ISSN 2540 - 9352

JEEE Vol. 6 No. 1 Novrianti, Mursyidah, Teguh

Literature Review of Water Alternation Gas Injection

Mohammed A Samba 1, Mahmoud O. Elsharafi 2.

1
Member of Petroleum Engineering Department, Sebha University, Libya
2
McCoy School of Engineering, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA

Abstract
The Water Alternating Gas (WAG) process is a cyclic method of injecting alternating cycles of gas followed by
water and repeating this process over a number of cycles. The main purpose of WAG injection is to improve oil
recovery, by increasing both of macroscopic and microscopic sweep efficiency and to help maintain the reservoir
pressure. Also, WAG injection is to postpone the gas breakthrough. The WAG process provides mobility control
in fast zones which extends gas project life and oil recovery.
This paper provided a comprehensive literature study about WAG injection. This paper has collected most of the
requirements of the petroleum engineers that has to know about the WAG injection started from basic concepts
until the design parameter for WAG injection.

Keywords: Enhanced oil recovery, WAG injection

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) refers to any reservoir process used to change the existing rock/oil/brine
interactions (fluid/fluid interaction; fluid/rock interaction) in the reservoir in order to increase the oil
recovery, and this interaction might reduce the interfacial tension, oil swelling, reduce oil viscosity; also
wetability modification (Don W. Green et al., 1998). The following flow sheet shows the types of
various EOR methods that are currently employed in the oil industry.

Figure 1 Flow Sheet for EOR Methods.

EOR has a lot of methods and every method has its own considerations to use it. One of into two types
those methods is gas injection. Gas injection can be classified: continues gas injection (CGI) and water
alternating gas injection (WAG) but this literature includes the second part WAG injection.
Recently, the WAG injection is widely uses because it has been compared with gas injection and water
injection. It has proven more economically than both of them. WAG has been used in a deep reservoir,
offshore, onshore and in a different rock type successfully (Christensen, et al., 2001).
The Main Purpose of WAG Injection
The main purpose of the miscible gas slugs is to increase the microscopic sweep efficiency, and contact
attic oil in areas not contacted by water injection, in high permeable sandstone reservoirs gravity
33
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

segregation is common. Gas will tend to migrate to the top of the reservoir and the more dense water
will tend to migrate to the bottom of the reservoir, hence attic oil in the upper parts of the reservoir may
be contacted by the injected gas, at the same time the water flood will play as a piston to push forward
the miscible slug and that is will increase the microscopic efficiency because the unswept reservoir area
will be smaller. Thus the residual oil to WAG is less than the residual oil for the water and the residual
oil for gas (Sorwag < Sorw; Sorg). A combination of the improved microscopic displacement efficiency of
gas injected with the improved macroscopic displacement efficiency by water injection improved oil
recovery can be achieved (Caudle, et al., 1957), (Suphattra, et al., 2011). Figure (2), (3), (4) shows how
the WAG injection could sweep more area in the reservoir.

water
Gas

Unswept area

Unswept area

Figure 2 The gravity effect during the gas injection. Figure 3 The gravity effect during the water injection.

WAG

Unswept area

Figure 4 The gravity effect during the WAG injection.

WAG PROCESS CLASSIFICATION

The classification of WAG injection provide a deep understanding of the accurate design for WAG
injection. Howevere, in general, WAG can be classified into six types depending on how they are used:
a. Miscible WAG Injection
It is difficult to distinguish between miscible and immiscible WAG injections. In many cases
multicontact gas/oil miscibility may have been obtained, but much uncertainty remains about the actual
displacement process. It has not been possible to isolate the degree of compositional effect on oil
recovery by WAG injection. Miscible projects are mostly found onshore, the early cases used expensive
solvents like propane, which seem to be a less economically favourable process at present. Most of the
miscible projects reviewed are re pressurized in order to bring the reservoir pressure above the minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP) of the fluids, because of failure to maintain sufficient pressure, meaning
loss of miscibility, real field cases may oscillate between miscible and immiscible gas during the life of
the oil production. Most miscible WAG injections have been performed in a close well spacing, but
recently miscible processes have also been attempted even at offshore type well spacing (Christensen,
et al., 2001).
b. 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 be there is a gas band between the miscible zone and water edge and in the same time we have
34
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

to consider the WAG ratio. WAG ratio should be calculated under consider the relative permeability
curve for water and gas, this type does not include any economic factors just focus on how we can get
the miscibility condition whatever the gas volume injected (Caudle, et al., 1957).
c. Immiscible WAG Injection
This type of WAG process has been applied with the aim of improving frontal stability or contacting
unswept zones to get high sweep efficiency. Some applications have been in reservoirs where gravity-
stable gas injection cannot be applied because of the limited gas resources or reservoir properties, such
as low dip or strong heterogeneity. In addition to sweep efficiency, the microscopic displacement
efficiency may be improved. The residual oil saturations are generally lower for WAG injection than
for a water flood and sometimes even lower than a gas flood, owing to the effect of three-phase and
cycle dependent relative permeability.
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 favorable change in the fluid
viscosity/density relations at the displacement front, the displacement can then become near-miscible
(Christensen, et al., 2001).
d. Foam Assisted Water Alternating Gas (FAWAG) process
FAWAG is usually introduced in reservoirs with WAG already in use. 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 (Saleem, Q, et al., 2012). This method is more effective when
the vertical permeability so high, thus the foam it will make like barrier to prevent the gas segregation.
Figure 5 shows how the FWAG can improve oil recovery factor.

Figure 5 Oil recovery after FAWAG application after (Saleem, Q, et al., 2012).

e. Chemically WAG Injection ( CWAG )

Chemical Wag injection is a Chemical slug ( mixture of alkaline, surfactant and plymer) which will be
injected during WAG process to reduce interfiail tension (IFT) and improve the mobility ratio. In a
CWAG process, a chemical slug is a chases by water, preceded by gas slug and followed by alternate
CO2 and water slug or chemical slug injects after one cycle of gas and water slug (Don W. Green et al.,
1998).
f. 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.

35
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

Previous Studies about WAG Injection :

A review of WAG field experience has been done in 2001, this review considered about 59 fields, started
from the first reported WAG injection in 1957 in Canada with hydrocarbon miscible WAG to the new
experience in the North Sea. Since the WAG has been applied to the most fields around the entire world
and is going to increase as shown in the figure 6 (Christensen, et al., 2001).
The Performance of WAG in a Stratified Reservoir “Hassi-Messaoud Field; Algeria” has been presented
in 2004, the objective of this study is to improve the sweep efficiency by calculating the optimum WAG
parameters (WAG ratio, WAG cycle, etc.). After they have run a sensitivity analysis with variant WAG
ratio and WAG cycle, the study obtained the optimum WAG ratio 2 and WAG cycle (1 year) (Nabil, et
al., 2004).
A case study has been done in the Hassi Massaoud field-Algeria, With most than 40 years of miscible
gas injection history, the necessary gas injection volume is increasing year after year according to the
development plan of the field. In order to reduce gas injection volume need of gas volume and increase
the recovery, a WAG Pilot was implemented in the field in 2006 with full package of measurements to
understand the behavior of the fluids in the Hassi Massaoud field with a reservoir describes like very
heterogeneous (Belkacem, et al., 2004).
Water Alternating Gas Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Phitsanulok Basin has been done in
2011. The WAG has been applied in this field for two reasons, the first reason, because the water flood
has been applied successfully since 1980, the second reason because there is enough gas available in
this basin. The objective of this study is to determine the appropriate operational program of the study
field and to estimate the recovery efficiency of the WAG method by using the reservoir simulation
eclipse-300 (Suphattra, et al., 2011).
Improving Miscible Displacement by Gas Water Injection has been presented in 1957, the objective of
this study is to find a way to increase the sweep efficiency during miscible displacement process, and
compare the results with conventional method. The results of this study, state that there is one way to
increase the sweep efficiency by decreasing the mobility behind the front. It also obtained that the
simultaneous injection of gas and water behind the miscible displacement will reduce the relative
permeability to gas and lower total mobility ratio, where the gas zone should be exists between miscible
slug and the edge of the water. Comparative study has proven that the simultaneous WAG gave 90 %
of sweep efficiency, while the continues gas injection gave 60 % of sweep efficiency (Caudle, et al.,
1957).

Figure 6 Cumulative number of worldwide WAG application from the first project in 1957 to 1996 (Christensen, et al.,
2001).

MOBILITY CONTROL PROCESS

The mobility ratio controls the areal sweep efficiency in the reservoir and the vertical sweep efficiency
is controlled by the difference in the density of the injected and displacing fluids (Don W. Green et al.,
1998).. As have mentioned the low residual oil saturation in the swept zones, overall poor volumetric
reservoir sweep and early break through are the main concerns in gas field. The unfavorable mobility

36
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

ratio in gas floods being the main cause. Flood profile control in gas fields is instrumental for a
successful project (Caudle, et al., 1957).
Most of the researches going to improve the flood profile during gas fields. These include the direct
thickeners with gas soluble chemical like Telechelic Disulfate, Polyflouroacrylate and Flouroacrylate-
Styrene copolymers, which can increase the viscosity of gases several folds (e.g. For CO2 viscosity
increase from 2 – 100 fold). Other methods such as, modifications in the injected slug such as the use
of Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) instead of water for highly viscous oils in low pressure, poorly producing
and unconsolidated formations are also proposed, most of those studies are still inception or
experimental stage and until now have not except as a part of the current commercial flooding
technology (Moritis, G, 1995).
The mobility ratio should be ≤1, usually denoted as favorable mobility ratio. While if the M >1 then it
means unfavorable displacement, where the mobility ratio equal:
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑀= (1)
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
k /μ
M = k rd /μ d (2)
ro o

Where
k rd = Relative permeability of displacing fluid
k ro = Relative permeability of displaced fluid.
μd = viscosity of the displacing fluid.
μo = viscosity of the displaced fluid.
Based on previous equation, the mobility ratio should be less than 1 to prevent the early break through
(improve macroscopic efficiency). But in this formula calculate only the mobility ratio by consider the
relative permeability and viscosity of displacing and displaced fluid. There are another factor that effect
on mobility ratio like the different permeability between the reservoir layer, porosity, area, etc. But in
the some fields the mobility ratio depends that velocity of displaced fluid should be equal or smaller
than the velocity of displaced fluid (vw≤vo) and in this case it should be calculate the both of velocities
by use Darcy law and this way is more accurate to calculate the mobility ratio. Additionally, we have to
consider the geological factor that may lead to unexpected passing of fluid because the channelling in
the high permeability zone or fracture.

Figure 7 Mobility control process during WAG injection .

37
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

WAG PROCESS
The WAG process today is most commonly employed around the entire world. In recent years there has
been an increasing interest in water alternating- gas (WAG) processes, both miscible and immiscible.
We can notice that almost all the commercial miscible gases today employ the WAG method to use
different types of gases such as Phitsanulok basin (Suphattra, et al., 2011). The better type of gases used
for the miscible displacement is the CO2, because when miscible CO2 applied, the required injection
pressure less than when use another gas injection. Also the gas injection has higher microscopic
displacement efficiency than the water injection efficiency as have explained due to low interfacial
tension between oil and gas phase.
Figure 8 shown the WAG process. It should ensure the miscible slug size be enough to create the
miscibility, in the same time the miscible slug size will not disappear before the miscible slug has arrived
to the producing wells, and ensure the following fluids will not breakthrough the miscible zone otherwise
loss the miscibility will happen.After injected the miscible zone, gas and water injected respectively,
where the period between the gas injection and water flood it call WAG cycle. The ratio of the volume
of gas injected to the volume of water injected it calls the WAG ratio. Those factors play important
factors during WAG design especially to improve the economic side of projects.
As we have mentioned the using of WAG process is increasing and recently some oil recovery methods
use the proper produced gaseous hydrocarbon as injection fluid. This is an interesting alternative for
offshore operations due to the limitations of gas available, storage and exportation. This option is mainly
attractive if the offshore field produces (Suphattra, et al., 2011).
About 40 % of projects in United State are CO2 injection, most of them are WAG and almost of those
projects about 80 % of WAG in US reported in economic success. The WAG has been applied to
different types of reservoir, immiscible and miscible projects (process type), also included percentage
of rock type that has applied by WAG, onshore and offshore WAG, and at last the different types of the
gas injection as shown in figure 10 (Christensen, et al., 2001).

Figure 8 WAG process (Zahoor, et al., 2011).

38
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

Figure 9 Compare study for WAG and conventional method (Nabil, et al., 2004).

Figure 10 WAG survey – Distribution / Application of WAG (Christensen, et al., 2001).

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAG PROCESS

The water-alternating-gas process (WAG) was originally proposed to improve sweep efficiency during
gas injection and it combines the advantages of water flooding give better microscopic displacement
efficiency and improved macroscopic but during the production some operation problems are very
difficult to avoided because the alternative between the gas and water, otherwise cause a lots of problem
more than continues gas injection, the most popular problems during the WAG fields are:
a) Early Breakthrough in Production Wells
Early gas breakthrough is a common occurrence especial in gas cycling operations, or in nitrogen floods
in gas condensate reservoirs. This is often due to nitrogen or dry gas migration through thief zones or
natural fractures. Actually during the gas injection the relative permeability of the gas is high because
that it give high mobility ratio for the gas injection, while during the WAG injection, the water will fill

39
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

some pores, thus the relative permeability of gas will decrease due to the decrease the effective
permeability, then the mobility ratio will decrease (Nabil, et al., 2004).
The mobility ratio plays an important factor to control the break through, early breakthrough mostly
occur when poor understanding of the reservoir heterogeneity happened. This problem is very critical
to solve it. There are some fields reported that they closed their wells for long time before the schedule
due to the early breakthrough, this will causes the loss of the pressure; loss of miscibility, it will result
low recovery factor (Christensen, et al., 2001). To avoid the early break through does not depend only
on the injecting fluid, also depends on reservoir heterogeneity and perforation set. Vertical cross flow
has the significant effect on the break through, where it depends on fluid density difference, actual flow
velocity, and ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability. During the WAG the water will follow after
the gas, the alternate between the gas and the water will help to delay the break through (L.G. Jones, et
al., 1989).
b) Reduced Injectivity
Loss of injectivity and/or failure of pressure maintenance in the actual reservoir, attributable to many
factors, cause the process to fluctuate between miscible and immiscible during the life of the process.
Less the injectivity mean less the injecting fluids (gas or water), this it will cause the loss of miscibility
(drop the reservoir pressure). The cause for reduced injectivity could be a change in relative permeability
owing to three-phase flow (Christensen, et al., 2001). Reduce the injectivity may cause decreased the
production rate correspondingly due to the decreased injectivity, also can be result of redistribution of
pressure profile when the injection is change from the gas to water and vertical permeability is limited
(Nabil, et al., 2004).
The residual CO2 saturation is suspected to be a significant factor for reducing injectivity during WAG
processes for CO2 EOR projects. There is increasing interest in minimizing CO2 (greenhouse gas)
emissions by sequestrating CO2 in depleted oil and gas reservoirs or in saline aquifers. The interest in
increasing CO2 injection into geological formations requires a better understanding of mechanisms and
extent of CO2 plume development and subsequent dissolution into formation brine (Reid, et al.,2007).
The residual CO2 consider one of the main factors that cause reduced the injectivity, during the WAG
the loss of injectivity commonly occurs through the change between the displacing fluids (gas and water)
except the simultaneous WAG injection, but we can control this by run sensitivity of WAG ratio and
WAG cycle, also pattern injection strategy play an important factor to avoid reduced the injectivity
especially when the distance between the well locations is not far. The injection rate and WAG ratio
could control the water and gas injectivity into low and high permeability layers. The injectivity into
each layer depends on the WAG ratio and the volume of fluid injected in each cycle.
c) Corrosion
The breaking down or destruction of a material, especially a metal through chemical reactions. The most
common form of corrosion is rusting, which occurs when iron combines with oxygen and water.
CO2 is a corrosive material when combined with water, there was uncertainty regarding the severity of
corrosion. Experience indicates that corrosion has not been a severe problem mainly because of the
preventative measures taken by industry. Methods to reduce corrosion include the use of corrosion
inhibitors, and fiber glass gathering systems. The problem focus when we use the facilities of the
secondary recovery during the tertiary period and those facilities designed for the secondary recovery.
The mechanism for this problem that the small hole formed on the surface of steel, as a result of the
collision between the small sands that associated with the production fluids and surface of steel then
after provide the suitable condition it will form corrosion.
They were some fields have been reported corrosion problems during WAG injection, those problems
seem to occur mainly on the injection side, and in two cases (Wertz Tensleep and Purdy Springer) the
submersible pumps were affected. These problems have been solved, in most cases, by usage of high
quality steel (different kinds of stainless steels or ferric steel), coating of pipes, and treatment of
equipment (Christensen, et al., 2001).
40
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

d) Scale Formation
Scale formation is a major problem in the oil industry. They may occur in down hole or in surface
facilities. The formations of these scales plug production lines and equipment and impair fluid flow.
Their consequence could be production equipment failure, emergency shutdown, increased maintenance
cost, and an overall decrease in production efficiency. This problem is always happen when we produce
through the casing. The formation stress will effect on the pipes as results as of failure the pipe lines,
sometimes it will damage the coated with an extra layer for corrosion protection, otherwise it will stop
the production and it will need either for chemical squeeze treatments or repairing the damage.
e) Different Temperatures of Injected Phases
In the WAG injection, inject the gas and the water from the same wells, the gas and water have different
temperature, due to the different temperature between the water and the gas , the pipe will exposed to
the different temperatures (Expansion and contraction) related tubing failures. This problem has been
reported in the Brage case, further adjustment of the possibility for tubing expansion eliminated this
problem in other WAG injectors. Quarantine Bay34 (CO2 injection) is another example of adjusting the
injection design to successfully prevent this problems. In modern studies equipped this problem to create
the steam assisted WAG (Christensen, et al., 2001).
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE WAG PROCESS
It is very important to understand the design parameters for WAG injection, because we have to know
the effects of each parameter, that is will feed us by more understanding for WAG mechanism. The most
important parameters for WAG design are the reservoir characteristics and heterogeneity, rock and fluid
characteristics, composition of injection gas, injection pattern, WAG ratio, relative permeability effects
and flow dispersion etc.
1. Reservoir Heterogeneity and Stratification
Reservoir heterogeneity controls the injection and sweep patterns in the flood. All studies that have been
reported about reservoir heterogeneity and stratification indicate that the reservoir heterogeneity has a
strong influence on the oil recovery process. The horizontal fluid flow in the vertical communication
porous strata is influenced by flow perpendicular to the bulk flow caused by viscous forces, capillary
forces, gravity and depression (Rogers, et al., 2000). Cross-flow may influence to increase the vertical
sweep, but generally the effects are detrimental to oil recovery – mainly due to the gravity segregation
and decreased flow velocity in the reservoir. This leads to reduced frontal Advancement in lower
permeability layer. WAG injection and continuous gas injection are more strongly affected by these
phenomena.
Additionally, understanding the heterogeneity stratification is very important, otherwise will understand
the fluid injection behaviour, a lot of reservoirs have reported problems because of misunderstanding of
the heterogeneous stratification of the reservoir. The most common problems such as loss of miscibility,
channelling during the injection.
They are two methods to calculate the heterogeneous of formation, the first method is Stiles’s method,
the properties of this method are identical except the absolute permeability. Also, it is used only for
linear flow and limited range of mobility ratio. The second method to calculate the heterogeneous
formation is Dekstra – Parsons Method, the main advantage of this method is a wide range of mobility
ratio (M), also it can be used for radial flow and it is an easy and quick method to give qualitative values
for the recovery factor for projects.
However, the effects of reservoir specific and the overall effect are dependent on various parameters
such as permeability, porosity, reservoir pressure, capillary pressure and mobility ratio. We have to
understand the real concept for heterogeneity and stratification of the reservoir to ensure the success of
the project.

41
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

2. Rock and Fluid Characteristics

Christensen, et al., 2001 have shown the successful miscible displacements application for WAG for
various types of reservoir with different types of rocks such carbonate, limestone, dolomite and
sandstone reservoirs. All of those types of rock applied with different types of gases such as hydrocarbon
and non hydrocarbon gases as injection fluids.

Figure 11 Rock types where WAG injection has been applied (total of 59 projects) (Christensen, et al., 2001).

3. Injection Gas Characteristics

Injection gas characteristics are more important for WAG projects, the injection gases are used for WAG
can be classified into three groups: CO2, hydrocarbons, and non hydrocarbons (CO2 excluded).
Choosing the type of gas injection depends on the location of the field where it depends on the
availability of gas in the field. At Phitsanulok basin they applied WAG injection because there is enough
gas in the field whatever this type of gas (Suphattra, et al., 2011). There is a good example of this issue
at Ekofisk field where miscible hydrocarbon WAG was suggested to be suitable for Ekofisk, even
though CO2 WAG yielded higher incremental production under laboratory conditions, but CO2 is not
available in Ekofisk field because that they used hydrocarbon WAG for this field. The entire offshore
fields use hydrocarbon WAG, however the option to use CO2 is being tested for environmental concerns
(Christensen, et al., 2001). Figure 12 shows the types of injection gas used for WAG applications.

Figure 12 Types of injection gas used in WAG applications (total of 59 projects) (Christensen, et al., 2001).

4. Injection Pattern
Pattern flooding is principally employed in reservoir in order to ensure a uniform sweep, the injection
wells are distributed among the production wells into injectors or by drilling infill injection wells.
The WAG has been applied for different types of injection pattern, where the five spot most popular for
the most fields that have been reviewed, even it give high cost since it gives the best control over the
process. This review reported about 9-spot pattern in miscible WAG and hybrid WAG (Christensen, et
al., 2001).

42
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

Actually to choose of the injection pattern depends on reservoir geology and reservoir type, also the
volume of the reservoir rock (oil bearing), to be swept. The problem is recently most of the fields they
do not do plan of development of the filed in initial life of the field, actually we can control the injection
pattern just if we did plan of development in the early time before the random drilling happened. Thus,
it will be very difficult to choose the proper injection pattern due to the randome drilling.
5. Tapering
Tapering is decreasing the amount of the gas to water ratio, tapering apply to control the gas mobility
and avoid override phenomena to avoid the early break through, also applied for economic purpose.
Tapering is especially important when an expensive gas source is used.
6. WAG Ratio
It is the volume of injected gas divided by the volume of the injected water at reservoir condition in each
cycle. The WAG ratio design depends on the mobility consideration and also economic considerations,
we can see in figure 13 the WAG ratio has a significant effect on the EOR. In this case were run to test
for sensitivity the number and the duration of alternating cycles (WAG ratio), the recovery factor
decreases as the WAG ratio decreases.

Figure 13 Effect of WAG ratio on oil recovery (L.G. Jones, et al., 1989).

During the WAG projects we have to run a sensitive analysis for WAG ratio and see how it is effecting
on our field and obtain the economic volume for gas injection, at the same time consider the highest
recovery factor. Christensen, et al., 2001 indicated that the most popular WAG ratio is 1:1, this ratio has
been applied for the most fields, that it does not mean that WAG ratio 1:1 will give us higher recovery,
the decision to take the optimum WAG ratio it depends on the gas availability and reservoir
heterogeneity, also it should be consider the economic side to inject high gas volume.
7. Flow Dispersion Effects
Dispersed flow is characterized by the flow where one phase is dispersed in the other continuous phase.
This flow configuration is observed in all types (gas-liquid, gas-solid, liquid-liquid and liquid-solid) of
two-phase flows. There are a lot of factors that effect on the flow dispersion during the displacement
such as heterogeneity, permeability, etc.
During the simulation the pseudo relative permeability curves control numerical dispersion by
accounting for the difference in block sizes between the fine grid and the model grid. The WAG injection
results in a complex saturation pattern as both gas and water saturations increase and decrease
alternatively. This results in special demands for the relative permeability description for the three
phases (oil, gas and water). The effect of the unstable frontal advance during the displacement that might
cause the dispersion.
A successful miscible-flood simulator should allow for the possibility of unstable frontal advance and
must describe the dispersion phenomenon, special that related to the determination of effective fluid
properties (Caudle, et al., 1957).

43
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

8. Gravity Considerations in WAG

It is recognized the gravity plays an important role in all reservoirs especially in the thicker reservoir. A
few computer runs indicated that gravity effects can be significant if the viscous forces are not sufficient
to overcome gravity forces. The effect on production and sweep due to gravity was sensitive to injection
rate and the ratio of the thief zone to matrix permeabilities (L.G. Jones, et al., 1989). WAG flooding is
often limited by the gravity segregation, which causes the injection of the gas to rise to up of the
formation and water to the bottom as shown in figure 2, 3 and 4.
The stability of the WAG front based on the travelling-wave solution concept, often referred to as
gravity-stable displacement. The travelling-wave solution corresponds to a balance of the effects of
gravity and heterogeneity, resulting in a uniform velocity of the displacement front in a cross section
and hence to a high vertical sweep efficiency. This is in contrast to the general situation where the
displacement front moves faster in highly permeable zones (viscous tonguing) or in gas and water
gravity tongues (George, 1994).
The Gravity-segregated multiphase flow takes place in reservoirs with high vertical permeability and
large distances between wells, a situation relevant for many North Sea reservoirs. The gravity estimates
the gravity segregation and hence controls the sweep efficiency. Although the purpose of WAG injection
is to mitigate the gravity segregation effects and provides a stable injection profile, WAG in down dip
reservoirs proved better profile control and higher recoveries for a lot of projects. Hence the gravity
considerations in WAG design are indispensable.
9. Laboratory Studies and Simulation
The laboratory studies are very important for successful WAG flooding where laboratory studies
underway, opening a new window of opportunities for EOR methods. The absence of reliable data leads
to an inadequate understanding of reservoir behaviour and consequently to poor predictions (Blunt, MJ.
et al, 1994). The laboratory studies consider one of the most important factors to choose the type of EOR
methods that will be success in the field.
The slim tube tests, PVT data, swelling tests and tertiary core floods, all of those tests doing through
laboratory studies (George, 1994), all of those tests are very important during the miscible WAG
injection. There are another process depends on the laboratory tests such as simulation process, the
simulation is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be
studied to see how the system works. By changing variables in the simulation, predictions may be made
about the behaviour of the system. It is a tool to virtually investigate the behaviour of the system under
study.
The laboratory studies should be very accurate to ensure getting the accurate results during the
simulation. The results of the simulation depend on the accuracy of the Laboratory results. The quality
of data to the simulator is the key to provide the quality results of predictions.
10. Effect of Brine Composition
During the injection there are small solid material (fines) it will migration, since some time they
recognized those fines have affect on the recovery factor, it will effect on the flow behavior (relative
permeability) of the reservoir rock. The migration of the fines occurs because the motion of the fluid
through the pore of the rock where some rock will loss it compaction and it will go to fragmentation.
Laboratory studies have shown that brine salinity, composition and pH can have a large effect on the
microscopic displacement efficiency of oil recovery by water flooding and imbibitions (Eng, J H,
Bennion, et al., 1993).
CONCLUSION
An extensive review of the WAG injection process has been presented. This study will introduce all the
requirements information about the WAG injection.

44
 Mohammed A. Samba, Mahmoud O. elsharafi/JEEE Vol. 07 No. 02/2018

REFERENCES
Belkacem, et al., (26-28 June 2007 ) Miscible WAG Pilot - Hassi Messaoud field Field, Algeria IFP -
OAPEC Joint Seminar "Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) Techniques and Their Role In Boosting
The Recovery Factor" Rueil-Malmaison, France.
Blunt, MJ. et al, (Feb. 1994) : "A Predictive Theory for Viscous Fingering in Compositional
Displacement" SPERE 73.
CAUDLE et al., (Oct. 6-9, 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.
Christensen, J R, Stenby, E H, Skauge , A, (January 2001) “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.
Don W. Green, G. Paul Willhite, (1998) Enhanced Oil Recovery Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of
AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Eng, J H, Bennion, D B, Strong, J B, (Oct 1993) Velocity Profiles in perforated completions, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 49 – 54.
George A , Virnovsky,( 1994) Stability of Displacement Fronts in WAG Operations ,SPE 28622 ,first
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in New Orleans, LA,
U.S.A.
L.G. Jones, A.S. Cullick, and M.F. Cohen, Mobil R&D Corp. (1989) WAG Process Promises Improved
Recovery in Cycling Gas Condensate Reservoirs, SPE 19113 this paper was prepared for
presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Dallas, Texas.
Moritis, G, (1995), Impact of production and development RD&D ranked”, Production Editor, Oil and
Gas Journal.Vol 93, Issue 44.
Suphattra et al.(2011), Water Alternating Gas Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery in The Phitsanulok
Basin.

Nabil, et al., (2004) The Performance of WAG in a Stratified Reservoir, Hassi-Messaoud Field, Algeria
, SPE 88482 , This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia.
Reid B. Grigg and Robert K. Svec (2007), CO2 Retention and Injectivity, Sixth Annual Conference on
Carbon Capture and Sequestration – DOE/NETL.
Rogers, J D, Grigg, R B, (2000) A literature analysis of the WAG injectivity abnormalities in the CO2
process , SPE 59329, presented at the 2000 review SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery symposium
on held in Tulsa, OK.
Saleem Qadir Tunio and Tariq Ali Chandio,(2002), Recovery Enhancement with Application of
FAWAG for a Malaysian Field ,Published: Faculty of Geoscience and Petroleum Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia.
Todd, M.R. and Longstaff, WJ, (1972),The Development, Testing and Application of a Numerical
Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance," JPT 874; Trans., AIME, 253.
Zahoor, M.K ; Derahman, M.N; Yunan, (2011) , WAG process design – an Updated Review. Barazilain
jornal of petroleum and gas.

45