A Non-Parametric Regression Model for

Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) Prediction

Osamah Alomair, Adel Malallah, Adel Elsharkawy, and Maqsood Iqbal
Petroleum Engineering Department
College of Engineering & Petroleum, Kuwait University
Kuwait

Abstract

transforms of a set of predictors with

Miscible

gas

injection

nowadays

becomes an imperative enhanced oil

recovery

(EOR)

approach

increasing oil recovery.

for

Due to the

massive cost associated with this

approach a high degree of accuracy
is required for predicting the outcome
of the process.

Such accuracy

includes, the preliminary screening

parameters

for

displacement;

gas
the

miscible
minimum

miscibility pressure (MMP) and the

All conventional and stat-of-the-art
methods

are

either time consuming or decidedly

cost

demanding

processes.

Therefore, in order to address the

immediate

industry

demands

nonparametric approach Alternating

Conditional

Expectation

(ACE)

is

employed in this study to estimate an

important

parameter

optimal

response

transform.

Finally, the proposed model has

produced

a maximum linear effect

between these transformed variables.

More than 100 data points are
considered both from the relevant
published

literature

and

the

experimental work. A few (five) MMP

measurements

are

experimentally

accomplished for Kuwaiti Oil are also

a part of the testing data. The
proposed model is validated using
detailed statistical analysis and it

availability of the gas.

MMP measurement

an

MMP.

ACE

algorithm (Breiman and Friedman,

1985), actually correlates optimal

reveals that the results are more

reliable than the existing correlations
for pure CO2 injection to enhance oil
recovery.

Addition

to

this,

the

approach is more powerful, quick and

can handle a huge data.
Keywords- Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR); CO2 Minimum Miscibility
Pressure

(MMP);

Alternating

Conditional Expectation (ACE)

T (F)
265

3705(psig)MMP

71

1101

MC7+
286
151

C7+

262
132

MC5+

73.61
5.70

C6
0.79

C5
9.49

16.00

0.25

C3

C4
11.23

18.40
0.89

0.28

23.16
0.01

C2

76.43
2.56

C1

16.44
0.001

N2

24.00
0.001

CO2

Max

17.56

(MMP) is defined as the lowest

Min

The minimum miscibility pressure

0.001

H2S

Introduction

pressure at which we have a distinct

point of maximum curvature when

Factors Affecting MMP

recovery of oil at 1.2 PV gas injected

Generally, MMP increases steadily

is plotted verse pressure (Johnson,

with increasing temperature, and oils

J.P. & Pollin, J.S., 1981).

This

with higher density and molecular

pressure can be located graphically

weight have a higher MMP. It has

by the intersection of two lines that

been

define

and

impurities, can significantly affect the

miscible performance regimes on a

miscibility pressure (Glaso, O., 1987).

plot of recovery versus pressure, or

Alston, et. al., (1985) documented the

recovery versus composition. MMP is

fact

one of the most important factors in

miscibility

is

the selection of candidate reservoirs

reservoir

temperature

for gas injection at which miscible

composition,

recovery takes place.

molecular weight. Holm & Josendal

both

an

immiscible

reported

that

that

the

even

small

achievement

strongly

of

related

to

and

oil

particularly

C5+

(Holm & Josendal, 1974) found that

MMP Determination methods
There are various techniques and
methodologies to determine MMP,
the most common are;

Experimental Techniques
Empirical Correlations
Equation of State
Numerical Methods
Analytical Methods
Table 1.
Data range used for the
input variables

MMP was only affected by the type of

hydrocarbons present in the range C 5
to C30 fractions of the crude oil. Yellig
and

Metcalfe

(1980)

found

little

significance of C7+ properties of the

oil on the CO2 MMP. Alston, et. al.,
(1985) have shown that the reservoir
oil volatile and intermediate fractions
can significantly affect the MMP when
their ratios depart from unity (Glaso,
O., 1985).

This also explained the

effects of both solution gas (live oil

systems) and impurity of CO2 sources

(Alston, et. al., 1985).

James et al

variate

statistics.

The

word

(Johnson, J.P. and Pollin, J.S. 1981)

conditional in ACE is meant to

presented an empirical correlation

indicate that the means of Z/Q

which predicted the MMP for a wide

variables

variety of live oils and stock oils with

variables) are

both pure and diluted CO2.

This

conditions in ACE are the values of

correlation, requiring only the oil

the dependent variable or those of an

gravity, molecular weight, reservoir

independent variable.

temperature

and

expectations can be expressed as:

composition,

showed

injection

gas

substantially

better agreement with experiment.

Many correlations relating the MMP
to the physical properties of the oil
and the displacing gas have been
proposed

to

facilitate

screening

procedures and to gain insight into

the miscible displacement process
(Alston, et. al., 1985, Orr, F. M. &
Silva, M. K., 1987, Rathmell, J. J. et
al., 1971, etc).

i X i

The

(i.e.,

the

conditional

determined.

The

Conditional

i X i

Xi

and

proposed

nonparametric

approach can be applied easily for

estimating the optimal transformation
of different gas injection data to
obtain maximum correlation between
observed

variables.

An

ACE

regression model can be expressed

as:
p

Y i X i
i 1

Alternating Conditional
Expectation (ACE) Algorithm
The name alternating conditional

ACE MMP Model

expectations refers to the algorithm

used to compute optimum transforms

As discussed earlier, MMP is a

(that minimize the summation of

function of temperature, crude oil

squares

composition and composition of the

of

mathematical

the

errors).

expectation

The
is

the

solvent.

To understand the in-situ

mean of distribution of a population

crude oil composition impact on

and is denoted by or E(Z), where Z

MMP, the functional form of MMP

is the variable that describes the

Model is:

experiment. is mostly used in uni-

MMP f HC COMP , NHCCOMP , T , MC5 , MC 7

maximum/optimal

correlation,

the

ACE algorithm has the capability of

HCCOMP = Mole Fraction of

using

hydrocarbons (C1, C2, -------- C7+)

the

independent

and

dependent variables in their actual

NHCCOMP = Mole Fraction of non-

space or in the logarithmic space.

hydrocarbons (H2S, CO2, N2)

T =Temperature

Analysis with Discussion

MC5+ =Molecular weight of Pentane

Plus

In the proposed nonparametric ACE

MC7+ =Molecular weight of Heptane

model for MMP estimation, there are

Plus

13 predictors. All these are tested

The ranges of variables and MMPs

both in real and logarithmic space

used for this study are shown in Table

and the maximum optimal correlation

1. The collected data cover a wide

coefficients (more than 90 %) are

range of API gravities (13 58 oAPI),

obtained.

reservoir

and

(hydrocarbon & non-hydrocarbon) are

temperatures. The data were divided

found more optimal to their respective

into

set

transforms in the log space whereas

consisted of 96 points and a testing

temperature and both plus fraction

set of 17, which were randomly

molecular

selected from the total set of data.

maximal correlation effect in the real

The

space.

pressures

two

ACE

sets.

The

algorithm

training

provides

All

mole

weights

fractions

are

having

nonparametric optimization of the

dependent (MMP) and independent
variables (HCCOMP, NHCCOMP, T, MC5+,
MC7+);

it

does

computational

not

provide

model

for

these

variables. However, the optimal data

transforms can be fitted by simple
polynomials that can be used to
predict the dependent variable. The
default polynomial is of degree two

Validation

be

increased.

To

find

the

Proposed

Non-

Parametric Model
To check the validity/credibility of
ACE

model

and

to

check

its

predictive capability for MMP, all the

derived

polynomials

of

variables

(both predictors & Response) were

examined using testing data of 17
points.

but for any improvement the degree

can

of

Conclusions

1. Johnson, J.P. and Pollin, J.S.

The approach solves the general

Correlation of

assumption required in regression

CO2 Miscibility Pressures

analysis, so that the relationship

SPE/DOE 9790.

between response and independent

2. Glaso, O. (1987).

and

Miscible

variables can be best described and

Displacement: Recovery Tests

existence of non-linear relationship

with Nitrogen. SPE 17378.

3. Glaso, O. (1985). Generalized

An examination of these results

can give the data analyst insight into
the

relationships

variables,

between

and

suggest

if

and James, C. F. (1985). CO2

Minimum Miscibility Pressure:

complicated

relationships

and

it

Correlation. SPE 12893.

4. Alston, R. B., Kokolis, O. P.

The ACE plot is very useful for

understanding

Minimum Miscibility Pressure

these

transformations are required.

Measurement

problem of establishing the linearity

can be explored and uncovered.

(1981).

is

an

A Correlation for Impure CO2.

SPE 11959.
5. Deffrenne,

P. et

al.:

The

indispensable tool for effective use of

determination of pressures of

the ACE results.

miscibility, paper SPE 116

It

provides

method

for

straightforward

identifying

functional

relationships between dependent and

independent variables.

Authors

would

8-16.
6. Firoozabadi, A. and Aziz, K.
Analysis

and

Correlation of Nitrogen and

Lean-Gas Miscibility Pressure.
like

to

acknowledge the support of the

General Facility Research Center
(Kuwait University) Grant (GE 01/07).
References

Annual Meeting, Dallas, Oct.

(1986).

Acknowledgement
The

presented at the 1961 SPE

SPE 13669
7. Rathmell, J.J., Stalkup, F. I.,
and

Hassinger,

laboratory

R.

investigation

C.:A
of

miscible displacement by CO2,

paper SPE 3483 presented at
the SPE 1971 Annual Fall

Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-

Prediction of CO2 Minimum

6.

Miscibility Pressures.

8. Holm, L. W. and Josendal, V.

A. (1974). Mechanisms of Oil
Displacement

by

Carbon

Dioxide. SPE 4736.

SPE

7477
13. Brieman, L., and Friedman, J.
H.:

Estimating

transformations

optimal

for

multiple

9. Orr, F. M. and Silva, M. K.

regressions and correlation, j.

Effect of Oil Composition on

Am. Stat. Assoc. 1985, 580-

Minimum Miscibility Pressure-

619.

Part 2: Correlation, SPE Res.

14. Adel Malallah et al.: Accurate

Eng. 1987, 27 (6), 479-491.

10. Zick, A. A. A Combined

Estimation of the World Crude

Condensing/Vaporizing
Mechanism
Displacement

in
of

Alternating
the

Oil

Oil Properties Using Graphical

by

Enriched Gases. SPE 1986,

15493, 1-11.
11. Stalkup, F. I. Displacement
Behavior of the Condensing/
Vaporizing Gas Drive Process.
SPE 1987, 16715, 171-182.
12. Yellig, W. F., and Metcalfe, R.
S. (1980) .: Determination and

Conditional

Expectations,
15. Xue,

G.,

Valko

P.

Datta-Gupta,
and

A.,

Blasingame

T.:Optimal Transformations for

Multiple
Application

Regression:
to

Permeability

Estimation from Well Logs,

SPE

Formation

(June 1997) 85-94.

Evaluation,