SPE 88499

Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) Pilot Implementation, A First EOR Development Project

in Dulang Field, Offshore Peninsular Malaysia
Ganesan Nadeson, Nor Aidil B Anua/PETRONAS Research & Scientific Services Sdn. Bhd.; Dr. Ashok Singhal/Alberta
Research Council, Alberta, Canada and Ramli B Ibrahim/PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 1820 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Some of the older oil fields in Malaysia can be characterized
as mature water floods. Schemes for enhancing and
prolonging the already declining production and diminishing
reserves strategically call for timely implementation of
Enhanced Oil Recovery, EOR applications.
Among various Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) processes
and techniques, Malaysias reservoirs appear especially
amenable to gas injection. Feasibility studies showed that
immiscible Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) injection is
potentially the most practical and viable option. Laboratory
studies and numerical simulation study conducted on the
applicability of immiscible WAG injection using high CO2
content gas indicated that an additional 5-7% of OOIP can be
recovered [1]. Such a gain will result in reserves growth and
extended producing life of these reservoirs. WAG application
is being field tested by implementing a pilot in a sub-block,
South-3 of the Dulang field, which is isolated from other subblocks, by major faults. One in-fill well was drilled
specifically for the current pilot. Upon drilling this infill well,
several geological complexities were uncovered, that called
for a thorough revisit of modelling and pilot conceptual plans.
The pilot area contains 6 wells, three of which are being used
as producers during WAG operations.
This paper discusses detail of our first ever EOR pilot
implementation (Immiscible WAG in Dulang oil field). It
describes progression from conceptual design to various
challenges, results and the lessons learnt during early periods
of implementation.
Introduction
Dulang Field (Figure 1) is located 130 km offshore north east
of Kerteh, Terengganu (Eastern Peninsular Malaysia; water
depth of 76m) with an area 11km by 3.5 km. It is an East-West

trending symmetrical anticline in the South China Sea. The

field plunging to the west and is dissected by a number of
NW-SE and E-W faults which sub-divide the field into several
fault blocks. The WAG pilot covers the South-3 block. It has
been developed through a total of 6 wells and production in
this block commenced in March 1991. It was initially
exploited by natural depletion. Declining reservoir pressure
and production rates led to the implementation of a peripheral
water injection scheme through down-dip wells A31 & A29 in
1996. Water was injected mainly for pressure maintenance.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is being considered for
increasing reserves of the Dulang field. Feasibility studies
identified re-injection of the produced gas (containing almost
50% CO2) as a cost-effective EOR option. Immiscible gas
injection in the WAG mode was considered for mobility
control and improving sweep-efficiency.
Field (pilot) testing was initiated in November 2002 in an
attempt to improve recovery from the E12/13 and E14
reservoirs within this fault block and also, to evaluate its
suitability as future EOR scheme for the rest of Dulang field
and potentially for other Malaysian fields. This is the first
EOR scheme to be implemented in Malaysia. In September
2002 the in-fill well, B16, was brought on-stream as part of
the overall exploitation plan for the block.
Reservoir Description
The E12/14 reservoirs in Dulang field were deposited in a
tidal environment. E12/13 reservoirs are better represented by
stacked sand flats with tidal and sub tidal channels traversing
through them. E12/13 sediments are capped by coal
throughout Dulang field. Both cross ripples and laminar beds
are fairly common. These are separated from the underlying
E14 reservoir by extensive shale and coal beds.
Permeability of reservoir rock is generally much larger in
the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction, because
of the tidal environment of deposition in the E14 and fluvial/
deltaic fan in the E12/13 sediments. This should make water/
gas floods efficient by discouraging gravity segregation
(override/ under-running) between gas and liquids and also,
between oil and water. Permeability in the E14 interval is
generally much larger than in the E12/13 interval but the net
thickness is comparable. Consequently, the original oil-inplace within these two intervals are also comparable. Also,
there is a much larger variation in permeability of E12/13 than
in E14. Therefore, advance of water/gas in the E12/13 interval

will not only be slower than in the E14 interval, but also be
relatively uneven and inefficient. It follows that at economic
limit of production, the ongoing down dip water injection
would result in poor oil recovery from the E12/13 interval.
Feasibility Studies
Screening studies were initially conducted in 1998 to evaluate
the feasibility of EOR processes in the Malaysian oil fields.
These were followed (Figure 2) by laboratory studies of phase
behavior, vaporization, Minimum Miscibility Pressure
(MMP), displacement and interfacial tension [2]. Geological/
geophysical modeling was then conducted for the South-3
block, followed by reservoir simulation consisting of history
matching and performance predictions.
Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) injection is usually
implemented to control the gas fingering and improve vertical
sweep efficiency. It has been applied successfully to several
oil fields, especially in USA, Canada and more recently in
Norway. Generally, field projects involved injection of mainly
carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon gases at miscible conditions.
However, some field projects involving immiscible CO2 or
hydrocarbon flooding (e.g. Lick Creek, Kuparuk River, Forest
Reserves, Brage and Gullfaks) showed that WAG could be
applied in the immiscible mode also [3-10].
Feasibility studies indicate that at the reservoir temperature
of 215oF, CO2 will not be miscible with the crude oil at the
current reservoir pressure, or even if the pressure were
increased to the initial reservoir pressure. By Equation-ofState (EOS) modeling, it was determined that the Multiple
Contact Miscibility Pressure (MCMP) for CO2 and produced
hydrocarbon gas are 3230 psig and 3340 psig respectively.
These pressures are significantly higher than the initial
reservoir pressure of 1800 psig. Vaporization of Dulang crude
by pure CO2 and the CO2-rich produced gas was also studied.
The laboratory study suggests significant vaporization of 15%
of the stock tank oil with pure CO2. However, based on
Equation of State, the vaporization is estimated between 2-5 %
(at operating reservoir pressure of 1400 - 1800 psig upon reinjection of the produced gas) [2].
In view of the above and also the cost, the EOR process at
Dulang was selected as immiscible WAG flooding involving
re-injection of produced gas containing high CO2.
Composite core laboratory displacement studies were
conducted to obtain key laboratory data needed to evaluate the
immiscible WAG application (Table 1). Water flooding was
very successful in recovering 56.8% of the original oil in
place. Oil water relative permeability was derived from the
water flood data and showed the core to be mildly water-wet.
Two cycles of gas and water flooding were carried out in rapid
succession. In total, about additional 6.2% of the original oil in
place was recovered during these floods. Very plausibly, some
oil was lost from the core by vaporization into the gas stream
[1]. Our premise is that from water flooded reservoirs, it is still
possible to recover additional oil by injecting gas alternating
with water.
Following the laboratory investigations, a detailed
reservoir simulation study was conducted first in 1999 and
later in 2001 to re-assess the various WAG injection options in
reservoirs E12/13/14 in South-3 block. These studies were the

SPE 88499

starting points and the basis for the design and development of
field (pilot) testing of IWAG in South-3 block in Dulang field.
IWAG Pilot Design and Development
One year was spent on identifying the right injectors and
producers within South-3 block as well as developing the pilot
design and development plan. These included detailed
engineering design of the facilities required, pre-pilot data
acquisition and analysis (e.g. pressure surveys, tubing integrity
surveys, completions and other well services), implementation
strategy, monitoring and evaluation activities. Various
challenges arose regarding windows of opportunity for wire
line entry in the midst of various ongoing drilling and work
over activities.
Simulation of Water-Alternating-Gas was performed using
a black oil simulator to study the potential for increased oil
production compared to water flooding (base case). Various
scenarios were studied utilizing all the injectors and producers
available in the South-3 block. One in-fill well, B16 was
drilled in 2001 and it revealed several geological complexities
that necessitated review of simulation and the pilot plans. The
pilot block contains 6 wells; three are producers during WAG
(see Figure 3).
Current Oil Recovery Challenges
There are three major challenges at Dulang (as exemplified by
the status of the E12/13 and E14 oil pools in the South-3
block) in efficiently draining oil from various oil pools in the
Dulang field:
(1) Draining oil up-dip of the uppermost producing well
('attic oil') in a given fault block,
(2) Draining oil from low quality reservoir such as E12/13
when a commingled companion (high quality)
reservoir accepts most of the injection and contributes
to most of oil production, and
(3) Draining the oil left behind by the current peripheral,
up-dip moving water flood (as represented by E12/13
and E14 oil pools at the South-3 block).
The proposed pilot must address the issues of exploiting oil in
all of the above three categories.
Pilot objectives
Specific objectives for the pilot were:
(1) Verify if IWAG will contribute to improved sweep
and conformance within the South-3 block.
(2) Quantify range of recovery factors and costs.
(3) Determine if WAG is a cost-effective recovery
enhancement option at Dulang; and
(4) Obtain clues to improved design and optimization of
future WAG operations.
IWAG Pre-Pilot Tests
The focus during pre-pilot activities was to obtain information
on:
(1) Baseline information of wells performance.
(2) Suitability of wells to act as injectors or producers.
(3) Water and gas injectivity, and

SPE 88499

(4) Connectivity of reservoir from injectors to offsetting

producers.
IWAG Strategy
Despite all efforts at enhancing production via water flooding,
gas injection and infill drilling, oil production continues to
decline. It is projected that current operations would cease to
be economic beyond 2013. This economic limit is based on
declining oil production and increasing operating costs due to
aging platforms and facilities (already over 13 years old),
severe operating environment (offshore operation, high
operating temperature, high CO2 content in the produced gas,
commingled operations).
The reservoir development strategy was modified in 2002
when IWAG injection was implemented as part of the overall
drainage strategy (see Figure 3). Prior to IWAG strategy,
wells A31 and A29 were peripheral water injectors (injecting
commingled into E12/13 and E14 reservoirs) for pressure
support while wells A10 and A2 (producing commingled from
E12/13 and E14 reservoirs) were watered-out producers. Well
B5 was the up-dip oil producer while well B16 is the in-fill
producer well (both completed commingled into E12/13 and
E14). Well A14 was drilled into E12/13 sands only, but was
not completed there.
Based on simulation results, gas injection was seen to be
effective in mobilizing the oil from tighter zones (E12/13),
whereas water injection was found to be more effective in less
heterogeneous and more permeable E14. A combination of
WAG through wells A10 and A29 (injecting alternating 3500
b/d water and 3 MMscf/d gas with cycles of 3 months), and
gas injection through well A14 (1 MMscf/d), along with
continued water injection in A31 was found to be favorable
(Figure 4).
For this IWAG strategy, injection well A29 and producer
well A10 were converted into WAG injectors. Well A14 was
re-completed in E12/13 sand only and converted for gas
injection (with flexibility to inject water and gas). Well A31
remains a peripheral water injection well. Wells B5, A2 and
B16 are the three producers for this IWAG application,
producing commingled from E12/13 and E14 reservoirs.
IWAG Implementation Strategy
Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection at Dulang involves
re-injection of produced gas and treated seawater into a waterflooded region, thereby recovering additional oil. The field
test involves three producers and three injection wells in two
reservoirs within the South-3 fault block. The main
contributing mechanisms are expected to be drainage of attic
oil up-dip of the existing producers that would not be drained
by current peripheral water injection, more efficient sweep of
the water flooded regions, sweep of less swept tighter intervals
(mainly in E12/13) and partial vaporization of the un-swept
oil. WAG injection in South-3 block is projected to contribute
reserves of 1.5 to 2 MMstb (Figure 5).
The actual design was based upon simulation results,
published data on similar projects and the current condition of
wells/facilities at Dulang. The plan involved drilling of an
infill well, reactivation of two watered-out wells and recompletion of one suspended well that was previously
producing from a different horizon. An additional injection

well within the S3 block (A31) provides additional flexibility

for pressure maintenance within E12/13/14 reservoirs in this
block. In addition, a booster compressor was commissioned to
compress additional 4 million cubic feet of produced gas per
day for injection into the project. This was done in order to
mimic conditions during large-scale offshore operations and to
obtain realistic performance data. It was appreciated that such
an operation will have a long project life. However, it was
decided that the first two years of operation (Manageable
WAG Phase) would reveal if there were insurmountable
operating problems whereas the next two years would help
confirm that incremental oil was being drained (EOR Phase).
B16 Drilling Results
The in-fill well B16 came in about 65 ft structurally higher
than B5. Due to possibility of structural dislocation, possibility
of this well belonging to a different hydrodynamic continuum
than the rest of the South-3 block cannot be entirely ruled out.
Reservoir Tracing
Fluid tracking using tracers has been used in numerous fields
throughout the world. Briefly, this entails introduction of a
reservoir compatible tracer species into injection fluid at the
wellhead that is foreign to the system. Efforts are then made
to detect it in effluent from various target producers. Analysis
of the resulting tracer concentration versus time curves from
individual producing wells enables inter-well flow
characteristics to be determined so that improvements can be
made in operating plans/ reservoir modeling.
Objectives for reservoir tracing in Dulang were:
(1) Identifying communication with fault blocks/channels.
(2) Identifying sources of produced water/gas at all pilot
production wells (specific injection wells/gas cap).
(3) Calibrating simulator models based on the tracer
breakthrough times.
(4) Allocating flow contributions from different injectors.
(5) Characterizing short-circuiting channels/ fractures/
faults between individual injectors/ producers from
tracer concentration versus fluid throughput curves.
A total of six different types of tracers were injected in
South-3 block for this purpose as shown in the Table 2.

IWAG Surveillance: Operations and Monitoring

A multidisciplinary WAG surveillance team in charge of
monitoring
WAG
injection,
analyzing
response,
recommending well operations, and establishing and following
up on data acquisition program was established. This multidisciplinary team was important to successful implementation
and proper understanding of the WAG performance. A
comprehensive IWAG operation manual was developed prior
to start-up of the IWAG injection. The IWAG operating
manual consists of operational guidelines, wire line and
facilities monitoring program, surveillance program, data
acquisition and analysis, and contingency plans.
Operations
Acquisition of pressure and pressure transient data were
essential to identify the degree of communication and pressure
support between South-3 and adjacent fault blocks and also, in
understanding effectiveness of voidage replacement plans.

Continual surveillance was conducted to track performance of

each reservoir and tubing integrity/conditions.
Monitoring
The monitoring program was carefully planned to effectively
evaluate the IWAG process. It included frequent tracer
sampling and analyses; monitoring of injection and production
fluids (GOR, WOR, water-cut and oil rate) for each well; daily
monitoring of compressor performance (rates, suction and
discharge pressures, and temperature); quarterly sampling and
analyses of oil, water and gas compositions; and pressures.
Other periodical monitoring includes water and gas injectivity;
corrosion and erosion due to CO2 and sand production
respectively; operational problems; injection uptime; bank
days available; voidage replacement ratio (VRR), well
performance; and oil bank. Continuous monitoring of all
injectors and producers is essential for ensuring effective
utilization of the injected gas.
Efficient oil drainage requires maintenance of reservoir
pressures by balancing injection and production volumes. If
injection is insufficient to replace the voidage created,
pressures (and oil rates) decline; evolution of dissolved gas
would further reduce producing rates. On the other hand, if
excessive injection is occurring relative to production rates,
excessive pressurization can cause loss of mobilized oil into
unproductive regions such as gas cap or bottom water and in
extreme cases, in formation fracturing leading to loss of the
injected fluids. Finally, analyses of injection and production
trends can help in estimating incremental oil due to WAG.
IWAG Field Performance
IWAG injection started in November 2002 with wells A29
injecting water, A14 injecting gas and A10 injecting gas into
E12/13 and E14 in a commingled fashion. Radioactive and
chemical tracers were injected in February 2002. Radioactive
tracer samples captured from A10 short string indicated no
leak or communication with other intervals.
Chemical gas tracer returns at B16 (July 2003) confirmed
that gas injected at A10 was being produced there, confirming
communication between different suspected compartments.
This cleared the uncertainty surrounding the stratigraphic/
structural surprises from the drilling results. Communications
between A10 and B16/B5 are critical to draining the attic oil.
Also, the reservoir pressure seems to have risen at B16 since
the well was put on production. The increase in pressure is
definitely due to injection. This is supported by the
observation that in two successive SGS surveys, the E12/13
reservoir recorded higher pressures than the E14 reservoir. It
is speculated that a combination of sheared reservoir rock
around minor faults and suspected hydraulic fractures induced
during high rate water injection might have established a
region of high transmissibility connecting injector A10 and
B16. Radioactive water breakthrough from injector A10 to
B16 was seen in September 2003 supporting the presence of
high transmissibility channels connecting wells A10 and B16.
Water and gas injection data to-date does not indicate any
injectivity problems at any of the injectors. Operational
challenges occurred due to low water and gas injection uptime
but have been manageable so far. Serious corrosion or sand
production problems were not seen but will be closely
monitored. Voidage replacement and bank-days availability

SPE 88499

are also continuously monitored. Whenever required,

producers were shut-in temporarily due to prolonged
unavailability of sufficient injection water or gas, to maintain
reservoir pressure. Geological/ geophysical and reservoir
simulation models are continuously updated via history
matching to aid in optimizing of IWAG performance.
Performance of Producers: Before and After IWAG
Well A2
This well was essentially watered out prior to initiating
IWAG; only the E12/13 intervals were opened to production
(August 2002). Oil rates of around 10 b/d with a water-cut of
around 95% were obtained. In November 2002, gas injection
began at A14 and A10. Currently, the well has been producing
oil at rates ranging between 100 and 300 b/d (Figure 6). The
pressure at this well, supported by injection at A10, A14 and
A29/A31 has been in the range of 1450 psig over the last year,
compared to 1385 psig before IWAG implementation.
Well B16
Oil reservoirs E12/13/14 at this well were placed on
production in August 2002 whereas gas injection at A10 and
A14 began in November 2002. Between August and
November, oil rates declined from 450 b/d to 105 b/d and
GOR increased from 2700 scf/b to 4500 b/d. During the same
period, water-cut increased from 50% to 80%. Soon after
starting gas injection at A10 (and A14), pressure response
along with increased oil rate and reduced GOR (and water-cut)
was observed. [It may be recalled that pressure in E12/13
reservoirs was higher than in the deeper E14 horizon, and
continues to be so.] Oil rates rose to 300 b/d and GOR
dropped to 2200 scf/b and water-cut to 70% (Figure 7).
Between January and March 2003, GOR increased from 2200
to 3000 scf/b. Tracers injected at A10 were detected in gas
samples from this well (June 2003), indicating communication
between A10 and B16. Earlier, there were serious doubts
about B16 being in an isolated compartment.
Well B5
This is an up-dip well and has produced clean oil until
the end of 2000. In early 2001, it was confirmed that water
had broken-through at this well. Oil rate declined sharply after
the water break-through. By November 2002, as gas injection
began at A10, this well was producing about 350 b/d at 60%
water-cut and a gas-oil ratio of more than 2000. During the
first Quarter of 2003, oil rates rose and GOR sharply declined,
perhaps due to pressurization caused by injection (Figure 8).
By September 2003, no tracer break-through was detected in
the produced gas.
It is still early in the life of the pilot for any significant
conclusions to be drawn on the success of the project. Positive
responses were seen in the producers but rigorous monitoring
and evaluations will continue. Production oil rates, oil cut,
water cut, gas-oil-ratio (GOR) and water-oil-ratio (WOR) will
be monitored continuously to identify the oil bank
development. Tracer breakthrough and subsequent
interpretation at all the other producers will enable a better
understanding of the injection frontal movement. An effort of
this nature opens a window into subsequent field-wide
implementation regarding nature of operations, technical and

SPE 88499

economic parameters, issues and challenges and, leads to

various ideas on improving and expediting the project.
Lessons Learnt
Being the first EOR development project in Malaysia for
PETRONAS, there were many challenges beginning with
design of the pilot and continuing on to field implementation
and evaluation. Many lessons were learnt regarding improved
implementation. Other lesson were:
(1) Piloting should be in a controlled environment.
(2) Adequate pre-pilot data are must for interpretation.
(3) Performance baseline must be established before EOR
implementation.
(4) Correct representation of reservoir geology is critical.
(5) Faults should be correctly modeled.
(6) Multidisciplinary nature of EOR team is desirable.
(7) Integration of facilities and surveillance activities and
people is critical to the success of monitoring
program.
Conclusions
1. Following the PETRONAS corporate strategic thrust, an
EOR pilot was planned, designed and implemented.
2. Over the four years, the project team has performed several
integrated studies to achieve the best execution of the pilot
and to evaluate performance in the field, including:
Screening and selection of candidates
Integrated feasibility studies in laboratory
Geological and geophysical modeling
Reservoir simulation modeling
Numerical simulation of the IWAG process
Monitoring using radioactive/ chemical tracers
Integration of logs and operational data with
tracer results to optimize IWAG process
3. Injected water and gas tracers have provided better
understanding of the inter-well communications and
possibility of high transmissibility flow between wells.
4. Simulation study showed that IWAG could improve water
flooding oil recovery by almost 7% of STOOIP in Dulang
South-3 block.
5. Positive responses in terms of increased oil rate and,
decreased water and gas rates, were seen at wells A2 and
B5.
6. Lessons learnt during implementation of this pilot, enable
better understanding of the best practices and are valuable
in subsequent field-wide EOR implementation.
7. Field-wide WAG in Dulang is proposed and future
potential for EOR in Malaysia appears promising.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank management of PETRONAS, PETRONAS
Carigali Sdn. Bhd. and PETRONAS Research and Scientific
Services Sdn. Bhd. for their support, encouragement and
permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Ganesan Nadeson, Zahidah M Zain, Selim G. Sayegh and
Marcel Girard, Assessment of Dulang Field Immiscible
Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) Injection Through
Composite Core Displacement Studies, SPE 72140, SPE
Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, October
2001.
2. Zahidah M Zain, Nor Idah Kechut, Ganesan Nadeson,
Noraini Ahmad and Dr. DM Anwar Raja, Evaluation of
CO2 Gas Injection for Major Oil Producing Fields in
Malaysia Experimental Approach Case Study : Dulang
Field, SPE 72106, SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil
Recovery Conference, October 2001.
3. Manrique E., Calderon G., Mayo L. and Stirpe M.T.,
Water-Alternating-Gas
Flooding
in
Venezuela:
Selection of Candidates Based on Screening Criteria of
International Field Experiences, SPE 50645, SPE
European Petroleum Conference, October 1998.
4. Alvarez C., Manrique E., Alvarado V., Saman A.,
Surguchev L., Eilersten T., WAG Pilot at VLE Field and
IOR Opportunities for Mature Fields at Maracaibo Lake,
SPE 72099, SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, October 2001.
5. Nidia A.C., Karen Eide, Siv E. M., WAG Injection at
the Statfjord Field, A Success Story, SPE 78348, SPE
13th European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, October
2002.
6. Champion J.H., and Shelden J.B., An Immiscible WAG
Injection Project in the Kuparuk River Unit, SPE 16719,
62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
September 1987.
7. Ma, T.D. and Youngren, G.K., Performance of
Immiscible Water-Alternating-Gas (IWAG) Injection at
Kuparuk River Unit, North Slope, Alaska. SPE 28602,
69th ATCE, New Orleans, LA, 1994.
8. Hoolahan, S.P., McDuffle, G.S., Peck, D.G. and Hallam
R.J., Kuparuk Large-Scale Enhanced Oil Recovery
Project, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997.
9. Christensen J.R., Stenby E.H., and Skauge A., Review
of WAG Field Experience, SPE 39883, SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Mexico, March 1998.
10. Mohammed-Singh, L. and Singhal, A. K., Lessons From
Trinidads CO2 Immiscible Pilot Projects, 1973-2003
SPE 89364, presented at the 14th SPE/ DOE Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 2004

SPE 88499

TTH
HAA
ILIL
AAN
NDD

KOTA
KOTA
BHARU
BHARU

ANGSI
DULANG

PENINSULAR
PENINSULAR

KUALA
KUALA
TERENGGANU
TERENGGANU

130km

MALAYSIA
MALAYSIA
KERTEH
KERTEH

Sub-block

Fig.1 Dulang oil field, 130km offshore Terengganu, South China Sea

2 3 YEARS

2 4 YEARS

LABORATORY STUDIES
IOR SCREENING
STUDY

RES.
MODELLING

G&G
MODELLING

PILOT
SCALE

Fig.2 Project evolution from feasibility study to pilot scale implementation

S3 BLOCK

* B5
* B16
WAG Inj.*A10

-1200
* A2

Gas Inj

Wtr Inj

*A14

-1250

* A31
WAG Inj

* A29

Fig.3 Schematic diagram of the IWAG implementation strategy in South-3 Block

FULL
SCALE

SPE 88499

B-05L
B-16

A-10L

A-02L
A-14L

A-31L
A-29L

Fig.4 Typical oil saturation results plot from South-3 block IWAG simulation

WAG (A29 & A10)

WAG (A29)
Waterflood

Fig.5 Expected incremental oil recovery from simulation

SPE 88499

800

800

700

700

600

600

Time (month)

Fig.6 Oil rate versus time for well A2

Fig.7 Oil rate versus time for well B16

3000

Qo(stb/

Pre
WAG

Post
WAG

2000

Apr-04

Mar-04

Mar-04

Aug-03

Jul-03

Mar-03

Feb-03

Jan-03

Oct-02

Dec-02

Sep-02

Aug-02

Aug-02

Aug-02

Apr-02

Oct-01

Apr-01

Jan-01

Jul-00

Oct-00

Apr-00

Mar-00

Mar-00

Mar-00

Mar-00

Feb-00

Feb-00

Nov-99

Nov-99

Nov-99

Nov-99

Sep-99

Aug-99

Jul-99

Jun-99

Apr-99

Mar-99

Feb-99

Dec-98

Oct-98

Nov-98

Nov-98

Oct-98

Sep-98

Jul-98

Jul-98

Aug-98

Jul-98

Jun-98

Jun-98

Jun-98

May-98

May-98

May-98

May-98

May-94

1000

Time(month)

Fig.8 Oil rate versus time for well B5

Table 1: Summary of Core Flood End-Point Permeabilities and Saturations

Step

Oil
Saturation
(% PV)
0.0

Initial brine
saturation
Oil flood to Swc
61.3
Water Flood 1
26.5
Gas Flood 1
25.9
Water Flood 2
23.4
Gas Flood 2
23.0
Water Flood 3
23.0
Gas Flood 3
22.6
Water Flood 4
22.6
TOTAL OIL RECOVERY (%OOIP)

Water
Saturation
(% PV)
100.0
38.7
73.5
42.5
56.6
40.2
44.7
32.4
40.8

Injected
Effective EndGas
Saturation Point Permeability Fluid
(mD)
(% PV)
0.0
37.1
water
0.0
0.0
31.6
20.0
36.8
32.3
45.0
36.6

34.3
10.2
1.0
4.5
1.0
2.7
1.3
5.5

oil
water
gas
water
gas
water
gas
water

Oil
Recovery
(%OOIP)

Incremental
Recovery
(%ROIP)

56.8
0.9
4.1
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
63.0

56.8
2.1
9.8
1.6
0.0
1.6
0.0

Feb-04

Jan-04

Nov-03

Oct-03

Sep-03

Aug-03

Aug-03

Apr-03

Mar-03

Jan-03

Feb-03

Jan-03

Dec-02

Nov-02

Time (month)

Nov-02

Mar-04

Mar-04

Sep-03

Sep-02

Apr-04

Apr-04

100

0
Apr-04

100

Nov-03

200

Sep-02

200

Sep-02

300

Aug-02

Qo(STB/D)

400

300

Aug-02

Post
WAG

500

400

Aug-96

Qo(stb/d)

Post
WAG

Aug-02

Pre
WAG

500

Pre
WAG

SPE 88499

Table 2: Types of tracers injected in South-3 block for IWAG application

Well Name
(type of injector)

Water Tracer
(Radioactive)

Gas Tracer
(Chemical)

Expect to observe
tracer in producer well
(well name)

A10
(WAG)

Tritium as water
+ 2-FBA*

PMCP

B16, B5, A2

A29
(WAG)

Tritium as methanol

PDCB

A2

A14
(GAS)

PMCH

A2

* Flouro benzoic acid, chemical tracer to test performance against radioactive water tracer