DEVELOPMENT OF A PREDECTIVE MODEL FOR EOR WATER

ALTERNATING GAS INJECTION USING PROXY MODEL DERIVIDED

FROM ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODEL

1
Mohammed Alsharif Emhemmed (Member Of Petroleum Engineering Department, Sebha University,
2
Libya), Ir. ZUHER SYIHAB, PhD (Member of Petroleum Engineering stuff, Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

Abstract

EOR has a lot of methods and every method has validation to use it. One of
those methods is the CO2 injection and it is the first largest contributor to
global enhanced oil recovery. injection can be classified into two main
types: continues gas injection (CGI) and water alternating gas injection
(WAG). The objective of this research is to build a predictive model for WAG
injection by use the artificial neural network (ANN) and this model has ability
to give the same outputs that obtained from the WAG process simulator.
GEM-CMG simulator was used to valid the base case and check is work
probably, additional WINPROP-CMG was used to create variation PVT data
and CMOST-CMG used to do a sensitivity analysis for variation inputs and
provide outputs for data base of ANN. The numerical simulator uses 12 input
variables, including field properties and design parameters. Examples of
those inputs are porosity, permeability, gas rate,water rate, reservoir area,
reservoir depth, reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, oil viscosity, oil API
and reservoir thickness. The same of those parameters will be the input data
for the input layer in the artificial neural network, also the output from the
simulator will be the output members of the ANN. ANN is not necessary to
use it during the petroleum process; ANN used just as a faster way for the
prediction. ANN is able to build just mathematical transform uses interconnect
sets of neurons that is able to adapt itself depending on the data fed to the
system. ANN should be learning to find the relationship between the input and
output by training, modify and testing the training parameters, this is called the
training process. If the minimum error has obtained that means the ANN
successful, then the ANN can predict the output just by giving the input
parameters. In this study, the minimum error in this paper is 7 %.

Key words: Predictive Model, miscible WAG injection, ANN, CMG.

Corresponding Author:
Contact: mohammed_Samba@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION
Reservoir simulation models are used by oil and gas companies in the
development of the fields. Where reliable model of a field is often time-

1
 consuming and expensive; models are typically constructed only where large
investment decisions are at stake. Currently, a constructed predictive model
can give us an initial estimation, forecasting reservoir performance for a
variety of operating conditions, also the crude oil makes a major contribution
to the world economy today, where the attention is being paid to Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) techniques for recovering more oil from the existing oil fields.
EOR has a lot of methods but this study included CO 2 WAG injection.
WAG injection has been widely applied since the late 1950s. Christensen, et
al 2001 have reviewed more than 60 fields and compared between those
fields, where WAG has been applied for different type of rock, different depth,
offshore and onshore successfully. Hence, this is our motivations to build a
predictive model for WAG by use Neural Network.
The concept of Neural Networks has been around since the early 1950s, The
neural network is a kind of artificial intelligence technology, it mimics
characteristics of biological neurons like the human processing system,
artificial neural network, acquire, store, and utilizing the knowledge by learning
the knowledge is embedded in the network that can be recalled in response
to the presented information (Zhong, et al 2001). The neural network has
been used in various petroleum engineering areas such as Petrophysics,
production, reservoir engineering areas etc. The neural network has been
successful approach to the time series prediction problems (Michael et al,
1990).
The main object of this paper is to predict model for WAG by using ANN
techniques and compare it with normal mathematical model, using reservoir
properties and the WAG design parameter as the input data for neural
networks by the variation of parameters and those parameters should be valid
to inputs, the second we have to generate data by using a numerical simulator
to provide the output layer for neural network and also compare the WAG
injection with conventional methods (water flood).

There were four categories of variables in this simulation experiment:

1. The first part picked up the reservoir properties such as (porosity,

permeability, depth, etc.)
2. The second part designed parameters that included during the reservoir
simulation such as gas rate, water rate.
3. The third part catching the simulation output and manage the constrain of the
production.
4. The fourth part developed ANN using the input and output data that
generated by numerical simulation.

In a typical neural data processing procedure, the database is divided into

three kinds separate portions called training, validation and test sets:

2
1. Training
These are presented to the network during the training, and the network is
adjusted according to its error. During the training they are another training
parameter play an important factor during developed neural network such as
learning rate and momentum. The learning rate is the training parameter that
control the size, while the momentum give a friction of the previous weight
update the current to the current weight .

2. Validation
These are used to measure network generalization, and halt training when
generalization stops improving.

3. Testing
These have no effect on training and so provide an independent measure of
network performance during and after training.

The Main Component of the Neural Networks:

While general information can flow in any direction within a neural network, it
is more convenient mathematically to have the information flow in one
direction. An Artificial Neural Network is composed of three layers are

1. Input layer:
The input layer always 1 layer and the members of the input layer depend on
the number of input parameters.

2. Hidden layer:
The number of the hidden layer can be obtained by trial and error, where it
has been obtained a lot of instructions about how can be obtain the hidden
layer, but no one of those instructions can be followed, the number and
members of the hidden layer can obtain just by trial and error.

3. Output layer:
This represents the goals of neural network. It means the members of the
output layer depends how many goals that require to obtain.

They are neurons between those layers as shown in the figure 1. The main
purpose of those neurons (weights) to transport the information from the input
layer to the hidden layers and from the hidden layers to the output layer. The
complexity of real neurons is highly abstracted when modelling artificial
neurons. These basically consist of inputs (like synapses), which are
multiplied by weights (Strength of the respective signals), and then computed
by a mathematical function which determines the activation of the neuron.
Another function (which may be the identity) computes the output of the

3
artificial neuron (sometimes in dependence of a certain threshold). ANNs
combine artificial neurons in order to process information.

Figure 1: An artificial neuron

The Back Propagation Algorithm

It is used in the layered feed-forward ANNs. Where the neurons are organized
in layers, and send their signals forward then the error are propagated
backward.
The activation function could be linear or nonlinear function. The activation
function of the artificial neurons in ANNs implementing the back propagation
algorithm is a weighted sum (the sum of inputs multiplied by their weights)

A (x, w) =

Where:

X; inputs parameter.
W; weights

The most common output function that used for ANN is sigmoid function also
known as a logistic function, is given by the following relationship:

Goal (x, y) =

The Main Purpose of WAG Injection:

The purpose of WAG injection is to improve oil recovery, by both increasing
the macroscopic and microscopic sweep efficiency, also to help maintain the
reservoir pressure and also to postpone the gas breakthrough (Don W.
Green, et al., 1998). Where during the gas injection the gas will go to the up
layers, while during the water flood, the water will go to the bottom layer due
to gravity effect, but if WAG had been injected this mean the injected fluid will
sweep high areal of the reservoir (both of them the upper and bottom of the
reservoir layers), then will get high value of sweep efficiency as shown in
figure (2, 3, 4).
4
 water

Unswept area

Figure 2: The gravity effect for the gas injection Figure 3: The gravity effect of the water injection

WAG

Unswept area

Figure 4: The gravity effect during the WAG injection.

Moreover, the WAG will improve the microscopic sweep efficiency through the
miscible CO2. Where the main purpose of the water injection to push the oil
out of the formation through the pressure by direct force, in the same time the
water injection will help to keep the reservoir pressure above the minimum
miscibility pressure, in the other hand, CO2 is able to mix with oil, that is going
to swell the oil. This mean the gravity force will be higher than the capillary
force, after some time the gas will vaporize the light component of the oil
where the oil viscosity will reduce and let the oil to move more easily through
the formation.

The main condition to get the miscibility is to keep the reservoir pressure
above the minimum miscibility pressure; the minimum miscibility pressure is
the lowest pressure at which the interfacial tension between a pair of fluids
vanishes and can be obtained by two ways:

1. Laboratory: Slim tube test.

2. Empirical correlations.

5
There are a lot of empirical correlations but in this study Yellings correlation
was used to calculate the minimum miscibility pressure, the MMP is function
of reservoir temperature, the proposed expression follows:

(Yelling,et al.,1980)

WAG Process Classification:

1. Miscible WAG Injection

It is difficult to distinguish between miscible and immiscible WAG injections.
Miscible projects are mostly found onshore, and the early cases used
expensive solvents like propane, which seem to be a less economically
favourable process at present (Christensen, et al., 2001)

2. Simultaneous Injection of Water and Gas Behind the Front

This type of injection can be classified under the miscible WAG, firstly we
have to inject the gas until it get miscible with oil and then we follow it by
simultaneous water and gas in the same time, but it should there is a gas
band between the miscible zone and water edge and in the same time we
have to consider the WAG ratio. WAG ratio should be calculated under
consider the relative permeability curve for water and gas. This study does
not include any economic factors, it is just focus on how we can get the
miscibility whatever the required of the gas volume (Caudle et al., 1957).

3. Immiscible WAG Injection

This type of WAG process has been applied with the aim of improving frontal
stability or contacting upswept zones to get high sweep efficiency. This type of
WAG process has been applied with the aim of improving frontal stability or
contacting upswept zones to get high sweep efficiency. Sometimes during the
immiscible WAG injection the first gas slug dissolves to some degree into the
oil. This can cause mass exchange (swelling and stripping) and a favourable
change in the fluid viscosity/density relations at the displacement front. The
displacement can then become near-miscible. (Christensen, et al., 2001).

4. Foam Assisted Water Alternating Gas (FAWAG) process

FAWAG is usually introduced in reservoirs with WAG already in use. Hence
FAWAG can be intended to create a foam barrier that impedes the upward
passage of the gas, forcing it spread laterally and in the process contact
previously upswept parts. This method is more effective when the vertical
permeability is high where the foam will prevent the gas segregation, the
movement of gas will be slower than when the normal gas injection, thus the
foam it will make like barrier to segregation the gas (Saleem, Q, et al., 2012).
6
5. Hybrid WAG Injection.
When a large slug of gas is injected, followed by a number of small slugs of
water and gas, the process is referred to as hybrid WAG injection. Other types
based on injection pressures and method of injection.

Methodology:

Start

Problem Identification for Literature Study :

. Understand the important parameters for WAG .
. Identify the input variation data for neural network

Provide a template for WAG injection and

validate it (data collection and preparation )

Create templates by use Run CMOST-CMG simulation for

CMOST-CMG simulation variation templates

Initialize and weight and bias the

neural network

training and test ANN No

Reset

ei (error )<=Target error then

stop the operation
yes

Building a predictive model

for WAG

Result and analysis

Finish

Data collection and preparation:

Some of the parameters that depend on the Fifth SPE paper (The Fifth
Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators) such

7
as relative permeability and capillary pressure data. The another part of the
data depends on the design parameters such as gas injection rate and water
injection rate with the consideration the injection pressure less than fracture
reservoir pressure. The third part of data based on the field experiences,
where in this part should be making sure that the variations suitable for real
data. The field experience data, such as reservoir area. The fourth part of
data based on the screening criteria for Miscible WAG such porosity,
permeability, etc. The screening criteria data after SPE 130726 ( Recent
Developments And Updated Screening Criteria of Enhanced Oil Recovery
Techniques after A.Aladasani , et al., 2010 ). Table 1 shows the data from the
screening criteria:

Table 1: The screening criteria data

PARAMETERS interval
Oil (API) 33-39
Viscosity (CP) 0.1-0.6
Porosity % 11-24 %
Permeability
130-1000
(MD)
Net thickness NC
Depth 7545-8887
Formation Sandston
temperature 194-253

Grid and Reservoir Description (Variations):

In this study three different spot patterns have used 1/8 normal five spot
patters, 1/8 normal nine spot patterns and 1/8 inverse nine spot patterns
where the number of nodes in the I and J was fixed all the scenarios 13*13*3
grids as shown in the figures (5, 6, 7). Also included three different reservoir
areas 15, 25, 35 acre. The variation of the reservoir thickness was 30,120 and
210 feet.

Figure 5: Reservoir model for 1/8 five spot pattern. Figure 6: Reservoir model for 1/8 nine spot pattern.

8
 Figure 7: Reservoir model for 1/8 inverse nine spot patterns

Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Data:

The source of relative permeability and capillary Pressure data from the Fifth
SPE paper where the initial oil saturation is 0.8 and the initial water saturation
0.2. The Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Data was constant for
all the job patterns .

Table 2: The flow path data

Fluid Definitions and Description (PVT DATA):

Three different PVT data has created by used WINPROP-CMG simulation in
this study. The oil viscosity considered at initial reservoir condition and oil API
considered at standard condition. The saturation pressure for each case
calculated by used WINPROP-CMG and MMP calculated by used Yellings
correlation. Table 3 shows the variation scenarios for PVT data. The example
demonstrated to create PVT data has shown in the figure 8.

9
 Table 3: The data included during creates PVT data for all the cases.

Figure 8: Example demonstrated how to create PVT data for case 1

Run sensitivity analysis by use CMOST-CMG:

After obtained the input variations parameters, the sensitivity analysis run to
obtain the output data for ANN. CMOST-CMG used to run the sensitivity
analysis, where this step was included 6 scenarios and all of them have the
same variation just during the water flood scenario the gas injection variation
was not included, The variation data that included in the CMOST-CMG has
shown in the figure 9, where every scenario was include at least 1200 job
pattern:

1. WAG 1/8 five spot pattern.

2. WAG 1/8 nine spot pattern.
3. WAG 1/8 inverse nine spot pattern.
4. Water flood 1/8 five spot patterns.

10
5. Water flood 1/8 nine spot patterns.
6. Water flood 1/8 inverse nine spot patterns.

Reservoir Spot pattern

thickness (five,nine,inverse nine)

Reservoir
porosity Permeability Water rate
area
=0.11,0.15,0.17 = 130,200,300,400,530, =239,192,1
=15,25,35
210 ,0.19,0.22,0.24 600,700,800, 1000 59
acre

Depth= 7545
120 , 7800, 8200
, 8887
30 ft Gas Water injection bbl
/d
injection(ft3/d)= =239. 8988359
114268. 991 , 191. 9190687
,1.37E+ 05 ,159. 9325573
,1.71E+05

Figure 9: Variation parameters in CMOST CMG

Training and Test ANN by use MATLAB

The feed-forward backward propagation was used, 85% of the data was used
in the training of the neural networks and the remaining 15 % of output data
was used to validate the system. The maximum target between the simulation
outputs and expect system output 7%. The transfer functions used for each
hidden layer was the sigmoid function

Building a Mathematical Model

In this case obtain a mathematical model by use the regression function in
excel. Where the regression will include the same data that obtained from
CMOST-CMG. Building a mathematical model will include two goals (oil
recovery for WAG injection and oil recovery for Water flood).

Results and Discussion

Sample simulation run and analysis

Figure 10 shows the comparison of recovery factor for miscible WAG and
water flood for base case. This figure show out how the WAG is able to
recover more oil than the water flood, the gain around 16% due to the high
microscopic sweep efficiency and macroscopic sweep efficiency during the
WAG, as shown in the figure 10 the recovery is the same for the first year
because both of scenarios have same water injection rate in first year. After

11
that the curve of WAG injection will decline due to the pressure decline during
the gas injection, at sixth year noticed that the water scenario cannot displace
more oil, that is indicate the residual oil may be faced one of those
phenomena:

1. The first phenomena may be because the fingering phenomena occurred,

the water has been arrived to production well, and then the oil rate will
increase again due to following oil after the first finger has arrived.
2. The second phenomena may be because of the trapping, it could be
trapping in a single capillary or trapped because the pore doublet. Where the
gravity force will be smaller than the capillary force, this will prevent the oil
move forward to the production well but in the same time, the water still
bypass through the oil and it cannot push it to the production well.
3. The third phenomena may be because the gravity effect where the water
passed through the bottom of the reservoir and residual oil will be in the upper
layers of the reservoir.

Table 4. Lists the input parameters that were used for base template:

12
 Figure 10: comparison of recovery factor for miscible WAG and water flood for base case.

During the WAG scenario, when the gas bank contact with the oil bank, the
gas will condense inside the oil and oil will start to swell, the oil swelling during
the process of miscible CO2 flooding is main factor influencing the
effectiveness of this method to enhance oil recovery, since it will improve the
permeability of the rock when CO2 extracts the residual oil, swells it to let it
move. Thus, the gravity force will be greater than the capillary force, otherwise
the residual oil start to move but the oil droplets continues swelling until the
CO2 vaporize and rise with it the light components. During CO2 WAG
scenario, the main objectives to the water flood is to increase the reservoir
pressure to keep the reservoir pressure above the minimum miscibility
pressure, thus the injection rate will increase, and push the less viscous oil
forward to the production well, while during the gas injection the reservoir
pressure will decrease, thus injection rate will decrease, as shown in figure
13.

Figure 11: Comparison of cumulative Water Production for Water Injection versus CO 2 WAG Injection
for the base Case.

13
 Figure 12: Comparison of cumulative injected Water injection for Water Injection Case versus CO 2
WAG Injection Case.

Figure 13: The oil rate vs time for WAG scenario

Figure 11 shows the Comparison of cumulative Water Production for Water

Injection versus CO2 WAG Injection for the base Case. Where noticed how
the favourable mobility ratio for WAG scenario means delay the break
compare with water scenario, where the oil swelling play an important factor
for delay the breakthrough, the swelling oil will decrees the water relative
permeability. Thus, the mobility ratio will decrease during the WAG injection.
WAG has proven to be very effective as a mobility control and it could be
practise to improve the sweep efficiency. The breakthrough for the water
injection start at 2017 while at the WAG scenario at 2020, the difference
between each scenario around 3 years. Even during the water scenario
required for penalties associated with handling of produced water due to high
amount of water production.

14
The Difference between the WAG And Water Flood
a) WAG reduced costs for gas lift, Injection of CO 2 gas, with the resulting
decrease water injection relative to the base forecast will cause reduced water
production over time. Figure 11 shows a comparison of water production with
and without CO2 WAG. A significant reduction in produced water with CO 2
WAG injection is observed.
b) Reduced future costs/penalties associated with handling of produced
water.
c) Increased capacity for oil, liquid capacity limited. If this capacity constraint
continues, we should see an increased capacity for oil with a reduction of
produced water. This will allow further acceleration of oil recovery as long as
the base forecast is total liquid constrained.
d) Acceleration of CO2 gas recovery, and Possible increased reserves due to
enhanced compaction drive.
e) The late breakthrough for WAG case as shown in the figure 11.

Potential Incremental Costs during CO2 WAG:

a) CO2 supply gas acquisition costs, CO2 supply pipeline and transportation
costs if the CO2 is not available in the field.
b) Additional CO2 compression and rejection/recycle facilities and Additional
CO2 tax for added compression/operations.
c) Upgrading of injection system and wells/wellheads for high pressure CO2
service.
d) Incremental operating costs (include corrosion) for CO 2 WAG
Injection/production and Possible increased well failures & subsidence
Mitigation costs.

Figure 14 shows the sensitivity analysis for WAG ratio, where the WAG ratio
plays an important factor during the WAG injection. Where it could be
designed for two main reasons, the first reason based on the mobility control
and the second for economic purposes, in this figure has shown the increase
of the gas volume that means increase of oil recovery, the oil recovery
increase proportional with gas volume. During the WAG ratio 1:1.5 gave the
same oil recovery with WAG ratio 1:1.2, this is one of advantage of sensitivity
analysis for any fields. The WAG ratio sensitivity analysis will give us
economic prediction for the volume injection.

15
 Figure 14: The sensitivity analysis for WAG ratio.

Example, if WAG has been applied for x field after some time found that gas
volume is not enough for next years, in this case we check how much the gas
volume that can be provide and fix it and it can be run sensitivity analysis for
water injection with variation water rate to obtain the best WAG ratio can be
applied for X field. Some fields have been run sensitivity analysis for WAG
ratio for economic purpose.

CMOST-CMG results
Some scenarios they have given gain by minus that is related to the gravity
segregation affect, this happened when the vertical reservoir permeability is
high and the high reservoir temperature support these phenomena. When the
gas vaporized the light component, this gas phase get high temperature,
where the increase of density inverse proportional with density where the high
temperature will help to rise the gas to the vertical permeability (upper
formation), thus decrease the horizontal flow velocity in the reservoir, the flow
path as shown in the figure 15. Also through the high permeability the
channelling of CO2 is reduced.

16
 Figure 15. The gravity segregation affect

Artificial neural network results

The number of the hidden layers plays an important factor to get less error, by
trial and error the best number of the hidden layer obtained is 3, the members
(neurons) of the hidden layer are 14, 9 and 6 respectively as shown in the
figure 16, and this architecture gave the minimum error for neural network.
The one and two hidden layers used to see if the new architecture could
improve the final prediction , but both of those layers proven have higher
error than three hidden layer. After more trial and error and adjustments, a
final architecture was reached for all job patterns. The system contains 3
hidden layers with eleven neurons and a learning rate and momentum of 0.8.
Table 5, represents the summary of ANN results and mathematical model
results.

Figure 17 Shows how is the neural network fit the data. The whole X axis is
the prediction value for neural network and whole Y axis is the input value of
the neural network (the results from the simulator). Were R^2 for the water
flood is 0.95762 and R^2 for the oil recovery is 0.92554. Figure 18 Shows
input, output versus target where each point will focus on the direct line, any
point lies far from the main group indicate out layers, it may need to
investigate those as additional inside to the problem, the regression line
(colored lines) shows how the out puts centred around the target, also the
overall distance between regression line and direct line is summarize by R
value which should be 1.

17
 Bias 1 Bias 2

WELL
RATIO I/P
Bias 3

area
(acre )
Bias 4

Depth (ft)

Porosity

Permeability WAG RF
(md)

Gas rater
(ft/d)
Water RF

Water rate
(bbl/d)

Reservoir
pressure
(psi)
Thickness
(ft)

Temperature
(f)

Oil viscosity
(cp)
Input layer

Oil API
Hidden layer

Out put
layer

Figure 16: The final architecture model of the artificial neural network.

18
Table 5: Summary of ANN results and mathematical model results.

Figure 17: The fit data for the validation data

Figure 18: The regression of the output versus the target.

19
Table 10: Represent the results of back propagation neural network for WAG
recovery results compared the results of simulator with ANN results.

Table 10: Some results of Oil recovery during the WAG

Table 11: Some results of Oil recovery during water flood

20
The figure 19,20 represented some results of the validation data for the
forward ANN developed for all the job patterns it couldnt pick up all the
validation data in this figure because it will not be clear enough just has
drawn the first 50 sample. They all use three hidden layers in the architecture
with 12, 9 and 6 neurons respectively and a learning rate and momentum of
0.8.

Figure 19: Represents match data for recovery factor during WAG vs. Some number of validation data

Figure 20: Represents match data for recovery factor during water flood vs. Some number of validation
data

The flowing figures shows error % vs. the sample numbers for all the
validation data where the error % for WAG oil recovery was 1.84% while for
water oil recovery the error 0.84%.

Figure 21: Represents the oil recovery factor error % vs. Number of validation data during WAG.

21
 Figure 22: Represents the oil recovery error % vs. Number of validation data during the water flood.

Mathematical Model Results:

The mathematical model that obtained during the WAG injection as following:

Where:

Well pattern: the ratio of the injection wells to the producing wells based on
the spot pattern unit less.
Area: reservoir area (acre).
Depth: reservoir depth (feet).
Permeability: (md).
Gas rate :( FT3/day).
Water rate: BBL/day
Oil viscosity: (centipoises)
API: oil density API
A= -3.60018, a=0.03066, b=0.03629, c=0.000334, d=0.0201, e=0.01101,
f=0.078559, g=0.02303, h=0.335316, j=3.472679, m=0.02043

22
Figure 23: Represents the WAG recovery factor error % vs. Number of validation data (mathematical
model)

The mathematical model that obtained during the water flood as following:

Where:

A= 1.092431, a= 0.00424, b=0.01625, c=0.002541, d=0.00187, e= 0.02105,

g=0.025061, h=0.030893, j=0.487492, m=0.02012

Figure 24: Represents the oil recovery factor error during water flood % vs. Number of validation data
(mathematical model)

23
Conclusion:
A predictive model has developed in compositional WAG floods. The
model with adjustable parameters in the homogenous reservoir, by use
two tools Artificial Neural Network and mathematical model.
The model that obtained by use artificial neural network has proven that it
is more accurate and accept more parameters than mathematical model
that obtained by regression.
WAG provides high recovery for the x filed when compared with
conventional methods due to high sweep efficiency.
Oil swelling plays important phenomena to delay the breakthrough due to
reduce the water relative permeability.
Increase water injection rate gave low RF due to the Flow Dispersion
Effects.
The most favourable conditions to happen gravity segregation are high
temperature and high vertical permeability.

References

A.Aladasani , et al., 2010 Recent developments and Updated screening criteria of

Enhanced Oil recovery Techniques SPE 130726
CAUDLE et al., 1957, Improving Miscible Displacement by Gas-Water Injection, SPE
911, G Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July
16, 1957. Revised manuscript received Sept. 17, 1958. Paper presented at 32nd
Annual FalI Meeting of Society of Petroleum Engineers in Dallas, Tex., Oct. 6-9,
1957.
Christensen, J R, Stenby, E H, Skauge, A, Review of the WAG field experience,
SPE 71203, revised paper 39883, presented at the 1998 SPE International
petroleum Conference and exhibition of Mexico, Villhermosa, March 3-5, 1998.
Paper peer approved 22 January 2001.
Don W. Green, G. Paul Willhite, Enhanced Oil Recovery Henry L. Doherty Memorial
Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1998.
Michael, McCormack, ARC0 Oil & Gas Co. Neural Networks in the Petroleum
Industry, 1990.
Zhong He, SPE, Linyu Yang, John Yen, and Ching Wu, SPE, Texas A&M University,
Neural-Network Approach To Predict Well Performance Using Available Field
Data, SPE 68801 This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western
Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, 2630 March 2001.
Yelling and Metcalf , Determination and Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility
Pressure (SPE 8876), 1980.

24
25