SPE 113468

Enhanced Gas Recovery and CO

2
Sequestration by Injection of Exhaust
Gases from Combustion of Bitumen
Steve S. K. Sim, Alberta Research Council; Patrick Brunelle, Quadrise Canada Fuel Systems Inc.; Alex T. Turta,
and Ashok K. Singhal, Alberta Research Council
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract

Enhanced gas recovery by gas-gas displacement can be achieved economically in several situations. For mature volumetric
gas reservoirs suffering from low productivity due to low reservoir pressure, injection of waste gas can increase the ultimate
gas recovery by maintaining gas production rates and preventing premature well abandonment. For water-driven gas
reservoirs, pressure maintenance by gas injection will serve to (1) retard the influx of aquifer and (2) partially mitigate water
coning caused by excessive pressure drawdown.

This paper presents the results of laboratory core displacement tests conducted to investigate the feasibility of enhanced
natural gas production by using exhaust gas from combustion of bitumen in an oxygen rich atmosphere. A synthetic gas
mixture containing carbon dioxide, nitrogen and sulfur dioxide was used to represent the exhaust gas of interest.
Displacement tests were conducted in Berea core and in porous media prepared with silica sand as well as crushed carbonate
rocks at pressures ranging from 0.69 to 6.2 MPa. The objectives of the experiments were to determine the effects of (1)
pressure, (2) displacing gas composition (3) formation water and (4) rock mineralogy on recovery efficiency of
uncontaminated methane from the porous media.

Several interesting phenomena were observed during the course of this investigation. Separation of injection gas components
was observed in the effluent gas during displacement. Breakthrough of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide were delayed
relative to nitrogen. This can be attributed to the higher solubility of CO
2
and SO
2
in water relative to nitrogen. These results
are beneficial to natural gas production as they reduce the operating costs associated with corrosion during production of CO
2

and SO
2
. The amount of green house gases and acid gases being sequestered in the reservoir will also increase due to these
effects.

INTRODUCTION

Improved oil and gas recovery by means of carbon dioxide injection has attracted increasingly more attention in recent years
due to (1) rising value of petroleum and (2) recognition that geological storage of CO
2
in depleted oil and gas reservoirs
could be a potential solution to global warming by controlling the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere. Enhanced
oil recovery (EOR) by miscible CO
2
flood has been practiced worldwide since the 1960s and is considered to be a mature
technology. However, the idea of injecting wasted gas for enhanced gas recovery (EGR) is rarely practiced. So far, the only
published field application of CO
2
injection for EGR was conducted during 1986-1994 in the Budafa Szinfelleti Field of
Hungry (Papay, 1999). Here, the injected gas consisted of 80% and 20% methane from an adjacent natural CO
2
pool.

Similar to EOR with miscible CO
2
technology, EGR by gas injection can increase the ultimate recovery by prolonging
hydrocarbon production rates and preventing premature well abandonment. Also, pressure maintenance by gas injection will
serve to (1) retard the influx of aquifer and (2) partially mitigate water coning caused by excessive pressure drawdown.
During CO
2
EOR, it is preferable to operate under miscible conditions. Mixing of CO
2
with the crude oil was encouraged
since it will improve recovery by (1) reduction of oil viscosity (2) swelling of crude oil leading to reduced residual oil
saturation (3) minimizing gas channeling and improved sweep efficiency. In EOR, separation of CO
2
from produced oil is
2 SPE 113468
readily achieved during depressurization. On the other hand, mixing of natural gas with the injected CO
2
or waste gases
during EGR should be minimized. It will reduce the calorific value of the produced gas and render it non-marketable.
Separation of CO
2
and nitrogen from natural gas requires substantial amount of capital and operational expenses.

Thus, to achieve both technical and economical success in EGR operations, contamination of natural gas by the injection gas
should be minimized. A logical first step to achieve this objective would be to identify the key factors that affect the extent of
mixing during gas-gas displacement within porous media. Very few research results relevant to this area (Mamora 2002,
Papay 1999, Turta 2007, Singhal 2007) have been published so far.

This paper presents the results of laboratory tests conducted with two injection gas mixtures displacing methane from three
types of porous media. The first injection gas mixture consisted of approximately 90% CO
2
, 5% N
2
and 5% SO
2
. This gas
mixture simulated the exhaust gas produced during combustion of bituminous crude in an oxygen enriched atmosphere. The
energy produced during combustion can be used for steam or power generation and the exhaust gas can be disposed into
depleted oil or gas reservoirs. Due to its low nitrogen content, the density of this exhaust gas is fairly high and a large amount
can be stored at the initial pressure conditions of most depleted oil and gas reservoirs. The cost of injection of this exhaust
gas will be significantly lower than flue gases, which normally contain over 80% nitrogen. A second injection gas under
investigation contained 60% SO
2
and 40% CO
2
. This gas mixture simulates the acid gas produced from a sour gas plant. The
H
2
S present in the original acid gas was replaced by SO
2
during the laboratory test for operational safety considerations. The
high concentration of SO
2
in the gas mixture allowed us to determine the limit of retention capacity for SO
2
by the connate
water normally present in a gas reservoir. It is interesting to note that Sayegh et al. (1987) had conducted miscible EOR
studies using similar gas mixtures. They reported that miscibility with SO
2
and CO
2
mixtures was achieved at lower
minimum miscibility pressure and yielded higher oil recovery than using CO
2
or SO
2
alone.

The present gas-gas displacement tests were conducted at pressures ranging from 0.69 to 6.2 MPa. The objectives of the
experiments were to determine the effects of (1) pressure, (2) displacing gas composition (3) formation water and (4) rock
mineralogy on recovery efficiency of uncontaminated methane from the porous media used.


EXPERIMENTAL

The experimental set-up consisted of four main components: the porous medium, injection, production and data recording
systems (Figure 1). The injection system consisted of several floating piston transfer vessels connected to a HPLC water
pump. A mass flow controller regulated the gas injection rate during core flood tests. These Experiments were conducted in
three types of porous media. They were (1) 30 cm x 3.8 cm diameter Berea Sandstone core, (2) 2 m long x 5 cm diameter
silica sand pack, and (3) 2 m long x 5 cm diameter crushed carbonate pack. The properties of the porous media are listed in
Table 1.

Produced gas volume was measured with a wet test meter and a gas chromatographic system was used for analyses of
produced gas composition. System pressure was maintained by means of a backpressure regulator. A gas sampling device
was installed immediately downstream of the production end of the porous medium delivering a small volume of the
produced gas to the gas chromatograph at set intervals.

The porous medium was initially fully saturated with water or brine. Irreducible brine saturation was obtained by injecting
methane to displace water at a slow rate and in a vertically downward direction until water production ceased. The produced
water was collected in a windowed cell for volume determination and calculation of irreducible water saturation. During the
gas-gas displacement test, the displacing gas was injected at a constant flow rate by means of a mass flow controller. The
produced gas, after passing through the back pressure regulator, was directed to a west-test meter. Changes in produced gas
composition were monitored by analyzing the gas sample received from the automatic gas sampling device at set intervals.


Table 1: Properties of Porous media
Sand-pack Limestone pack Berea core
Diameter (cm) 5 5 3.8
Length (cm) 200 200 30.48
Porosity (fraction) 0.43 0.369 0.25
Permeability (mD) 2000 48000 500
Pore volume (ml) 1157 975 86.89


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SPE 113468 3

Test 1: Displacement of methane with synthetic exhaust gas from sand-pack at 0.69Mpa and 22
o
C

During Test 1, the acid gas was injected into the sand-pack at a linear flow velocity corresponding to approximately 2 m/day.
As expected, only methane was produced during the early stage of the test. Nitrogen breakthrough was observed at 20 hrs
(0.65 PV injected) from the start of the test. This was followed by the first appearance of CO
2
three hours later (0.76 PV).
Overall methane recovery at 2% CO
2
contamination (allowable CO
2
in sales gas) was 81% of original-gas-in-place (OGIP).
No sulfur dioxide was produced during 2 pore volumes of acid gas injection. Composition of the effluent gas and methane
recovery from Test 1 are presented in Figure 2.

Test 2: Displacement of methane with synthetic exhaust gas from sand-pack at 3.45 MPa and 22
o
C

A second test was conducted at conditions identical to the first test except that the displacement pressure was increased from
0.69 to 3.45 MPa. As shown in Figure 3, breakthrough of nitrogen and carbon dioxide occurred at 0.73 PV and 0.96 PV
injected, respectively. Significant delay in the breakthrough time of nitrogen and carbon dioxide were observed during
displacement at 3.45 MPa relative to displacement at 0.69 MPa. As a result, methane recovery at 2% CO
2
contamination was
increased to 97.4% OGIP. Results from Tests 1 and 2 are compared in Figure 4. It shows that the mixing zone (defined as the
period in which impure methane was produced) of Test 2 was significantly narrower than that of the Test 1. These results
indicate that displacement at high pressure would result in a better recovery of uncontaminated natural gas. These
observations are in agreement with the results of Sigmund (1976) showing that the magnitude of molecular diffusion
coefficient is lower at higher pressure. It also suggests that molecular diffusion is a dominating factor affecting the mixing of
gases during gas-gas displacement.

Similar to Test 1, no sulfur dioxide was produced during 2 pore volumes of acid gas injection into the sand pack in Test 2.
De-ionized water was injected into the post-test sand-pack to recover the SO
2
. The first liter of aqueous washing was very
acidic giving a pH value of 1.9. This solution had a pungent odor indicating that it contained a large amount of sulfur dioxide.
The pH value of the second liter of washing was 6.6 and was odorless. These results suggest that, due to the high solubility of
SO
2
in water, the limited amount of injected SO
2
gas was retained by the connate water within the sand-pack during the
course of the acid gas displacement. Retention of CO
2
and SO
2
due to dissolution in water is beneficial to natural gas
production as they reduce the operating costs associated with corrosion during production of CO
2
and SO
2
. The amount of
green house gas and acid gas being sequestered in the reservoir will also increase due to these effects.

Test 3: Displacement of methane from carbonate-pack at 0.69 MPa and 22
o
C

Tests 3 and 4 were used to study the basic gas-gas displacement mechanism and fluid/rock interaction occurring in a
limestone reservoir during acid gas injection. The porous medium was prepared by packing crushed dolomite (250-840 m)
in a 5 cm diameter and 2 meter long stainless steel pipe.

Test 3 was conducted by displacement of methane with the synthetic exhaust gas mixture (90% CO
2
, 5% N
2
and 5% SO
2
) at
0.69 MPa and 22
o
C at a flow velocity of 2 m/day. As shown in Figure 5, breakthroughs of nitrogen and CO
2
were observed
at 0.64 PV and 0.74 PV injections, respectively. Recovery of methane at 2% CO
2
contamination was 75.5% OGIP. As
expected, no production of sulfur dioxide was observed during 2 pore volumes of acid gas injection. The first liter of
produced water recovered from water flooding the post-test porous media was almost neutral with a pH value of 6.6. This
indicates that all the sulfur dioxide injected into the carbonate pack had reacted and converted to sodium sulfite and carbon
dioxide as shown in equation (1)

SO
2
(gas) + CaCO
3
Ca
++
+ SO
3
--
+ CO
2
(gas) ---------------------------------- (1)

Figure 6 compares the composition profile of the produced gases from Tests 1 and 3 as a function of pore volume of gas
injected. It shows that the mixing zone (represented by the period in which contaminated methane was produced) of Test 3 is
slightly wider than that of Test 1. It is suspected that the displacement front may have been disturbed during chemical
reaction between SO
2
and the carbonate rock resulting in additional mixing that causes the widening of the mixing zone.

Test 4: Displacement of methane from carbonate-pack at 3.45 MPa and 22
o
C

Test 4 was conducted at conditions identical to Test 3 except that the displacement pressure was increased from 0.69 to 3.45
MPa. The objective of this test was to investigate the effect of pressure as well as the amount of injected acid gas on the
displacement process. As shown in Figure 7, breakthrough of nitrogen and CO
2
occurred at about the same time (0.67 PV
injected). This is significantly earlier as compared to Test 2 conducted in silica sand at the same pressure and flow conditions.
4 SPE 113468
As a result of the early CO
2
breakthrough, recovery of marketable methane was reduced to 70% of OGIP as compared with
the 97.4% obtained in Test 2. Similar to Test 3, no sulfur dioxide was produced during 2 pore volumes of injection. The pH
of the aqueous washing from the post-test core sample was 6.4 indicating that the injected SO
2
had reacted with the carbonate
rock. No significant change in permeability of this carbonate pack was observed as a result of the chemical reaction. Sayegh
et al. (1987) had observed drastic reduction in permeability of a 4 mD Indiana limestone core plug during displacement of
crude oil with a mixture of SO
2
and CO
2
. The fact that reduction in permeability was not observed in the present test could be
due to the extremely high permeability of the unconsolidated carbonate pack being used.

Our laboratory observation, that chemical reaction between the injection SO
2
and the carbonate rock had resulted in an
increase of mixing between displaced and displacing gas, could conceivably be just a laboratory phenomenon due to the
relatively short displacement length. The disturbance generated near the well bore region may not have any significant effect
on the displacement front farther away from the well bore. Further laboratory test work in this area will be required to clarify
this observation.

Test 5: Displacement of methane by SO
2
and CO
2
mixture from Berea core sample at 6.2 MPa and 70
o
C

The fifth test was conducted to study the recovery of methane gas from a deeper gas reservoir having temperature of 70
o
C
and a pressure of 6.2 MPa. A synthetic injection gas mixture containing 60% SO
2
and 40% CO
2
was used to recover methane
from a 30 cm long x 3.8 cm diameter Berea sandstone core. The test results are presented in Figure 8, showing that recovery
of marketable methane was approximately 80% OGIP under the test conditions. In contrast to the previous tests, production
of SO
2
was observed after about 1.3 pore volumes of acid gas injection. In spite of the high solubility of SO
2
in water, the
limited volume of connate water (~ 20 ml) in the Berea core was eventually saturated by the large concentration of SO
2
in the
injection gas. Thereafter, SO
2
could no longer be retained within the porous medium.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF LABORATORY TESTS

To gain a better understanding on the interrelationship between the various factors affecting the gas-gas displacement
efficiency, and to lay the ground work for future field scale modeling of the EGR process, numerical simulations were
conducted to match the laboratory test results. These simulations were conducted with Computer Modelling Groups GEM
compositional simulator (CMG 2007). The numerical model consisted of 1000 x 1 x 1 grids in the x- y- and z- directions,
respectively. The dimension of the grid cells in the x- y- and z- directions of the model representing the 2 m sandpack were
0.2 cm , 4.5 cm and 4.5 cm respectively. The reason for using a large number of grid cells in the x-direction was to reduce
numerical dispersion to a minimum (Camy, 1977). The phase behavior of the gas mixtures was modeled with the Peng
Robinson Equation of state. Henrys constants of the individual gas were used to account for the gas solubility in water.
Maximum gas injection rate and minimum bottom-hole pressure were applied as constraints during the simulation runs.
Molecular diffusion coefficient was used as a variable to obtain a good match of the experimental results. As expected,
increase in the magnitude of molecular diffusion coefficient will result in a wider mixing zone during the displacement. On
the other hand, increase in water solubility of gases (i.e. decrease in Henrys constant) will result in a narrower mixing zone.

Figure 9 compares the experimental data with simulation results using the appropriate values of molecular diffusion
coefficient and Henrys constants for CO
2
and SO
2
(summarized in Table 2). The match is reasonably good. In particular, the
simulation model was able to reproduce the concentration profile of produced nitrogen passing through a maximum of 18%
at one pore volume throughput. It should be noted that the nitrogen concentration in the injected gas mixture was only
4.93%.

Figure 10 compares the simulation and experimental results for Test 4. Although Test 4 was conducted at the same pressure
and temperature as Test 2, a much higher value of molecular diffusion coefficient (0.006 cm
2
/sec for Test 4 versus 0.0002

cm
2
/sec for Test 2) was needed in order to obtain a good match. Also, to account for the conversion of SO
2
to CO
2
during
displacement, a mixture containing 95% CO
2
and 5% N
2
was used as the injection gas during the simulation instead of the
90% CO
2
, 5% N
2
and 5% SO
2
that was actually injected during the experiment. The successful matching of the experimental
results shows that the gas-gas displacement process can be adequately modeled by using appropriate molecular diffusion
values. Table 2 summarizes the values of molecular diffusion coefficients and Henrys constants used for matching the
laboratory test results.



Table 2: Input Parameters Applied in Numerical Simulation of Laboratory Tests
Pressure Temp Molecular diffusion
coefficient for all
Henrys constant
for CO
2

Henrys
constant for
SPE 113468 5
components SO
2

MPa
o
C cm
2
/sec MPa MPa
Test 1 0.69 22 0.002 138 1.38
Test 2 3.45 22 0.0002 138 1.38
Test 3 0.69 22 0.004 138 1.38
Test 4 3.45 22 0.006 138 1.38
Test 5 6.2 70 0.0002 138 1.38

CONCLUSIONS

The followings conclusions were made from the results of the laboratory gas-gas displacement tests presented here:

Recovery of uncontaminated methane gas in the range of 70-90% of original gas-in-place can be obtained by linear
displacement in a relatively homogeneous porous medium with an exhaust gas containing mostly carbon dioxide with low
percentages of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide.

Comparison of effluent gas compositions indicates that contamination of produced methane was reduced during displacement
at higher pressure. This observation is in agreement with the published results of the molecular diffusion being lower at
higher pressure. It suggests that molecular diffusion is a dominating factor affecting mixing during gas-gas displacement.

Breakthrough of carbon dioxide was delayed relative to nitrogen due to its higher solubility in water. Due to extremely high
solubility of SO
2
in water, all injected sulfur dioxide would be retained by the connate water within the porous medium
unless the amount of SO
2
injected exceeds the retaining capacity of the interstitial water.

Reaction between sulfur dioxide and the carbonate rock was evident from the neutral pH of the produced water during the
post-test water-flood. Chemical reaction within the porous medium appeared to have caused an increased mixing of displaced
and displacing gases in the laboratory environment. However, its implication during field operation is not clear and requires
further investigation.

REFERENCES

Anon, : CMG Advanced Compositional Reservoir Simulation Users Guide 2007.

Camy, J.P. and Emanuel, A.S. :Effect of Grid Size in the Compositional Simulation of CO
2
Injection, SPE paper 6894 presented at the
SPE annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 October 1977, Denver Colorado.

Mamora, D.D. and Seo, J.G.: Enhanced Gas Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Depleted Gas Reservoirs, presented at the
SPE annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, September 29-October 2, 2002, Houston,.

Papay, J,:Improved Recovery of Conventional Natural Gas, : Part I: Theoretical Discussion of Recovery Methods, Erdoel, Erdgas,
Kohle,. NO 6, pp. 302-308, January 1999 and Part II: Results of a Pilot Test; Erdoel, Erdgas, Kohle, NOS 7-8, pp. 354-355, July -August
1999.

Sayegh, S.G., F.F. Krause and J.E. Fosti,:Miscible Displacement of Crude Oil by CO
2
/SO
2
Mixtures, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May
1987 pp. 199-208.

Sigmund, P. M.:Prediction of Molecular diffusion at Reservoir Conditions. Part I. Measurement and prediction of molecular diffusion co-
efficients, JCPT, pp. 48-57, April-June 1976.

Singhal, Ashok K., Alexandru T. Turta, Steve S. Sim and Blaine F. Hawkins,: Enhancing Natural Gas Recovery form Nearly Depleted
Gas Reservoirs by Injecting Waste Gases, presented at the 8
th
Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 12-
14 2007.

Turta, Alex T., Steve S. K. Sim, Ashok K. Singhal and Blaine F. Hawkins,: Basic Investigation on Enhanced Gas Recovery by Gas-Gas
Displacement, presented at the 8
th
Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 12-14 2007.





Figure 1: Experimental Setup of Gas-gas Displacement Test

6 SPE 113468



























Figure 2: Test #1- Displacing CH4 @ 0.69 MPa in sand pack
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pore volume
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hr)
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
%

O
G
I
P
) N2 CH4
CO2 recovery
Sand Pack
1 foot Berea core

BPR
To Gas
Chromatograph

Wet Test
Meter

Mass Flow
Controller
Displacing gas

SPE 113468 7



Figure 3: Test 2-Displacing methane @ 3.45 MPa in sand pack
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pore Volume
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)

0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (hr)
C
H
4

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
%

O
G
I
P
)
N2
C1
CO2
recovery



Fig 4: Comparison of effluent composition in Test 1 (0.69MPa) with Test 2 (3.45 MPa)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pore volume
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
N2 (test 2)
C1 (test 2)
CO2 (test 2)
N2 (test 1)
CH4 (test 1)
CO2 (test 1)


8 SPE 113468


Figure 5: Test 3 - Displacing methane in carbonate pack @ 0.69 MPa
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pore volume
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
O
G
I
P
)
%N2
%CH4
%CO2
recovery


Figure 6: Comparison of Test 1 with Test 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Pore volume
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

g
a
s

(
%
)
%N2 (test 3)
%C1(test 3)
%CO2(tes 3)
% N2(test1)
% CH4(test 1)
% CO2(test 1)


SPE 113468 9

Figure 7: Test #4- Displacing methane @ 3.45 MPa in carbonate pack
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
Pore volume
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
H
4

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(

%

O
G
I
P
)
% N2
% CH4
% CO2
recovery
MIXING ZONE


Fig. 8 : Test 5: Displacing CH4 with 60% SO2 and 40% CO2 @ 6.2 MPa and 70
o
C
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (hrs)
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
H
4

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
%

O
G
I
P
)
CH4
CO2
SO2
CH4 recovery
10 SPE 113468

Figure 9: Matching of Test #2
Displacing methane @ 3.45 MPa in sand pack
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (hrs)
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
%CH4 (calculated)
%N2 (calculated)
%CO2 (calculated)
%N2 (experimental)
%CH4(experimental)
%CO2(experimental)




Figure 10: Matching of Test #4
(injection gas contains 95%CO2 & 5% N2 during simulation)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (hrs)
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
CH4(calculated)
N2 (calculated)
CO2 (calculated)
N2(experimental)
CH4(experimental)
CO2(experimental