SPE 124197

Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil

Recovery
A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen
Department of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.

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

Abstract
Gas-injection enhanced oil recovery can recover nearly all residual oil where the gas sweeps. Sweep efficiency in these
processes is often poor, in large part because of gravity override of gas. Stone and Jenkins presented a model for gravity
override in homogeneous reservoirs, showing that the distance gas and water travel before segregation depends directly on
injection rate. In cases where injection pressure is limiting, injectivity is key to overcoming gravity override.
Stone assumed continuous co-injection of gas and water as a model for WAG, contending that this is valid as long as slugs
mix near the well. This model for co-injection can be extended to relate segregation distance for co-injection processes directly
to injection pressure. Injectivity depends on saturations very near the well, however. Therefore, where injection pressure is
limiting, this model is pessimistic because injectivity in WAG is greater than in co-injection.
We investigate the increase in injectivity possible with WAG compared to co-injection in 1D and 2D, and the implications
for gravity override in 2D, using a range of models for gas and water relative permeabilities. We confirm that the greater
injectivity of WAG improves vertical sweep compared to Stone's model when injection pressure is limiting. The greatest
improvements occur when slugs violate Stone's assumption: that is, they are too large to mix fully near the well. The increase
in injectivity over co-injection is greater for foam than for WAG without foam, because foam has much lower mobility when
gas and water flow together.
A similar benefit occurs for "simultaneous water and gas" (SWAG) injection from a single vertical well with water injected
higher in the formation than gas. There is a modest benefit to injectivity of injecting water above gas, but far smaller for water-
gas flow than that estimated for foam in a previous study.

Introduction
Injection of gas (CO2, hydrocarbon gases, or steam) can be nearly 100% efficient in displacing oil from regions swept by gas
(Lake, 1989). Unfortunately, sweep efficiency is often poor, because of reservoir heterogeneity, the large mobility of gas, and
density differences between gas, oil and water. The most common way to improve gas sweep efficiency is water-alternating-
gas (WAG) injection; injected water reduces the mobility of the gas and helps stabilize the displacement front. At fixed
injection rate, reducing gas mobility also helps alleviate gravity segregation (Stone, 1982; Jenkins, 1984). Christensen, Stenby
and Skauge (1989) reviewed 60 field applications of WAG. Generally it is applied at the later stages of water flooding and it
can give higher oil recovery compared to waterflooding alone. WAG application is effective because of a combination of two
recovery processes: the advantage of microscopic displacement efficiency of the gas flooding and the improved macroscopic
sweep created by the injection of water.
In a WAG enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) process, gas and water are injected sequentially through the same well. Average
volumes per slug are small (in the range of 1 to 5% of the pattern pore volume (PV)) (Sanchez, 1999). For foam injection, it
has been suggested to inject much larger slug sizes in order to improve injectivity and increase the distance before complete
gas and water segregation takes place (Shan and Rossen, 2004; Kloet et al., 2009).
A useful model for gravity segregation in horizontal gas-water flow in homogeneous reservoirs was introduced by Stone
(1982) and Jenkins (1984). Stone contended that his model for gravity segregation of injected gas and water, based on
continuous co-injection, approximates WAG as long as the injection cycles are kept short enough, because then the slugs mix
near the well; in other words, most of the swept zone would experience only steady gas-liquid flow. WAG and co-injection are
also expected to perform similarly in terms of development of miscibility between oil by gas (LaForce and Orr, 2009). Stone
and Jenkins' theory predicts the distance gas and water travel before complete segregation at steady state. By jumping to steady
2 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

state, after all mobile oil has been displaced from the region of interest, the model seeks to avoid the complications of three-
phase miscible or immiscible flow during the displacement of the oil, and come immediately to the final state that would be
attained after a sufficient period of injection.
Stone and Jenkins assumed that at steady state the reservoir model consists of three zones (Fig. 1):
• An override zone, in which only gas is mobile
• A mixed zone with both gas and water flowing
• An underride zone, where only water is mobile.
Due to the high gas mobility at residual water in the override zone, the override zone occupies a much smaller fraction of the
vertical cross section than the underride zone. Only the mixed zone and a thin override zone is flooded by gas, while the
underride zone is waterflooded. The assumption that a WAG process can be represented as a continuous-injection process is
illustrated in Fig. 2. Details of the model are discussed by Rossen and van Duijn (2004), Rossen et al. (2006) and
Jamshidnezhad et al. (2009).
With these assumptions Stone and Jenkins derived equations for the distance Lg or Rg (for rectangular and cylindrical flow,
respectively) that the injected water-gas mixture travels before complete segregation:
Q
Lg = .....................................................................................................................................................(1)
k ⎜ ρ − ρ ⎟⎞ gW λ m
⎛
z⎝ w g⎠ rt

Q
Rg = ...................................................................................................................................................(2)
π k ⎛⎜ ρ − ρ ⎞⎟ g λ m
z⎝ w g⎠ rt

where Q is total volumetric injection rate of gas and water, kz vertical permeability, ρw and ρg densities of water and gas,
respectively, g gravitational acceleration, W the thickness of the rectangular reservoir perpendicular to flow, and λrtm the total
relative mobility in the mixed zone. Eqs. 1 and 2 imply that distance to the point of segregation scales directly with volumetric
injection rate Q. This means that, holding other parameters fixed, by increasing Q one can increase distance to the point of
segregation and the volume of the reservoir swept by gas.
By applying only standard assumptions of fractional flow theory (see, e.g. Lake, 1989), Rossen and van Duijn (2004)
showed that Eqs. 1 and 2 are rigorous for the distance to the point of segregation (for co-injection of gas and water) and also
confirmed Jenkins’s assertion that, short of this distance, the loss of gas and water from the mixed zone is proportional to x or
r2 in linear or radial flow, respectively. Rossen and Shen (2007) and Rossen et al. (2009) showed a direct link between
injection pressure and distance to the point of segregation. For cylindrical flow, the relationship is

k ⎛⎜ ρ − ρ ⎞⎟ g ⎡ ⎛R ⎞ ⎤
1 ⎛⎜ ⎛ Rw ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎥
2
z⎝ w g⎠ 2 ⎢ g
p( Rw ) − p( Rg ) = Rg ln ⎜ ⎟ − 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ .........................................................................................(3)
2 Hkh ⎢ R 2 ⎜ ⎝ Rg ⎠ ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ w⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎦
where p is pressure, Rw wellbore radius, and the second term in brackets disappears depending on the assumption made about
the shape of the mixed zone. If injection pressure is limited, Eq. 3 suggests limits on the distance the mixed zone can travel
before segregation. For instance, for kh / kz = 0.1, Rw = 0.1 m (4 in.), h = 6.1 m (20 ft), and (ρw - ρg) = 963 kg/m3, to place Rg at
1024 or 2048 ft (312 or 624 m) from the well would require an injection pressure 765 and 3310 psi (52 and 225 bar, or 5.2 and
22.5 MPa) above reservoir pressure, respectively.
Eq. 3 assumes uniform mobility in the mixed zone. Most injection pressure is dissipated near the well, while most
segregation occurs far from the well. Fig. 3 illustrates this difference for a case where Rg = 500 m. An injection strategy that
increases mobility near the well while keeping mobility low further from the well could, in effect, increase Q in Eqs. 1 and 2
because of high mobility near the well and yet retain the smaller value of λrtm that applies further from the well in those
equations. Several injection strategies have been proposed to accomplish this (Shan and Rossen, 2004; Rossen et al, 2006;
Jamshidnezhad et al., 2009; Kloet et al., 2009).
WAG itself is a means of increasing injectivity over simultaneous injection of gas and water. In other words, Stone (1982)
and Jenkins' (1984) model, as extended by Rossen et al. (2009), may be pessimistic for vertical sweep efficiency when
injection pressure is limited, because it does not account for the advantage WAG offers over co-injection in near-well mobility
and injectivity. This paper examines this advantage. First we consider the expected increase in injectivity in WAG in one-
dimensional radial flow, as a function of slug sizes of gas and water, starting with slugs small enough to satisfy Stone's
asssumption that they mix near the well. Then we quantify the advantages of WAG over co-injection in vertical sweep
efficiency in 2D cylindrical flow where injection pressure is limited. Like Stone and Jenkins we focus on the swept zone after
the period of mobilization of oil, as an indicator of sweep efficiency expected during the period of oil recovery. Also like
Stone and Jenkins, we consider homogeneous reservoirs as a simple basis for analysis.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 3

Stone more recently proposed an injection scheme of simultaneous injection of water and gas, where water is injected
higher in the formation than gas (Stone, 2004(a,b); Jamshidnezhad et al., 2008; Rossen et al., 2009). Injection could be from
two intervals in a single vertical well, or from two parallel, horizontal wells. Here for illustration we consider injection from
two intervals of a single vertical well into a horizontal, cylindrical, homogeneous reservoir. Stone (2004(a)) and Rossen et al.
(2009) showed that this process gives better sweep efficiency than simultaneous co-injection from the same location when the
comparison is made at fixed injection rate. Rossen et al. further showed that, if injection pressure is fixed, the advantage of
water-above-gas injection can be greatly increased by the increase in injectivity over co-injection. Water-above-gas injection
gives greater injectivity because gas and water are injected from separate locations, into regions at high saturation and large
relative permeability of the injected phase. The previous study of Rossen et al. (2009) showed only one example, with foam,
and suffered from poor grid resolution near the injection well. Here we investigate the advantages of this process in increased
injectivity with simulations with greater refinement near the injection well.
In the literature, "SWAG" can mean either simultaneous injection of gas and water from the same interval in a single well,
or the recent proposal of Stone, i.e. simultaneous injection of water from a location higher in the formation than gas. Here, to
distinguish these two processes, we refer to the first as "co-injection," and to the second as "water above gas."

Fluid and Reservoir Model

In all cases we use the STARS simulator (Computer Modeling Group, Calgary, Alberta, Canada). This section describes the
models used in the study of WAG; the model used for the study of injection of water above gas is described at the start of the
section presenting that study.
We use three sets of contrasting relative-permeability functions for examination. In all cases immobile oil is present at its
residual saturation. We present these cases to illustrate the range of behavior possible, not as predictive for a particular
formation. First, we choose two cases for WAG: oil-wet relative-permeability curves taken from the Miocene Kareem
Formation, United Arab Emirates (Fig. 4), with a residual oil saturation of 0.29 (Core Laboratories, 1982), and water-wet
relative-permeability curves taken from the I-Sand Formation, Argentina (Fig. 5), with a residual oil saturation of 0.225 (Core
Laboratories, 1982; see also Treiber et al., 1972). For a third case we apply relative-permeability curves describing strong
foam in a strongly water-wet formation (Figs. 6 and 7) based on those of Renkema and Rossen (2007), with a residual oil
saturation of 0.15. We assume that the mobility functions shown already account for the weakening effect of residual oil on
foam strength. WAG injection with foam (alternating slugs of surfactant solution and gas) is called SAG. For simplicity below
we refer to these three cases as the oil-wet, water-wet, and foam cases, respectively. In all cases there is no mutual solubility
between oil, water or gas.
Fig. 8 shows total relative mobility as a function of water fractional flow for the three cases. In WAG or SAG injection the
near-well region comes relatively rapidly to unit fractional flow of the given phase. WAG injection in the oil-wet and water-
wet cases without foam gives only a modest advantage in injectivity because total relative mobility decreases monotonically as
water fractional flow increases. Still, mobility increases more with gas injection than it decreases with water injection, so
some benefit is expected. With foam, the lowest relative mobility occurs with intermediate fractional flow, i.e. with foam
injection rather than SAG. Both gas and water injectivity are greater than that of foam. In fact, our foam model understates the
increasing in injectivity with gas injection in SAG, because in the model foam does not collapse completely even at residual
water saturation (cf. Kloet et al., 2009).
In all cases we assume cylindrical geometry. In order to better resolve the near-wellbore region crucial to injectivity we
employ smaller grid blocks near the injection well. For the oil-wet case we use 20 grid blocks of radial increment 0.5 m near
the injection well, followed by 340 grid blocks each 1 m wide. Thus the outer radius is 350 m. For the water-wet case we use
twenty 0.5-m grid blocks near the injection well followed by 290 1-m grid blocks; outer radius is 300 m. For the foam case we
use 250 1-m grid blocks. In all cases we simulate a 15° sector of the full cylinder, and a reservoir height of 20 m. For 1D radial
simulations there is only one grid block in the z direction, of height 20 m. For the 2D simulations, there are 20 grid blocks in
the z direction, each of height 1 m. The differences in outer radius reflect our desire to resolve segregation in each case with
the same injection pressure.
The first grid block, of radius 5 cm, represents the injection well itself. Within this grid block the injection well, as defined
by the simulator, has radius 4 cm. The grid block has extremely large horizontal permeability (10,000 D) and zero vertical
permeability, so effectively the entire grid block is the injection well. Since injection pressure varies as logarithm of wellbore
radius, our 10-cm-diameter well in a 300 m cylindrical reservoir plays the same role as a 20-cm-diameter well in a 600-m
cylindrical reservoir. Preventing segregation out to double the distance would require four times the injection rate, however
(Eq. 2) and four times the pressure rise at the well (Eq. 3). In order to minimize the effects of pressure rise and compressibility,
we work with the smaller wellbore and shorter radial distances. The production well, of radius 4 cm, is located in the
outermost column of grid blocks. There was virtually no difference in pressure between that in the outermost grid blocks and
that in the production well.
The reservoir has porosity 20%. The vertical and horizontal permeabilities are 100 and 1000 md, respectively. The initial
reservoir pressure is 165 bar (16.5 MPa), which is also the pressure maintained at the production well. Injection pressure is set
at 175 bar (17.5 MPa). The pressure difference between injection and production-well pressures is small enough that fluids are
approximately incompressible.
4 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

The fluid properties (except for the effect of foam) are the same for all cases. Water viscosity is 1 cP (1 mPa s) and gas
(supercritical CO2) viscosity (set by STARS) is about 0.0155 cP at reservoir conditions. Water density is 1000 kg/m3 and gas
density is approximately 660 kg/m3 in the range of pressures present in our reservoirs. Liquid compressibility is set to zero
while gas density, viscosity, and compressibility are determined by simulator. In cases of foam injection we allow sufficient
injection for surfactant to propagate to the outer boundaries of the reservoir; thus surfactant adsorption is not an issue in these
simulations.
Reservoir and fluid properties are summarized in Table 1.
In this study we use fixed injection pressure for both co-injection and WAG. A valid comparison requires similar water-gas
ratio (WGR) in both cases: in our study, we sought WGR ~ 1:2. For injection rates set at standard conditions, this corresponds
to a gas fraction of 0.99848, which was set for all co-injection cases. For a WAG process with fixed injection pressure, trial-
and-error adjustment of injection periods is required to set water-gas ratio as desired. So, for example, in the 1D water-wet
case, with cycle size 0.008 PV, gas is injected for 3 days and water is injected for 10 days, both at the same fixed injection
pressure. The WGR for these slug sizes is 1:1.8. As slug size varies among our cases, the value of WGR varies in a narrow
interval around the desired value of 1:2. Table 2 shows the variation of WGR in 1D simulations of WAG injection at different
slug size for all relative-permeability curves. Variations were similar in the 2D simulations. We allowed variations in slug
ratios from 1:1.8 to 1:2.2.

Determining Rg
In numerical simulation of co-injection processes, the position of complete segregation of gas and water, Rg, is obscured by
numerical dispersion (cf. Fig. 43 below): the sharp boundary between the mixed and underride zone is smeared into a gradual
transition over many grid blocks (Rossen et al., 2009; Stolwijk and Rossen, 2009). In particular, the value of Rg is
overestimated if one takes the furthest advance of mobile gas (Sg ≥ Sgr) as the boundary of the mixed zone. Stolwijk and
Rossen (2009) recommended using a gas saturation corresponding to a gas fractional flow fg a bit larger than zero as the
criterion of the mixed zone, and noted that this still gives an overestimate of the value of Rg. We examined three criteria in our
simulations: fg equal to 90% of the injected value, fg half of the injected value, and fg equal to 10% of the injected value. We
found using a cutoff of fg equal to 50% of the injected value gives the closest match to the analytical result for co-injection
(Eq. 2) for all cases examined. For example, in the oil-wet case with co-injection, using a cutoff of fg = 90%, 50% and 10% of
the injected value gives Rg = 135, 123, and 111 m, respectively, while the analytical result (Eq. 2) is 120 m. In the water-wet
case the three cutoffs give, respectively, 140, 125 and 113 m, compared to the analytical result of 121 m. For foam injection
the three cutoffs give 134, 131 and 129 m, compared to the analytical result of 132 m. In Figs. 22 ff., the cutoff in water
saturation is set to correspond to this cutoff in fg.
In some simulations of co-injection, the mixed zone shrinks to two grid blocks at the top of the formation for some distance
before finally shrinking again to one grid block (Fig. 23 below is an example). In these cases, we extrapolate the trend of the
boundary of the mixed zone through the second row of grid blocks. Thus, for example, in Fig. 23 we estimate Rg = 136 m
rather than 144 m.
In WAG processes, the mixed zone advances and recedes with the cyclic injection of gas and water. We therefore report
the furthest and shortest advance of gas after extrapolation using the same cutoffs as for co-injection for the same cases. As a
second measure of gas sweep, we report the maximum and minimum volumes of gas in the reservoir during the cyclic
injection of gas and water (cf. Kloet et al., 2009; Stolwijk and Rossen, 2009).

WAG Injectivity in 1D
Stone (1982) contended that his model for co-injection applies to WAG processes as long as slugs mix in the near-well region
(Fig. 2). Our goals for 1D simulations are (1) to determine how large slugs can be and still mix within the "mixed zone:"
specifically, to give nearly steady water fractional flow and total mobility at the outer boundary of the mixed zone; (2) to
determine the increase in injectivity with WAG over co-injection. Both criteria depend on slug size as a fraction of the volume
contained within 0 < r ≤ Rg.
In each case we start with a reservoir filled with water and residual oil. It takes some time for injected gas to reach the
outer boundary of the reservoir and for the reservoir to attain a repeating cyclic pattern. Fig. 9 illustrates behavior for the oil-
wet case (Fig. 4). In this case after 81 days (0.108 PV) injection the reservoir reverts to repeated cyclic behavior. We
considered cyclic behavior long after this repeating cycle was formed. In this and following figures properties are plotted for
simplicity versus grid-block number rather than radial position. As a result, the near-well region is expanded in these plots.
Fig. 9 suggests that saturations and mobilities are relatively constant except for a region near the well. Fig. 10 repeats the
plot of Fig. 9 at large times with an expanded time scale, to emphasize the cyclic changes in gas saturation. Fig. 11 shows total
relative mobility λrt (in (Pa s)-1) during the same cycles. The color scale in Fig. 11 masks slight cyclic variation in λrt even at
the outer radius. Fig. 12 shows the magnitude of cyclic variations in λrt in WAG, divided by the value for co-injection, as a
function of cycle size relative to the volume of the cylindrical region. There is some scatter in the trend in this figure, as with
similar figures to follow, because of the small variations of WGR between individual simulations (Table 2). Fig. 12 shows that
Stone's assumption (uniform and unchanging mobility in the mixed zone) is not satisfied exactly for any WAG process with
any finite cycle size. But any acceptable level of variation corresponds to a given dimensionless cycle size (volume of fluids
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 5

injected/cycle relative to pore volume of region of interest). Cycles of 5% of a pore volume, for instance, correspond to about a
10% variation in total mobility at the outer limit of the region.
Fig. 13 illustrates the variation of injectivity during WAG injection with a cycle size of 0.059 PV. Also shown for
comparison is average injectivity for WAG and for co-injection. Injectivity is much greater during gas injection than in co-
injection, and the average value for WAG is about 24% greater than for co-injection, though this case violates the assumption
of Stone in that mobility varies by 25% at the outer radius during the WAG cycles (Fig. 12). Fig. 14 compares average
injectivity for WAG to that for co-injection as a function of cycle size. The benefits of increased injectivity increase with
increasing cycle size, though the violation of Stone's assumption of uniform and unchanging mobilities (Fig. 12) also
increases. About a 12% increase in injectivity is possible with small cycles that substantially satisfy Stone's assumption.
Figs. 15 and 16 correspond to Figs. 12 and 14, but for the water-wet relative-permeability curves (Fig. 5). As with the oil-
wet relative-permeability curves, about a 13% increase in injectivity is possible with small slugs that satisfy the condition of
uniform mobility far from the well, increasing to about a 30% increase with larger slugs sizes.
Figs. 17 and 18 show the corresponding results for SAG (foam) injection. The range of slugs sizes is smaller than in the
previous two cases, but there appears relatively little benefit to injectivity from increasing slug size further (Fig. 18), while the
variation of mobility far form the well increases (Fig. 17). About a 150% increase in injectivity is possible in a SAG process
over steady foam injection, even for small slug sizes that satisfy Stone's assumption of uniform and unchanging mobility far
from the injection well. Fig. 19 compares the variation of injectivity with time for SAG injection with the average injectivity
for SAG and steady foam injection. In this case injectivity of the water slug in SAG is greater than for co-injection, because of
the severe reduction in mobility at intermediate water fractions with foam (Fig. 8). There is a brief period of low injectivity at
the start of injection of gas or water, as that phase displaces the other phase from the near-wellbore region.

Summary of Cases in 1D
In the two cases without foam modest increases in injectivity are possible, from about 12% with slugs small enough to
satisfy Stone's criterion to about 30% with slugs large enough to cause significant variations of mobility at the outer edge of
the region of interest. For the foam case the benefit of SAG injection over steady foam injection is greater, about 50% for
small slugs and almost 150% for larger slugs. One expects (Eq. 2) that the increase in average injectivity would help in
fighting gravity segregation. We test this supposition with 2D simulations as described in the next section.

WAG Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in 2D

With fixed injection pressure WAG injection differs from co-injection of gas and water in three ways:
1. Injected water fraction varies with time
2. Injection rate varies with time (cf. Figs. 13 and 19)
3. Average injection rate is larger (Figs. 14, 16, and 18).
Eq. 2 predicts a benefit from larger average injection rate. Varying water fractional flow near the well not only gives a larger
average injection rate, but, at times, larger pressure gradients further from the well, where most gravity segregation occurs
(Fig. 3; see also Shan and Rossen (2004)). Fig. 20 shows pressure distribution at the end of water injection in the water-wet
formation for a cycle size of 0.106 PV. Injection pressure is largely dissipated near the wellbore. Fig. 21 shows pressure
distribution at the end of gas injection in the same WAG process. With small slugs, saturations and mobility are nearly
uniform and constant far from the well, but that region does experience a variation of horizontal pressure gradient brought on
by the variation of injection rate (Figs. 13 and 19).
Rg is not constant in a WAG or SAG process. Here we report the values of Rg at the end of injection of gas and liquid slugs
in the WAG. We find that this corresponds roughly to the minimum and maximum values of Rg, respectively. For relatively
small cycle sizes the two values are similar. For large slugs the maximum value may be ambiguous because there is no longer
a recognizable mixed zone. We show examples below. As a second measure, we report maximum and minimum volumes of
gas in the reservoir. Cycle size, in fraction of PV, is based on the pore volume of the cylindrical reservoir in each case. Since
this varies from case to case, cycle size should be considered only for comparison within individual cases.
Fig. 22 shows the mixed zone for co-injection in the water-wet reservoir: Rg = 125 m. In this and following figures we use
a cutoff of the water saturation corresponding to 50% of the injected gas fractional flow, to highlight the boundary of the
mixed zone. With small slug size, 0.001 PV/cycle, the maximum and minimum values of Rg (Figs. 23 and 24) are 138 and 136
m, respectively. The difference between maximum and minimum values of Rg in WAG is small (only two grid blocks), but the
difference with co-injection is significant, representing about a 20% increase in volume swept.
Figs. 25 and 26 show the results with a cycle size of 0.034 PV: Rg = 200 and 225 m after gas injection and water injection,
respectively. The larger value is perhaps a little misleading, because it represents gas about to enter the override zone rather
than a large mixed zone. Nonetheless, it does represent additional formation swept by gas. Fig. 27 shows the maximum and
minimum values of Rg as a function of WAG cycle size for the water-wet case. Rg increases by 12% to 14% for the smallest
cycle shown (0.001 PV) and by a factor of over 2.4 for the largest cycle (0.106 PV). No maximum value is shown for the
largest cycle injected because segregation occurs beyond the production well at 300 m. Fig. 28 shows the minimum and
maximum amount of gas present in the reservoir, as a function of cycle size. The maximum gas volume in place increases
greatly as cycle size increases, while the minimum also increase modestly. The smallest WAG cycle size tested gives an
6 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

increase in gas in place of 19% to 22%, and the largest cycle size an increase by a factor of 1.88 to 4.31 over co-injection, in
agreement with the trend in Rg.
Fig. 29 shows the variation of injection rate for each phase as cycle size increases for WAG injection.
Figs. 30, 31, and 32 corresponding to Figs. 27, 28, and 29, respectively for the oil-wet relative case. The smallest cycle size
shown in Fig. 30 (0.002 PV) gives an increase of 8% to 10% in Rg, and the largest cycle size (0.196 PV) gives an increase by a
factor of 2.67 to 2.75. In terms of volume of gas in the reservoir, the smallest cycle size gives an increase 44% to 48% and the
largest cycle an increase by a factor of 2.2 to 6.1.
It remains to distinguish the relative roles of the three differences between co-injection and WAG listed at the start of this
section - increasing average injection rate, varying injection rate, and varying injected water fraction - in the increased sweep
efficiency in WAG. We take as a base case WAG injection with cycle size of 0.008 PV in the water-wet reservoir, for which
the maximum and minimum values of Rg 143 and 140 m; for co-injection in the water-wet reservoir at fixed injection pressure,
Rg = 121 m. Fig. 33 shows sweep with co-injection at fixed WGR but the larger average injection rate that is possible with
WAG. Rg is 140 m, greater than the value for co-injection at fixed pressure but less than the maximum value for WAG at fixed
pressure. This larger injection rate would be impossible at fixed WGR and fixed injection pressure of 17.5 MPa; the case
merely illustrates the advantage of WAG in making a greater average injection rate possible at fixed injection pressure.
To isolate the effect of varying injection rate, we inject at fixed WGR using the injection-rate history of the WAG: that is,
injection rates that vary by about a factor of three, as they do in WAG at fixed injection pressure, but with fixed WGR
throughout. Figs. 34 and 35 show the maximum and minimum values of Rg, 148 m and 141 m. Injection pressure during
injection at the higher rate (18.8 MPa) substantially exceeds 17.5 MPa; this case illustrates the benefit of WAG in allowing
periods of high injection rate at fixed injection pressure. This result outperforms all the other cases. This suggests that the
benefits of WAG in overcoming gravity segregation arise from raising average injection rate (difference 3 listed above) and
allowing periods of even higher injection rate (difference 2); varying injected water fraction (difference 1) makes this possible
at fixed injection pressure, but by itself variable injected water fraction is harmful to sweep efficiency. The best case,
hypothetically, would involve the benefits of increased injectivity but maintain constant WGR.
Fig. 36 shows the mixed zone during steady foam injection; Rg = 132 m. Fig. 37 shows water saturation with SAG with
0.002 PV/cycle, at the end of gas injection; the profile is very similar at the end of water injection. Rg is 178 m, an increase of
38% in Rg, implying a 90% increase in volume swept. Rg is larger with larger cycle size. Fig. 38 and 39 show results for 0.034
PV/cycle, with Rg = 233 m. Fig. 40 shows Rg as a function of cycle size for SAG. The smallest SAG slug size shown gives an
Rg 38% larger than co-injection, and the biggest slug size gives Rg 81% larger than steady foam injection. Fig. 41 shows the
maximum and minimum volumes of gas in the reservoir as a function of cycle size. For the smallest cycle size shown (0.002
PV) the volume of gas in the reservoir is 88% larger than for steady foam injection; for the largest cycle shown (0.034 PV) gas
in place increases by a factor of 3.19 to 3.34. Fig. 42 shows how injection rates vary with cycle size in the SAG process.
Eq. 3 purports to relate segregation distance to injection pressure for co-injection processes regardless of the mobility of
injected fluids (Rossen et al., 2009). In our cases, Rg for co-injection is about 125 m and 123m for the water wet and oil wet
cases without foam (Figs. 27 and 29) and 132 m for foam (Figs. 36 and 40). This is remarkably good agreement with theory,
given that foam mobility about two orders of magnitude lower in the mixed zone in SAG than mobility in the WAG processes
(Fig. 8).

Injection of Water Above Gas

Reservoir and Fluids Models
Again we used the STARS simulator. The reservoir grid in this case is cylindrical (360°), with 50 grid blocks in the
horizontal direction and 100 in the vertical direction. In the horizontal direction the increment in radial distance per grid block
is either 0.2 m or 4 m, giving reservoirs 10 m or 200 m in diameter. In all cases grid blocks are 0.2 m tall, giving a reservoir 20
m thick. Porosity is 0.25 and horizontal and vertical permeabilities are 100 and 50 md, respectively. The injection well is in the
center of the first grid block, with radius 10 cm. The outer grid block, with the production well, has very large horizontal
permeability but virtually zero vertical permeability, giving in effect an open outer boundary at the outer edge of the 49th grid
block (at 9.8 and 196 m, respectively).
Reservoir temperature is assumed uniform at 40°C, and pressure at the open outer boundary constant at 13.8 MPa. As
above, water density is 1000 kg/m3, and water viscosity 1 cP. "Gas" (supercritical CO2) density and viscosity are calculated by
the simulator, but are around 680 kg/m3 and 0.0151 cP at 13.8 MPa. As with the study of WAG, we focus on steady state, after
mobile oil is produced. There is a 0.29 saturation of immobile oil throughout the reservoir. We use the oil-wet relative
permeabilities illustrated in Fig. 4.
Unlike the study of WAG, here we use fixed injection rates. In all cases, water is injected at a rate of 180 m3/d at 13.8
MPa. Gas is injected at 74,000 stnd m3/d, which represents 174 m3/d at 13.8 MPa. Thus the nominal injected WGR at reservoir
conditions is about 1:1. We choose these injection rates in order to observe gravity segregation with co-injection roughly
midway between the injection well and the outer reservoir radius when the outer radius is 200 m. For cases of injection of
water above gas, water was injected from the top 95 grid blocks of the vertical well and gas from the bottom 5 grid blocks.
We use the simulations of the region within 10 m of the injection well to better resolve injectivity than possible in the case
with 200-m outer radius. Therefore, in the smaller-scale study, the pressure of the production well, 10 m from the well, is set at
the steady-state pressure in the third column of grid blocks from the well (specifically the grid block in the middle of this
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 7

column) in the case with 200-m radius, which corresponds a position to 10 m from the well. The injection pressure with the
10-m radius then effectively represents the injection pressure in the larger reservoir, with better resolution near the well.
Fig. 43 shows water saturation at steady state for co-injection in the 200-m reservoir. For comparison Fig. 43 also shows
the same plot using the cutoff in water saturation used in the WAG study with the same relative-permeability curves. Using
this cutoff, complete segregation occurs at about 92 m. The pressure at the injection well is 15.7 MPa in this simulation. The
pressure in the third grid block (10 m) from the well does not vary much with vertical position, and is about 15.0 MPa. With
the refined grid (0.2-m grid blocks out to a radius of 9.8 m), and the outer pressure set at 15.0 MPa, the injection-well pressure
is 16.8 MPa. Compared to the large variation of pressure radially, there is little variation of pressure vertically in this case.
Fig. 44 shows water saturation at steady state for injection of water above gas in this 200-m reservoir. At the same fixed
injection rate, the underride zone begins at a greater distance than with co-injection at the same injection rate, as predicted by
theory (Rossen et al., 2009): at about 112 m. However, it is clear that gas here sweeps not an entire "mixed zone" but misses a
region toward the top near the injection well. Theory (Rossen et al., 2009) predicts that at steady state there is a zone near the
injection well toward the top which is not swept by gas, which is quite large in this case. The best injection strategy would
then be to inject gas and water and smaller rates initially, to sweep the near-well region, and then at increasing rates to sweep
the zone out to that shown in Fig. 44. The injection-well pressure in this case is 15.2 MPa, and the pressure in the third grid
block, 10 m from the injection well, is 14.7 MPa. For simulation of the near-well region we therefore set pressure at the outer
radius at 14.7 MPa. Fig. 45 shows pressure distribution in the near-well region. In spite of the much-longer injection interval
for water, the water-well pressure is significantly greater than the gas-well pressure. If the water-injection interval were further
lengthened, the water-well pressure would not be reduced much, though with a sufficiently small injection interval the gas-
well pressure could be increased toward the same value as that of the water well. Therefore, the estimate of the injection
pressure from this simulation, 16.4 MPa, is close to the optimal value that could be attained by adjusting water- and gas-
injection intervals. The rise in injection pressure above reservoir pressure is about 15% lower with injection of water above gas
than with co-injection.
The modest increase injectivity in this example is far less than that estimated before (about a factor of three: Rossen et al.,
2009) with foam. Fig. 8 provides the explanation: the difference between mobility with co-injection and single-phase injection
is much greater with foam than within normal water-gas flow. This study represents the first extension to water-gas injection
without foam, and with better resolution near the injection well. It suggests that the benefits for injectivity with injection of
water above gas are much less with normal gas-water flow than with foam.

Conclusions
1. The model for gravity segregation in gas EOR proposed by Stone (1982) and Jenkins (1984) applies to processes with
fixed injection rate as long as slugs mix in the near-well region and mobility is uniform further from the well, where most
gravity segregation occurs. As extended by Rossen and Shen (2007) to cases with fixed injection pressure, the model is
pessimistic for WAG processes because it underestimates injectivity and therefore injection rate.
2. Studies of WAG and SAG foam processes in 1D radial flow show that it is possible to satisfy the criteria of nearly
uniform and constant mobility far from the well with sufficiently small slug sizes. With slugs that satisfy this criterion,
injectivity is 10 to 30% greater than co-injection for WAG and 50-150% greater for foam in the cases examined. The
largest increases in injectivity are for slug sizes that violate the assumption of uniform and constant mobility far from the
well. The increase in injectivity is a result of creating a region near the well of single-phase phase flow during WAG.
3. Studies in 2D radial flow confirm the benefits predicted from the 1D study. In the two WAG examples examined,
increases in volume swept of 19 to 22% and 44 to 48% are possible with small slugs, and increases by a factor of 1.9 to
4.3 or 2.2 to 6.1 with larger slugs. For the foam case, even small slugs give an increase by a factor of about 3.3 in volume
swept.
4. Injection of water and gas from separate intervals of a vertical well, with water injection above gas, gives a modest
increase in injectivity over co-injection - about 15% in the case examined. This is far smaller than the advantage estimated
for a foam case in a separate study. As in the WAG and SAG cases presented here, there is a greater benefit from separate
injection of water and gas in foam EOR than without foam, because of the large reduction in mobility with foam when gas
and water flow together.

Nomenclature
fg = gas fractional flow
g = gravitational acceleration
H = height of reservoir
kz, kh = vertical and horizontal absolute permeability, respectively
L = length of rectangular reservoir
Lg = distance to point of segregation in rectangular reservoir
p(Rg) = pressure at radial position Rg
p(Rw) = pressure at injection well
Q = total volumetric injection rate of both phases
r = radial position in cylindrical reservoir
8 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

Rw = radius of wellbore in cylindrical reservoir

Rg = radial distance to point of complete segregation in cylindrical reservoir
Sw = water saturation
W = width of rectangular reservoir in direction perpendicular to flow
WGR = water-gas ratio
z = vertical position in reservoir

Greek Symbols
λrtm = total relative mobility in mixed zone
ρw, ρg = density of water and gas, respectively

Acknowledgements
We thank the Computer Modeling Group for use of the simulator STARS, and in particular Adel Hammouda help with its
implementation. We thanks Core Laboratories, Inc., for permission to use the oil-wet and water-wet relative permeability
curves from their instructional materials.

References
Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., Skauge, A.: "Review of WAG Field Experience," SPE 39883, proceedings from the SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in Villahermose , Mexico , 3-5 March 1998.
Core Laboratories Inc.: “A course in Special Core Analysis,” Dallas, Texas, 1982.
Jamshidnezhad, M., et al.: "Well Stimulation and Gravity Segregation in Gas Improved Oil Recovery," SPE 112375, presented at the SPE
Formation Damage Symposium, Lafayette, LA, 13-15 Feb. 2008; SPE Journal, in press (2009).
Jamshidnezhad, M., van der Bol, L., and Rossen W. R.: "Injection of Water above Gas for Improved Sweep in Gas IOR: Performance in
3D," paper IPTC 12556 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3–5 December
2008.
Jenkins, M. K., 1984: "An Analytical Model for Water/Gas Miscible Displacements," SPE 12632, presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 15-18, 1984.
Kloet, M. B., Renkema, W. J., and Rossen, W. R., "Optimal Design Criteria for SAG Foam Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," SPE
121581 presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–11 June 2009.
LaForce, T. L., and Orr, F. M.: " Four-Component Gas/Water/Oil Displacements in One Dimension: Part III, Development of Miscibility,"
Transport Porous Media, in press (2009).
Lake, L. W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989).
Renkema, W. J., and Rossen, W. R.: "Success of SAG Foam Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," SPE 110408, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 2007.
Rossen, W. R., van Duijn, C. J., Nguyen, Q. P., Shen, C., and Vikingstad, A. K., "Injection Strategies to Overcome Gravity Segregation in
Simultaneous Gas and Liquid Injection Into Homogeneous Reservoirs," SPE 99794 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 22-26 April, 2006; SPE Journal, in press (2009).
Rossen, W. R., and Shen, C., "Gravity Segregation in Gas-Injection IOR," SPE 107262, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, London, 11–14 June 2007.
Rossen, W. R., and van Duijn, C. J., "Gravity Segregation in Steady-State Horizontal Flow in Homogeneous Reservoirs," J. Petr. Sci. Eng.
43, 99-111 (2004).
Sanchez, N. L.: “Management of Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Projects,” SPE 53714 prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 21–23 April 1999.
Shan, D. and Rossen, W.R., “Optimal Injection Strategies for Foam IOR,” SPE Journal 9 (June 2004), 132-150.
Stolwijk, G. H., and Rossen, W. R.: "Gravity Segregation in Gas IOR in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," presented at the 15th European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Paris, France, 27 – 29 April 2009.
Stone, H. L.: "Vertical Conformance in an Alternating Water-Miscible Gas Flood," SPE 11130, presented at the SPE Annual Tech. Conf.
and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 26-29 Sept. 26-29 1982.
Stone, H. L.: "A Simultaneous Water and Gas Flood Design with Extraordinary Vertical Gas Sweep," SPE paper 91724, presented at the
2004(a) SPE International Petroleum Conference, Puebla, Mexico, 7-9 November, 2004(a).
Stone, H. L.: USA Provisional Patent no. 60/469,700; International Patent Application no. PCT/US 2004/014519, 2004(b).
Treiber, L. E., Archer, D. L., Owens, W. W.: "A Laboratory Evaluation of the Wettability of Fifty Oil-Producing Reservoirs," SPE Journal
(Dec. 1972), 531-540.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 9

Table 1. Reservoir and fluid properties used in this study

Oil-Wet Case Reservoir properties

Reservoir size (r, θ, z) 350 m, 15°, 20 m
1D Number of grid blocks 361 × 1 × 1
2D Number of grid blocks 361 × 1 × 20
Swi 0.71
Sgi 0
Soi 0.29

Water-Wet Case Reservoir properties

Reservoir size (r, θ, z) 300 m, 15°, 20 m
1D Number of grid blocks 311 × 1 × 1
2D Number of grid blocks 311 × 1 × 20
Swi 0.775
Sgi 0
Soi 0.225

Foam-Case Reservoir properties

Reservoir size (r, θ, z) 250 m, 15°, 20 m
1D Number of grid blocks 251 × 1 × 1
2D Number of grid blocks 251 × 1 × 20
Swi 0.85
Sgi 0
Soi 0.15

Horizontal permeability 1000 mD

Vertical permeability 100 mD
Porosity 20%

Fluid properties
Water viscosity 1 cP
Gas viscosity 0.0155 cP
Water density 1000 kg/m3
Gas density 660 kg/m3

Initial condition
Reservoir pressure 165 bar (16.5 MPa)
Reservoir temperature 50°C
Injection pressure 175 bar (17.5 MPa)
Wellbore radius 0.04 m

Table 2. The variation of WGR in WAG injection (1D Simulations)

Oil Wet Water Wet Foam

Slug size WGR Slug size WGR Slug size WGR
0.002 1:2 0.001 1 : 1.9 0.002 1 : 2.2
0.004 1 : 1.9 0.008 1 : 1.8 0.003 1:2
0.014 1 : 1.9 0.022 1 : 1.9 0.007 1:2
0.059 1 : 2.1 0.034 1:2 0.015 1 : 2.1
0.196 1 : 2.1 0.106 1 : 2.1 0.034 1 : 2.2
10 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

Fig. 1. Schematic of three uniform zones in model of Stone (1982) and Jenkins (1984).

gas or water (alternating)

slugs mix; uniform

non- saturations
uniform
satura-
tions

Fig. 2. Schematic of assumption of Stone (1982) and Jenkins (1982) that mixing of slugs in a WAG process occurs in a region near the
well that is small compared to the region in which gravity segregation occurs.

1
or fraction of gravity segregation achieved

0.9
0.8
fraction of pressure dissipated

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
r
Fig. 3. Fraction of injection pressure dissipated and fraction of injected fluids lost from mixed zone as functions of distance from
injection well, in a case where Rg = 500 m. The two curves for fraction of injection pressure dissipated reflect different assumptions
about the shape of the mixed zone (Rossen and Shen, 2004; Jamshidnezhad et al., 2009). From Jamshidnezhad et al. (2009).

1 1

0.8 0.8
Relative permeability
Relative permeability

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

krw krg
krow krog
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Water saturation Liquid saturation

Fig. 4. Relative-permeability curves from the oil-wet Miocene Kareem Formation, UAE (Core Laboratories,1982).
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 11

1 1

0.8 0.8

Relative permeability
Relative permeability

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
krw krg
krow krog
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation Liquid saturation

Fig. 5. Relative-permeability curves from the water-wet I-Sand Formation, Argentina (Core Laboratories,1982).

0.25

0.2
Relative permeability

0.15

0.1

0.05
krw
krg
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation

Fig. 6. Relative-permeability curves used to describe foam flow, from Renkema and Rossen (2007). Effective gas relative permeability
here accounts for all effects of foam on gas mobility. Foam greatly reduces gas mobility for water saturations above a threshold
value, which here is 0.36. An immobile oil saturation of 0.15 is assumed in this plot.

0.1
Relative permeability

0.01

0.001

0.0001

krw
krg
0.00001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation
Fig. 7. Gas-water relative-permeability functions used to describe foam flow, from Renkema and Rossen (2007). Note shift to log scale
for relative permeabilities. An immobile oil saturation of 0.15 is assumed in this plot.
12 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

100,000
Oil Wet
Water wet
Foam

Total relative mobility (1/Pa s)

10,000

1,000

100

10

1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water fractional flow

Fig. 8. Total relative mobility (1/Pa s) as a function of water fractional flow for each of the three sets of relative-permeability curves in
Figs. 4 to 7. In both oil-wet and water-wet cases total relative mobility decreases monotonically with increasing water fraction. For
foam, the lowest total relative mobility occurs at intermediate water fraction. The WAG simulations in this study correspond to
average injected water fraction about 0.33; the study of injection of water above gas to a water fraction about 0.5.

Fig. 9. Gas saturation as a function of position (grid block number) and time for the case of oil-wet relative permeabilities. In this
case a cycle of gas and water injection represents 0.004 PV.

Fig. 10. Gas saturation as a function of location and time for WAG injection, oil-wet case, after reaching steadily repeating behavior,
for cycles of 0.004 PV. This figure represents Fig. 9 with an expanded time scale.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 13

Fig. 11. Total relative mobility (1/Pa s) as a function of location and time for WAG injection, oil-wet case, with cycles of 0.004 PV, at
long times; cf. Fig. 10.

10

1
Fluctuation

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21

Cycle size PVinj

Fig. 12. Fluctuations in total relative mobility at the outer radius of the 1D reservoir, as a fraction of the value of total relative mobility
for co-injection, as a function of cycle size for WAG processes in the oil-wet reservoir. Co-injection corresponds to zero fluctuation at
vanishing slug size.

Fig. 13. Injectivity during cyclic WAG injection into the oil-wet reservoir, with 29 days water injection and 10 days gas injection (0.059
PV/cycle). The red line is average injectivity of the WAG process; the blue line, injectivity for co-injection. The WAG process shows an
increase in average injectivity by a factor of 1.24 over co-injection.
14 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

0.58

0.56

0.54

Injectivity (m /d/bar)
0.52

3
0.5

0.48

0.46

0.44

0.42

0.4
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 14. Average injectivity in WAG injection as a function of cycle size in the oil-wet reservoir.

10

1
Fluctuation

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

Cycle size PVinj

Fig. 15. Fluctuations in total relative mobility at the outer radius of the 1D reservoir, as a fraction of the value of total relative mobility
for co-injection, as a function of cycle size for WAG processes in the water-wet reservoir. Co-injection corresponds to zero
fluctuation at vanishing slug size.

0.26

0.25

0.24
Injectivity (m /d/bar)

0.23

0.22
3

0.21

0.2

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.16
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 16. Average injectivity in WAG injection as a function of cycle size in the water-wet reservoir.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 15

0.001

Fluctuation
0.0001

0.00001
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

Cycle size PVinj

Fig. 17. Fluctuations in total relative mobility, at the outer radius of the 1D reservoir, as a fraction of the value of total relative mobility
for co-injection, as a function of cycle size for SAG (foam) processes. Co-injection corresponds to zero fluctuation at vanishing slug
size.

0.035

0.03
Injectivity (m /d/bar)

0.025
3

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 18. Average injectivity in WAG injection as a function of SAG cycle size in the foam case.

Fig. 19. Injectivity during SAG injection (40 days water injection and 60 days gas injection; total cycle size 0.015 PV) after steady,
repeating pattern is attained, and steady injection of foam in 1D reservoir. The SAG process shows an increase in average injectivity
by a factor of 2.13 over steady injection of foam.
16 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

Fig. 20. Pressure distribution (kPa) at the end of water injection, cycle size 0.106 PV, water-wet reservoir. Pressure is largely
dissipated near the wellbore.

Fig. 21. Pressure distribution (kPa) at the end of gas injection, cycle size 0.106 PV, water-wet reservoir. Injection pressure is
dissipated over wider portion of the reservoir than in co-injection (Fig. 20).

Fig. 22. Water-saturation profile for co-injection in water-wet reservoir; Rg = 125 m.

SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 17

Fig. 23. Water saturation at the end of gas injection in WAG in water-wet reservoir with cycle size of 0.001 PV; Rg = 136 m.

Fig. 24. Water saturation at the end of water injection in WAG in water-wet reservoir with cycle size of 0.001 PV; Rg = 138 m.

Fig. 25. Water saturation at the end of gas injection in WAG in water-wet reservoir with cycle size of 0.034 PV; Rg = 200 m.

Fig. 26. Water saturation at the end of water injection in WAG in water-wet reservoir with cycle size of 0.034 PV; Rg = 225 m.
18 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

350

300

250

200

Rg (m)
150

100

50 WAG max Rg
WAG min Rg
co-injection Rg
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 27. Maximum and minimum values of Rg as a function of WAG cycle size in water-wet reservoir. No maximum Rg is shown
because segregation happens beyond the production well at 300 m.

0.9

0.8
Volume swept (MM m )
3

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
WAG max volume
0.1 WAG min volume
co-injection volume
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 28. Maximum and minimum volume of gas in reservoir as function of WAG cycle size in 2D water-wet case.

160

140

120
Rate (m /d)

100 co-injection water rate

co-injection gas rate
3

co-injection total rate

80
WAG water rate
WAG gas rate
60

40

20

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 29. Maximum and minimum injection rate as a function of WAG cycle size in 2D water-wet case.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 19

350

300

250

200

Rg (m)
150

100

50 WAG max Rg
WAG min Rg
co-injection Rg
0
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 30. Maximum and minimum values of Rg as a function of WAG cycle size in oil-wet case.

1.8

1.6
Volume swept (MM m )
3

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
WAG max volume
0.2 WAG min volume
co-injection volume
0
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 31. Maximum and minimum volume of gas in reservoir as function of WAG cycle size in 2D oil-wet case.

350

300

250
Rate (m3/d)

co-injection water rate

200 co-injection gas rate
co-injection total rate
WAG water rate
150
WAG gas rate

100

50

0
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 32. Maximum and minimum injection rate as a function of WAG cycle size in 2D oil-wet case.
20 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

Fig. 33. Water-saturation profile in co-injection process (fixed WGR) using constant injection rate set to the average injection rate of
WAG with 0.008 PV cycle: Rg = 140 m.

Fig. 34. Water-saturation profile showing minimum Rg = 141 m in co-injection process using injection-rate history of WAG with 0.008
PV cycle and fixed water fractional flow.

Fig. 35. Water-saturation profile showing maximum Rg = 148 m in co-injection process using injection-rate history of WAG with 0.008
PV cycle and fixed water fractional flow.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 21

Fig. 36. Water-saturation profile for co-injection of foam; Rg = 132 m.

Fig. 37. Water saturation at the end of gas injection in SAG with cycle size of 0.002 PV; Rg = 178 m. This radius of segregation is
indistinguishable from that at the end of water injection.

Fig. 38. Water saturation at the end of gas injection in WAG in water-wet reservoir with cycle size of 0.034 PV; Rg = 233 m.

Fig. 39. Water saturation at the end of water injection in WAG in water-wet reservoir with cycle size of 0.034 PV; Rg = 233 m.
22 A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, and W. R. Rossen SPE 124197

300

250

200

Rg (m)
150

100

50
SAG Rg
steady foam injection Rg
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 40. Rg as a function of SAG cycle size in foam case. We find virtually no variation in Rg values with time for these cycle sizes.

3.5
Volume swept (MM m )
3

2.5

1.5

SAG max volume

0.5
SAG min volume
steady foam injection volume
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 41. Maximum and minimum volume of gas in reservoir as function of WAG cycle size in 2D foam case.

5
Rate (m /d)

4
3

2 steady foam injection water rate

steady foam injection gas rate
steady foam injection total rate
1
SAG water rate
SAG gas rate
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
Cycle size PVinj
Fig. 42. Maximum and minimum injection rate as a function of SAG cycle size in 2D foam case.
SPE 124197 Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG Enhanced Oil Recovery 23

Fig. 43. Water-saturation distribution for co-injection for comparison with injection of water above gas. Right-hand plot uses same
cutoff for water saturation as used in the WAG study with the same (oil-wet) relative-permeability curves. The mixed zone extends 92
m.

Fig. 44. Water-saturation distribution for injection of water above gas at same injection rates as in Fig. 43. Gas is injected from bottom
5 grid blocks (5% of formation interval) and water from top 95. Right-hand plot uses same cutoff for water saturation as used in the
WAG study with the oil-wet relative-permeability curves. The underride zone begins at 116 m.

Fig. 45. Pressure distribution in injection of water above gas; same case as in Fig. 44, but simulation of flow within 10 m of well, with
pressure at 10 m set at pressure in third column of grid blocks in Fig. 44. Note lower pressure in gas-injection interval at bottom of
well.