SPE 128848

Immiscible Hydrocarbon WAG: Laboratory to Field

Kudal Purakkal Ramachandran, Omkar Nath Gyani, and Sidhartha Sur, ONGC

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 2022 January 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
A sandstone reservoir at a depth of 2800 m in a western India onshore field contains highly under saturated light oil of 470
API with viscosity of 0.2 cp. The reservoir has a permeability ranging 50 to 300 md and high temperature of around 130 Deg
C. It is exploited by supplementing the partial water drive with water injection. Water injection was initiated in the early part
of its producing life and has recovered more than 30% of OIIP. Meanwhile, availability of natural gas from deeper reservoirs
in the field initiated a thinking process to examine the processes involving both miscible and immiscible displacement with gas
injection to improve the recovery factor from the reservoir. The reservoir was not found suitable for miscible process due to
higher miscibility pressure as compared to prevailing reservoir pressure of 250 Kg/cm2. Viability of immiscible WAG was
ascertained through both laboratory investigations and numerical simulation prior to its testing on a pilot scale in the field. The
process resulted in an increase in oil production along with reduction in water cut from the pilot and offset wells. Encouraging
pilot results led to the decision of expanding the process to the entire field. The paper also evaluates the effects of different
critical parameters on the recovery factor from immiscible WAG process through reservoir simulation studies.
Introduction
Recovering oil from mature fields is becoming more and more vital as finding new oil is not easy. The growing need to
increase the output and ultimate recovery by EOR methods has assumed great significance as far as mature oil fields are
concerned. Matured oil fields of Western onshore in India are also on the run for adding EOR oil through various technologies.
EOR techniques like in-situ combustion in heavy oil belt and Polymer flooding in one of the medium gravity fields are
commercially on stream.
For deeper reservoirs with temperature above 130 Deg C, chemical EOR processes are ruled out and gas injection
processes have been implemented. Amongst the various EOR methods, gas injection process has contributed significantly
towards EOR oil world over. A miscible gas injection project has been implemented in a light oil reservoir based on feasibility
studies involving lab investigations and simulation study. Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) injection, which can potentially add
reserve, is under pilot stage in the reservoir referred in this paper.

Case histories of WAG applications

Before embarking on the implementation of a WAG project, an extensive literature survey was undertaken to derive benefit
from the lessons learnt from earlier executed projects. WAG injection is a mature technology considering its successful
applications in the North Sea, US and Canada oil fields. Both immiscible and miscible injections have been practiced
worldwide. In most cases, WAG has been implemented as tertiary miscible injection projects. The reported incremental
recovery by application of WAG is in the range of 5 to 10% of original oil in place.1
By method WAG processes are the frontrunner in the North Sea EOR scenario based on the total enhanced oil
production and number of field applications and it is recognized as the most successful EOR technology. Majority of the
applications were initiated in the tertiary stage. Availability of HC gas and limited storage facilities necessitated gas injection
projects which were also aimed at improving recovery. It was reported that it may be difficult to distinguish between miscible
and immiscible WAG process. In the life of oil production, the process can fluctuate between miscible & immiscible.2 In the
reported miscible WAG injection in Statfjord formation of Statfjord field, a secondary gas cap was developed and the process
seemed to be slightly submiscible. The immiscible WAG injection in Brent reservoir of Statfjord field turned out to be
miscible with the multicontact miscibility observed. WAG and SWAG make use of the same mechanisms to improve the
recovery. The main difference is in operation strategies. It was reported that WAG is the preferred choice when gas is
available in sufficient quantities.

SPE 128848

From the case histories in the North Sea, it can be inferred that for dipping reservoirs, crestal injection is preferred
which can provide a gravity-stable front. In case of water flooded reservoirs, down dip injection is preferable which helps in
removing the attic oil by gas and cellar oil by water.
The key issues associated with WAG injection reported are mainly reduced injectivity, reservoir heterogeneities,
hydrate and asphaltenes formation. High permeability channels led to early gas break through in Brage field of North Sea and
the WAG injection had to be terminated. In such cases, microbial mechanisms can be useful for selective plugging and in
contacting the bypassed oil. Reduced injectivity arises due to the presence of two-phase in the wellbore and associated relative
permeability effects. Water injection into a reservoir results in cooling of the formation around the wellbore. The gas injection
after water flooding can form hydrates. This was considered as the main reason for WAG failure at Ekofisk field of North
Sea.2 Asphaltene problems were reported in East Vaccum and Wertz Tensleep fields. MEOR processes are useful in
overcoming the injectivity and asphaltene problems.

Design of WAG Pilot & Implementation

The field under reference consists of multilayered clastic reservoirs designated as L-0 to L-13 (except L-10 being water
bearing) from bottom to top. The targeted reservoir (L-11) at a depth of 2800m contains highly under saturated light oil of 470
API with very low viscosity. It has a permeability ranging 50 to 300 md and high temperature of around 130 Deg C. The
reservoir is exploited by supplementing the partial water drive with water injection. Water injection was initiated in the early
part of its producing life and has recovered more than 30% of OIIP. However in its 22 years long production history, there
were several instances of premature breakthrough of water in the producers. In order to recover tertiary oil from the reservoir,
possibility of applying various EOR methods were examined. The reservoir temperature in the field being high (130 Deg C)
ruled out most of the chemical EOR processes. Availability of natural gas from deeper reservoirs initiated a thinking process to
examine the processes involving both miscible and immiscible displacement with gas injection to improve the recovery factor
from the reservoir. Laboratory studies indicated that the minimum miscibility pressure with gas (70 % methane) is 279 kg/cm2,
which was above the prevailing reservoir pressure of 240 kg/cm2 and was difficult to achieve. Non availability of enriched gas
or CO2 rules out any miscible process for the reservoir. Therefore, only immiscible gas injection was possible at the prevailing
operating conditions with available lean gas (98 % methane rich). However, continuous immiscible gas injection is likely to
suffer similar disadvantages as water flood due to heterogeneity in the reservoir. Therefore, Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG)
injection processes emerged as one of the potential EOR methods for this reservoir, which is known to offer several
advantages over continuous water or continuous gas injection methods. This paper outlines details of the WAG process from
laboratory studies, conceptualization of a pilot area, its design, implementation and field performance of WAG injection on a
pilot scale. Encouraging results from the pilot led to the drawing up of commercial scale application and the details are
discussed in the paper.

Effect of critical parameters on recovery factor with Immiscible WAG

To understand the effect of some of the critical parameters on recovery with respect to an immiscible WAG, a hypothetical
model was constructed and various cases were studied. A 60X40 cell model with dimensions of 50mX50m was used with 3
layers of 10m each as shown in Fig .1. Average PVT parameters generated from laboratory studies and other basic properties
used for the model are indicated in Table 1. WAG injection was envisaged to initiate after four years of production in an
inverted five spot pattern and to continue for 9 years. The model has been run with two cases; (i) homogeneous case and (ii)
heterogeneous case with fining upward and coarsening upward sequences. For homogeneous case, the permeability for the
model was taken as 200 md being an average for the reservoir under study. Average permeabilities of 50md, 100md and
200md were used for the three layers in heterogeneous case to display the heterogeneity in a fining upward and coarsening
upward sequence for the model. The incremental recovery at the end of WAG injection period is shown in Table 2. Effect of
critical parameters on the recovery is described below.
Grid size: The effect of grid size was studied by reducing the model dimensions to 25mX25m. Reduction in grid size has a
tendency to improve the recovery. However, a grid size of 50mX50m can be adept in capturing the effect of an immiscible
WAG in numerical simulation.
Layer splitting: The effect of layer splitting on recovery was studied by splitting the 3 layers model further into six and
twelve layers. Thus each grid of the model was reduced to thickness of 2.5m. It was observed that layer splitting has tendency
to reduce recovery. However a minimum thickness of about 2 m can be used as an optimum value while simulating an
immiscible WAG.
Displacement efficiency: The effect of displacement efficiency due to gas was studied by running the model on end point
values of Sorg in the range 0.10-0.24 corresponding to 86-66 % displacement efficiencies. It was observed that the recovery is
mainly dependent on the difference between Sorw & Sorg. Hence the input of these values based on laboratory displacement
studies becomes crucial to estimate the ultimate recovery from an immiscible WAG process.

Exploitation status of the Reservoir

The targeted reservoir under study has an estimated OIIP of 11.0 MMm3. It is divided into two sub layers separated
by non persistent shale. Both the layers are considered to be hydro-dynamically connected. It is an under saturated

SPE 128848

reservoir with an initial reservoir pressure of 285 kg/cm2 and saturation pressure of 165 kg/cm2. The sand is
currently producing @ 350 m3/d with average water cut of 65 % through 14 producers and a water injection rate of
700m3/d. The reservoir is on pattern water flood since 1991 and has produced approximately 30% of its OIIP till
date.
Studies Undertaken
Displacement studies with live reservoir fluid were carried out both for single and multiple cycles of WAG injection in tertiary
stage at reservoir conditions after water flood. These experiments were simulated in 1-D to generate parameters relating to
three-phase hysteresis model. WAG injection process was planned for implementation in a pilot scale to evaluate the viability
of the process and generate necessary data for full field implementation at a later stage. Simulation studies were taken up for
examining strategies for these decisions. An up-scaled reservoir model of the selected pilot area was constructed from a fine
scale geo-cellular model. WAG process was simulated on this reservoir model to quantify the additional hydrocarbon recovery
over water flood and to optimize the parameters for pilot design.

Laboratory investigations
Laboratory investigations were carried out prior to designing of WAG pilot. Low pressure displacement studies were carried
out at ambient temperature to evaluate the effect of sequence of WAG injection on oil recovery and to gauge the impact of
trapped gas saturation on residual oil saturation. The results indicated that Gas-Water-Gas injection sequence gives higher
recovery than Water-Gas-Water injection sequence. Trapping of gas due to hysteresis, when gas flooding is followed by water
flooding, is a very important phenomenon in WAG injection process resulting in improved displacement efficiency. Data
generated from the low pressure displacement studies helped in estimating Lands Parameter which goes as an important input
for simulation of WAG processes.
Further, simulations of WAG process require the use of three-phase relative permeability hysteresis model. The threephase oil relative permeability was generated by standard Stones model but the residual oil saturation can be made a function
of the amount of trapped gas saturation. This enables the possibility of lower remaining oil saturation in three-phase dominated
regions.
Land formulated a relationship between the maximum and the residual saturation of the non wetting phase,
C = 1/Sgt 1/Sgi
Fig. 2 shows the Lands Parameter determined from the above experimental data. Larger is the value of Lands
Parameter lesser is the gas entrapment. For this particular reservoir, the Lands parameter was calculated to be 6.0.
To quantify the incremental recovery over water flood, displacement experiments were performed with live reservoir
fluid both for single cycle and multi cycle WAG injection. Single cycle WAG displacement experiment in tertiary stage at
reservoir conditions after water flood indicated an incremental oil recovery of 14.0% of HCPV (Fig. 3). 5 cycles of WAG
injection after primary water flooding showed an incremental gain of 14% of HCPV (Fig. 4). It was observed that WAG
injection in cycles has no effect on recovery over a single cycle WAG injection.

Simulation of laboratory experiments

The use of hysteresis model in simulation studies requires prior tuning of certain parameters by matching the laboratory
displacement experiments. Therefore, laboratory experiment was simulated using WAG hysteresis model to validate the
optimum WAG injection parameters. Fig. 5 shows the match of experimental data and model results. Fairly good match of
most of the parameters could be obtained by adjusting relative permeability end points and hysteresis parameters. Some
mismatch in cumulative gas produced between the model and experimental results is due to material balance errors in the
experimental data. Greater emphasis was given to match the cumulative oil produced and hydrocarbon recovery curves.

Selection of the Pilot Site

A normal five spot injection pattern (with four injectors and one central producer) was planned for testing the pilot. A normal
five spot was preferred over inverted five spot as it offers more accuracy in quantifying the benefits of WAG injection process.
The process was also to be monitored in offset producers. Based on these requirements, the area bounded by wells G-W1, W8,
W9 & W14 was selected for the pilot. Drilling of only two new wells was required for the pilot. All the other required
injectors and producer for the five spot pattern for the pilot could be managed by work over and zone transfer of some of
existing wells. The area was identified based on minimum investment criteria and which can best test the efficacy of the
process.

Simulation of WAG process in Pilot Area

Simulation of WAG injection process was carried out for the pilot area to quantify incremental oil over water flood. Optimal
WAG injection parameters were designed based on core flood results and numerical simulation. A fine scale reservoir model
of the simulation area was constructed from geo-cellular model. The location of simulation grid is shown in Fig. 6.

SPE 128848

Several variants were examined to quantify the additional recovery over water flood. It is expected that shorter WAG
cycles may favour the presence of three phases, resulting in a reduction of the gas relative permeability, giving a more
beneficial gas-oil mobility ratio, and a better displacement process compared to two phase gas oil flow.3 Additional recovery
due to WAG process in the pilot area with different WAG ratios (1:1 and 1:2) and different cycle lengths varying from 1
month to 6 months was quantified over the base case of water flood recovery. Comparative performance of the pilot area under
different cases studied is presented in Table 3.
All cases with half cycle lengths varying from 1 to 6 months resulted in similar recoveries. The studies have also
shown that increasing the WAG ratio to 1:2 did not result in any significant improvement in recovery from the pilot. Ideally, it
would be best to have smallest WAG cycle for highest oil recovery. But, from operational point of view it may be more
convenient to operate the pilot with half cycle length of 2 months. Therefore, considering the technical and operational aspects,
it was recommended that the pilot be operated by having two months of gas injection followed by two months of water
injection repeatedly till 5 years.
The study indicated that WAG injection is likely to result in approximately 9.5 % incremental recovery over
the base case of water injection. WAG injection process with WAG ratio of 1:1 and half cycle length of 2 months was found to
be the ideal process for the pilot. In addition to the incremental gain in the pilot area, the surrounding areas of the pilot would
also be benefited due to reduction in water cuts and improvement in ultimate oil recovery. Monitoring of the process would
also be carried out in offset producers (viz. G-W4, W12, W15 and W17).

Production and Injection Issues

Due to the existence of three-phase conditions in the reservoir, the injectivity in the injectors is likely to reduce during WAG
injection. Experience of WAG projects elsewhere indicates loss of injectivity of about 20% but has been manageable4.
Therefore, it was important to have sufficient surface injection pressure for both water and gas injection phases to achieve the
planned injection rates. Planned water injection rate of 150m3/d was achievable with the available water injection facilities
with surface injection pressure of 160-180 kg/cm2.

Monitoring of performance of the pilot

The WAG pilot was operationalised from January 2006 on two months half cycle period. The pilot producer G-W18 indicated
reduction in water cut from 99% to 90%. Offset producer on the eastern side G-W6 indicated decline in water cut from 73% to
25%. Three wells G-W15, G-W13 and G-W8 were zone transferred to this reservoir. Well G-W15 completed in this sand and
was producing with water cut of 95% till September 2002. It was zone transferred back in May-06. The well showed
significant effect of WAG resulting in reduction of water cut as low as 13%. Seeing the encouraging result in G-W15, Well GW13 was zone transferred and started producing since May 2007 with a water cut of 8%. G-W8 was zone transferred and
started producing with an average water cut of 50%. Water cut trend of these wells are shown in Fig 7. Offset producers G-W3
and G-W11 in the eastern side and G-W16, G-W10, G-W5 & G-W2 in the western side on testing did not give encouraging
results. It is concluded that structurally higher wells in the eastern side have contributed significantly under the effect of WAG
injection. Total oil contribution from pilot and offset producers including the impact of WAG is depicted in Fig. 8. Oil
production rate from pilot well improved after initiation of WAG with decline in water cut. Considering the offset wells, oil
rate increased to more than 200 m3/d post initiation of WAG compared to 35m3/d pre-WAG injection. Water cut from the
offset wells declined from 78% to an average 68%. Cumulative oil contribution from pilot and offset producers is about 90
Mm3.
Wells are monitored for GOR and water cut trend. Compositional analysis is also carried out in case of change in
GOR.

Design of commercial scheme

Based on the encouraging results of the WAG pilot, it was decided to expand WAG to full field scale adding reserves.
Accordingly, commercial scheme for the reservoir was simulated using black oil simulator with hysteresis effect. Hysteresis
effect on gas relative permeability was modeled to mimic the WAG mechanism. Maximum possible imbibition residual gas
saturation, Sgrmax, was used to evaluate the shape and path of all imbibition curves which leave the drainage curve at any
saturation.5 The values for Sgrmax for different rocktypes were determined by the relation,
C = 1/(Sgrmax Sgcrit)-1/(Sgmax-Sgcrit)
where C is the lands parameter determined from the lab studies. The values of Sgrmax were estimated about 0.14, which
resulted in good history match in and around the pilot area.
To see the effectiveness of WAG, the model was run with WAG and no WAG case. Comparison of simulation runs
indicated reduction in water cut with WAG injection process in offset producers. This is illustrated in Fig. 9 for Well G-W15.
Full field scale WAG injection was conceived with different WAG patterns and time periods optimizing the number
of additional oil producers and WAG injectors. It was observed that peak gas injection rate of about 0.5 MMm3/d would be
required for full field application of the process. Hence to optimize the gas injection requirement, it is planned that injection of
gas is to be initiated in about half of the injectors at a rate of 25,000m3/d/well and water through the remaining half of injectors
at a rate of 150 m3/d/well alternatively in cycle length of 2 months in repeated cycles for five years. The envisaged
incremental recovery is around 3 % resulting in an ultimate recovery of 50.4%, Fig. 10. Peak water injection rate of 1300-1400

SPE 128848

m3/d and peak gas injection rate of about 0.25 MMm3/d is envisaged for the field scale application. To optimize the recovery
WAG tapering is planned towards the end of WAG injection period. The initiation of field wide application is expected by
2011.
Conclusions
1. Literature survey of WAG project operated elsewhere provided a platform in the learning process.
2. Sensitivity analysis carried out over the hypothetical model demonstrated the effect of grid size, layer splitting,
displacement efficiency on recovery by an immiscible WAG.
3. Laboratory displacement studies with WAG injection in tertiary stage showed improvement in displacement efficiency by
14.5% over water flood in the targeted sand.
4. Simulation of WAG injection process carried out for the pilot area indicated that WAG injection is likely to result in
approximately 9.5 % incremental recovery over the base case of water injection.
5. The identified pilot is based on minimum investment criteria and which can best test the efficacy of the process. The pilot
demonstrated that WAG process causes reduction in mobility of water and results in reduced water cuts. The knowledge
gained from reservoir performance of pilot over three years has emphasized the need for commercial implementation of
the technology in field scale and add reserves of about 0.33 MMm3.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for permission to
publish this paper and to acknowledge the outstanding efforts demonstrated by those personnel of IRS who at one time or
other have contributed to this process and to the personnel of Ankleshwar Asset for implementing this challenging technology
for making tomorrow brighter.
References
A.R.Awan, R. Telgland, J. Kleppe, A survey of North Sea Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Projects Initiated During the years 1975 to
2005 paper SPE 99546 accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22-26 April
IMEX Reference Manual, CMG
J.R. Christensen, E.H. Stenby and A. Skauge, Review of WAG Field Experience, paper SPE 39883 presented at the International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villa Hermosa, Mexico, 3-5 March 1998.
Nestor L. Sanchez, Management of Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Projects, presented at the SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 21-23 April 1999
Nidia A. Crogh, Karen Eide, Siv E. Morterud, WAG Injection at the Statfjord Field, A Success Story, presented at the SPE 13th
European Petroleum Conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., 29-31 October 2002.

SPE 128848

Tables & Figures

Table 1. Basic parameters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Datum depth, m
2
Initial Reservoir Pressure, kg/cm
o
Reservoir Temperature ( C )
Initial solution GOR, v/v
3
3
Oil FVF at Pb, m /sm
2
Pb , kg/cm
Viscosity of oil at Pb, cp.

2815.0
285.0
128
180
1.733

8.
9.

Viscosity of water, cp.

3
Density of oil, Kg/m

0.22
806.6

165
0.176

10. Gas gravity, air=1

3
11. Density of water, Kg/m
12. Sorw

1.14
1050
0.24

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

0.3
0.8
0.16
0.25
0.77

Krw at Sorw
Krg at Sorg
Sorg
Sgrmax
Displacement efficiency

Table 2. Comparison of recovery based on critical parameters

Parameters

Homogeneous

Heterogeneous
Fining upward

Heterogeneous
Coarsening upward

Reference case*

28.82

27.97

29.79

Grid size reduction

28.82

27.99

29.79

No. of layers, 6

28.64

27.73

29.69

No. of layers, 12

28.44

27.52

29.62

28.64

27.77

29.67

28.94

28.09

29.86

Disp. Eff, 66%,

Sorg : 0.24
Disp. Eff, 86%,
Sorg : 0.10

* Reference case: Grid size=50X50m, No.of layes=3, Disp.Eff=77% with Sorg=0.16

Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis in WAG design

Case

WAG Ratio

Half cycle
length

WAG injection
period

Oil
recovery

Incremental
recovery over
base case

(Months)

(Years)

(%)

(%)

Base

Water

56.2

Case-1

1:1

65.7

9.5

Case-2

1:1

65.7

9.5

Case-3

1:1

65.6

9.4

Case-4

1:1

65.7

9.5

Case-5

1:1

65.6

9.4

Case-6

1:2

2+1

66.6

10.4

Case-7

1:2

4+2

66.6

10.4

Case-8

1:2

6+3

66.7

10.5

SPE 128848

Fig. 1-Hypothetical model used in the study

22
20

1/Sg i

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4

C = (1/Sgt) - (1/Sgi)
Land's Parameter (C) =6.0

2
0
0

7
1/Sgt

10

11

12

13

14

Sgi

Sgt

0.272

0.103

6.07

0.199

0.089

6.14

0.080

0.049

7.62

Fig. 2-Gas entrapment from displacement experiments

SPE 128848

Displacement Efficiency, Fraction of HCPV

0.90
0.80

Waterflood+WAG

0.70

14 %
Waterflood

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
PV Inje cte d

Fig. 3-Displacement efficiency Vs. Pore volume injected (1 Cycle of WAG injection)

Displacement Efficiency, Fraction of HCPV

0.90
0.80
0.70

14
%

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

G 1.400
GW
W G1.600
WG
W2.000
G W
1.200
1.800
2.200

1.000

PV Injected

Fig. 4-Displacement efficiency Vs. Pore volume injected (5 Cycles of WAG injection)

SPE 128848

Cumulative Water Produced Vs. Time

Differential Pressure (in atm.) Vs. Time

Cumulative Oil Produced Vs. Time

Cumulative Gas Produced Vs. Time

Fig. 5-Match of experimental data and 1-D simulation results (5 Cycles of WAG injection)

G-W7

G-W5

G-W9

G-W8
G-W13
G-W15

G-W2
G-W18
G-W14

G-W16

G-W4

G-W1

G-W10

G-W3
G-W11

G-W12

Fig. 6-Simulation grid over the pilot area

G-W17

G-W6

M o nt h

Fig. 8-Oil rate from Pilot + Offset producers

Jul-09

Apr-09

Jan-09

Oct-08

Jul-08

Apr-08

Jan-08

Oct-07

Jul-07

Apr-07

Jan-07

Oct-06

WAG Pilot Started

Fig. 7-Water cut trend of pilot & offset producers

250
100

200
80

150
60

100
40

20

Jul-09

May-09

Mar-09

Jan-09

Nov-08

Sep-08

Jul-08

May-08

Mar-08

Jan-08

Nov-07

Sep-07

Jul-07

May-07

Mar-07

Jan-07

Nov-06

Sep-06

Jul-06

60

May-06

80

Jul-06

0
Mar-06

Jan-06

100

Apr-06

50

Jan-06

10
SPE 128848

G-W18

G-W15

G-W7

G-W6

G-W8

G-W4

40
G-W13

20

SPE 128848

11

50

W
ater Cut SC- %

40

30

Decline in WC with WAG

20

10

0
2006-2 2006-3

2006-4

2006-5

2006-6 2006-7
2006-8
Time (Date)

2006-9 2006-10 2006-11 2006-12

2007-1

His60i10_2.irf
His60i10_2_no w ag.irf

Fig. 9-Simulation showing the decline in water cut for Well G-W15

80

6.00e+6
5.50e+6

Cum oil (Full field WAG)

60

RF % (Full field WAG)

4.50e+6
4.00e+6
3.50e+6

40

3.00e+6
2.50e+6
RF % (Base)

2.00e+6
20

1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5

0
1990

2000

2010
2020
Time (Date)

Fig. 10-Comparative performance under Full field WAG

2030

0.00e+0
2040

Oil Prod CumSCTR (m3)

Oil Recovery Factor SCTR

5.00e+6
Cum oil (Base)