SPE 143438

Evaluation of Oil Recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection

Oil-Wet and Water-Wet Systems

Abdulrazag Y. Zekri*, Mohamed S. Na sr**, Abdullah S. AlShoba kyh***, *UAE University, **Al-Fateh U.,
***Academy for Graduate Studies*
Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1921 July 2011.
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 S ociety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the a uthor(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or st orage of a ny part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Pet roleum 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
Water alternating gas injection (WAG) is normally employed to improve the volumetric sweep efficiency of miscible
flooding processes. Literature search indicated a number of numerical studies investigated the effect of flooding rate, gravity
forces, slug size, and heterogeneity on WAG processes performance. However there are very few numerical and experimental
studies conducted on the effect of wettability on the efficiency of WAG processes. This work examines how to optimize
WAG processes for carbon dioxide (CO2) floods above the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) in both oil-wet and waterwet reservoirs. Stream tube simulation was used to assess the effects of WAG ratio, system wettability, flood pattern, solvent
injection rate, project timing, and reservoir heterogeneity on the sweep efficiency and overall all recovery efficiency for oilwet and water wet reservoirs. A series of secondary miscible carbon dioxide WAG displacement runs were performed
employing WAG ratios of 1:1, 2:1, 1:2, 3:1, 1:3 and straight carbon dioxide.
The main conclusions of this research show that system wettability has a significant impact on the optimization of WAG
ratio, solvent injection rate, project timing, and flooding pattern selection.
Introduction
Water alternating gas process has been used to improve the mobility of the flooding system and that will result in better
sweep efficiency and an improvement in the oil recovery efficiency. WAG injection is defined as the alternate injection of
water-to-gas ratios of 0.5 to 4.0 volumes of water to 1.0 reservoir volume of gas at alternation frequencies of 0.1 to 2.0% PV
slugs of each fluid (Huang and Holm, 1988). Panada et al. (2010) indicated that WAG floods can yield 5-20% additional oil
recovery over waterflood. Miscible or Immiscible WAG flooding process must be carefully designed, due to the possibility
of having the injected water blocking the flow of oil and reducing its recovery. When the water is alternately injected with
CO2, water saturations are increased to the point of preventing CO2 to contact the in-situ oil, and that will result in reduction
of the displacement efficiency of the CO2-WAG flooding.
The performance of WAG process is significantly affected by water-gas ratio, number of WAG cycles, slug size, injection
rate, cycle period, and system wettability (Chen et al., 2009). The impact of the in-situ reservoir wetting state on miscible and
or immiscible gas flood oil recovery is quite significant (Agbalaka et al., 2008). Raimondi, and Torcaso, 1962, and Stalkup,
1970, had concluded that less oil trapping occurs in oil wet rock and severe oil trapping takes place in water-wet cores. Zekri
and Natuh, 1992, have studied the effects of miscible WAG process on tertiary oil recovery; they conclude that WAG process
had no significant effect on total oil recovery in water flooded sandstone-oil wet system. Zekri et al., 2008, investigated the
effect of WAG ratio on the sweep efficiency of miscible flooding. They employed WAG ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 2:1. Their
results indicated that sweep efficiency is a function of the WAG ratio and the most efficient WAG ratio for the studied
systems is WAG of 1:2.
The previous conclusion was confirmed by physical model studies. Tiffin, and Yellig, 1983, and Jackson et al., 1985,
Agbalaka et al (2008) indicated that the gasflood oil recovery efficiency is function of the system wettability, and changes in
wetting states have resulted in an improvement of gasflood recoveries. Schneider, & Owens, 1976, and Surguchev, L.M. et
al., 1992, have evaluated the effects of water alternating gas process [WAG] process on water-wet porous media under
tertiary conditions in the laboratory. The results of their study indicated that the displacement of residual oil saturation by
natural gas is influenced by WAG ratio. The mobile water reduces and/or prevents the contact between the solvent and the

SPE 143438

crude oil. Wade, & Lock, 1980, conducted a laboratory study of the effects of CO2 injection sequence on tertiary recovery.
They concluded that the change of CO2/water slug sequence had no significant effect on the total oil recovery, as long as the
total amount of CO2 remained constant without any elaborations about the systems wettability. Shelton, & Schneider, 1983,
and Tiffin, & Veiling, 1983, studied the effects of simultaneous injection of CO2 and water on overall recovery of tertiary
flooding under water-wet conditions. They concluded that in oil-wet tertiary displacement tests, water injection with CO2 did
not significantly affect oil recovery or the development of miscibility.
In general, the previous studies have concluded that the miscible displacement of non-wetting phase is significantly affected
by the presence of mobile wetting phase saturation, whereas miscible displacement [first contact or multi-contact process] of
the wetting phase was not significantly affected by high saturations of the mobile non-wetting phase. These previous studies
were limited to CO2-oil systems in which the injected solvent was first-contact or multi-contact miscible process. Reservoir
wettability is a complex phenomena and its effect on CO2 WAG process oil recovery is still very limited and require more
investigation. However, the literature review indicated that it wettability has great impact on the final residual oil saturation.
This work examines how to optimize WAG processes for carbon dioxide (CO2) floods above the minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP) in both oil-wet and water-wet reservoirs. Stream tube simulation was used to assess the effects of WAG
parameters, flood pattern, solvent injection rate, project timing, and reservoir heterogeneity on the sweep efficiency and
overall all recovery efficiency for oil-wet and water wet reservoirs.
Reservoir Model
To investigate the sensitivity of oil recovery in terms of many rock & fluid, geological and engineering parameters in a
reservoir model would require several numerical simulation runs. To conduct all of the selected simulation runs would
require time and money. Therefore it is crucial to use a simple model that can be run in a reasonable time with adequate
accuracy. Stream tube method can be employed to conduct a large number of simulations quickly and efficiently with
reasonable accuracy. Carbon dioxide Prophet Model is selected to be used in this project. CO2-Prophet was developed by
Texaco Exploration and Production Technology Department (EPTD). CO2 Prophet was developed as an alternative to the
U.S. Department of Energy's CO2 miscible flood predictive model, CO2PM. Both models are screening tools which fall
between crude empirical correlations and sophisticated numerical simulators. CO2 Prophet has more capabilities and fewer
limitations than CO2PM. CO2-Prophet was designed to identify how key variables influence CO2 project performance and
economics prior to performing detailed numerical simulation. The model manual stated that CO2-Prophet performs two
principal operations. It first generates streamlines for fluid flow between injection and production wells and then does
displacement and recovery calculations along the stream tubes. The streamlines form the flow boundaries for the stream
tubes. In the model for the displacement calculations a finite difference routine was employed. The grid orientation effects
were eliminated in the used model. Streamlines and stream tubes were used to handle the effect of area sweep efficiency.
The miscible CO2 process was simulated by using a mixing parameter approach similar to the approach proposed by Todd
and Longstaff. In these models, the mixing and viscous fingering are simulated by adjusting solvent and oil viscosities.
The reservoir model is a standard quarter 5-spot pattern with an injector and a producer were used with all sided of the sector
bounded by no flow boundaries. Other patters were used to optimize the CO2-WAG flooding patterns. Table 1 presents the
model input data for all studied cases. The effect of WAG ratio, wettability, flooding rate, pattern type, project timing, and
system wettability were investigated in this project. The effect of CO2-WAG on the recovery efficiency of an oil wet system
was initially investigated. Five different CO2-WAGs of 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 1:3, and 3:1 were conducted in additional to continue
CO2 flooding. At the end of WAG flood continues water flooding initiated, and the process is continued to residual oil
saturation. The effect of system wettability (oil wet, and water wet) on the CO2-WAG flooding was also investigated. Five
flow rates (500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 bbl/day) were employed to assess the effect of injection rate on the performance of
CO2-WAG process. Three different injection patterns (5, 7, and 9) in addition to line drive for both oil-wet and water set
systems were used to optimize the injection pattern of the CO2-WAG flooding. The effect of initial fluid saturations (project
timing) on the process efficiency was investigated. Four runs were conducted using initial water saturation of 0.2, 0.45, 0.6,
and 0.75. Finally the permeability variation of the system was varied between 0.1 for a homogenous system to 0.85
representing a heterogeneous system.
Results and Discussion
WAG Optimization
The effect of WAG ratios on the performance of carbon dioxide flood using an oil wet system was investigated by
conducting six runs as follows: WAG 1:1, 2:1, 1:2, 3:1, 1:3 and continues carbon dioxide flooding. A fixed pore volume of
carbon dioxide injection of 0.2 hydrocarbon pore volume injected (HCPV) was used for all runs. Oil recovery versus pore
volume injected for all studies cases is presented in Figure 1. Results of these runs indicted that higher oil recovery could
obtained by using WAGs 1:1 or 1:2 compared to other WAGs and the WAG ratio has a significant effect on the
performance of carbon dioxide flooding process. Results indicated that there is no significant difference in the overall
recovery between WAGs of 1:1 and 2:1 for the oil-wet system which in line with the conclusion previously reported by
Zekri and Nate, 1992. Continues carbon dioxide flooding has showed poor performance (oil recovery of 32% OOIP). The

SPE 143438

poor performance of continues carbon dioxide flooding can be attributed to the low volumetric sweep efficiency as a result of
high mobility ratio of the studied system. In general, increasing the WAG ratio enhances the performance of the WAG
process by improving the volumetric sweep efficiency. WAG ratios of 3:1, 2:1, and 1:2 have yielded an oil recovery of 70,
66.04, and 58.48% of original oil in place (OOIP) respectively, as shown in Figure 2.
Effect of System Wettability of a WAG Process:
The effect of system Wettability (Oil Wet and Water Wet) on the performance of carbon dioxide WAG process was studied
The system wettability was simulated based on the end point relative permeability data used for the specific simulation run as
follows: the water wet system was represented by a relative permeability to oil of 80% at connate water saturation of 20%
and a relative permeability to water of 15% at residual oil saturation of 15%. On the other hand, the oil wet system was
represented by a relative permeability to oil of 40% at connate water saturation of 10% and relative permeability to water
equal to 70% at residual oil saturation of 40%.
Results indicated higher oil recovery for the water wet system at low hydrocarbon pore volume injected and slightly higher
oil recovery for the oil wet system was obtained at high pore volume injected. At one hydrocarbon pore volume injected, an
oil recovery of 42% of the oil in place was obtained in the case of oil wet system compared to 58% of the OOIP in the case of
water wet system, as shown in Figure 3. Oil wet system produced at the end of the flood 63.9% of the original oil in place
compared to 63.03% for the oil wet system. The results indicated that wettability has no significant effect on the process
recovery efficiency.
Literature review indicated that the effect of wettability on the WAG is function of water saturation and different
contradictory conclusions were reported. Therefore this point needs further investigation and additional experimental and
numerical work is planned in the phase 2 of our research plan.
Effect of the Flow Rate
The carbon dioxide injection rate has an effect on the performance of the flood and injection rate optimization is critical
factor for the oil field operator planning to design WAG process. In this case, all other parameters that have an effect on the
miscible flooding were kept constant, i.e. initial water saturation, reservoir wettability, flooding pattern, WAG ratio. The
effect of injection rate on both water wet and oil wet systems were tested. A WAG ratio of 1:1 was employed in all of the
studied cases
Figure 4 presents oil recovery versus hydrocarbon pore volume injection for different injection rates of 500, 1000, 1500, and
2000 bbls per day for an oil wet system. Results indicate that there are no differences in the overall recovery for all studied
cases except for low injection rate (500 bbls/day). An oil recovery of 60% of OOIP at 2.8 HCPV injections is obtained in the
case of low injection rate compared to around 38% of OOIP at 3.6 HCPV injections for other injection rates. Results
indicated that low injection rate of 500 bbls/ day is optimum rate of injection for the flooding of an oil wet system with a 1:1
CO2-WAG. Higher flooding rates have shown exactly similar performance.
The same reservoir employed to study the effect of flow on WAG 1:1 performance for a water wet system. The reservoir
wettability was modified through changing of the end point relative permeability of the system as discussed previously.
Figure 5 presents oil recovery versus hydrocarbon pore volume injection for different carbon dioxide injection rates of: 500,
1000, 1500, and 2000 bbls per day for water wet system. Results indicated that the flow rate has a significant effect on the
performance of CO2-WAG process and the optimum injection rate of the studies system (water wet system) is1000 bbls per
day. Therefore, reservoir wettability has a significant effect on the optimization of CO2-WAG injection rate.
Flooding Pattern
The relative location of injection and production wells depends on the geometry of the reservoir and well location. The
flooding pattern is normally used in reservoirs having a small dip and large surface area. To insure a uniform sweep,
injection wells usually placed among the production wells. This is accomplished either by converting existing production
wells into injection wells or drilling infill injection wells, Latil, 1980. Research into the area sweep efficiency of various
patterns has involved numerous theoretical and experimental studies. To our knowledge, no work has been reported in the
literature that covers the effect of various patterns on the performance of WAG miscible flooding process for oil wet and
water wet systems. In this project four patterns were tested: 5 spot, 7 spot, 9 spot and line drive.
Figure 5 presents oil recovery versus hydrocarbon pore volume injection for different patters using carbon dioxide WAG of
1:1 and water wet system. Results indicate that seven spot is the optimum flood pattern for the water wet system. An oil
recovery of 85.45% of OOIP has been obtained for the 7 spot patterns compared to 57.19, 55.77, and 52.62% of OOIP for 5
spot, line drive, and 9 spot respectively, see Figure 5.

SPE 143438

Therefore, in the selection of the type of flooding pattern for CO2-WAG flooding, reservoir wettability should be taken in
consideration.
CO2-WAG flooding Timing
It is well known that there is a difference in oil recovery between slim tube and core-flooding experiments or field application
of CO2 flooding, although both are conducted under the same pressures and temperatures. The slim tube contains no water
and has a highly permeable bead pack. The presence of water in core floods is one of the possible reasons for the observed
difference in the performance CO2 between slim tube and core flooding experiments. The presence of water may make oil
less accessible to CO2 and most of the injected CO2 interacts with the water. To our knowledge, the effects of water
shielding on the performance of SC-CO2 WAG injection as a miscible process has not been investigated before. Therefore,
different runs were conducted for an oil wet system to investigate the effect of water saturation on the performance of CO2
WAG flooding. CO2 WAG ratio of 1:1 was tested at different initial water saturations of 20 %, 45 %, 60, and 75 %. The
studied systems were classified as secondary flood (at Swi = 20 %), intermediate flood (at Sw = 45 to 60 %), and tertiary
flood (at Sw = 75 %).
Results of the runs shows more oil recovery could be obtained if the flooding process was started at higher mobile oil
saturation, as shown in Figure 6. The oil recovery from miscible 1:1 WAG-CO2 flooding dropped from 80.04% for
secondary flood to 19.4 % of original oil in place (OOIP) for tertiary flood, as shown in Figure 6. Results indicated that oil
recovery after 1.5 hydrocarbon pore volumes injected (PVI) is 60% of OOIP for secondary recovery and 10% of OOIP for
the tertiary oil recovery. These results support the conclusion that the presence of water phase hinders the performance of
CO2 floods for the 1:1 WAG process. This behavior could be explained as follows: in the secondary mode, more oil could be
contacted with the injected CO2 which will accelerate thre extraction process and the formation of the middle phase required
for the generation of miscibility. Therefore water shielding has a significant effect on the performance of CO2-WAG process.
Reservoir Heterogeneity
A sensitivity analysis was performed to study the effect of heterogeneity on cumulative oil production of CO2-WAG flooding
by employing different values for Dykstra Parsons coefficient of the selected reservoir. The CO2-WAG flood tests were run
with four different values for Dykstra Parsons coefficient, and cumulative production of different WAG ratios for each
Dykstra Parsons coefficient was plotted in Figure 7. Four different values of permeability variations of 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, and
o.85 were employed. Results show increasing Dykstra Parsons coefficient (increasing heterogeneity) results in a lower oil
recovery keeping other variables the same. For the homogenous system (low permeability variation of 0.1), WAG of 1:1
shows the best performance of the studied systems of WAGs: 1:1, 2:1, 1:2, and 1:3. On the other hand, WAG of 2:1 is the
optimum system for the heterogeneous reservoir of permeability variation of 0.85. Therefore, reservoir heterogeneity should
be taken in consideration in the selection of the optimum CO2-WAG ratio .
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

In general, increasing the WAG ratio enhances the performance of the WAG process by improving the volumetric
sweep efficiency.
Results of these runs of an oil-wet system indicted that higher oil recovery could obtained by using WAGs 1:1 or
1:2 compared to other WAGs used in the study.
Reservoir wettability has no significant effect on the performance of a 1:1 CO2-WAG process.
Reservoir wettability has a significant effect on the optimization of the CO2-WAG injection rate.
In the selection of the type of pattern for CO2-WAG flooding reservoir, wettability should be taken in consideration.
Water shielding has a significant effect on the performance of CO2-WAG process.
Reservoir heterogeneity shouldbe taken into consideration in the selection of the optimum CO2-WAGflooding.

References
Agbalaka, C., Dandekar, A., Patil, S., Khataniar, S., and Hemsath, J., 2008. The Effect of Wettability on Oil Recovery: A
Review, Proceeding of SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 October.
Chen, H. Li, D. Yang, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, 2009. Optimal Parametric Design for Water- Alternating-Gas (WAG) Process
in a CO2 Miscible Flooding Reservoir, Proceeding of Canadian International Petroleum Conference, 16 - 18 Jun.
CO2Prophet Manual, Water and CO2 Flood Prediction Software, Texaco Exploration and Production Technology
Department (EPTD), 1992-1994 Texaco, Inc.
Huang, E.T.S., and Holm, L.W., 1988. Effect of WAG Injection and Rock Wettability on Oil Recovery During CO2
Flooding, Paper SPE 15491, SPERE, 119-129, Feb.

SPE 143438

Jackson, D.D., Andrews, G.L., and E.L. Claridge, E.L., 1985. Optimum WAG Ratio vs. Rock Nettability in CO2 Flooding,
Paper SPE 14303, Presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
22-25, 1 September.
Latil, M., Enhanced Oil Recovery, TECHNIP, IFP, 1980.
Panda, M., Nottingham, D., and Lenig, d., 2010. Systematic Surveillance Techniques for a Large Miscible WAG Flood,
Proceeding of the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 January.
Raimondi, P. and Torcaso, M.A., 1964. Distribution of the Phase Obtained Upon Imbibition of Water, Soc. Pet. Eng. Jour.
49-55: Trans., AIME, 213, March.
Schneider, F.N. and Owens, W.W., 1976. Relative Permeability Studies of Gas-Water Flow Following Solvent Injection in
Carbonate Rocks, SPEJ 23; Trans., AIME, 261, February.
Shelton, J. L. and Schneider, F. N., 1983. The Effects Of Water Injection On Miscible Flooding Methods Using Hydrocarbon
and Carbon Dioxide, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 447-455, June.
Surguchev, L.M., Rogaland Research; Korbol, Ragnhild, Haugen, Sigurd, Krakstad, O.S., Statoil A/S., 1992. Screening of
WAG Injection Strategies for Heterogeneous Reservoirs, Proceeding of the SPE European Petroleum Conference, 1618
November.
Stalkup, F.I., 1970. Displacement of Oil by Solvent at High Water Satuation, Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, 337-348, Dec.
Zekri, A., Natuh, A.. 1992. Laboratory Study on the Effects of Miscible WAG Performance on Tertiary Oil Recovery,
Proceeding of the 5th ADEPIC 1992.
Zekri, A., Mustafiz, S., and Islam, R., 2008. The Areal Sweep Efficiency of the First-contact Miscible Displacements: An
Experimental Approach, Petroleum Science and Technology, Volume 26, Issue 17, Pages 2033 2047.
Tiffin, D.F. and Yellig, W.F., 1983. Effects of Mobile Water on Multple-Contact Miscible Gas, Soc. Pet. Eng. Jour. (June
1983) 447-455.
Wade, G. C. and Lock, C. D., 1980. A Laboratory Study of The Effect of C02 Injection Sequence On Tertiary Oil Recovery,
Soc. Pet. Eng., 278-280, Auq.

SPE 143438

Table1. Model Data

Parameter
No. of layers
Initial oil saturation, %
Temperature, F
Injection pressure, psia
Miscibility pressure, psia
Initial oil in place, RB MM
Oil gravity, API
Water Salinity, ppm
CO2 Slug size, % HCPV

Values
5
70
125
3000
2900
1.4
30
100000
20

Figure 1. Oil recovery versus CO2 pore volume injected for different WAG ratios.

Figure 2. Oil recovery versus WAG ratios.

SPE 143438

Figure 3. Oil recovery HCPVI for water wet and oil wet systems.

Figure 4. Oil recovery versus HCPVI at different injection rate, oil wet system.

Figure 5. Oil recovery versus HCPVI at different injection rate, Water wet system.

SPE 143438

Figure 6. Oil recovery versus HPVI for different patterns.

Figure 7. Oil recovery versus water saturation.

Figure 8. Oil recovery versus WAG ratio for different KV.