WAG May Improve Gas-
Condensate Recovery
A.S. Cullick, SPE, and H.S. Lu, Mobil E&P Technical Center; L.G. Jones, SPE, Consultant; and
M.F. Cohen, SPE, and J.P. Watson, SPE, Mobil E&P Technical Center
Summary. This paper shows that the water-alternating-gas (WAG) process may improve sweep efficiency and gas-condensate recov-
ery compared with continuous cycling in highly stratified reservoirs. The study used extensive numerical simulation to investigate the
sensitivity of the process to several variables, including reservoir layering, permeability, relative permeability, capillary pressure, and
trapped gas. The process mechanics were confirmed by laboratory displacements in layered core.
Introduction
Many WAG process applications have been proposed and applied
to improve sweep efficiency of injected gas in miscible and immis-
cible floods in oil reservoirs. Use of WAG to improve sweep effi-
ciency in a gas-cycling, pressure-maintenance process in a gas-
condensate reservoir has not been reported.
Gas injected to maintain pressure in gas-condensate reservoirs
can lead to early gas breakthrough, low sweep efficiency, disap-
pointing condensate yield, and high compression costs because of
gas channeling in high-permeability strata. In this computer simu-
lation study, we show that the WAG process improves gas sweep
and ultimate recovery. Water increases recovery by acting as a di-
verting agent by preferentially entering high-permeability channels
and diverting injected dry gas to lower-permeability channels, by
sweeping gas condensate out of the low-permeability strata through
imbibition and because of the water's favorable mobility, and by
preferentially sweeping the lower part of the reservoir that is un-
swept by gas.
In conventional practice, water is not injected into a gas-conden-
sate reservoir because of the possibilities of losing reserves to
trapped gas condensate, killing wells with water invasion, and reduc-
ing injectivity. In contrast to a waterflood, in a WAG process, water
follows and traps dry gas, not gas condensate; water production
can be avoided by designing the process so that only small water
slugs and a small total water volume are used. Gas injectivity es-
sentially is restored after each water slug injection.
We present detailed results of a fully compositional reservoir
simulation of a synthetic layered system and discuss the effects of
reservoir and process parameters on WAG performance. We ad-
dress concerns about potential adverse effects from water injection
and present laboratory displacement data that demonstrate the proc-
ess in a two-layer core with different permeabilities.
Simulation '
The purpose of the simulations is to use synthetic, prototype models
to study process mechanisms in general, not for a particular reser-
voir. Our results from one cross-sectional model compare pressure-
maintenance operations by continuous gas injection with those from
the WAG process. The model has three strata and approximately
represents a 160-acre inverted five-spot pattern. We use a fully com-
positional simulator that incorporates a Peng-Robinson equation of
state (EOS) for fluid properties. The simulator was described
previously. 1
Model Configuration. The model, called the' 'three-permeability
layer model," is a "layer-cake" model with three different per-
meability layers (Fig. 1). The model is a prototype developed from
reservoir kh core and well-log data that were averaged into three
permeability strata (high, moderate, and low permeability) by taking
a geometric average within the permeability ranges. The high-
permeability layer is "" 8 % of the total thickness and has average
permeability ratios of "" 100: 1 and"" 10: 1 compared with the low-
and moderate-permeability strata, respectively.
Copyright t 993 SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993
The 2D cross-sectional model has a horizontal, 69-ft-thick, lO-md
moderate-permeability stratum at the top; an 8-ft-thick, 100-md
high-permeability stratum in the middle; and a 23-ft-thick, I-md
low-permeability stratum at the bottom. Fig. 1 shows the "base-
case" model [110 cells (22 x 5) and a 1,870-ft well-to-well distance]
representing an inverted five-spot well pattern (with constant y di-
mension) of "" 160 acres.
Continuous gas injection was 82,500 sefiD and reached a cumula-
tive total of "" 1.22 HCPV after 23 years. Injection was balanced
by production. WAG consisted of injecting water at a reservoir
volume equal to the gas (240 days of 76-BID water slug injection)
alternately with the gas, beginning the first water cycle after initial
gas breakthrough. Each water slug was ",,0.035% HCPV, and the
gas/water ratio was 0.92. Fifteen WAG cycles were performed dur-
ing the 23 years.
Fluid and Rock Properties. Fluids representative of three typical
gas-cycling projects were chosen. Table 1 compares the fluid char-
acteristics with those in representative gas-cycling projects. The
gas condensate and dry gas were three-component synthetic fluids
of ethane, propane, and butane. They were assumed to be first-
contact miscible because the pressure was maintained above the gas-
condensate dewpoint pressure; the hydrocarbons therefore remained
single phase throughout the simulation (except for the blowdown
sensitivity case). In addition to relative permeability, fluid viscosity
and density ratios determine fluid flow characteristics (i.e., rela-
tive mobility and gravity segregation).
For the base case, initial saturations were assumed to be 75%
gas condensate and 25 % water; trapped gas saturation by water was
28 %. The saturation endpoints and 0.1 water relative permeability
at trapped gas saturation used were reported by Chierici et al. 2
to be representative of an outcrop limestone. Fig. 2 shows the rela-
tive permeability curve. Porosity was 12 %, and kv/kH was
assumed to be 0.5.
Base-Case Simulator Results. Fig. 3 shows the recovery curves
at 1 HCPV injection; WAG recovery is "" 78 % of original hydrocar-
bon in place (OHIP) after 19.7 years compared with ",,61 % for
gas injection after 19. 1 years (a 28 % increase. Initial gas break-
through is at "" 3.3 years (i.e., at 0.17 HCPV).
Relative permeability, viscosity (mobility), and gravity mecha-
nisms contribute to this improvement. Injected water preferentially
enters the l00-md layer at the injection wellbore, reducing gas rela-
tive permeability in that stratum. Injected dry gas therefore is divert-
ed to the top lO-md stratum, where it sweeps that stratum. Because
of a favorable mobility ratio, injected water sweeps the l00-md
stratum efficiently and displaces the dry gas from the gas-swept
regions; gas use efficiency is increased ~ignificantly with WAG.
Water also crossflows into the bottom I-md layers because of gravi-
ty. At 1 HCPV total injection, WAG required 40% less gas than
continuous injection, but recovered 28 % more original condensate.
Fig. 4 compares the fraction of gas condensate remaining at 1
HCPV injection for both cases and illustrates the superior sweep
achieved with WAG. Almost 90% of the top layer is swept by dry
gas in WAG compared with"" 80% with continuous gas injection.
In both cases, sweep is less efficient in the second layer because
207
 INJECTION PAODUCTION TABLE 1-MODEL, LABORATORY
WELL WELL CONDENSATE-RESERVOIRS FLUID PROPERTIES
PERMEABILITY ! --1. '1--
5 t THICKNESS
(feet)

10 MD 34.5
10 MD 34.5
11.5
I MD 11.5
'""1--------1870 feet---------i.!
Fig. 1-Three-permeability layer model.
of gas override. Gas channeling through the high-permeability stra-
tum is predominant in the gas injection case but is reduced in WAG.
Although dry gas almost completely bypasses the I-md stratum in
both cases, water crossflows downward into the bottom I-md stra-
tum from the 100-md stratum. A stable water displacement occurs
in the lower stratum; consequently, recovery from the I-md stra-
tum is improved significantly.
Fig. 5 shows that the water front is still 340 ft away from the
producer at 1 HCPV injection and that no water has been produced.
Its slow movement is the result of effective sweep, low water rela-
tive permeability, and high viscosity.
Sensitivity Cases. In addition to the base-case model, we compared
WAG with continuous gas for several model variations: an
individual-stratum-property model, a fine-grid model, a coarsening-
upward sequence, a coarsening-downward sequence, a limited
vertical-crossflow case, a 3D case, and a model with four layers
with different permeabilities (the "four-permeability layer model").
Table 2 summarizes the recovery results.
Individual-Stratum-Property Model. Each stratum was assigned
a relative permeability and a capillary pressure appropriate for its
permeability. Table 3 lists the individual-stratum residual satura-
tions. The relative permeability curves for each stratum were com-
puted by normalizing the curves in Fig. 2 with the individual-stratum
residual saturations. Fig. 6 shows the capillary pressure curve for
the lO-md stratum. The same capillary pressure adjusted for the
residual saturations was used for the other two strata.
Fig. 7 compares the simulation recovery curves for the continuous
gas and WAG ca~es. The results are essentially the same as those
for the cases where the residual saturations and relative permeabil-
ities were the same for all strata. Fig. 8 compares the water pro-
duction curves with and without capillary pressure. As expected,
water breaks through somewhat earlier when there is no capillary
pressure to retain the water. In both cases, however, the water pro-
duction remains low until the very end of the flood. Fig. 9 com-
Laboratory
and Simulator Reservoir
Fluid Properties Model A B C
Viscosity
P,H,olp, Rf 6.0 3.8 5.7 5.5
P, H,olp, /g 13.5 10.0 16.3 16.5
Density
p H,olp Rf 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0
P H,olp /g 3.4 3.3 5.0 4.3
pares the average reservoir pressures for simulator runs with and
without capillary pressure.
Because use of individual-stratum properties did not significantly
affect the results, we used the base-case properties for the other
sensitivity cases. (No runs were made with relative permeability
hysteresis assumed. A trapped-gas hysteresis potentially would low-
er WAG recovery slightly, but the key result trends would not
change.)
Fine-Grid Model. To test the effect of the number of vertical-
direction grids on gas override prediction, we conducted simula-
tion runs using nine vertical grids instead of five by subdividing
the top lO-md strata vertically into six equal-thickness grids. Re-
sults from the model were almost identical to those from the base-
case model.
3D Model. A 3D model showed recovery improvement with
WAG over continuous gas injection similar to that shown by the
2D model, a 23% increase in recovery at 1 HCPV injected com-
pared with that of continuous gas injection. The 3D model had the
same layering as the 2D model, 3 cells in the y dimension and 330
total cells. The model simulated one-eighth of an inverted 160-acre
five-spot pattern with 1,870 ft between injector and producer. The
injection and production conditions were the same as those used
in the 2D study.
Both gas injection and WAG achieved good areal sweep because
of favorable mobility displacements. The dry-gas mobility is about
twice that of gas condensate. The areal sweep of a miscible dis-
placement on a five-spot pattern with mobility ratio of two should
reach 75 % to 85 %,3 while that for water, which has a mobility
ratio of "'" O. 1, should approach 100 % .4
Coarsening-Upward Sequence. Simulation of a coarsening-
upward sequence (i.e., with the high-permeability stratum at the
top of the model and permeability decreasing with depth) shows
that gas cycling recovers only 38 % OHIP at 1 HCPV injected be-
cause of severe gas override. Gas does not crossflow effectively
into the lower strata. Recovery improves by 42 % to 54 % OHIP
with WAG because of reduced gas channeling and increased recov-
ery from the lO-md stratum. However, any incremental recovery
from that stratum is from water displacement because little dry gas
is diverted into the bottom I-md stratum. Therefore, water sweeps

1.0 .-------------....,.,,~---=:=,.,

0.9

0.8
0.8
0.7

0.6 0.6

RECOVERY 0.5
RELATIVE FRACTION OHIP
PERMEABILITY 0.4
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.2

0 0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S
0.0'~--L---L----'----'.-----L--~
WATER SATURATION 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0
TIME (YEARS)

Fig. 2-Base-case relative permeability curve. Fig. 3-Three-permeability layer model recoveries.

208 SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993

 WAG CONTINUOUS GAS INJECTOR PRODUCER

l f
lLl
HIGH
PERM
LAYER

~~~MH~~~~nJ
c::::J 0 - 10% II!Il!IIi 51 - 90 %

~ 11- 50% _>90%

Fig. 4-0riginal gas condensate remaining at 1 HCPV in-

jection. Fig. 5-Three-permeability layered model water-front location.

the I-md stratum in addition to diverting gas from the 100-md lay- WAG as an Alternative to Early Blowdown
er, improving overall vertical sweep and recovery. WAG also may be an alternative to blowdown in older cycling
Coarsening-Downward Sequence. With the 100-md stratum at projects. To compare blowdown with WAG, we cycled gas for 15
the bottom of the model and permeability increasing with depth, years, or ""0.60 HCPV injected, using the base-case reservoir
at 1 HCPV, WAG improves vertical sweep and increases recovery model, followed by either 25 years of blowdown or 15 years of
25% compared with gas injection (61 % recovery for continuous WAG plus 10 years of blowdown.
gas and 78 % for WAG). A noticeable difference between this case To account for liquid-condensate-dropout effect, we used an EOS
and the base case is that the water front moves faster in the bottom model description for a reservoir fluid with"" 6, 170-psi dewpoint
100-md stratum. At 1 HCPV, the water front has moved to only pressure at 175°P that yields"" 175 bbl/MMscf at the surface. The
200 ft from the producer, compared with 340 ft away for the base fluid has a maximum liquid dropout of "" 40 vol % at 5,981 psia.
case. The top I-md stratum is not invaded efficiently by gas or water The Stone II model 5 was used to account for three-phase relative
in this case. permeability; critical condensate saturation was 0.30.
Crossflow (Vertical Permeability). If vertical crossflow is restrict- Fig. 10 shows that WAG improved condensate-liquid recovery
ed between reservoir strata, recovery improves a dramatic 54 % with by about 25 % over blowdown alone. In addition, ultimate gas recov-
WAG. With restricted crossflow, gas injection recovers only 46% ery was 10% higher at the end of the blowdown after WAG (gas
OHIP at 1 HCPV injection. Little recovery from the bottom I-md relative permeability hysteresis effects reported by Hawes et al. 6
stratum is obtained; however, with WAG, water flows preferen- were not included).
tially into the 100-md stratum and little goes into the I-md stra-
tum. Consequently, water breaks through after only 0.2 HCPV Laboratory Corelloods
water has been injected, with only 41 % OHIP recovered. Laboratory floods in a layered core demonstrated that WAG per-
To prevent water production, we stopped water injection after formance was analogous to that in the simulations. We construct-
five cycles (Le., at ""0.175 HCPV water injected). Gas injection ed a core of two 12-in.-long hemicylindrical outcrop limestone slabs:
was continued for 23 years. At 1 HCPV injection for 19.4 years, a lO-md air permeability, 26 % porosity Texas cream limestone and
almost 71 % OHIP is recovered, a 54% improvement compared with a 0.3-md air permeability, 11.3% porosity Indiana limestone. The
continuous gas injection. Although water production was not avoided
completely, only 167 bbl of water was produced (approximately TABLE 2-SIMULATION CASE SENSITIVITIES
0.04% of HCPV), indicating that water movement slowed signifi-
cantly when water injection stopped. Continuous Incremental
The injection profile improved significantly during the WAG Gas WAG WAG
Recovery' Recovery' Recovery
process. The amount of gas channeling through the l00-md stratum
Case (%OHIP) (% OHIP) (%)
was reduced from 65 % of that injected in the gas injection case
Base case 61 78 28
to 27% at the end of the WAG operation and to <2% at 1 HCPV
Coarsening upward 38 54 42
injected. Coarsening downward 62 78 25
Limited crossflow,
kv1kH =0.1 46 71 54
120 krw = 1 at Srg 61 81 33
3D, one-eighth of five-
100
spot pattern 61 75 23
80 Four-permeability
layer model 45 72 60
60
CAPILLARY
• At 1 HCPV injected.
PRESSURE 40
psi
20

0 TABLE 3-LAYER RESIDUAL SATURATIONS (cp= 12%)

-20
Permeability Siwr Srg
-40 (md) (%) (%)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ----
Base-case model (all layers) 0.25 0.28
WATER SATURATION
Individual-layer-property model 100 0.15 0.23
10 0.23 0.23
Fig. 6-Capillary pressure curve for 10-md rock layer. 1 0.30 0.23

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993 209

 100,---------------------------------,

1:1 WAG BLOWDOWN

0:-
0.8 80 t------I~~ 1-
J:
0
z 1346 psi.
0 0.6 CONDENSATE
§ RECOVERY
1156 plio
~ (0,. OF ORIGINAL) 40
!!:.
?iw: 0.4
BLOWDOWN
e;
0
20
5008 psis
w
a: 0~_66_7_3~ps_i.~____~__~_______ L_ _~_ _~

0.2 o 10 20 30 40
TIME (YEARS)

10 15 20 Fig. 10-WAG as a blowdown alternative.

TIME (yEARS)

Fig. 7-Gas-condensate recovery.

.----.-r-0.4"
CORE CHARACTERISTICS

k(md)
HIGH k LAYER
10
LOW k LAYER
0.3
.-r-'-
POROSITY 26% 11.3 e/. 1.5"
TRAPPED GAS 29.S-/.
._._._._J._

GAS
SEPARATOR CHROM.

o~------~------~--------~------~~~--~
,oo...:::-JJ
o 5 10 15 20 25
TIME (YEARS)

Fig. 8-Cumulative water production. Fig. 11-Coreflood apparatus schematic.

2200 1.0

0.9
2000 -
0.8
WAG
~ 0.7
~ 1800 -
w 0.8
!!i RECOVERY,
~ 1600 -
FRACTIOr. 0.5
OHIP
"- 0.4

1400 - 0.3

0.2
1200
0 10 15 20 25 0.1
TIME (YEARS)

0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2

Fig. 9-Reservoir pressure comparison.
TOTAl. HCPV PRODUCEO

slabs were placed in a rubber sleeve to form a 2-in. -diameter core.
The lO-md layer contains 29 % of the PV. Fig. 11 is a schematic
of the core end cross section. The interface between the layers was
filled with epoxy only at the core inlet. Fig. 11 also is a schematic
of the coreflood apparatus.
Fluids used were 5% brine, propane to represent gas conden-
sate, and a 95% ethane/5% butane mix to represent dry gas. Fluid
density and viscosity ratios at 1,500 psia and 150°F were approxi-
mately the same as those for the simulation fluid (Table 1); gas
displacement was first-contact miscible. The corefloods were con-
ducted at a nominal linear velocity of '" 2 ftlD, although actual fluid
velocity depended on the degree of channeling or bypassing. We
tested the injection rate effect and found that gasfloods conducted
Fig. 12-WAG vs. continuous-gas-injection recovery from
layered core, 10-md layer on bottom.
in the Texas cream achieved essentially the same 90+ % recovery
at 1.2 HCPV and the same breakthrough at 0.65 HCPV for linear
velocities of 0.05, 2, and 10 ftlD. Endpoint saturations of25% for
connate water and 28 % for trapped gas and '" 0.1 endpoint water
relative permeability were measured for the Texas cream. The
trapped-gas saturation measured for the Indiana limestone was
29.5%.
Initial fluid saturations in the layered core were established by
filling the core with brine, then flushing out the brine with up to
25 PV of mineral oil. Water saturations after the oil flush were

210 SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993

 100 1.0

0 .•
90
0.8
80
0.7
70
mol·;'
0.8
ORIGINAL 60
RECOVERY,
FLUID IN FRACTION 0.5
EFFLUENT 50 QHIP
0.4
40
0.3
30
0.2
20 . . . . . WAG
,. . . . WATER
~""""~t---t I---t~~

INJECTION
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
FRACTION TOTAL HCPV PRODUCED
FRACTION TOTAL HCPV PRODUCED

Fig. 13-Effluent-concentration history from layered core- Fig. 14-WAG vs. continuous-gas-injection recovery from
flood, 10-md layer on bottom. layered core, 10-md layer on top.

"" 27 % of total PV; additional water was not produced from the
100
core until WAG injection. The mineral oil was flushed with
Soltrol™ solvent followed by propane. We conducted four ex- 90
perimental floods: a continuous gasflood with the lO-md layer on 80
the top, a continuous gasflood with the 10 md-Iayer on the bottom,
70
a WAG flood with the lO-md layer on the top, and a WAG flood Dlole/.
with the lO-md layer on the bottom. The WAG floods used injec- ORIGINAL 60

tion cycles of a 0.05 HCPV gas slug alternating with a 0.05 HCPV FLUID IN 50
EFFLUENT
water slug. Fluids were produced at a constant I,500-psi back- 40
pressure.
30

Experimental Results. With the 10-md layer on the bottom, WAG 20

recovered 46% more OHIP than continuous gas injection recov- 10

ered (at 1.2 HCPV produced). Fig. 12 shows propane recoveries
vs. total fluid produced for the continuous gas and WAG floods.
Fig. 13 shows the effluent concentration history; propane produc-
tion decreases dramatically with continuous gas injection compared
with WAG propane production. Dry gas (i.e., the ethane/butane
mix) began to be produced at "" 0.15 HCPV in both the continuous
gas and WAG cases. The rapid breakthrough indicates that the gas
may have been diverted by channeling along the joint between the
core layers.
Fig. 12 also shows the intervals when water was injected during
the WAG flood. Water was produced first at 0.51 HCPV total pro-
duced, after 0.34 HCPV water had been injected. Water injection
was stopped at 0.54 HCPV produced, or after eight WAG cycles.
The flood produced "'0.11 HCPV total water of the 0.39 HCPV
water injected.
With the 10-md layer on the top, WAG improved recovery by
28% over gas injection (at 1.2 HCPV produced). Fig. 14 compares
the recoveries, and Fig. 15 compares propane concentration in the
effluents. The propane in the effluent for the continuous gasflood
drops rapidly after breakthrough, whereas there is a propane pro-
duction "kick" beginning at '" 0.65 HCPV in the WAG flood.
Water production did not begin until 0.79 HCPV produced, or
'" 0040 HCPV water injected. After 1.2 HCPV total production,
0.16 HCPV total water had been produced of the 0.63 HCPV water
injected.
Discussion of Experiments. The continuous-gas floods had virtu-
ally the same recoveries whether the lO-md layer was on the top
or the bottom. Both gasfloods had '" 58 % recovery at 1.2 HCPV
produced. Ethane breakthrough was slightly earlier when the 10-
md layer was on top because ethane is lighter than propane. The
high-permeability interface between the layers is a potential influ-
ence on the gas-breakthrough time. The almost equal recoveries
in the two gasfloods indicated that there was subsequent sweep of
the matrix in both cases even if the gas channeled along the interface.
There is a significant difference between the WAG floods, de-
pending on whether the 10-md layer is on the bottom or the top.
With the lO-md layer on the bottom, recovery is much higher; water
effectively diverts gas into the upper 0.3-md layer. With the lO-md
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
FRACTION TOTAL HCPV PRODUCED
Fig. 1S-Effluent-concentration history from layered core-
flood, 10-md layer on top.
layer on the top, however, water initially enters the layer, then
sweeps the low-permeability layer as well because of crossflow and
imbibition. Water breakthrough occurs later when the 0.3-md lay-
er is on the bottom because the water fills more volume than it does
when the 0.3-md layer when the lO-md layer is on top.
If we assume that the lO-md layer is completely swept in both
the continuous-gas and WAG processes, recovery improvement
from the low-permeability layer is 80% and 52 % when the lO-md
layer is on the bottom and the top, respectively.
Process Sensitivities
On the basis of our simulation results from five different reservoir
models, we can estimate the WAG process sensitivity to reservoir
and fluid properties.
Porosity. Porosity commonly correlates to permeability in a reser-
voir. In our studies, the porosity of all layers is the same. If we
had used a lower porosity in the low-permeability stratum, the recov-
ery target for WAG would have been lower.
Strata Permeability Contrast. Permeability contrast strongly in-
fluences WAG performance. Generally, with higher permeability
contrast, higher incremental recovery with WAG can be expected
because severe channeling of injected gas in a highly stratified reser-
voir can be reduced effectively by water injection. With smaller
contrast, there is less gas channeling and thus a lower WAG in-
cremental recovery.
The direction of permeability layering has a marked effect on
both the continuous-gas and WAG processes. With the highest per-
meability in the top stratum, gas severely overrides and water tends
to sweep lower strata. When the highest permeability is in the lowest
stratum, water underrides and diverts gas to higher layers.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993 211

Water Relative Penneability. The magnitude of water relative per-
meability endpoint, krw, has only a small effect on WAG recov-
ery. When we used a water relative permeability endpoint of 1.0
instead of 0.1 at residual gas saturation, WAG incremental recovery
was slightly higher at 1 HCPV injection, but ultimate recovery after
23 years was the same. With a larger krw, water is more mobile,
exhibits more gravity crossflow, has higher injectivity, and breaks
through at the producer earlier. The shape of the relative permea-
bility curves had little effect on predicted recoveries.
Trapped Gas Saturation. WAG recovery depends on the amount
of residual or trapped-gas saturation by water, S rg' If the S rg had
been lower than our base-case 28 %, a higher WAG recovery would
result because less dry gas would have been trapped behind the water
front in the more-permeable strata and waterflood gas-condensate
recovery would have been higher from the low-permeability strata.
Fluid Densities and Viscosities. At density differences larger than
those used in the base case, we expect higher WAG incremental
recovery because water will compensate for gas override more ef-
fectively. Viscosity ratios influence how effectively injected water
will block the high-permeability strata. A high water-to-gas vis-
cosity ratio would result in more effective diversion of dry gas;
conversely, a low viscosity ratio would reduce WAG incremental
recovery.
Water and Gas Slug Sizes and Ratios. The optimum amount of
water to inject depends on reservoir strata permeabilities, vertical
permeability, and individual layer PV's. We normally would de-
sign the process to inject the minimum amount of water needed
to achieve good recovery. With relatively low permeability con-
trast between strata, a WAG ratio of approximately 1: 1 appears
to benefit recovery; with restricted crossflow or large permeability
contrast between layers, a WAG ratio of much less than 1 : 1 is pre-
ferred.
Discussion
Our simulation and laboratory studies identified mechanisms that
operate in WAG and lead to higher recovery. Early work 4 ,6,7
showed that crossflow resulting from capillary imbibition aids ver-
tical sweep efficiency in an immiscible displacement when the mo-
bility ratio is favorable in stratified systems. Our studies on water
displacing gas confirmed this. Permeability contrast and layer or-
dering affect the process significantly. Our gasfloods confirm earlier
results 7 that show that an unfavorable mobility leads to crossflow
from the low-permeability layer to an adjacent higher-permeability
layer, tending to. reduce frontal advancement in the lower-perme-
ability layer in miscible displacements.
Sorbie et al. 8 reported crossflow between layers of different per-
meabilities in single-phase miscible and stable, two-phase immis-
cible displacements in heterogeneous core. For unit-mobility
miscible displacement, the displacing fluid swept the core layers
in proportion to kh. Sorbie et al.'s results are similar to those ob-
served in our simulation; i.e., water developed a front that moved
in all strata because of its favorable displacement mobility, whereas
dry gas channeled preferentially in the highest-permeability strata.
Soucemarianadin et at. 9 reported similar results from laboratory
experiments in multilayered porous media.
Our simulation studies did not include the hysteresis in gas/water
relative permeability curves reported by Hawes et al. 6 and Fish-
lock et al. 10 If this hysteresis exists during a WAG process, it
would reduce gas recovery with WAG. According to Hawes et al.
and Fishlock et al. 's work, the hysteresis would occur during the
blowdown stage. They showed that a large saturation increase is
needed to remobilize trapped gas during blowdown. Both Hawes
et al. and Fishlock et al. conducted their blowdown runs after
approximately true residual gas saturations were reached with 2
PV or more of water injection. However, they did not study gas
injection with pressure maintained after the waterflood phase.
Chierici et al. 's2 work indicated there was no gas saturation
threshold for gas remobilization when water injection was continued
212
during depletion. Fishlock et at. 10 also indicated that the hystere-
sis in saturation needed to mobilize gas is low in lower-permeability
100-md consolidated cores compared with 4- to 13-darcy uncon-
solidated sands. Hawes et al. 6 reported a much smaller hysteresis
effect in 0.24-darcy core than in 1.28-darcy core. In our experi-
ments with layered, relatively low-permeability cores, no threshold
effects were observed during the constant-pressure WAG process.
In these studies, the reservoir was only partially water-invaded and
the permeability was much lower than in Hawes et at. and Fish-
lock et at.'s packs. From their simulations that included hystere-
sis, Hawes et al. concluded that percolation of trapped gas out of
waterflooded regions did not limit ultimate gas recovery as long
as injected-water volume was limited.
Conclusions
1. According to simulations and laboratory coreflood displace-
ments, WAG improves gas-condensate recovery from stratified gas-
condensate reservoirs compared with recovery with continuous gas
injection. Improvement ranged from 28 % to 54 % in the five simu-
lation models investigated.
2. The dominant factors contributing to superior WAG perform-
ance are favorable water mobility relative to gas mobility, gravity
segregation, and relative permeability . WAG performance is sen-
sitive to reservoir layering, fluid properties, trapped gas saturation,
and vertical permeability.
3. WAG recovers significantly more condensate with less injected
gas than continuous gas injection. Therefore, WAG could improve
economics substantially by reducing compression costs, releasing
gas for sale, and recovering more liquids.
4. Water is not injected into a gas-condensate reservoir in con-
ventional practice because of potential loss of reserves to trapped
gas saturation, water production, and lowered injectivity. Our study
shows, however, that water primarily traps dry gas, not the desired
gas condensate; water production is very low; and gas injectivity
is essentially restored after water injection with the WAG process.
5. Ultimate total dry-gas recovery after blowdown is larger after
WAG because more reservoir space is occupied by water.
Nomenclature
h = thickness, L
k = permeability, L2
S = saturation, fraction
Siwr = irreducible residual water saturation
11 = viscosity, miLt
p = density, m/O
cf> = porosity, fraction
Subscripts
g = gas
H = horizontal
i = initial
I = injected
r = residual
rf = reservoir fluid
V = vertical
w = water
Acknowledgments
We thank Mobil R&D Corp. for permission to publish this work
and J.A. Barnhart for conducting the laboratory experiments.
References
1. Harper, J. L. et al.: "A Compositional Simulator for Performing Large
Field Studies in a Vector Computing Environment," paper SPE 13714
presented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Bahrain, March 11-14.
2. Chierici, G.L., Ciucci, G.M., and Long, G.: "Experimental Research
on Gas Saturation Behind the Water Front in Gas Reservoirs Subjected
to Water Drive," Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt-am-Main
(1963) 483.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993
 3. Stalkup F.r.: Miscible Displacement, Monograph Series, SPE, Richard-
son, TX (1983) 8, 44-46. Authors
4. Craig, F.F.: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Mono-
graph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3, 50.
5. Stone, H.1.: "Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability and
Residual Oil Data," 1. Cdn. Pet. Tech., 12, No.4, 53.
6. Hawes, R.r. et al.: "Feasibility Studies of Waterflooding Gas-
Condensate Reservoirs," paper SPE 15875 presented at the 1986 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 20-22.
7. Yokoyama, Y. and Lake, 1.: "The Effects of Capillary Pressure on
Immiscible Displacements in Stratified Porous Media," paper SPE 10109
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.
8. Sorbie, K.S., Wat, R.S., and Rowe, T.C.: "Oil-Displacement Experi-
ments in Heterogeneous Core: Analysis of Recovery Mechanisms," Cullick Lu Jones
paper SPE 16706 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30. A.S. Cullick is an associate engineer-
9. Soucemarianadin, A. et al.: "Sweep Efficiency in Multilayered Porous ing adviser at Mobil E&P Technical
Media: Contrast Between Stable and Unstable Flow," paper SPE 16955 Center (MEPTEC) in Dallas. Since join-
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi- ing Mobil in 1981, he has worked on
tion, Dallas, Sept. 27-30. CO 2 miscible flooding, enriched-gas
10. Fishlock, T.P. et al.: "Experimental Studies on the Waterflood Residual flooding, fluid phase behavior, and gas
Gas Saturation and Its Production by Blowdown," SPERE (May 1988) production projects. His current re-
387. search interests are reservoir charac-
terization, risk assessment, and flow
SI Metric .Converslon Factors attribute scaleup/averaging. Cullick
previously worked for Shell Develop-
acre x 4.046873 E-Ol ha Cohen ment Co. He holds a BS degree in chem-
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3 istry from Tulane U. and a PhD degree in
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m physical chemistry from Ohio State U. H.S. Lu is a senior staff
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3 engineer in the Thermal Recovery Group at MEPTEC. He
OF (OF-32)/1.8 °C joined Mobil in 1980 and has conducted research on in-situ
in. x 2.54* E+OO em combustion and steam projects and horizontal well applica-
md x 9.869233 E-04 Jlm 2 tions. His current studies are in steam quality and rate meas-
psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa urements, steam flowline modeling, and steamflood
abandonment. Lu holds MS degrees in civil and petroleum
• Conversion factor is exact. SPERE engineering, both from the U. of Wyoming. LG. ,Jones, a con-
Original SPE manuscript received for review June 7, 1989. Revised manuscript received sultant, retired from MEPTEC in 1992. His principal interests
Sept. 3, 1992. Paper accepted for publication Oct. 5,1992. Paper (SPE 19114) first presented are well-testing and -completion and sand-control studies. He
at the 1989 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Dallas, June 7-9. joined Mobil in 1959. He holds a BS degree in petroleum en-
gineering and MS and PhD degrees In chemical engineering,
all from Ohio State U. Jones was a member of the Pressure
Transient Testing Technical Committee during 1983-85 and
1986-89 and was chairman during 1970-71. Martin F. Co-
hen is an engineering adviser at MEPTEC and has worked
in reservoir simulation development and applications since
1980. He holds a PhD degree in applied mechanics from Cal
Tech. Photo and biographical information for ,J.P. Watson
are unavailable.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1993 213