SPE 65165

SWAG Injection on the Siri Field - An Optimized Injection System for Less Cost
Eileen A. Quale*, Statoil, Bndicte Crapez*, Statoil, Jan A. Stensen*, Statoil and Lars Inge Berge*, Statoil.

* SPE Member
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Petroleum Conference held in
Paris, France, 2425 October 2000.
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, 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
Simultaneous Water And Gas (SWAG) injection has been
implemented on the Siri Field on the Danish Continental Shelf
and represents the first reported full field application of its
kind in the North Sea. The associated produced gas is mixed
with injection water at the wellhead, and injected as a twophase mixture. The required total injection volume for voidage
replacement is thus achieved with a simplified injection
system, fewer wells and reduced gas recompression pressure
requirements.
Injection per well has typically been in the range
4,0008,000 Sm/day
(25,00050,000 bpd)
water
and
200,000 400,000 Sm/day (7 -14 Mscf/d) gas.
Evaluation of alternative injection schemes identified
SWAG as the optimum scenario for Siri. The choice reflects
that:
a) There is no established gas export infrastructure in the
immediate area, Siri gas volumes alone are too small
to warrant establishment of a system, and routine gas
flaring is unacceptable. Reinjection is therefore
required.
b) Reservoir simulation studies indicate improved oil
recovery (IOR) with combined gas and water injection
as compared to pure water injection, apparently related
to attic oil displacement, reduced residual oil
saturation and better sweep efficiency.
c) Continuous water injection from both injectors is
required to maintain reservoir pressure.
The SWAG concept fulfills all these requirements,
representing a safe, economic and environmentally-friendly
development solution.

Introduction
The Siri Field, discovered late 1995, is located in the Danish
Sector of the North Sea (Figure 1). Production started in
March 1999 and injection in June the same year. Plateau oil
production is 8,000 Sm/d (50,000 bpd).
The field has been developed with five producers and two
SWAG injectors (one horizontal). The injectors are placed at
the periphery of the reservoir in order to displace the oil to the
central part of the field. Original plans called for 3 injectors,
but this was reduced to 2 as the field was further delineated,
making injection regularity and successful SWAG
implementation even more critical.
Siris fairly isolated location meant that connection to an
existing gas export infrastructure was not feasible. At the same
time, the relatively small amounts of gas produced, and the
rapidly falling gas rate, made it clearly uneconomical to
develop a gas export solution for Siri alone. Gas flaring, or
reinjection to a disposal site, were not environmentally
acceptable alternatives, despite the limited volume involved.
Reinjection of the gas to provide reservoir pressure support,
better sweep and hence enhanced recovery, was the best
overall solution.
Reservoir Description
The reservoir is characterized by a relatively low relief
structure with oil zone thickness of up to 25m. The GOR is
moderate, in the region of 100 Sm/Sm (562 scf/bbl) and there
is no initial gas cap. An 80-100 m thick underlying water zone
gives some pressure support.
Expected recoverable oil reserves have been estimated at
8.1 mill. Sm3 (51 mill. bbls), representing a recovery factor in
excess of 35%.
The reservoir rocks in Siri are deposited by sediment
gravity flows in a deep marine environment. Hydrocarbons are
found in the Heimdal sandstone of Late Paleocene age at
approximately 2,070 mMSL. The formation consists of firm,
fine to very fine-grained sandstone with a high glauconite
content, cross-bedded to massive, reflecting deposition by
turbidity currents. It is interbedded with several types of nonreservoir facies, such as mud clast conglomerates with a
muddy sandstone matrix as well as thin shale and siltstone
layers.
Siri's reservoir sand has a high net-to-gross ratio, good
porosity and a fairly good permeability. The reservoir is

E.A. QUALE, B. CRAPEZ, J.A.STENSEN, L.I. BERGE

compartmentalized by several calcite-cemented layers which

can be correlated to the seismic surveys and are believed to
segment the field into several flow units. The placement of
SWAG injectors reflects this segmentation, ensuring pressure
support to the producing segments and also reducing the risk
of early gas breakthrough.
Selection of Gas Injection Option
The options available for reinjection into the reservoir were
conventional GI (gas injection) combined with water injection,
WAG (Water Alternating Gas) injection and SWAG.
Taking into consideration the low relief of the Siri
reservoir, and the placement of the production wells close to
the top of the sand, conventional gas injection via a dedicated
well at the crest would expose the production wells to a risk of
early, massive, gas breakthrough, and consequent loss of
production. Production regularity would be vulnerable and
dependent upon availability of the gas injector. Two water
injection wells would be required.
The WAG alternative would place the well(s) lower in the
structure. The two injection phases could be distributed among
the injection wells to achieve the desired injection pattern.
However, injection volumes would be limited by well
capacity, since at least one well at a time would be occupied
injecting the relatively small volume of excess gas.
Consequently, the goal of pressure maintenance by voidage
replacement would naturally trigger drilling an extra injector.
The effect of shortfall in injection potential would become
especially apparent towards the end of the plateau period, with
increasing water cuts, when the injection volume requirements
would be at a maximum.
The need for sufficient well capacity to reinject all
produced water was also present.
SWAG offered a solution whereby a changing mixture of
injection fluids could be accommodated, with the flexibility to
distribute the water or gas to the areas of the field deriving the
most benefit. Full fluid injection volume could be maintained
by combining produced gas and produced water,
supplemented by seawater to the required total injection
volume.
Not least, the SWAG solution with reinjection of gas is
expected to give an IOR of up to 6 % over a water injection
scheme.
Injection wells are 7 monobore, with GRE-lined tubing.
Downhole pressure/temperature gauges have monitored
conditions both during startup of gas and water injection as
well as SWAG, and will play an important part in future well
monitoring.
Industry Experience
In terms of reservoir performance, SWAG may be compared
with WAG which has been applied successfully for several
North Sea fields1-3. Significant improved oil recoveries and
accelerated production have been reported for those field
applications.
On the downside, fast segregation of gas towards the top of
the formation may limit the gas sweep efficiency in reservoirs

SPE 65165

with good vertical communication. Unexpected early gas

breakthrough has been observed3 due to very high
permeability channels.
The main increased recovery contributions from WAG
schemes have been displacement of attic oil, improved sweep
efficiency and lower residual oil saturation compared to a
water flood scheme (Figure 2). The relative importance to the
overall recovery of these factors has been analyzed by
simulation for a heterogeneous North Sea formation4.
Operational parameters such as volumetric rates and cycle
lengths of WAG injection were found to influence obtainable
recoveries. An interesting observation was a decreasing gas
efficiency factor (defined as incremental oil produced per
volume of gas injected) for large gas injection volumes. An
optimum use of a limited available amount of injection gas
may therefore be to distribute the gas areally to several
injectors on the field i.e. as widely spread as possible. This
may be easily accomplished by applying a SWAG injection
scheme.
Simulation studies on the Siri Field indicate similar
increased recovery for SWAG, but a detailed analysis of the
displacement mechanisms is beyond the scope of this paper.
No former North Sea field applications of SWAG have
been reported, but pilot tests performed in 1994 on Kuparuk
River Field in Alaska5,6 have demonstrated the feasibility of
SWAG injection.
Facilities Design
A major difference in SWAG injection compared to wateronly injection is that introduction of gas into the mixture
lightens the hydrostatic column, requiring a higher wellhead
pressure (Figure 3). Introduction of gas into the water stream
also produces the potential for hydrate formation.
The first of these challenges was addressed by designing
the water injection pumps to a higher rating than for a
seawater-only system. With the fields goal of also reinjecting
produced water, this design pressure increase fills the double
role of covering for SWAG, while also providing some
pressure leeway for reinjection of produced formation water.
The water injection design pressure was also matched to
the available gas recompression pressure.
Produced gas and injection water are mixed immediately
before the wellhead, giving no opportunity for segregation in
the surface system, a problem which was experienced in pilot
tests carried out on Kuparuk River Field5,6. The system is also
designed to allow regulation and measurement of the gas and
water volumes routed to each well.
To avoid hydrate formation when mixing gas and water,
heated water was required. Rather than expending extra energy
in heating the injection water, warm coolant water from the
process system is used for injection, supplemented with
seawater to the required injection volume. As the volume of
produced water for reinjection increases, the proportion of
seawater in the mixture reduces.
The system is permanently hardpiped, with backpressure
valves and gas/water traps to ensure isolation of the gas and
water systems from each other.

SPE 65165

SWAG INJECTION ON THE SIRI FIELD - AN OPTIMIZED INJECTION SYSTEM FOR LESS COST

Both the possibility of hydrate formation in low

temperature situations and the potential for backflow of gas
into the water system, or vice versa, raised important safety
issues to be addressed.
Hydrate Prevention
Prevention of hydrate formation was pointed out as a key issue
regarding the safety of the SWAG injection. The most critical
phase with respect to hydrate formation was considered to be
in the fields early production period, when the injection
mixture consists of gas and seawater. The seawater mixture
has a temperature of around 30C, about 7C higher than the
hydrate equilibrium temperature (23C @ 200 bar) for the
combined fluid (Figure 4).
When produced formation water is introduced replacing
seawater into the injection stream, the temperature of the
mixture increases and the hydrate equilibrium temperature
decreases to maximum 20C due to the higher salinity of the
formation water.
In a shut-in situation, the temperature will decrease to
seabed temperature (min. 4C) within a few hours. Thus, when
the SWAG fluid mixture is cooled to seabed conditions,
hydrates may form in the upper portion of the well.
Procedures have been developed to prevent hydrate plug
formation in the event of shut-in:Planned shut-in:
Water and gas are to be routed to different wells prior to shutin, with a limited amount of methanol mixed in the gas. When
the total volume of each well has been replaced by a single
phase (gas or water) the well may be shut in.
Unplanned shut-in:
If the wells are shut in without inhibiting the water, a batch of
inhibitor is to be injected if the expected duration of the shutin implies that the wells will cool to a temperature where
hydrates may form. In practice, this involves inhibition with
methanol in a concentration of 26 - 33 weight percent.
Startup:
1). After an unplanned shut-in
The water is inhibited until the temperature is above 25C
throughout the system.
2). After a planned shut-in:
The injection streams are split between the wells as before the
shut in until the temperature of the injection water rises above
25C throughout the system. The gas and water may be then
be mixed and SWAG recommenced. Inhibitor is not needed in
the water injector.
During the first startup period the tubing down to the
surface-controlled subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) was
flushed with a 25% methanol mixture to avoid hydrates.
Temperature of the injection water is monitored before leaving
the injection manifold, giving an extra safety factor over
wellhead temperature.

At present, Siri injects a mixture with roughly 50%

produced water in the water fraction. As produced water
content has risen, the temperature of the injected mixture has
increased above 40oC, far away from the hydrate formation
region for this pressure. Therefore hydrates do not form under
normal operating conditions at higher water cuts.
As for the production wells, the SCSSV in the injectors is
located below the hydrate formation depth in the well, i.e.
minimum 513 m below the seabed. Hydrate plugs which might
form due to gas leak past the closed SCSSV, will melt due to
the increased temperature caused by the geothermal gradient.
Backpressure Valve System
Backpressure valves were specified on both the water and gas
injection flowlines to prevent flow of the opposite medium
into the respective compression systems (Figure 5).
Each flowline is also equipped with a level bridle
instrumented with high and low alarms. Under normal
conditions the pressure on the water injection manifold is
around 225 bar and on the gas 196 bar. Wellhead pressure is
around 195 bar.
Cost Comparisons
A development with SWAG offered several benefits on the
investment cost front. Conventional gas injection would
require at least one dedicated gas injection well in addition to
possible redrilling of this well to a water injector at a later
stage if found to be in a non-optimal location for water
injection.
A clear drawback would be the availability of the gas
injection well. With restrictions on flaring, any problems with
the injection well could quickly lead to choke-back of
production, and resultant lost oil revenue.
The cost of a WAG system could be comparable to SWAG
in terms of topside equipment. A slightly higher gas
compressor capacity and pressure would likely have been
selected for WAG, to ensure regularity of the gas injection. A
SWAG system gives large flexibility controlling phase
injection, and may even be operated in a WAG mode if
necessary. The lower water injection volumes available with
WAG, and the reduction in reservoir pressure due to lower
voidage replacement, would adversely affect both production
rate and ultimate recovery.
For Siri, the gas pressure required for SWAG matched well
with the available gas recompression pressure. Gaslift is also
installed for Siri, and a common manifold could therefore be
used for SWAG and gaslift.
SWAG could be achieved with the minimum number of
wells and without substantially increasing investments on
surface equipment. The backpressure valves and gas/water
trap configurations would also be required in a hardpiped
WAG system. The warm injection water which is a key to
success of the method, used energy from the reservoir. Gas
compression pressure requirements could be kept to a
minimum level. The most significant difference was the
increase in water injection pressure requirements, roughly 50
bar over pressure required for water-only injection.

E.A. QUALE, B. CRAPEZ, J.A.STENSEN, L.I. BERGE

Environmental Aspects
Minimum emission to air and sea was a goal throughout the
design of the Siri Field and a condition of the field production
permits stipulated by the Danish authorities. This made
reinjection of excess gas as well as reinjection of produced
water obvious choices.
SWAGs requirement for warm water could have
represented a potential increase in emissions if seawater
heaters had been required in the period before formation water
breakthrough. The ideal solution presented itself in the form of
the hot cooling medium already in the system, a plentiful
source of warm water, heated by reservoir energy.
The cooling water lift pumps had sufficient capacity for the
injection requirements so no equipment duplication was
required.
Reinjection of a warm mixture can be expected to be
slightly more difficult than for cold seawater, due to the
absence of thermal fracturing effects. However,
implementation of SWAG does not increase this effect more
than a produced water injection system would do.
SWAG Performance
Startup problems associated with the injection systems were
mainly equipment-related, especially with respect to gas
compressors and water injection pumps, rather than directly
attributable to SWAG. Since these equipment issues were
resolved, the concept has performed as expected. Combined
injection is routinely achieved, without hydrate or injectivity
problems. A somewhat higher injection pressure than
originally planned is probably due to lower formation
permeability than expected derived from cores and logs.
The two injection wells have deviations of 72 and 90 in
the reservoir, with perforation intervals of 70m and 230m,
respectively. The downhole pressure/temperature gauges have
monitored conditions both during startup of gas and water
injection as well as SWAG, and play an important part in well
monitoring and analysis of well and reservoir performance.
Typical daily injection per well is 320,000 Sm/d gas with
6,000 Sm/d water. Maximum well injection has been in
excess of 600,000 Sm/d gas and 8,000 Sm/d water.
Well hydraulics behavior at several different gas fractions
(GFs) has not yet been systematically investigated, since the
emphasis has been on maintaining maximum injection to
achieve voidage replacement and halt further pressure
depletion on the field.
Furthermore as the flow regime in the horizontal and
highly deviated injectors are expected to behave differently,
comparison between the two wells might be more attributable
to the well deviation than to SWAG injection per se.
The SWAG wells have so far been regulated mainly by the
water choke alone. The gas regulating valves are not in use,
the gas distributes itself according to relative wellhead
pressures between the two wells.

SPE 65165

SWAG Injectivity
The injectivity index is a direct measure of the injector
performance. The injectivity index (II) can be defined by the
following relation7 :
II = Qt/DP

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

where Qt is the total flow rate of water and gas (measured in

reservoir volumes) and DP is the pressure difference between
the bottomhole flowing pressure and formation pressure i.e.
the overbalance. The injectivity index thus defines the flow
conductance of the fluids from the injector well through the
formation.
From an operational point of view, it is important to be
able to maintain a sufficiently high injection rate for the
SWAG mixture. Two main factors affect the injection rate
available injection power and injectivity index of the
formation.
Effect of Injection Power
Injection power to produce overbalance at the sand face is
provided by a combination of wellhead pressure and
hydrostatic column weight. Switching a well from water
injection to gas injection (e.g. in a WAG system) by
displacement with gas will give a lighter fluid column in the
well and a reduced BHP for a given WHP. Thus, the injection
rate will decrease as a result of the lower BHP, if the
injectivity index is unaffected during the displacement.
Insufficient available injection pressure will obviously lead
to difficulties in pure gas injection5,6, when the column is at its
lightest. Mixing gas and water at the wellhead (SWAG) will
increase the weight of the fluid column, thus increasing the
BHP and overbalance. This conclusion is fairly obvious, and
an important point in both the Siri system design and proposed
retrofitting of SWAG for other fields. Available injection
power is relative easy to calculate from standard well
hydraulics, with verification by downhole pressure gauge
readings.
Influence of Injectivity Index and Modeling of Effects
Since the maximum achievable overbalance is ultimately
limited by WHP, it becomes important to ensure sufficiently
high injectivity index in order to be able to inject at the desired
rates into the reservoir.
The injectivity index is a more complicated parameter to
predict and monitor than the injection power.
Based on available data from the Siri Field, a
phenomenological model for the injectivity index is being
developed as experience with SWAG under various flow
conditions is gained. The model contains the following key
elements: Darcy flow for the water phase, non-Darcy (high
velocity) flow for the gas phase using the Forchheimer model7,
extension to two-phase flow by defining relative
permeabilities for each phase, and the possibility of increased
permeability due to hydraulic fracturing of the formation.
The most important model parameters are:-

SPE 65165

SWAG INJECTION ON THE SIRI FIELD - AN OPTIMIZED INJECTION SYSTEM FOR LESS COST

1. bottomhole pressure (operation above or below the

fracturing pressure)
2. injected gas fraction (gas injection rate divided by total
injection rate, measured at reservoir conditions)
3. relative permeability
4. non-Darcy
flow
at
high
gas
velocities.
Corrections due to high velocity flow are most important
for the gas phase, as a result of the higher mobility of gas
compared to water. The Forchheimer model has therefore only
been implemented for the gas phase. Non-Darcy flow gives
reduced injectivity index when the gas flow rate increases.
Effect of Fracturing
Although hydraulic fracturing was not originally planned for
the Siri injectors, it proved unavoidable due to unexpected low
permeability in the water zone. The bottomhole pressure, and
whether this exceeds the fracturing opening pressure, dictates
the fractures contribution to the injectivity at any given time.
The fracturing pressure of the formation is approximately
330 bar.
The presence of fractures is most useful in ensuring that
the desired volumes of water can be injected.
Analysis of Field Results
The analysis and modeling of field data presented below
represent preliminary results of early injectivity data (first 5
months of SWAG). Figure 6 shows the injectivity index as a
function of measured bottomhole pressure for injector I-4. The
solid curve represents a realization of the injectivity model
used to quantify the injectivity index dependence on the
bottomhole pressure. A dramatic increase in injectivity index
around the fracturing pressure is apparent. Injector I-1 shows a
similar type of behavior, but the injectivity index increases
less sharply above the fracturing pressure.
For injector I-4, operation above the fracturing pressure
has improved the injectivity index by up to a factor of 4 (see
Figure 6). Besides the dependence on the BHP, the injectivity
index can also show a significant dependence on the gas
fraction (GF). This is illustrated in Figure 7, which shows the
injectivity index as a function of GF above the fracturing
pressure. A narrow BHP interval (340-343 bar) was selected to
emphasize the GF dependence. The figure is based on
averaged data from Figure 6. The solid line is a calculated
curve which illustrates that the injectivity model is capable of
reproducing observed trends. Data for GF > 0.4 at pressures
above the fracturing pressure are so far not available in the
data set for Siri.
For the data set shown in Figure 7, the injectivity index
increases for small GFs (the magnitude of this increase
appears to be less for pressures closer to the fracturing
pressure). The injectivity index reaches a maximum and
declines rapidly towards the unfractured level with further
increasing GF. For this injector, the increase in injectivity
index gained by fracturing the formation is completely lost if
the gas fraction becomes too large. The range of gas fractions

for which fracturing results in an increased injectivity index

compared to the unfractured level is limited.
The significant decrease in injectivity index with
increasing gas fraction was modeled by fracture closure (solid
curve in Figure 7). This assumption implies that gas is less
likely to preserve a fracture than water, i.e., the fractures
diminish when the gas fraction increases. Gas is likely to leak
off more easily into the formation and have a lower efficiency
in hydraulically wedging and extending a fracture than water.
This is likely to result in smaller pressure gradients in the nearwell region when gas is introduced. The possible redistribution
of pressure profiles has been pointed out by Gorell8, in
connection with switching from water to gas in a WAG
process. Fracture closure is one possible explanation for the
observed dependence of the injectivity index on the GF. Other
contributing factors should not be ruled out and there is a need
for further analysis.
The above discussion is based on data from injector I-4.
The situation is slightly different for injector I-1. For I-1,
fracturing results in a smaller increase in injectivity index and
the dependence on the gas fraction is much weaker. This may
be related to local differences in rock properties, but also to
the different injector deviations from the vertical.
For horizontal injector I-4, we find that large gas fractions
may severely reduce the injectivity index when injecting over
fracture pressure. No clear conclusion can be drawn
concerning the injectivity index at high gas fractions due to
lack of data.
Status Summary
The existing topside facilities are appropriate, making it very
simple to handle the desired amount of water and gas in each
well and to achieve flexibility in reservoir drainage control.
No erratic pressure behavior has been seen in the wells.
The gas compressors as installed do not fully fill the
intended design criteria with respect to deliverable wellhead
pressure. This gives a lower available pressure margin for gasonly injection, although injection is still possible.
On a daily basis, under stable injection conditions, SWAG
wells need no special monitoring or attention. In shutdown and
startup situations, the established procedures and the
production operators experience with the topside equipment
ensure smooth operating conditions.
The backpressure valve system upstream of the water and
gas mixing point has worked effectively and no shutdowns
have occurred from countercurrent flow in either the gas or
water flowlines.
The consumption of methanol has been reduced
considerably since SWAG-startup due to a well-conceived
topside and well design. Methanol is only required for
expected shutdowns such as following yearly platform
maintenance; methanol is then injected during start-up of
SWAG.
Any hydrate plugs which may form temporarily in the well
will be detected immediately by the downhole pressure gauge.
Furthermore if hydrate plugs over the SCSSV should occur

E.A. QUALE, B. CRAPEZ, J.A.STENSEN, L.I. BERGE

during a shut-in, pressure can be bled off and warm water can
be injected.
Conclusions
1. The SWAG concept has fulfilled expectations, despite the
reduction in the number of injectors on the field from 3 to 2.
Full voidage replacement at plateau rate could be achieved,
and at times also exceeded.
2. Full and stable reinjection of produced gas and produced
water represents an important environmental aspect of the Siri
development. Discharges to sea and air are at present minimal
and production is not curtailed by inability to reinject.
3. Flexibility with respect to distribution of the phases
between the injection wells is in principle provided, allowing
reservoir sweep pattern to be optimized.
4. By incorporating SWAG in the fields design phase,
virtually no extra equipment has been required to achieve
SWAG. Conservation of reservoir heat energy and
maximizing injection performance with less wells drilled are
important environmental attributes for the SWAG concept.
5. Day-to-day operation of the system has so far proved
simpler than anticipated. The surface facilities work well and
no unstable pressure regimes have been observed in the wells.
No special supervision of the wells is required apart from
during shutdown and startup periods.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Siri Field Operator,
Statoil, and the Siri Field Partners: Enterprise Oil, Phillips
Petroleum, DENERCO and DONG, for kind permission to
publish the details in this paper. Thanks are also due to the
offshore staff on the Siri Field for their creativity and
perseverance in the implementation of SWAG.
References
1. Dalen, V, Instefjord, R. and Kristensen, R: A WAG Injection
Pilot in the Lower Brent Formation at the Gullfaks Field, 7th
European Symposium. on IOR, Moscow, Russia, 27-29 Oct
1993.
2. Stenmark, H. and Andfossen, P.O.: Snorre WAG Pilot A Case
Study, 8th European Symposium On IOR, Vienna, Austria, 1517 May, 1995.
3. Skauge, A. and Berg, E.A.: Immiscible WAG Injection in the
Fensfjord Formation of the Brage Oil Field, 9th European
Symposium On IOR, The Hague, Netherlands, 20-22 Oct. 1997.
4. Kjonsvik, D., Stensen, J.A. and Alvestad, J.: A Detailed
Simulation Study of WAG Injection in a Heterogeneous Fluvial
Reservoir Zone, 9th European Symposium On IOR, 20-22 Oct.
1997.
5. Stoisits, R.F., Krist, G..J., Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., Kolpak, M.M.
and Payne, R.L.: Simultaneous Water and Gas Injection Pilot at
the Kuparuk River Field, Surface Line Impact, paper SPE
30645, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Oct. 1995.
6. Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., and Youngren, G. K.: Simultaneous
Water and Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field,
Reservoir Impact, paper SPE 30726, SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Oct. 1995.

SPE 65165

7. Golan, M. and Whitson, C. H.: Well Performance, Tapir,

Trondheim, 1996.
8. Gorell, S.B.: Implications of Water-Alternate-Gas Injection for
profile Control and Injectivity, paper SPE/DOE 20210
presented at the 7th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 1990.

Nomenclature
II
Qt
DP

= injectivity index
= total flow rate (of gas and water)
= pressure difference between injector
and formation
GI
= gas injection
GF
= gas fraction (at reservoir conditions)
GOR
= gas oil ratio
IOR
= improved oil recovery
SCSSV = surface-controlled subsurface safety
valve
SWAG = simultaneous water and gas injection
WAG
= water alternating gas injection

SPE 65165

SWAG INJECTION ON THE SIRI FIELD - AN OPTIMIZED INJECTION SYSTEM FOR LESS COST

Figure 1:- Map showing location of Siri Field

Oil
Production

SWAG
Injection

Attic oil displacement

gas

OWC

Gravity Segregation
Water coning
water

Bottom aquifer

Figure 2:- Displacement mechanism for SWAG wells

E.A. QUALE, B. CRAPEZ, J.A.STENSEN, L.I. BERGE

SPE 65165

Pressure (Bar)
0

200

400

Surface design
working pressure
400

300

Pressure (bar)

Depth m RT

ent
radi
er G
Wat
ure
ress
h P
t
Hig
Gas Gradien
High Pressure

t
Gas Gradien
t
dien
Gra
ter
Wa

1500

atic
rost
Hyd

1000

Hydrostatic

500

200

100

2000
Fracture
Pressure

Reservoir
Pressure

2500

0
0

10

15

20

Temperature ( C)

3000
Figure 4:- Hydrate formation potential curve

Figure 3:- Injection pressure gradients with gas and water

LT

Water Injection
Pumps

Siri SWAG
Water Injection
Header

60C
200 barg

HV

EV

Reinjection
Compressors

70C
200 barg

Gas Injection
Header

FV

FT
FT

PT

Wing valve

Injection
Well

LT

Figure 5:- Siri injection system, topside configuration

25

30

Seawater
Formation water
Seawater+MeOH(33%)

SPE 65165

SWAG INJECTION ON THE SIRI FIELD - AN OPTIMIZED INJECTION SYSTEM FOR LESS COST

80
Injectivity index (Rm3/d/bar)

Injectivity index (Rm3/d/bar)

100

80

WI
SWAG
model

60

40

20

0
250

70

340 bar < BHP < 343 bar

model

60
50
40
30
20
10

300

350

400

Bottomhole pressure (bar)

Figure 6:- Injectivity index as a function of bottom hole pressure

for injector I-4. Data for WI and SWAG are shown. The solid curve is
based on the injectivity model.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Gas fraction

Figure 7:- Injectivity index as a function of gas fraction for injector

I-4. The filled circles represent averaged data points above the fracturing
pressure and for BHP between 340 and 343 bar. The solid curve is based on
the injectivity model.