SPE-191167-MS

Evaluation of the Effect of Water Salinity, Water Viscosity, and Injection

Strategy on Heavy Oil Recovery and Carbon Dioxide Storage in the Forest
Reserve Field, Trinidad

Cassandra Dewan, DNV GL; Lorraine Sobers, The University of the West Indies

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 25-26
June 2018.

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
Although Trinidad and Tobago has an abundant supply of relatively pure CO2 and more than 1 billion barrels
of heavy oil deposits there are no active enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects using carbon dioxide (CO2).
In this paper, we have performed black oil simulation studies to evaluate several injection strategies with
carbonated water, varying the salinity and viscosity of injected water. The salinity was varied by 1,000
and 35,000 ppm. The viscosity was increased by adding 0.1 weight percent polymer to injected water.
The investigation was carried out using a commercial reservoir simulator. The simulation grid represents
the properties of a quarter five-spot of the Lower Forest sand of the Forest Reserve Field. The reservoir
simulation components used are water, polymer, H, Na, Cl-, dead oil, solution gas and CO2. The Stone #1
three-phase relative permeability model was used to calculate the three-phase relative permeabilities from
two-phase data. In addition, a factorial experimental design was utilized and twelve simulation runs were
done along with nine benchmark runs for comparison to other EOR methods.
From the results obtained the following was concluded: water salinity has no effect on either oil recovery
or carbon dioxide storage; polymer injection increases oil recovery and carbon dioxide storage. We found
the optimal injection strategy to be a cycling of carbonated water alternating with polymer injection.

Introduction
On 22nd February 2018, Trinidad and Tobago ratified the Paris Climate Change Agreement at the United
Nations Headquarters in New York. Trinidad and Tobago remains committed to reducing its cumulative
carbon emissions by 15%, that is 103 million tons of CO2, in the power generation, transport and
industrialized sectors by 2030 (United Nations Development Programme T&T).
One method that can be utilized to mitigate global climate change is Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS). CCS reduces greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas production as well as power generation by
employing three main processes (Sundset 2011):
2 SPE-191167-MS

1. CO2 Capture – CO2 emissions are captured from large industrial facilities before it is emitted to the
atmosphere.
2. CO2 Transport – CO2 is transported from large industrial facilities through pipelines to where it is
permanently stored.
3. CO2 Storage – CO2 is permanently stored in depleted oil and gas reservoirs.
Once implemented, CCS can decrease CO2 emissions by up to 55% and maintain approximately a +2°C
in global climate change (Tørstad 2008).
For more than 40 years, CO2 has been injected into depleting reservoirs worldwide resulting in 7 to
15% incremental oil recovery of the oil initially in place (Ali 2013). This EOR process can be classified as
miscible or immiscible and is applied predominantly in the United States where there is an abundant supply
of natural CO2 (Kottungal 2008).
Miscible CO2 flooding occurs when the injected carbon dioxide mixes in all proportions with the fluid in
the reservoir at the set reservoir pressure and temperature (Haynes 1990). Immiscible CO2 flooding occurs
when the injected carbon dioxide dissolves partially with the oil. Miscibility is not achieved if the reservoir
pressure is below the minimum miscibility pressure for the given composition of the oil, as is typically the
case with heavy oil (between 10 to 25 °API). One major drawback of CO2 flooding is poor sweep efficiency
(Ali 2013).
Four onshore immiscible CO2 experimental projects were conducted intermittently between 1973 and
1990 in the Forest Reserve and Oropouche fields. An ammonia plant located on the Point Lisas Industrial
Estate provided the source of CO2 which was piped to the Forest Reserve oil field 42km away. In all four
projects an increase in both oil production and recovery were observed (Mohammed-Singh & Singhal 2004).
Trinidad and Tobago has two factors which makes enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide storage an
ideal solution to both our economic and environmental problems. Firstly, there is an abundant supply of
relatively pure CO2. The total daily CO2 production from petrochemical plants located on the Point Lisas
Industrial Estate and the Atlantic LNG plant exceeds 1,000 MMscf/d (Boodlal 2008). Secondly, there is a
decline in crude oil and condensate production as well as, natural gas production as shown in Figures 1 and
2 (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries). Since then there has been a steady decline in crude oil and
condesate production as shown in Figure 1. The lowest recorded crude oil and condensate production was in
2016 and 2017 at 26.2 MMBBL and represents a 50% decline in crude oil and condensate production from
2005. CO2EOR can contribute to increased production by recovering heavy oil from known oil deposits.

Figure 1—Trinidad and Tobago's Annual Crude Oil & Condensate Production for the period 2000 to 2017 (MEEI).
SPE-191167-MS 3

Figure 2—Trinidad and Tobago's Annual Natural Gas Production for the period 2000 to 2017 (MEEI).

CO2 EOR Injection Strategies

Carbonated Water Injection In 1958 the first commercial application of carbonated water injection was
implemented (Shimokawara 2017). The dissolution of CO2 in water resulted in improved oil recovery and
displacement by improving sweep efficiency and limiting gravity segregation (Sohrabi 2009). However, the
true potential and mechanism of carbonated water injection is unknown and presently there is no reservoir
simulation software that can satisfactorily model this complex EOR process (Sohrabi 2015).
Water alternating gas injection is a combination of waterflooding and CO2 flooding, in an attempt to
improve oil recovery by reducing the relative permeability of the injected gas (Ali 2013). WAG must
be designed meticulously to prevent the injected water from obstructing the flow of oil and reducing oil
recovery (Zekri, 2011). Several other factors affecting WAG include: wettability, fluid properties, miscibility
conditions, injection techniques, WAG parameters and flow geometry (Wilson 2017). Additionally,
like carbonated water injection, the mechanism of three-phase flow and the production of three-phase
permeability in WAG remains unclear (Dong 2002).
Simultaneous water and gas injection (SWAG) also known as water over gas injection (WOG), is a
modified form of WAG proposed to improve both the sweep efficiency and mobility control of CO2 and
subsequently, oil recovery and carbon storage. In SWAG, CO2 is injected in the lower region of the reservoir
and water is injected in the upper region of the reservoir, directly above the CO2 (Sobers 2012). SWAG
reduces oil capillary entrapment in small reservoirs (Sanchez 1999). The predominant factors prohibiting
the advancement of SWAG are the lack of knowledge, research and literature on its operation as well as,
the shortage of available solutions on the market (Sergeev 2017).
Low salinity waterflooding Within the last ten years, low salinity waterflooding has obtained a lot of
recognition as an emerging EOR process and nearly all the coreflood experiments performed on sandstone
reservoirs demonstrated an increase in oil recovery (Chandrashegaran 2015). On the contrary, the literature
also reports some low salinity waterfloodings with no increase in oil recovery (Shiran and Skauge 2012).
A substantial amount of work still needs to be done to determine the main mechanisms of low salinity
waterflooding and how reservoir conditions can impact the performance of those mechanisms (Nasralla
2011).
Low salinity polymer flooding This method increases oil recovery by reducing residual oil saturation, and
altering wettability. Further, low salinity water requires lower concentrations of recommended polymer to
achieve a specified viscosity. However, Dang (2014) found that decreased injectivity prevents the synergy
between polymer and low salinity waterflooding.
4 SPE-191167-MS

CO2 LSWAG injection encourages the interaction of the mechanisms fundamental to low salinity
waterflooding and WAG (i.e. ion-exchange, wettability alteration, CO2 miscible effects and mobility
control) and has the highest oil recovery factor when compared to CO2 flooding, low salinity waterflooding
and CO2 HSWAG (Dang 2014).
In viscous oil reservoirs, polymer flooding lowers the mobility ratio (M) between oil and the displacing
fluid thus improving the macroscopic sweep efficiency. A lower mobility ratio increases the oil recovery
factor due to a reduction in flow instabilities and improvements in areal and vertical sweep efficiency
(Pizzinelli 2015). In addition to mobility ratio, temperature, water salinity, high clay content and the presence
of faults, fractures and preferential flow channels must also be taken into consideration during polymer
flooding (Bybee 2006).
Polymer/gas-alternating-water (PGAW) merges two EOR processes, polymer flooding and gas-
alternating-water injection, in order to overcome viscous fingering and poor sweep efficiency, reduce
polymer concentrations and solution volumes as well as, increase oil recovery and displacement efficiency
(Zhang et al. 2009).
During the last two decades, very limited work was reported in the literature on Carbonated Water
Injection. Recently, new EOR processes such as CO2 LSWAG and PGAW have been developed which
merge existing proven EOR processes. This paper is an investigation of the effect of water salinity, water
viscosity and several injection strategies with carbonated water. The oil recovery factor as well as carbon
dioxide stored have been analyzed for each variable.

Methodology
Grid Description
The investigation was carried out using CMG reservoir simulator software suite. The simulation grid shown
in Figure 3 represents a quarter five-spot of a 340ft (approximately 105m) thick portion of the Lower Forest
sand of the Forest Reserve Field.

Figure 3—3D representation of the grid used for simulations. The

location of the vertical injector and the vertical producer are shown.
SPE-191167-MS 5

The entire grid is 36 × 48 × 17 (i × j × k) grid blocks with dimensions of 40m × 40m × 20m respectively.
The reservoir properties which are representative of the Lower Forest sand of the Forest Reserve field are
listed in Table 1 (Mohammed-Singh & Singhal 2004).

Table 1—Forest Reserve Field Reservoir Properties.

Component and Phase Properties

The basic components for black oil simulation: water, dead oil and solution gas were used with typical
properties. Additionally, CO2, Na+, Cl- and a polymer were included as components. CO2 in the gaseous
phase was combined with injector water to create carbonated water. Na+ and Cl-were added to injector
water in different concentrations to increase water salinity and the polymer component was added to injector
water to increase water viscosity.

Reservoir Simulation
In this study, the three factors being investigated are (i) the effect of water salinity, (ii) the effect of water
viscosity and (iii) the effect of injection strategy (specifically carbonated water alternating water injection)
on oil recovery as well as carbon dioxide storage. For the investigation of the effect of injection strategy,
the fluids were injected in three month intervals. For the investigation of the effect of water salinity, two
different salinities were used. For low salinity water, the salinity of the injected fluid is 1,000 ppm. For high
salinity water, the salinity of the injected fluid is 35,000 ppm. For the investigation of the effect of water
viscosity, a polymer of 0.1 weight percent was added to water.
Well constraints were applied to reflect the limitation of practical operations. The maximum surface total
phase rate for injected fluid carbonated water was 25,220 bbl/day. The maximum surface water rate for
injected fluids water, low salinity water, high salinity water and polymer was 629 bbl/day. The maximum
bottom hole pressure for the injector well was 680 psi. The minimum bottom hole pressure for the producing
well was 50 psi. The producing well shut-in at a water cut of 95%.

Results
Twelve simulation runs were performed to investigate the effect of water salinity (1,000 ppm and 35,000
ppm), water viscosity (0.1 weight percent polymer) and injection strategy (specifically carbonated water
alternating water injection). The runs were evaluated at a cut-off point of 10 total pore volume injected (PVI).
Nine benchmark runs were carried out for comparing the oil recovery and performance of the injection
strategies being investigated. Only two benchmark runs were evaluated at a cut-off point of 10 Total PVI.
The other seven benchmark runs exceeded the water cut limit of 95% before reaching 10 Total PVI. Table
2 summarizes the results obtained for the twelve simulation runs and the nine benchmark runs.
6 SPE-191167-MS

Table 2—Summary of results.

Review of Overall Impact

Table 3 summarizes the results of 2-cycle injection strategies. Below are highlights of these results:

• Carbonated Water alternating Water (Run 1) has the highest oil recovery factor (16.2%). However,
Run 1 also has the lowest carbon dioxide stored (19.2%) and the highest water cut (79.4%). Run
1 has a much higher oil recovery factor (16.2%) than the Base Run (11.8%) for the same injection
period.
• Both Carbonated Water alternating Low Salinity Polymer Water (Run 5) and Carbonated Water
alternating High Salinity Polymer Water (Run 6) have the lowest oil recovery factor (12.1%).
However, Runs 5 and 6 also have the highest carbon dioxide stored (24.3%) and the lowest water
cut (approximately 45%). Runs 5 and 6 have a slightly higher oil recovery factor (12.1%) than the
Base Run (10.5%) for the same injection period.
• Out of the six Runs, Carbonated Water alternating Polymer (Run 4) is a good compromise when it
comes to oil recovery factor, carbon dioxide stored and water cut. Run 4 has an oil recovery factor
of 15.2% which is 1% less than that for Run 1 and 3.1% more than that for Runs 5 and 6. Run 4
has a carbon dioxide stored of 21.8% which is 2.6% more than that for Run 1 and 2.5% less than
that for Runs 5 and 6. Run 4 has a water cut of 71.4% which is 8% less than that for Run 1 and
26.4% more than Runs 5 and 6. Run 4 had a higher oil recovery factor (15.2%) than the Base Run
(11.6%) for the same injection period.
• Run 4 (Carbonated Water alternating Polymer) was the most effective 2 cycle injection strategy.

Table 3—Effect of 2-cycle injection strategies (Runs 1 to 6).

SPE-191167-MS 7

Table 4 summarizes the 3 cycle injection strategies. Below are highlights of these results:

• Both Carbonated Water alternating Water alternating Polymer (Run 7) and Carbonated Water
alternating Polymer alternating Water (Run 8) have the highest oil recovery factor (17.9%).
However, they also have the lowest carbon dioxide stored (17.6% and 18.7%) and the highest water
cut (82.8% and 82.7%). Run 7 and Run 8 both have a much higher oil recovery factor (17.9%) than
the Base Runs (12.5% and 12.6%) for the same injection period.
• Both Carbonated Water alternating Polymer alternating Low Salinity Water (Run 10) and
Carbonated Water alternating Polymer alternating High Salinity Water (Run 12) have the lowest
oil recovery factors (16.7% and 16.3%). However, Runs 10 and 12 also have the highest carbon
dioxide stored (20.7%) and the lowest water cut (approximately 77.4%). Runs 10 and 12 both have
much higher oil recovery factors (16.7% and 16.3%) than the Base Run (12.4% and 12.2%) for
the same injection period.
• Out of the six Runs, Carbonated Water alternating Polymer alternating Low Salinity Water (Run
10) is a good compromise when it comes to oil recovery factor, carbon dioxide stored and water
cut. Run 10 has an oil recovery factor of 16.7% which is 1.2% less than that for both Runs 7 and
8 as well as, 0.4% more than that for Run 12. Run 10 has the same carbon dioxide stored as Run
12 (20.7%) which is 3.1% more than that for Run 7 and 2% more than that for Run 8. Run 10
has the same water cut as Run 12 (77.4%) which is 5.4% less than that for Run 7 and 5.3% less
than Run 8. Run 10 has a higher oil recovery factor (16.7%) than the Base Run (12.4%) for the
same injection period.
• Carbonated Water alternating Polymer alternating Low Salinity Water (Run 10) was the most
effective 3 cycle injection strategy.

Table 4—Effect of 3-cycle injection strategies (Runs 7 to 12).

Table 5 compares the results of the most effective 2 cycle and 3 cycle injection strategies:

• Run 4 and 10 exhibited comparable oil recovery (15.2% and 16.7%) and carbon storage (21.8%
and 20.7%). However, Run 4 showed water cut 6% less than that for Run 10. Runs 4 and 10 both
have much higher oil recovery factors (15.2% and 16.7%) than the Base Run (11.6% and 12.4%)
for the same injection period.
• Run 10 ended approximately 3 years after Run 4 ended which resulted in a slight increase in oil
recovery factory and water cut as well as, a slight decrease in carbon dioxide stored. For Run 10,
consideration must be given to the cost to operate the injection well for an additional three years
for a slight increase in oil recovery factor. For this reason, Run 4 is selected as the best injection
strategy.
• Run 10 is a 3-cycle injection strategy and is a bit more complex than Run 4 which is a 2-cycle
injection strategy. Run 10 alternates between 3 injection fluids of different components making
injection more difficult. For this reason, Run 4 is selected as the best injection strategy.
• Carbonated Water alternating Polymer (Run 4) is the overall most effective injection strategy.
8 SPE-191167-MS

Table 5—Effect of Runs 4 and 10.

Discussion
The objectives of this paper were to investigate the effect of water salinity, the effect of water viscosity and
the effect of injection strategy (specifically carbonated water alternating water injection) on oil recovery as
well as carbon dioxide storage. Both oil recovery as well as carbon dioxide storage are affected by these
three factors.

Effect of Water Salinity

The effect of water salinity was investigated utilizing the following runs: 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12. As
seen from Tables 3 to 5, the addition of NaCl (to increase the water salinity to 1,000 ppm or 35,000 ppm) to
these runs slightly decreased the oil recovery factor and water cut as well as, slightly increased the carbon
dioxide stored.
From Table 3, it was observed that Runs 2 and 3 as well as Runs 5 and 6 had identical oil recovery factors,
carbon dioxide stored and water cut. Thus, it was concluded that the change in water salinity from 1,000
ppm to 35,000 ppm had no effect on oil recovery factor, carbon dioxide stored and water cut.
These findings are consistent with the literature. Nasralla (2011) stated that in some low salinity water
studies, tertiary oil improvement was never observed. In addition, Shiran and Skauge (2012) stated that the
literature also reports some low salinity waterfloodings with no increased oil recovery.

Effect of Water Viscosity

The effect of water viscosity was investigated utilizing the following runs: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. As seen from
Table 3, the addition of the 0.1 weight percent polymer used to increase water viscosity, decreased the oil
recovery factor and water cut as well as, increased the carbon dioxide stored.
The 0.1% weight polymer added to the water to decrease water mobility and increase water viscosity did
not increase the oil recovery. This may be due to the carbonated water which is being injected alternately.
Consequently, the carbonated water flows through the reservoir resulting in viscous fingering and/or poor
sweep efficiency. Polymer injection combined with gas alternating water was investigated by Zhang et al.
(2009). They concluded that combining the two injection strategies resulted in better recovery and efficiency
than Polymer flooding and WAG alone.
Further research needs to be done with the polymer being added to the carbonated water instead of the
water to determine if this will increase oil recovery. Also, different concentrations of polymer should be
added to the water to determine an optimum value that will increase oil recovery. It is possible that the 0.1%
weight of polymer added to the water was too weak to have a significant effect on oil recovery.

Effect of Injection Strategy

The effect of the 2-cycle injection strategies were investigated utilizing Runs 1 to 6. As seen from Table
3, the optimal 2-cycle injection strategy from Runs 1 to 6 is Run 4. Run 4 is a good compromise when it
comes to oil recovery factor, carbon dioxide stored and water cut.
The effect of the 3-cycle injection strategies were investigated utilizing Runs 7 to 12. As seen from Table
4, the optimal 3-cycle injection strategy from Runs 7 to 12 is Run 10. Run 10 is a good compromise when
it comes to oil recovery factor, carbon dioxide stored and water cut.
As seen from Table 4, comparing Runs 9 and 10 as well as Runs 11 and 12 it was observed that injection
strategy had a minute effect on oil recovery factor, carbon dioxide stored and water cut. Injecting polymer
SPE-191167-MS 9

after carbonated water instead of low salinity water or high salinity water decreased the oil recovery factor
and water cut as well as, increased the carbon dioxide stored by a miniscule amount. This is due to fact that
the Runs that had polymer injected after carbonated water obtained a PVI of 10 before the Runs that had
low salinity water or high salinity water injected after carbonated water.
As seen from Table 5, the overall optimal injection strategy from Runs 1 to 12 is Carbonated Water
alternating Polymer (Run 4). Run 4 was chosen over Run 10 for the following reasons:

• Run 10 ended approximately 3 years after Run 4 ended which resulted in a slight increase in oil
recovery factory and water cut as well as, a slight decrease in carbon dioxide stored. For Run 10,
consideration must be given to the cost to operate the injection well for an additional three years
for a slight increase in oil recovery factor.
• Run 10 is a 3-cycle injection strategy and is a bit more complex than Run 4 which is a 2-cycle
injection strategy. Run 10 alternates between 3 injection fluids of different components making
injection more difficult.

Conclusions
The Carbonated Water alternating Water injection strategy can be modified and manipulated to improve oil
recovery as well as carbon dioxide storage. The following conclusions were drawn:
1. The addition of NaCl (to increase the water salinity to 1,000 ppm or 35,000 ppm) has little effect on
the oil recovery as well as carbon dioxide storage. It decreases the oil recovery factor and increases
the carbon dioxide stored by a small fraction.
2. The change in water salinity from 35,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm has no effect on oil recovery as well as
carbon dioxide storage.
3. The addition of the 0.1 weight percent polymer to increase water viscosity has an effect on the oil
recovery as well as carbon dioxide storage. It decreases the oil recovery factor and increases the carbon
dioxide stored by a good amount.
4. The optimal 2-cycle injection strategy is Carbonated Water alternating Polymer (Run 4).
5. The optimal 3-cycle injection strategy is Carbonated Water alternating Polymer alternating Low
Salinity Water (Run 10).
6. Injecting Polymer after Carbonated Water instead of Low Salinity Water or High Salinity Water in
a 3-cycle injection strategy decreases the oil recovery factor and increases the carbon dioxide stored
by a miniscule amount.
7. The optimal injection strategy from Runs 1 to 12 is Carbonated Water alternating Polymer (Run 4).

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Computer Modelling Group (CMG) for their technical support and use of their
reservoir simulation software.

Nomenclature
ø = porosity of porous medium
ρ = fluid density (kg/m3)
μ = fluid viscosity (mPa.s)
g = acceleration of gravity (m/s2)
kav = average vertical permeability (md)
ER = efficiency, overall reservoir recovery
Ev = sweep efficiency
H = reservoir thickness (m)
10 SPE-191167-MS

K = absolute permeability (md)

L = reservoir length (m)
M = mobility ratio
MMP = minimum miscibility pressure (MPa)
MW = molecular weight (kg-mole)
Ngv = gravity number (dimensionless)
P = pressure (MPa)
R = gas constant (8.314 JK-1mol-1)
S = fluid saturation
T = temperature (°C)

Subscipts
av = average vertical
cr = critical
g = gas phase
min = minimum
max = maximum
o = oil phase
or = residual oil
s = solid phase
t = trapped
w = water phase

References
Ali, H.A. et al. (2013). "Application of Polymer Gels as Conformance Control Agents for Carbon Dioxide EOR
WAG Floods." Paper SPE-164096-MS presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, April 8-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164096-MS
Boodlal, D. and Furlonge, H. (2008). "Trinidad and Tobago's CO2 Inventory and Techno-economic Evaluation of Carbon
Capture Options for Emissions Mitigation." Paper presented at 3rd Tobago Gas Technology Conference Lowlands,
Tobago, October 7-10. https://u.tt/ngia/papers/tgtc_2008_emission.pdf
Bybee, K. (2006). "Evaluation of Polymer-Injection Projects in Brazil." Article SPE-0106-0050-JPT contains highlights
of paper SPE 94898 presented at the 2005 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Rio de Janeiro, June 20-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0106-0050-JPT
Chandrashegaran, P. (2015). "Low Salinity Water Injection for EOR." Paper SPE-178414-MS presented at the SPE Nigeria
Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, August 4-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/178414-MS
Dang, C.T.Q. et al. (2014). "CO2 Low Salinity Water Alternating Gas: A New Promising Approach for Enhanced Oil
Recovery." Paper SPE-169071-MS presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA,
April 12-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169071-MS
Dong, M. et al. (2002). "Analysis of Immiscible Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) Injection Using Micromodel." Paper
PETSOC-2002-158 presented at the Petroleum Society's Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, June 11-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2002-158
Haynes, S. and Alston, R.B. (1990). "A Study of the Mechanisms of Carbon Dioxide Flooding and Applications to more
efficient EOR Projects." Paper SPE-20190-MS presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20190-MS
Koottungal, L. (2008). "2008 Worldwide EOR Survey." Oil and Gas Journal, Volume 106, Issue15. http://
downloads.pennnet.com/pnet/surveys/ogj/080421ogj_08eor-survey.pdf
Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries (MEEI). "Consolidated Monthly Bulletins 2000 to 2017." http://
www.energy.gov.tt/publications/ (accessed March 4, 2018).
Mohammed-Singh, L. J. and Singhal, A.K. (2004). "Lessons from Trinidad's CO2 Immiscible Pilot Projects 1973-2003."
Paper SPE-89364-MS presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, U.S.A, April 17-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89364-MS
SPE-191167-MS 11

Nasralla, R.A. et al. (2011). "Efficiency of Oil Recovery by Low Salinity Water Flooding in Sandstone Reservoirs." Paper
SPE-144602-MS presented at the SPE Western North American Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, May
7-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144602-MS
Pizzinelli, C.S. et al. (2015). "Polymer Injection: EOR Application in North African Field from Lab Analysis to Project
Start-Up." Paper OMC-2015-250 presented at the 12th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna,
Italy, March 25-27.
Sanchez, N.L. (1999). "Management of Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Projects." Paper SPE-53714-MS
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, April
21-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/53714-MS
Sergeev, E. et al. (2017). "Experimental Research of Simultaneous Water and Gas Injection Technology into Injection
Wells using Mixing Devices." Paper SPE-187734-MS presented at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology
Conference, Moscow, Russia, October 16-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/187734-MS
Shimokawara, M. et al. (2017). "Carbon Dioxide Saturated Water Injection for EOR in Carbonate Reservoir." Paper
SPE-188936-MS presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
November 13-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/188936-MS
Shiran, B.S. and Skauge, A. (2012). "Wettability and Oil Recovery by Low Salinity Injection." Paper SPE-155651-MS
presented at the SPE EOR Conference, Muscat, Oman, April 16-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/155651-MS
Sobers, L.E. (2012). "Comparison of WAG and Water Over Injection for Carbon Storage and Oil Recovery in a Heavy Oil
Field." Paper SPE 158322 presented at the SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad,
June 11-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/158322-MS
Sohrabi, M. et al. (2009). "Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage by Carbonated Water Injection." Paper IPTC-14070-
ABSTRACT presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, December 7-9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-14070-ABSTRACT
Sohrabi, M. et al. (2015). "A Thorough Investigation of Mechanisms of Enhanced Oil Recovery by Carbonated Water
Injection." Paper SPE-175159-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
USA, September 28-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/175159-MS
Sundset, T. (2011). "Is Carbon Capture and Storage the Answer for Heavy Oil?" Paper WPC-20-0404 presented at the
20th World Petroleum Congress, Doha.
Tørstad, E. (2008). "Carbon Capture and Storage – Political, Technological and Economical Constraints." Paper
WPC-19-2884 presented at the 19th World Petroleum Congress, Madrid, Spain, 29 June – 3 July.
United Nations Development Programme T&T. "Government Ratifies Paris Agreement." http://www.tt.undp.org/content/
trinidad_tobago/en/home/presscenter/articles/2017/government-ratifies-paris-agreement.html (accessed March 4,
2018).
Wilson, A. (2017). "Overview of Carbon Dioxide Injection and Water-Alternating-Gas Sensitivity." Article
SPE-0617-0086-JPT contains highlights of paper SPE 179569 presented at the 2016 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Conference, Tulsa, April 11-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0617-0086-JPT
Zekri, A.Y. et al. (2011). "Evaluation of Oil Recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection – Oil-Wet and Water-Wet
Systems." Paper SPE-143438-MS presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia,
July 19-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143438-MS
Zhang, Y. et al. (2009). "Coupling Immiscible CO2 Technology and Polymer Injection to Maximize EOR Performance
for Heavy Oils." Paper PETSOC-2009-008 presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC),
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 16-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2009-008