole percentage of CO2 in the injection gas, %
Mole fraction of diluted component
Ethane plus HC mole fraction in the injected
gas, fraction
Mole fraction of the gas component i in the
injected gas (yCO2, yH2S, yN2, and yC1) fraction

TR
TRes.
wi
wic2+
xi
xCO2
y
yC2+
yi

Average error =

STD =

1 n ABS(MMPexp. MMPcal.)
) 100%
(
n i=1
MMPexp.

n ABS(MMPexp. MMPcal. )
) 100
(
i=1
MMPexp.

n 1

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Santos Limited for its
support to research on CO2 EOR process within the Center for
Improved Petroleum Recovery at Australian School of
Petroleum, University of Adelaide. The first author is a
recipient of the Santos Post-Graduate-Scholarship. The
authors also thank Prof. Sam Huang of Saskatchewan
Research Council (SRC), Canada for providing some of the
data used in this study.
References
1. Emera, M.K. and Sarma, H.K.: Use of Genetic
Algorithm to Estimate CO2-Oil Minimum Miscibility
PressureA Key Parameter in Design of CO2
Miscible Flood, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, In Press, Article no. 1232, 2004.
2. Alston, R.B., Kokolis, G.P. and James, C.F.: CO2
Minimum Miscibility Pressure: A correlation for
Impure CO2 Streams and Live Oil Systems, SPEJ,
pp268-274, April, 1985.
3. Dong, M.: Potential of Greenhouse Gas Storage and
Utilization through Enhanced Oil Recovery -Task 3:
Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) Studies,
Final Report (SRC Publication No. P-110-468-C99), Sep. 1999.
4. Zhang, P.Y., Huang, S., Sayegh, S., Zhou, X.L.:
Effect of CO2 impurities on gas injection EOR
process, SPE paper 89477 presented at the
SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, USA, April 17-21,
2004.
5. Wilson, J.F.: Miscible Displacement-Flow Behavior
and Phase Relationships for a Partially Depleted
Reservoir, Trans., AIME Vol. 219, 223, 1960.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93478

6.
7.
8.

9.
10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

Rutherford, W.M.: Miscibility Relationships in the

Displacement of Oil by Light Hydrocarbons, SPEJ,
pp340-346, Dec. 1962.
Jacobson, H.A.: Acid Gases and their Contribution
to Miscibility, J. Can. Pet. Tech., 56, April 1972.
Kovarik, F.S.: A Minimum Miscibility Pressure
Study Using Impure CO2 and West Texas Oil
Systems: Data Base, Correlations, and Compositional
Simulation, SPE paper 14689 presented at the SPE
Production Technology Symposium held in Lubbock,
Texas, November 11-12, 1985.
Sebastian, H.M., Wenger, R.S., and Renner, T.A.:
Correlation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure for
Impure CO2 Streams, JPT, pp2076-2082, Nov. 1985.
Eakin, B.E. and Mitch, F.J.: Measurement and
Correlation of miscibility Pressures of Reservoir
Oils, SPE paper 18065 presented at the 63rd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE held in
Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.
Johnson, J.P. and Pollin, J.S.: Measurement and
Correlation of CO2 Miscibility Pressures, SPE paper
9790, presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Joint
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, April 5-8, 1981.
Orr, F.M. Jr. and Silva, M.K.: Effect of Oil
Composition on Minimum Miscibility Pressure-Part
2: Correlation, SPEJ, pp479-491, Nov. 1987.
Enick, R.M., Holder, G.D., Morsi, B.I.: A
Thermodynamic Correlation for the Minimum
Miscibility Pressure in CO2 Flooding of Petroleum
Reservoirs, SPERE, pp81-92, Feb. 1988.
Yuan, H., Johns, R.T., Egwuenu, A.M., Dindoruk, B.:
Improved MMP Correlations for CO2 Floods Using
Analytical Gas Flooding Theory, SPE paper 89359
presented at the SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, USA,
April 17-21, 2004.
Graue, D.J. and Zana, E.T.: Study of a possible CO2
Flood in Rangely Field, JPT, pp1312-1318, July
1981.

16. Dicharry, R.M., Perryman, T.L., and Ronquille, J.D.:

Evaluation and Design of a CO2 Miscible Flood
Project-SACROC Unit, Kelly-Snyder Field, JPT,
pp1309-1318, Nov. 1973.
17. Metcalfe, R.S.: Effects of Impurities on Minimum
Miscibility Pressures and Minimum Enrichment
Levels for CO2 and Rich-Gas Displacements, SPEJ,
pp219- 225, April 1982.
18. Holm, L.W. and Josendal, V.A.: Mechanisms of Oil
Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, JPT, pp14271436, Dec. 1974.
19. Zick, A.A.: A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing
Mechanism in the Displacement of Oil by Enriched
Gases, SPE paper 15493, presented at the 61st
Annual Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in
New Orleans, LA, October 5-8, 1986.
20. Cardenas, R.L., Alston, R.B., Nute, A.J., Kokolis,
G.P.: Laboratory Design of a Gravity-Stable
Miscible CO2 Process, JPT, 111-118, Jan. 1984.
21. Dong, M., Huang, S., Dyer, S.B., Mourits, F.M.: A
Comparison of CO2 minimum miscibility pressure
determinations for Weyburn crude oil, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 31, pp13-22,
2001.
22. Dong, M, Huang S.S., Srivastava, R.: A laboratory
study on near-miscible CO2 injection in Steelman
reservoir, JCPT, Vol. 40, No.2, pp53-61, Feb. 2001.
23. Stalkup Jr., F.I.: Miscible Displacement SPE
Monograph Series, pp141, 1984.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
API 141.5/(131.5+API)
= g/cm3
ft3 2.831 685
E-02 = m3
F (F-32)/1.8
= C
psia 6.894 757
E-00 = kPa
lb 2.20462
=kg

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93478

Table 1 Commonly used flue gas-oil MMP correlations.

Author

Correlation

Remarks
2

MMP PC,inj. = inj. (TRes. TC,inj. ) + I(( M inj )

4
2
2
I = 11.73 + 6.313 10 M 1.954 10 M +
3
7
5
2.502 10 M + (0.1362 + 1.138 10 M)API
2
5
7.222 10 API
where, = 0.285 and for pure CO2, inj.=0.13 MPa/K,

Johnson & Pollin

(1981)(11)

inj. = 0.0722 (1.8 +

-For N2 impurity

3
10 y

TRes. TC,inj.
2
10 y

),

Limitations:
-Temperature range from 26.85 to 136.85 C,
- Used for Less than 10 mole% of non-CO2
components in the injection flue gas,
-Used for C1 and/or N2 as non-CO2
components only.

- For C1 impurity inj. = 0.0722 (1.8 +

).
TRes. TC,inj.
MMPflue gas
MMPCO2

Alston et al. (1985)(2)

=(

87.8
1.8Tcw + 32

( 1.93587.8 )
1.8Tcw +32
,where:
)

Tcw = w i Tci ,

MMPflue gas

(9)

Sebastian et al. (1985)

= 1.0 2.13 10

-H2S and C2 critical temperatures are modified

to 51.67C.
-If MMP < Pb, the Pb is taken as MMP
Limitation:
-Used only for not more than 8 mole% of N2.

(TcM 304.2) +
MMPCO2
2
3
4
7
2.51 10 (TcM 304.2) 2.35 10 (TcM 304.2)
n
x TCi
CM = i
=1 i

-H2S critical temperature is modified 325K

(51.67C)
Limitation:
- Used for non-CO2 ratios up to 55 mole%.

where, T

MMPflue gas = 0.2814 (548 (1.8Tpc + 492)) + MMPCO2

Kovarik (1985)(8)

where,

n
n
Tpc = w i Tci or Tpc = x T
ci
i =1
i =1 i

MMP = 0.524 F + 1.189 , when: F p 1.467

MMP = 0.42 , when: F f 1.467 ,

Orr and Silva (1987)(12)

where:
37
F = K i w ic2+
2
and log(K ) = 0.7611 0.04175 C
i
i
and

Enick et al. (1988)(13)

w ic2+ =

wi

37
wi
2

A graphical correlation that is a function of the reservoir temperature and molecular

weight of C5+ with a graphical corrections for light gas (C1 and N2) and intermediates
(C2 to C4) that exist in the oil and another correction factor for the non-CO2
components in injected flue gas which is based on the mole fraction of these
components that may exist in the injected gas streams.

www.petroman.ir

-Kovarik (8) found that the weight average

fraction properties correlated the data similar
to the mole average fraction properties.
-Limitation:
This correlation is used only for C1, as a nonCO2 component, with less than 20 mole%
ratios.
-MMP could be obtained at the reservoir
temperature and MMP.
-This correlation is used for CO2 and flue gasoil MMP prediction.
Limitations:
-This correlation does not take into
consideration the presence of C1 and all other
non-hydrocarbons in the oil composition and
can be used only when the carbon distribution
from C2 to C37 is available.
-Uncertain for TR>87.78C for oils containing
significant amount of dissolved gas.
If MMP < Pb, the Pb is taken as MMP.
-Molecular weight of C5+ is modeled as a
single alkane of equivalent molecular weight.
Limitations:
-35CTR115C
-156MWc5+ 256
-7 MPa MMP30 MPa
-Can be used up to 25 mole% of non-CO2
components in the flue gas.

SPE 93478

Table 1 Commonly used flue gas-oil MMP correlationsContd.

Author

Correlation

Remarks

1
0.005955(M WC7 + )
0.06912
)y C2 + +
)y C1 (MW C7 + ) 2 + (2.3855
lnP r, flue gas = (0.1697
Tr
Tr
3
1
0.0005899( MW C7 + ) 2
0.01023
(0.1776
)y N2 (MW C7 + ) 2 + (0.01221(M WC7 + )
)y CO2 +
Tr
Tr
0.00375(MW
)
101.429
C7 + )y
(
+
H2S
MW C7 +
Tr

Eakin and Mitch

(1988)(10)

where,
MMPflue gas
n
, Pcm = x i PCi
Pr =
i=1
Pcm
1.8TR + 492
n
Tr =
, Tcm = x T
ci
i 1 i
1.8Tcm + 492
MMPflue gas
MMPCO2

Dong (1999)(3)

=(

Tac 4
)
304.2

where,

n
Tac = SFi x i TCi
i=1

For flue gas-oil MMP (CO2 with methane):

MMPflue gas
MMPCO2
Yuan et al. (2004)(14)

= 1.0 + m(x CO2 100)

where,

m = a 1 + a 2 MWC7 + + a 3 FR + (a 4 + a 5 MWC7 + +
FR
2
2
a6
)TR + (a 7 + a 8 MWC7 + + a 9 MWC7 + + a 10 FR )TR
2
MWC7 +

-Eakin and Mitch (10) generally considered

MMP to correspond to the critical point of the
flue gas-oil mixture, where the rapid change in
the bubbles in the (RBA), low values of
interfacial tension between gas and liquid, and
first contact miscibility may be achieved.
Limitation:
-This correlation does not take into
consideration the presence of some non-CO2
components, e.g., SO2 and O2.

-Dong (3) used a factor (SFi) representing the

strength of species i in changing the apparent
critical temperature of the flue gas relative to
the critical temperature of CO2 (this factor is
consisted with component K-values).
-The values of SFi for the different
components are as follows:
- For SO2, SFi = 0.5
-For H2S, SFi = 0.7
- For O2, SFi = 5.0
-For C1, SFi = 2.5
- For CO2, SFi = 1.0
-For N2, SFi = 7.5
- For other non-CO2 components, SFi = 1.0
-This correlation was developed based on an
analytical theory for MMP calculation from an
equations-of-state (EOS) to predict MMP
(used for the flue gas that composed of CO2
and C1 only). This correlation is based on
reservoir
temperature,
mole
MWC7+,
percentage of C2-C6 in the oil, and mole
percentage of CO2 in the flue gas streams.
For flue gas-oil MMP:
-a2= -1.5246E-04
-a1= -6.5996E-02
-a4= 6.2384E-04
-a3= 1.3807E-03
-a6= -2.7344E-02
-a5= -6.7725E-07
-a8= 1.7279E-08
-a7= -2.6953E-06
-a10= -1.9566E-08
-a9= -3.1436E-11
Limitations:
-Used for injection streams contain up to 40
mole% of C1

Table 2 Literature experimental data and GA-based correlation prediction of the flue gas-oil MMP.

Reference

Actual flue
GA-based
CO2-oil MMP,
Flue gas Composition
gas-oil MMP,
TCW, C
MMP, MPa
MPa
(Mole, %)
MPa

GA-based
error, %

Ref. 2

92.5% of CO2, 7.5% of C1

26.69

9.48

10.35

10.77

4.1

Ref. 2

90% of CO2, 10% of C1

92.25% of CO2, 7.75% of nC4
95% of CO2, 5% of n-C4

25.10

11.13

13.10

13.49

2.9

43.15

24.15

19.69

18.05

8.3

38.92

23.45

18.62

18.51

0.6

90.5% of CO2, 9.5% of C3

87.5% of CO2, 6.3% of N2,
6.2 % of n-C4
86.4% of CO2, 10.7% of C1,
2.9% of n-C4
95% of CO2, 4.9% of C1,
0.1% of N2
90% of CO2, 10% of C1

37.28

23.45

18.62

18.76

0.8

29.20

25.14

23.17

24.49

5.7

29.76

24.28

23.10

23.81

3.0

28.07

15.52

16.83

16.71

0.7

25.10

11.04

12.76

13.37

4.8

Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 15
Ref. 16

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93478

Table 2 Literature experimental data and GA-based correlation prediction of the flue gas-oil MMPContd.

Reference

Actual flue
CO2-oil MMP,
Flue gas Composition
GA-based
gas-oil MMP,
TCW, C
(Mole, %)
MPa
MMP, MPa
MPa

Ref. 17

75% of CO2, 25% of H2S

7.48

0.7

Ref. 17

50% of CO2, 50% of H2S

40.02

8.28

Ref. 17

25.10

8.28

33.01

8.28

21.47

Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C1

45% of CO2, 10% of C1, 45%
of H2S
60% of CO2, 20% of C1, 20%
of H2S
67.5% of CO2, 10% of C1,
22.5% of H2S
45% of CO2, 10% of C1, 45%
of H2S
60% of CO2, 20% of C1, 20%
of H2S
90% of CO2, 10% of C2

6.55

7.28

11.0

11.04

10.03

9.1

8.83

8.12

8.0

8.28

14.07

12.10

14.0

28.82

11.72

12.41

12.66

2.0

33.01

11.72

10.38

11.51

10.9

21.47

11.72

17.24

17.14

0.6

Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C3

31.47

11.04

10.07

10.33

2.6

37.61

11.04

9.31

8.77

5.9

Ref. 17
Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C4

44.35

11.04

7.90

8.05

1.9

80% of CO2, 20% of C2

31.92

11.04

9.66

9.92

2.7

Ref. 17

80% of CO2, 20% of C3

44.17

11.04

7.93

7.88

0.6

Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C2

31.47

13.45

13.04

12.59

3.4

Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C3

37.61

13.45

11.04

10.68

3.2

Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C4

44.35

13.45

8.97

9.81

9.4

Ref. 17

80% of CO2, 20% of C2

31.92

13.45

12.88

12.08

6.1

Ref. 17

80% of CO2, 20% of C3

44.17

13.45

10.50

9.61

8.5

Ref. 17

18.35

8.28

14.83

13.49

9.0

28.74

8.28

10.28

8.96

12.8

24.99

8.28

12.06

10.72

11.1

Ref. 17

80% of CO2, 20% of C1

68% of CO2, 22% of H2S,
10% of C1
40% of CO2, 40% of H2S,
20% of C1
75% of CO2, 25% of H2S

35.27

11.72

10.35

10.59

2.4

Ref. 17

50% of CO2, 50% of H2S

40.02

11.72

8.97

10.31

14.9

Ref. 17

90% of CO2, 10% of C1

25.10

11.72

15.17

14.20

6.4

Ref. 17

18.35

11.72

18.74

19.11

2.0

22.18

11.72

16.45

16.74

1.8

25.10

13.10

16.21

15.87

2.1

44.66

30.19

16.55

16.77

1.3

33.70

25.14

23.17

20.19

12.9

23.64

12.80

14.50

16.57

14.3

24.95

12.80

16.01

15.61

2.5

18.00

12.80

20.51

21.34

4.1

Ref. 3

80% of CO2, 20% of C1

55% of CO2, 25% of H2S,
20% of C1
90% of CO2, 10% of C1
22.18% of CO2, 23.49% of C1,
23.5% of C2, 27.4 % of C3,
3.38% of C4
79.2% of CO2, 8.8% of N2,
12% of n-C4
94.1% of CO2, 3.1% of N2,
2.8% of C1
90.1% of CO2, 9.9% of C1
89.8% of CO2, 5.1% of N2,
5.1% of C1
90% of CO2, 10% of H2S

32.70

12.01

11.60

11.28

2.8

Ref. 3

80% of CO2, 20% of H2S

34.38

12.01

11.40

10.97

3.8

Ref. 3

70% of CO2, 30% of H2S

36.19

12.01

10.40

10.74

3.3

Ref. 3

90% of CO2, 10% of SO2

31.58

12.01

10.50

11.58

10.2

Ref. 3

85% of CO2, 15% of N2

65% of CO2, 15% of N2, 20%
of SO2
60% of CO2, 10% of N2, 30%
of SO2
90% of CO2, 5% of O2, 5% of
N2

1.62

12.01

33.01

36.54

10.7

5.05

12.01

34.01

33.81

0.6

15.49

12.01

23.00

22.95

0.2

15.73

12.01

23.00

22.13

3.8

Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17

Ref. 17
Ref. 17

Ref. 17
Ref. 18
Ref. 19
Ref. 20
Ref. 21
Ref. 21
Ref. 21

Ref. 3
Ref. 3
Ref. 3

35.27

8.28

www.petroman.ir

7.53

GA-based
error, %

SPE 93478

Table 2 Literature experimental data and GA-based correlation prediction of the flue gas-oil MMPContd.

Reference

Actual flue
GA-based
CO2-oil MMP,
Flue gas Composition
gas-oil MMP,
TCW, C
MMP, MPa
MPa
(Mole, %)
MPa

Ref. 22

80% of CO2, 5% of O2, 5% of

N2, 10% of SO2
94.4% of CO2, 5.6% of C2

Ref. 22

70.8% of CO2, 29.2% of C2

Ref. 3

17.01

12.01

22.50

GA-based
error, %

21.12

6.1

31.29

16.50

16.01

15.67

2.1

32.37

16.50

14.50

14.24

1.8

Ref. 22

60% of CO2, 40% of C2

32.92

16.50

13.60

13.54

0.5

Ref. 22

46.3% of CO2, 53.7% of C2

33.69

16.50

11.90

12.62

6.0

Ref. 22

97% of CO2, 3% of C3

33.02

16.50

14.80

14.91

0.7

Ref. 22

94.9% of CO2, 5.1% of C3

34.40

16.50

14.30

14.25

0.3

Ref. 22

88.4% of CO2, 11.6% of C3

38.66

16.50

13.00

12.82

1.4

Ref. 22

84.1% of CO2, 15.9% of C3

41.48

16.50

12.40

12.23

1.4

Ref. 22

80.4% of CO2, 19.6% of C3

43.91

16.50

11.40

11.82

3.7

Ref. 22

75.7% of CO2, 24.3% of C3

46.99

16.50

11.00

11.31

2.8

Ref. 22

68.3% of CO2, 31.7% of C3

51.85

16.50

10.30

10.05

2.5

Ref. 22

63.4% of CO2, 36.6% of C3

55.07

16.50

9.10

8.56

6.0

Ref. 23

80% of CO2, 20% of C1

18.35

8.28

13.79

13.49

2.2

Ref. 23

80% of CO2, 20% of N2

-9.26

8.28

28.97

29.27

1.0

Average Error, %

4.7

Table 3 Comparison among the GA-based correlation prediction accuracy and that of other correlations to predict flue gas-oil MMP.
Actual GA-based GAFlue gas
Reference composition MMP, MMP,
based
(Mole, %)
MPa
MPa error, %
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 2
Ref. 15
Ref. 16
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17

92.5% of CO2,
7.5% of C1
90% of CO2,
10% of C1
92.25% of
CO2, 7.75% of
n-C4
95% of CO2,
5% of n-C4
90.5% of CO2,
9.5% of C3
87.5% of CO2,
6.3% of N2,
6.2 % of n-C4
86.4% of CO2,
10.7% of C1,
2.9% of n-C4
95% of CO2,
4.9% of C1,
0.1% of N2
90% of CO2,
10% of C1
75% of CO2,
25% of H2S
50% of CO2,
50% of H2S
90% of CO2,
10% of C1
45% of CO2,
10% of C1,
45% of H2S

Sebastian
Alston Alston
Eakin &
Sebastian
Dong Dong
Kovarik
Kovarik
Eakin &
et al.
et al. et al.
Mitch
et al.
MMP, error,
MMP
(mole)
Mitch
MMP
MMP, error,
MMP,
error, %
MPa
% (mole), MPa error, %
error, %
MPa
MPa
%
MPa

10.35

10.77

4.1

11.38

10.0

10.96

5.9

11.20

8.3

13.9

34.6

13.10

13.49

2.9

14.19

8.3

13.60

3.8

13.88

5.9

17

29.8

19.69

18.05

8.3

19.86

0.8

17.13

13.0

27.27

38.5

19.5

0.8

18.62

18.51

0.6

20.64

10.8

18.27

1.9

25.37

36.2

20.5

10.1

18.62

18.76

0.8

20.57

10.4

19.05

2.3

25.43

36.6

20.4

9.6

23.17

24.49

5.7

27.22

17.5

22.68

2.1

45.16

94.9

27.1

17.1

23.10

23.81

3.0

29.21

26.4

24.07

4.2

32.08

38.8

28.8

24.6

16.83

16.71

0.7

17.55

4.3

17.06

1.4

17.46

3.7

18.6

10.2

20.4

21.2

12.76

13.37

4.8

14.07

10.2

13.48

5.7

13.76

7.8

16.9

32.6

18.8

47.1

7.53

7.48

0.7

7.42

1.4

7.13

5.4

7.16

4.9

-0.3

104.1

17.5

131.7

6.55

7.28

11.0

6.68

1.9

6.26

4.5

6.17

5.9

-9

237.7

20.9

218.3

11.04

10.03

9.1

10.55

4.4

10.11

8.4

10.32

6.5

14.2

28.3

20.4

84.5

8.83

8.12

8.0

8.65

2.0

7.25

17.9

8.04

8.9

-1.5

117.3

20

126.9

www.petroman.ir

10

SPE 93478

Table 3 Comparison among the GA-based correlation prediction accuracy and that of other correlations to predict flue gas-oil
MMP Contd.
Actual GA-based GAFlue gas
Reference composition MMP, MMP,
based
(Mole, %)
MPa
MPa error, %
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 17
Ref. 18

Ref. 19

Ref. 20
Ref. 21

60% of CO2,
20% of C1,
20% of H2S
67.5% of CO2,
10% of C1,
22.5% of H2S
45% of CO2,
10% of C1,
45% of H2S
60% of CO2,
20% of C1,
20% of H2S
90% of CO2,
10% of C2
90% of CO2,
10% of C3
90% of CO2,
10% of C4
80% of CO2,
20% of C2
80% of CO2,
20% of C3
90% of CO2,
10% of C2
90% of CO2,
10% of C3
90% of CO2,
10% of C4
80% of CO2,
20% of C2
80% of CO2,
20% of C3
80% of CO2,
20% of C1
68% of CO2,
22% of H2S,
10% of C1
40% of CO2,
40% of H2S,
20% of C1
75% of CO2,
25% of H2S
50% of CO2,
50% of H2S
90% of CO2,
10% of C1
80% of CO2,
20% of C1
55% of CO2,
25% of H2S,
20% of C1
90% of CO2,
10% of C1
22.18% of
CO2, 23.49%
of C1, 23.5%
of C2, 27.45%
of C3, 3.38%
C4
79.2% of CO2,
8.8% of N2,
12% of n-C4
94.1% of CO2,
3.1% of N2,
2.8% of C1

Sebastian
Alston Alston
Eakin &
Sebastian
Dong Dong
Kovarik
Kovarik
Eakin &
et al.
et al. et al.
Mitch
et al.
MMP, error,
MMP
(mole)
Mitch
MMP
MMP, error,
MMP,
error, %
MPa
% (mole), MPa error, %
error, %
MPa
MPa
%
MPa

14.07

12.10

14.0

12.29

12.7

11.13

20.9

11.47

18.5

12.9

21.8

55.2

12.41

12.66

2.0

13.54

9.0

11.99

3.4

12.93

4.2

9.8

21.4

21.1

70.3

10.38

11.51

10.9

12.26

18.1

10.27

1.0

11.39

9.8

1.9

81.5

21.7

108.6

17.24

17.14

0.6

17.41

0.9

15.77

8.6

16.25

5.8

16.4

23.1

33.9

10.07

10.33

2.6

11.01

9.4

10.45

3.7

11.05

9.7

11.1

10.3

17.6

75.2

9.31

8.77

5.9

9.61

3.2

8.89

4.6

12.02

29.1

7.8

15.9

17.8

91.4

7.90

8.05

1.9

8.59

8.8

7.36

6.8

12.62

59.8

5.9

25.3

16.5

108.9

9.66

9.92

2.7

10.99

13.8

9.88

2.3

11.06

14.6

11.1

14.5

18.2

88.2

7.93

7.88

0.6

8.42

6.2

7.67

3.3

13.07

64.7

4.5

43.1

16.9

113.3

13.04

12.59

3.4

13.42

3.0

12.73

2.3

13.47

3.3

13.5

3.7

18.3

40.8

11.04

10.68

3.2

11.71

6.2

10.83

1.9

14.65

32.7

10.2

7.1

17.5

58.2

8.97

9.81

9.4

10.47

16.8

8.97

0.0

15.38

71.6

8.3

7.3

17.8

99.1

12.88

12.08

6.1

13.39

4.0

12.04

6.5

13.48

4.7

13.5

4.6

19.6

51.9

10.50

9.61

8.5

10.27

2.2

9.34

11.0

15.92

51.7

6.9

34

18.3

73.9

14.83

13.49

9.0

13.38

9.8

13.93

6.1

12.71

14.3

19.9

34.3

18.4

24.3

10.28

8.96

12.8

9.58

6.8

8.50

17.3

9.15

10.9

6.5

36.9

18.4

79.1

12.06

10.72

11.1

11.27

6.5

9.14

24.2

10.32

14.4

50.5

20.3

68.5

10.35

10.59

2.4

10.52

1.6

10.13

2.1

10.15

1.9

3.1

69.7

19

84.1

8.97

10.31

14.9

9.46

5.5

8.87

1.1

8.74

2.5

-5.6

162.2

20.5

129

15.17

14.20

6.4

14.95

1.5

14.33

5.6

14.62

3.7

17.6

16

21.1

39

18.74

19.11

2.0

18.95

1.1

19.73

5.3

18.01

3.9

23.4

24.6

24.1

28.5

16.45

16.74

1.8

17.04

3.6

14.94

9.2

15.83

3.8

14.6

11

21.2

28.6

16.21

15.87

2.1

16.70

3.1

16.01

1.2

16.34

0.8

19

17.1

18.2

12.3

16.55

16.77

1.3

33.13

100.2

18.45

11.5

63.56

284.0

32.8

98.2

21.1

27.2

23.17

20.19

12.9

27.22

17.5

18.99

18.0

58.21

151.2

25.8

11.5

14.50

16.57

14.3

15.42

6.3

15.86

9.3

17.51

20.7

17.3

19.5

14.2

1.8

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93478

11

Table 3 Comparison among the GA-based correlation prediction accuracy and that of other correlations to predict flue gas-oil
MMP Contd.
Actual GA-based GAFlue gas
Reference composition MMP, MMP,
based
(Mole, %)
MPa
MPa error, %
Ref. 21
Ref. 21
Ref. 3
Ref. 3
Ref. 3
Ref. 3)
Ref. 3
Ref. 3
Ref. 3
Ref. 3

Ref. 3
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 22
Ref. 23
Ref. 23

90.1% of CO2,
9.9% of C1
89.8% of CO2,
5.1% of N2,
5.1% of C1
90% of CO2,
10% of H2S
80% of CO2,
20% of H2S
70% of CO2,
30% of H2S
90% of CO2,
10% of SO2
85% of CO2,
15% of N2
65% of CO2,
15% of N2,
20% of SO2
60% of CO2,
10% of N2,
30% of SO2
90% of CO2,
5% of O2, 5%
of N2
80% of CO2,
5% of O2, 5%
of N2, 10% of
SO2
94.4% of CO2,
5.6% of C2
70.8% of CO2,
29.2% of C2
60% of CO2,
40% of C2
46.3% of CO2,
53.7% of C2
97% of CO2,
3% of C3
94.9% of CO2,
5.1% of C3
88.4% of CO2,
11.6% of C3
84.1% of CO2,
15.9% of C3
80.4% of CO2,
19.6% of C3
75.7% of CO2,
24.3% of C3
68.3% of CO2,
31.7% of C3
63.4% of CO2,
36.6% of C3
80% of CO2,
20% of C1
80% of CO2,
20% of N2

Sebastian
Alston Alston
Eakin &
Sebastian
Dong Dong
Kovarik
Kovarik
Eakin &
et al.
et al. et al.
Mitch
et al.
MMP, error,
MMP
(mole)
Mitch
MMP
MMP, error,
MMP,
error, %
MPa
% (mole), MPa error, %
error, %
MPa
MPa
%
MPa

16.01

15.61

2.5

16.28

1.7

15.73

1.7

15.93

0.5

18.6

16.4

18.2

13.6

20.51

21.34

4.1

17.58

14.3

19.75

3.7

21.37

4.2

20.5

0.2

21.2

3.3

11.60

11.28

2.8

11.49

0.9

11.26

2.9

11.34

2.2

8.6

25.5

17.9

54.7

11.40

10.97

3.8

11.00

3.5

10.63

6.7

10.70

6.1

5.2

54.7

18

57.5

10.40

10.74

3.3

10.54

1.4

10.05

3.4

10.09

3.0

1.7

83.9

19.6

88.3

10.50

11.58

10.2

9.25

12.0

7.78

25.9

10.67

1.5

5.7

45.6

16.2

54.6

33.01

36.54

10.7

21.04

36.3

47.55

44.0

36.09

9.3

25.7

22.3

26.8

18.7

34.01

33.81

0.6

12.37

63.6

7.57

77.7

30.11

11.5

12.8

62.3

18.2

46.4

23.00

22.95

0.2

8.05

65.0

6.35

72.4

19.14

16.8

1.9

91.7

14.6

36.5

23.00

22.13

3.8

17.02

26.0

23.72

3.1

23.49

2.1

20.4

11.2

18.6

19.3

22.50

21.12

6.1

13.00

42.2

9.50

57.8

21.25

5.6

14

37.7

15.76

30

16.01

15.67

2.1

16.48

2.9

15.94

0.4

16.51

3.2

16.6

3.7

18.6

16.4

14.50

14.24

1.8

16.39

13.0

14.09

2.9

16.56

14.2

16.5

13.6

20.5

41.7

13.60

13.54

0.5

16.36

20.3

13.32

2.1

16.58

21.9

16.4

20.7

21.7

59.8

11.90

12.62

6.0

16.31

37.0

12.48

4.8

16.61

39.6

16.3

37.3

23.5

97.7

14.80

14.91

0.7

15.82

6.9

15.30

3.4

16.93

14.3

15.6

5.5

17

15

14.30

14.25

0.3

15.37

7.5

14.61

2.1

17.24

20.5

14.9

4.3

16.4

14.6

13.00

12.82

1.4

14.06

8.1

12.92

0.6

18.21

40.0

12.8

1.8

15.7

20.7

12.40

12.23

1.4

13.28

7.0

12.10

2.5

18.88

52.2

11.3

8.6

19.1

54

11.40

11.82

3.7

12.66

11.0

11.52

1.0

19.47

70.7

10.1

11.4

19.1

67.2

11.00

11.31

2.8

11.93

8.4

10.91

0.8

20.24

83.9

8.5

22.4

18.7

70

10.30

10.05

2.5

10.95

6.3

10.19

1.1

21.49

108.6

6.1

41

18.6

80.8

9.10

8.56

6.0

10.39

14.2

9.81

7.8

22.36

145.6

4.5

51.1

18.5

103.4

13.79

13.49

2.2

13.38

3.0

13.80

0.1

12.71

7.8

19.9

44.3

28.97

29.27

1.0

17.27

40.4

119.22 311.6

33.87

16.9

26.4

8.8

Average error for all the data points, % o

4.7

13.1

14.1

29.6

34.6

60.8

STD for all the data points, %

Average error for all the data points except
the last point, %
STD for all the data points except the last
point, %

6.3

22.0

43.2

55.0

54.0

74.0

4.8

12.7

9.4

29.8

35.0

60.8

6.34

21.45

18.2

55.0

54.0

74.0

www.petroman.ir

12

SPE 93478

Initial population of randomly

real-coded chromosomes (with number
of genes based on the model parameters)
with population size = 100
Evaluate each chromosome (Evaluation Function)
PFit (i,j) = 5000 / (5000 +(MMPcal.(i,j) MMPexp.(i,j)))
nn

Fit (i ) = ( PFit (i, j )) / nn

j =1

Select two parent chromosomes

(Roulette Wheel Parent Selection)

Produce new offspring chromosomes (two children)

(Crossover (One-Point Crossover, P(c) =100% of) &
Mutation P(m) =100% of)
For mutation, New Value = 0.93Old Value + 0.9 Random Value

Evaluate each offspring (Evaluation Function)

PFit (i,j) = 5000 / (5000 +(MMPcal.(i,j) MMPexp.(i,j)))
nn

Fit (i) = ( Fit (i, j )) / nn

j =1

Return the two chromosomes that have

the maximum fitness of the two parents and
the two children chromosomes to the population

No

Stopping Criterion
(When the difference between
the best chromosome fitness and
the average population fitness
10-6)

Yes

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the genetic algorithm software design.

www.petroman.ir

The Best
Chromosome
in the Population
presents the Solution

SPE 93478

13

50
40

45

GA-based
prediction,
MPa

40
Predicted MMP, MPa

GA-based Predicted MMP, MPa

35
30
25
20
15

35
30

Alston et al.
prediction,
MPa

25
20

Sebastian et
al.
prediction,
MPa

15
10

10

5
5

0
0

10

0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Exp. MMP, MPa

30

40

50

Fig. 2. GA-based flue gas-oil MMP correlation prediction

results within 90 % accuracy.

120

GA-based
prediction,
MPa

100

80

Alston et al.
prediction,
MPa

60

40

Sebastian et
al.
prediction,
MPa

20

Fig. 4. Comparison among GA-based, Alston et al. (2), and

Sebastian et al. (9) correlations within 95% accuracy for all the
data except the point that is identified within the circle in Fig.
3 (composed of: 80 mole% of CO2 and 20 mole% of N2).

Ratio between reduced MMP (flue gas/CO2),

fraction

Predicted MMP, MPa

20

Exp. MMP, MPa

20

40

60

80

100

120

Exp. MMP, MPa

Fig. 3. Comparison among GA-based, Alston et al.

Sebastian et al. (9) correlations within 95% accuracy.

(2)

, and

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
250

270

290

310

330

350

Weight average pseudocritical temperature without using

multiplying factor (MFi), K

0
0

Fig. 5. Relationship between reduced MMP ratio (reduced flue

gas-oil MMP to reduced CO2-oil MMP) and the weight
average pseudocritical temperature before using the
multiplying factor (MFi).

www.petroman.ir

14

SPE 93478

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
250
270
290
310
330
Weight average pseudocritical temperature with
using multiplying factor (M Fi), K

350

Fig. 6. Relationship between reduced MMP ratio (reduced flue

gas-oil MMP to reduced CO2-oil MMP) and the weight
average pseudocritical temperature after using the multiplying
factor (MFi).

www.petroman.ir