Enhanced Oil Recovery by

Water Alternating Gas (WAG)

Injection: The Opportunity and
the Challenge

Centre for Enhanced Oil Recovery & CO2

Sohrabi M., Fatemi M., Ireland S.
Solutions
Characterisation of Three Phase Flow and
Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection
Studies JIP

Institute of Petroleum Engineering,

Presented by: Mobeen Fatemi
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
Scotland, UK

Contact:
Prof. Mehran Sohrabi
Telephone: +44 (0)131 451 3568
Email: mehran.sohrabi@pet.hw.ac.uk
06 May 2014
North-Sea WAG Injection Potential

MGI
31%
WAG
48%

FAWAG
11% MEOR
SWAG 5%
5%

Distribution of EOR field applications by method in the North Sea (total of 19

projects). (SPE 99546; 2006)

2
 WAG Injection

3
 WAG Injection

G
O

4
 WAG Injection

WAG involves major G+O

complexity and
hysteresis, caused by G+W+O O
injection alternation
that happens during
W+ O
process.

5
WAG Injection
 WAG involves major complexity and hysteresis, caused by
alternating injection that happens during process.Therefore,
numerical simulation of WAG injection becomes extremely
complex (involves the 2-phase and 3-phase Pc and kr and also
their hysteresis behavior).

 Our current understanding of the physics (and sometime

chemistry) involved in three-phase flow is currently limited
and hence quantifying and predicting the outcome of these
processes are difficult.

6
WAG Injection

 Measuring 3-phase kr is very difficult and time consuming

hence many correlations have been proposed for calculating
3-phase kr from the more readily available 2-phase data

Note: These models are usually based on water-wet systems and high
IFT gas/oil.

7
WAG Injection
 Formulation available in the existing reservoir simulators are
not capable of adequately account for the complex interplay
of hysteresis, capillary pressure, wettability, IFT, trapped
phase saturation and their impact on flow under three-phase
flow regime.

8
Reliability of Reservoir Performance Prediction

 Water Flood
 Gas injection
 Alternating slugs of gas and water (WAG)?
 Sequence of gas and water injection?
 Simultaneous injection of water and gas (SWAG)?
 Wettability?
 Interfacial Tension (gas type)?
 Rock type?
 Rock Permeability?
 Miscibility?
 Trapped phase saturation and hysteresis?

9
06/05/2014 10
06/05/2014 10
JIP at Heriot-Watt University: Research Approach

 To experimentally study parameters and understand mechanisms

involved in GF, WAG and SWAG injections.

 To generate 2-phase and 3-phase relative permeability curves using

the results of the coreflood experiments.

 Evaluate existing 3-phase models

 Develop improved methodologies for obtaining 3-phase kr and

hysteresis for reliable numerical simulation of WAG injection.

11
Experimental Condition

 Different injection scenarios

WAG, SWAG
Continuous Gas
Continues Water

 Different IFT values

High IFT (immiscible)
Low IFT (intermediate)
Very low IFT (near-miscible)

 Different wettability conditions

Water-Wet, Oil-Wet & Mixed-Wet

 Different Core Samples

Carbonates, Sandstones

12
 Micromodel Experiments

 This research programme was first launched on November

1997 with main aim of understanding the process of WAG
injection. The scope of work was later extended to three-
Phase flow (including WAG).

Inlet Outlet

Cover plate

Two-dimensional etched pore structure

13
 Core Flood Experiments

Injection Production

Core properties
Core Length Diameter Porosity Permeability
/ cm / cm / frac. / mD

Core 1 67.0 4.98 0.17 1000

Core 2 60.5 5.08 0.19 64

Fluid properties
Temperatur
Pressure Ρg ρL µg µL IFT
e
/psia o /kgm-3 /kgm-3 /mPa.s /mPa.s /mNm-1
/C

1200 37.8 86.6 466 0.0141 0.0793 2.7

1790 37.8 184.8 345 0.0206 0.0474 0.15
1840 37.8 211.4 317 0.0249 0.0405 0.04

14
Effect of IFTo/g: (1000 mD, Gas Injection, Mixed-wet)

1.0

0.8
σ = 0.04
Oil Recovery (Core PV)

0.6
σ = 2.70

0.4

0.2 1000mD, GF, MW, 1825 psi

1000mD, GF, MW, 1200 psi
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Injected Gas (Core PV)

15
Effect of IFTo/g: (65 mD, Gas Injection, Mixed-wet)

σ = 0.04

σ = 2.70

16
 Performance of Different
Injection Scenarios

Mixed-Wet Rock (65mD vs. 1000 mD; σg/o = 0.04 mN.m-1)

1
1
WAG WAG
Oil Recovery (frac. IOIP)

Oil Recovery (Core PV)

0.8 0.8 GF
0.6 GF 0.6

0.4 WAG, MW, 65mD 0.4 WAG Injection, MW, 1000mD

Water Injection, MW, 65mD Water Injection, MW, 1000mD
0.2 SWAG (Qg/Qw=0.25), MW, 65mD 0.2 SWAG (Qg/Qw = 0.25), MW, 1000mD
Gas Injection, MW, 65mD Gas Injection, MW, 1000mD
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
Injected Fluids (Core PV) Injected Fluids (Core PV)

65mD, Mixed-Wet 1000mD, Mixed-Wet

17
 Effect of Injection Scenario on
Injectivity
Mixed-Wet Rock (65mD Vs. 1000 mD; σg/o = 0.04 mN.m-1)
100 25
SWAG (Qg/Qw=1), MW, 65mD SWAG, MW, 1000mD
WAG, MW, 1000mD
80 WAG, 65mD, MW, IDIDID 20 Water Injection, MW, 1000mD
Water Injection, MW, 65mD
Pressure Drop (psi)

Pressure Drop (psi)

Gas Injection, MW, 1000mD
Gas Injection, MW, 65mD
60 15

40 10

20 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
Injected Fluids (Core PV) Injected Fluids (Core PV)

65mD, Mixed-Wet 1000mD, Mixed-Wet

18
 Effect of Gas/Oil IFT on WAG
G W G W G W G W O
Sw,im=18% , Soi=82%

0.9

0.8
σ = 0.04
65 mD 0.7
Produced Oil (frac. Sorw)
WAG-IDIDIDID 0.6
Mixed-wet 0.5

0.4
WAG-IDIDIDID, 65mD, MW, 1840 psia
0.3 WAG-IDIDIDID, 65mD, MW, 1790 psia
WAG-IDIDIDID, 65mD, MW, 1215 psia
0.2
σ = 0.15
0.1
σ = 2.70
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5

Injected WAG (Core PV)

19
Effect of IFTOil/Gas on Injectivity

σ = 0.04 σ = 2.70
W1
W2
W1
W3
W2
W3

100
W1
σ = 0.15 W2
W3
10
Injectivity (cc/psi)

W1
1

W2
W3
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Injected Brine (Core PV)

20
A unique set experimental data

One of the major achievements of this research is a

growing set of core flood data covering a wide range
of pertinent parameters (IFT, Wettability, Hysteresis,
K, Rock Type, etc) investigating various injection
strategies.

As far as we know, no such comprehensive data is

available in published literature.

21
Three-phase kr Determination
Measuring 3-phase kr is very difficult and time
consuming hence many correlations have been
proposed for calculating 3-phase kr from the more
readily available 2-phase data.

2Ph Oil & Gas 2Ph Oil & Water 3Ph Oil k r
1.0 1.0 S g =1

0.8 0.8
k rog k row k ro
0.6 0.01

+
0.6
kr
0.4 k rg 0.4
k rw 0.80
Sw So
0.2 0.2
Use 2Ph k rg in 3Ph
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
and 2Ph k rw in 3Ph
Sg Sw
22 22
 Evaluation of 3-phase kr Modells

Unsteady state 2-phase test

Fluid injection Swir =18%, k=65 mD

2-phase kr

WAG experiment
Simulation of WAG
Fluid injection Swir =18%, k=65 mD test using 3-phase kr
models

Comparing experiment and simulation results e.g.

recovery and pressure representing the accuracy
of that particular 3-phase kr model.
23

23
Numerical Simulation of WAG (Mixed-Wet)

0.2

0.18 0.2

0.18 EXPERIMENT
0.16 EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENT
0.16 EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENT
STONE1
EXPERIMENT
0.14 0.14 STONE1
STONE1
EXPERIMENT
STONE2
STONE2
Oil Recovery, PV

0.12
Oil Recovery, PV

0.12 STONE2
STONE2
STONE2
0.1 SWI
0.1 EXPERIMENT
SWI
0.08 SWI
SWI BAKER1
0.08 BAKER1
0.06 BAKER1
BAKER1
BAKER2
0.06 0.04 BAKER2
BAKER2
BAKER2
BAKER2
0.02 BAKER2
BAKER2
0.04 LARSEN
LARSEN
0
0.02 0 2 4 6 8 STONE-EXPONENT
PVinj
0
0 2 4 6 8
PVinj

24
Existing three-phase kr models lead to large errors
in prediction of WAG performance.

What is the actual 3-phase kr during WAG

?
2525
Direct 3-phase kr - 3RPSim

Another major achievement of the project is development

of a software for obtaining three-phase kr and Pc.

3-phase kr can be obtained directly instead of indirectly from

2-phase.
kro =kro (Sw, Sg) Gas
Water
Water Oil Gas
krw =krw (So, Sg) Oil

 krg =krg (Sw, So)

26
Determination of 3-phase kr by
history matching experimental
results:
using our in-house simulator
(3RPSim) to estimate 3-phase
injection core kr values by history matching
experimental results e.g.
recovery and pressure

27
Numerical Simulation of WAG (Mixed-Wet)

0.2

0.18 EXPERIMENT
0.2

0.16 0.18
STONE1
EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENT
0.16 EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENT
0.14 EXPERIMENT
STONE1 STONE2
0.14 STONE1
STONE1
EXPERIMENT
STONE2
Oil Recovery, PV

0.12 STONE2
SWI
Oil Recovery, PV

0.12 STONE2
STONE2
STONE2
SWI
0.1 0.1
BAKER1
EXPERIMENT
SWI
0.08 BAKER1
SWI
0.08 SWI
BAKER1
BAKER2
BAKER2
0.06 BAKER1
BAKER1
BAKER2
0.06 BAKER2
BAKER2 LARSEN
0.04 LARSEN
BAKER2
0.02 BAKER2
BAKER2
LARSEN
STONE-EXPONENT
0.04 STONE-EXPONENT
0
0 2 4 6 8
0.02 Heriot-Watt
PVinj
Simulator
0
0 2 4 6 8
PVinj

28
New Hysteresis model

three-phase pore occupancy

kri3Ph  f   krij krjk  krik krkj  f 

Si
(1  S j )(1  Sk )

Saturation function Two-phase kr

accounting cyclic
Hyst

Required two-phase data for running this model

1. Oil/water : krow
2. Oil/gas : krog
SPE #152218. Three-Phase Relative Permeability
3. Gas/water : krgw, krwg
and Hysteresis Model for Simulation of Water
Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection. Mehran
Sohrabi 29
 Three-Phase Flow JIP at Heriot-Watt University

Micromodel Experiment Core-flood Experiment

Examining different Generating kr and Pc

Mechanisms of Flow Mechanisms of Flow
injection Scenario data

Analyse experimental
data

Evaluate capability of existing simulators and models

Trapped Viscous
Three-Phase kr Three-Phase Pc Hysteresis IFT scaling
saturation fingering

Modelling

New improved mathematical High quality measured data methodologies to correct the SCAL
model for calculating flow for different rock and fluid data due to experimental artefact
parameters (kr , Pc , trap conditions (kr & Pc) (viscous fingering, end-Effects)
Deliverable phase, hysteresis..)

In-house Software
(3RPSim) 30
Project’s Sponsors

31
32