SPE 164836

Advantages of Up-Dip Water-Miscible Gas Injection

Mehran Namani, Lars Høier, and Jon Kleppe, NTNU

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June 2013.

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
In this study a numerical reservoir model has been built using synthetic reservoir and fluid characteristics which can reflect
realistic conditions in a field scale process. The miscibility conditions are considered to be fulfilled. The model has been
implemented to investigate the behavior of up-dip water-miscible gas injection in terms of volumetric sweep efficiency.
The phenomenon of up-dip water-miscible gas injection has been analyzed using analytical methods to check the accuracy of
computed segregation distance. To be able to use an analytical method for estimating complete segregation distance, the
relative mobility of gas and water in the mixed zone versus water-gas ratio has been calculated using Buckley-Leverett theory.
The resulting volumetric sweep in a dipping model is also compared to a horizontal model with the same properties to verify
the analytical results which show the up-dip water-miscible gas injection can have a good volumetric sweep, even better than a
horizontal model. Afterwards, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to check if the nature of the phenomenon is similar to
that for horizontal models. The extent of the gas-water mixed zone, the permeability pattern, layering and anisotropy in
permeability, WAG ratio, total injection rate and prior gas injection are the parameters that have been studied for this part.
Even though stable up-dip miscible gas injection gives an inspiring volumetric sweep, common heterogeneities in the
reservoirs which can result in viscous tonguing and fingering frequently prohibit this to happen. However, up-dip water-
miscible gas injection may be an alternative method that is quite efficient and economical as compared with miscible-gas
injection.

Introduction
The viscosity and density of the injection fluids and the original reservoir hydrocarbon conditions are major parameters
controlling the sweep efficiency of an injection process at reservoir scale. Hence, even though stable gas-oil displacement has
higher microscopic sweep efficiency than water-oil displacement, considering the conditions in many oil reservoirs, the
significant difference in viscosity and density can decrease the sweep efficiency (Lawrence, Teletzke, Hutfilz and Wilkinson,
2003). Waterflooding, compared to gas flooding gives a better volumetric sweep, due to less viscosity and density differences
of oil and water. Water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection was first proposed in late 1950’s to combine the good sweep
efficiency of water with unique microscopic sweep of gas injection by cyclic injection of water to reduce its high mobility
ratio (Blackwell, Terry, Rayne, Lindley and Henderson, 1960, Namani and Kleppe, 2011). Since then, WAG injection has
been widely applied and also studied in laboratory, by simulation and in field tests (Christensen, Stenby and Skauge, 2001,
Skjæveland and Kleppe, 1992).
Numerous researchers have worked on various aspects of WAG processes (Caudle and Dyes, 1958, Righi, Royo, Gentil,
Castelo, Monte and Bosco, 2004), in particular the mechanisms which are present at pore scale during displacement and also,
the three-phase relative permeabilities and hysteresis effects (Dijke, Lorentzen, Sohrabi and Sorbie, 2010, Dijke, Sorbie,
Sohrabi, Tehrani and Danesh, 2002, Fatemi, Sohrabi, Jamiolahmady, Ireland and Robertson, 2011, Hustad and Browning,
2010, Shahverdi and Sohrabi, 2012), but there are still aspects which are not well known and consequently, there are still some
research interests in this field.
As previously mentioned, mobility control and resulted increase in macroscopic efficiency is the first and main objective of
WAG injection. Setting up laboratory experiments, which can truly represent three-phase behavior in reservoir scale and
resulted sweep efficiency includes several technical difficulties. In low-pressure systems, such as 2-D or 3-D glass or
plexiglass models, choosing a suitable three-phase fluid system to investigate water-alternating-miscible gas (miscible WAG)
process is a major problem, while working with high-pressure experiments requires CT-assisted facilities to monitor saturation
changes for all phases and also, costs too much.
2 SPE 164836

Stone (1982) and Jenkins (1984) presented an analytical model for water-miscible gas injection in horizontal reservoirs which
calculate the complete segregation distance and zones boundaries. Even though this model is very much simplified in some
aspects it still gives a good insight into this complicated process, especially about the complete segregation distance. Namani,
Kleppe, Hoier, Karimaie and Torsater (2012) developed this analytical model for a dipping reservoir model and showed that
up-dip miscible WAG injection can be even more advantageous than miscible WAG injection in a horizontal reservoir with
the same properties.
This simulation study prepares a 2D up-dip reservoir model based on the same assumptions (as much as possible) as in the
above mentioned analytical model, and discusses the results. Also some of the simplifying assumptions and their effects will
be analyzed. Finally, a systematic parameter study is implemented to verify the applicability of up-dip miscible WAG injection
in a dipping reservoir.
Reservoir and Fluids Characteristics
The rock and fluid models which have been implemented are synthetic and partially based on the data available in the SPE
“Fifth Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators” (Killough and Kossack, 1987). The ideal
simulation model for such a miscible process is obviously a compositional model which considers all mass exchange during
the transient period. But the transient period may take a long time, and thus can cause technical difficulties (such as reaching
restrictions on production and injection wells during simulation period) that may lead to impossible conditions. On the other
hand, the analytical model (Namani, et al., 2012) assumes a steady state condition in which no mass exchange happens. This
would be only possible by means of a black-oil model, in which the miscibility phenomenon can be applied by treating relative
permeability curves based on Todd-Longstaff mixing parameter (Todd and Longstaff, 1972). Namani and Kleppe (2011)
carried out an investigation to compare black-oil and compositional simulators in miscible WAG process, using the same fluid
system. The conclusion was that the difference between final oil recoveries is not considerable. Table 1 shows the properties of
reservoir and fluid models. Namani and Kleppe (2011) also used a PVT software program to prove that real minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP) is slightly lower than what is mentioned in the original paper. Still the density of injection solvent
in this study is slightly increased to the level of the reservoir gas density. This increase guarantees that miscibility conditions
can be achieved in the range of operating reservoir pressures and it will not be compromised during the process. Also, Figure 1
shows the relative permeabilities of gas and water which are very essential in mobility calculation of the WAG mixed zone
that later will be applied in the Buckley and Leveret theory (Buckley and Leverett, 1941).

Table 1 - Reservoir and Fluid Properties

Property Quantity Unit
Total Grid Number 2500 (100*1*25) -
Reservoir Length 1267.62 ft
Reservoir Width 1312.34 ft
Reservoir Thickness 246.06 ft
Porosity 0.183 -
Absolute Permeability (X, Y and Z Direction) 20 md
Dipping Angle 15 Degrees
Reference Depth 291.162 ft
Initial Reservoir Pressure at Reference Depth 4000 psia
Reference Temperature 160 °F
WAG Ratio 1:1 -
Total Injection Rate 1500 RB/Day
Primary Production Rate 1500 RB/Day
Minimum Production Bottomhole Pressure 3200 psia
Initial Water Saturation 0.2 -
Water Density Surface Conditions 62.4 lb/ft3
Water Formation Volume Factor at 4000 psia 1 RB/STB
Water Compressibility at 4000 psia 3.3E-6 1/psi
Water Viscosity at 4000 psia 0.7 cp
Oil Density at Surface Conditions 38.53 lb/ft3
Oil Formation Volume Factor at 4000 psia 1.5312 RB/STB
Oil Viscosity at 4000 psia 0.167 cp
Gas Density at Surface Conditions 0.06864 lb/ft3
Gas Formation Volume Factor at 4000 psia 0.7805 RB/Mscf
Gas Viscosity at 4000 psia 0.034 cp
Rock Compressibility at 4000 psia 5.0E-6 1/psi
Tod-Longstaff Mixing Parameter 0.7 -

Dynamic Reservoir Model and Related Assumptions

Using reservoir and fluids properties as presented above, a rectangular 2-D black-oil model has been built (base case). We
have already discussed why a black-oil model is preferred over a compositional model, but we will briefly review some of the
main assumptions presented in the literature (Namani, et al., 2012, Rossen, Duijn, Nguyen, Shen and Vikingstad, 2010) that
must be considered. The model is homogeneous and isotropic. Even though anisotropy is not proved to be a problem, it is still
SPE 164836 3

questioned by several authors. Thus, in order to eliminate any possible uncertainty related to this, an isotropic model has been
used. The injection and production wells are perforated over the whole interval in order to achieve a linear flow pattern. In
practice, water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection includes cyclic injection of the two phases in order to overcome technical
difficulties such as reduced injectivity, but in theory it is always assumed that they are getting mixed very close to the wellbore
and move as a mixture until complete segregation takes place. In order to preserve this theoretical assumption, the water and
gas are being co-injected in the numerical model and from now on we use the term “miscible WAG” injection as an
abbreviation for “water-miscible gas” injection. The dynamic model will be analyzed after reaching steady state condition in
which the remaining oil in all regions in the reservoir is at residual saturation. Phases are assumed to be incompressible in this
process, so in the base case, we established incompressible conditions for the whole range of operating pressures in the
reservoir; but it has been determined that this assumption does not considerably influence results, so the model has been
modified to match the values presented in Table 1 to represent a more realistic case. Also, the model includes capillary
pressures but that does not considerably affect the complete segregation distance. A 2-D model with injection and production
wells on two sides prepares a linear flow pattern which is consistent with the analytical model. In the case a 3-D model is
applied, the calculations and conditions must be modified in order to preserve a linear flow pattern in the area the calculation
of complete segregation distance is required. Also, an analytical equation for cylindrical reservoirs is available in the literature
(Rossen, et al., 2010).

1
Relative Permeability

0.8

0.6

0.4 Krw
Krg
0.2

0
0 0.5 1
Water Saturation

Figure 1 - Relative Permeabilities of Water and Gas

Results and Discussions

In this section the results for the base case will be presented, discussed and compared with using the analytical model and a
similar horizontal model. Finally, sensitivity studies are implemented in order to verify the advantages of the up-dip miscible
WAG process, and to compare it to the horizontal process.

Base Up-dip Miscible WAG Injection Case

Figure 2 shows the field recovery factor and oil production rate for the base case after reaching steady state conditions
(8650 days). It is obvious that the oil production rate approaches zero at this time in order to preserve the assumption that oil is
at residual saturation in all regions in the reservoir. Also, water and gas injection rates are kept constant during the period.
Figures 3 and 4 show the gas and residual oil saturations at steady state conditions. Saturations seem to be the best
parameters for analyzing complete segregation distance. It is obvious that there is a transition zone for gas and oil saturations
in the edge of the mixed zone in both figures. This transition zone cannot be a result of numerical dispersion because local grid
refinement up to 50000 grid blocks has been applied without affecting results significantly. Even though we have implemented
a black-oil model, we still need to preserve the miscibility condition, and a mixing parameter (Todd and Longstaff, 1972) must
be used to condition the existing relative permeability curves and establish miscibility. The values for this mixing parameter lie
between 0 and 1. A value of 0 introduces a thin mixing zone between the solvent and the original hydrocarbons, but a value of
0.7, which is more practical for miscible processes, has been applied in this study. Yet, a value of 0 has been tested to see if
this transition zone completely vanishes, but it just narrowed down the transition zone without removing it completely. In
some studies, a solvent with the same properties as the original hydrocarbons has been implemented which probably reduces
such effects (Jenkins, 1984). Existence of such a transition zone can affect the analytical approach because the properties of
gas (viscosity and density) which should be implemented in the Buckley-Leverett theory (Buckley and Leverett, 1941) in order
to calculate the water saturation and consequently the relative mobility of gas in the mixed zone (Jenkins, 1984) will be much
different due to the gradient of gas properties along the zone. In other words, the gas in the numerical simulation model will
not keep the same viscosity and density along the mixed zone. When gas travels along the transition zone, its density and
4 SPE 164836

viscosity get closer and closer to oil properties which can be a result of mixing. Despite of these considerations, authors found
that replacing the correct values of PVT properties of gas in the front of mixing zone into the analytical equation can estimate
the complete segregation distance with the good accuracy (Figure 3).

Figure 2 - Field Oil Recovery Factor and Oil Production Rate, Base Case

Complete segregation distance for a miscible WAG injection in dipping reservoir can be calculated using analytical
Equation 1 (Namani, et al., 2012)

(1)
∆

where L is the complete segregation distance, q is the total injection flow rate, ∆ρ is the density difference between water
and gas, is gravity constant, is the width of the reservoir transverse to flow, is the dip angle of the reservoir, is the
vertical permeability of the homogeneous porous media, k and k are relative permeabilities of water and gas, respectively,
and μ and μ are the viscosities of water and gas, respectively. Index “m” denotes that relative mobility terms belong to
mixed zone.
Again, we keep in mind that the relative mobility terms in Equation 1 must be calculated at the saturations computed by the
Buckley-Leverett theory (Buckley and Leverett, 1941) using the fractional flow term (WAG ratio here). More details can be
found in Jenkins (1984).

Figure 3 - Gas Saturation Distribution at Steady State Condition, Base Case

SPE 164836 5

Also, there are two other effects in Figures 3 and 4 that need more discussion. First, there is an advance of gas in the water-
segregated zone. Additional investigation showed that this advance is due to the transient time in which gas mobility is higher
than water mobility. Thus, the gas front moves faster toward the production well and during this movement it sweeps the
middle parts of the reservoir, but after water arrives to the same region, it pushes back the gas to establish steady state
segregated zones. The second point in these figures is that there is a water saturation gradient in the gas-segregated zone.
Based on theoretical definitions we expect that the water saturation will remain at the initial water saturation in this zone.
Existence of capillary pressure in this model can be the reason of this behavior, as well as transient time effects explained
before. Also, it has been proved that changing WAG ratio, total injection rate, or having higher absolute permeabilities can
strongly affect this phenomenon.

Figure 4 - Residual Oil Saturation Distribution at Steady State Condition, Base Case

Figure 5 shows a comparison of the field oil recovery factor between the dipping and horizontal models with the same
properties. It is obvious that a miscible WAG injection in the dipping model is even more efficient than in the horizontal case.
Analytical modeling (Namani, et al., 2012) also showed that for a reservoir with 15 degrees dip angle, the complete
segregation distance would be just slightly longer than horizontal model. But comparing gas saturation distribution for dipping
and horizontal models (Figures 6 and 3) shows that even though the difference is not pronounced, the mixed zone is slightly
longer but narrower in the case of a horizontal reservoir. Inspection of the viscosity and density of the solvent in the front of
the mixed zone shows that values are slightly different. So, the mixing phenomenon and miscibility treatment can be the
reason for this variation.

Figure 5 - Comparison of Field Oil Recovery Factor, Dipping and Horizontal Models
6 SPE 164836

Figure 6 - Gas Saturation Distribution at Steady State Condition, Horizontal Case

Sensitivity Analysis of Some Parameters in Up-Dip Water-Miscible Gas Injection

It has been shown in the previous section that miscible WAG injection is an efficient and suitable enhanced oil recovery
method for up-dip reservoirs, as well as for horizontal reservoirs. In this section a systematic sensitivity analysis is being
carried out to show that similarly to horizontal reservoirs, the same parameters affect WAG injection in up-dip reservoirs. As
previously discussed, the assumption of constant compressibility for different phases does not strongly affect the nature of the
process at steady state conditions. So, from now on the same model but including the compressibilities listed in Table 1 will be
used to form a more realistic model.

Permeability Variation
As explained before, the base case is a homogenous and isotropic model. In this section the base case is compared to two
other models of different permeabilities. First, and for both models, the 25 layers are divided into 5 groups with equal
thicknesses. The permeability of these 5 groups has a decreasing trend from top to bottom. The values of vertical
permeabilities are between 10 and 30 md. Therefore, the average vertical permeability would be the same as for the base case.
The only difference between these two new models is that the horizontal permeability of the first one (red plot in the Figure 7)
is equal to the vertical permeability of each layer, so we will have 5 isotropic layers in the model. For the other model (green
plot in the Figure 7), the horizontal permeability is kept constant as a base case. As a result, all these three models have the
same average permeability in all directions and the only difference is permeability pattern. Figure 7 shows the comparison of
recovery factor for these models. It is obvious that the recoveries of the base case and the third model (layered anisotropic
model) are the same, while the second model (layered isotropic model) has a higher recovery.

Figure 7 - Comparison of Field Oil Recovery Factor, Different Permeability Pattern

SPE 164836 7

Also, Figure 8 shows the gas saturation distribution at steady state for the layered isotropic model. Compared to Figure 3,
small differences in gas saturation are obvious, especially after the mixed zone. Figure 9, which presents the gas saturation of
the layered anisotropic model at steady state conditions, shows that the permeability can affect not only the complete
segregation distance but also the shape of the mixed zone.

Figure 8 - Gas Saturation Distribution at Steady State Condition, Layered Isotropic Model

Figure 9 - Gas Saturation Distribution at Steady State Condition, Layered Anisotropic Model

Total Injection Rate

It is already proved that in horizontal reservoirs, miscible WAG injection at higher rates provides stronger viscous forces
and consequently, better sweep (Namani and Kleppe, 2011). This conclusion is consistent with the analytical model. Figure 10
shows a comparison between the base case and models with higher total injection rates, while the WAG ratio is constant for all
cases (1:1). Because the production well is on pressure constraint, the total flow rate can be indirectly controlled by injection
rate. It is obvious in the figure that increased injection rates provide faster recovery of the reservoir, but the final oil recovery
of all cases approaches the same value. Figure 11 clearly shows that an extended mixed zone can be the reason for accelerated
production. On the other hand, the thickness of the segregated zones and a sharp transition zone between those can be the
reason for similar ultimate recoveries.
8 SPE 164836

Figure 10 - Comparison of Field Oil Recovery Factor, Different Total Injection Rates

Figure 11 - Gas Saturation Distribution at Steady State Condition, Double Total Injection Rate (3000 bbl/Day)

WAG Ratio
Figure 12 shows the effect of different WAG ratios while the total injection rate is constant. These recoveries have been
plotted for a longer time period, almost twice that of other figures in this paper, because the variations in recoveries between
the different cases mostly happen at the later time. Before breakthrough of gas, the recovery plots are the same because the
only parameter that affects the recovery is the total volume of injected fluids, which maintains the pressure and production of
oil. But after that, the nature of the injected fluids gradually plays a more important role in the oil production rate, which is
obvious in the plots. Of course, decreasing the WAG ratio means more demand on the gas supply (Figure 13) and is thus
increasing the cost of the recovery which requests for economical optimization in field cases.
SPE 164836 9

Figure 12 - Comparison of Field Oil Recovery Factor, Different WAG Ratios

Figure 13 - Comparison of Field Oil Recovery Factor versus Total Gas Injection, Different WAG Ratios

Prior Gas Injection

Figure 14 shows the effect of different prior gas injection scenarios (3 years, 5 years and continuous gas injection) versus
WAG injection. The behavior presented by these plots is very identical in the beginning, but starts to deviate after
breakthrough of the gas, similar to the last section. It is clear that as the prior gas injection increases, the ultimate recovery
increases. The fact that the amount of total injected gas dramatically increases in the case of continuous gas injection scenario
(Figure 15), brings up the question if such a scenario is economical compared to other scenarios. Also, we should consider that
such an improvement in ultimate oil recovery is observed in this homogeneous reservoir, but in a real case which might have
heterogeneities, the channeling and early breakthrough of gas can be a major disadvantage, while WAG injection will
definitely have less problems regarding that.
10 SPE 164836

Figure 14 - Comparison of Field Recovery Factor for Different Gas Injection Scenarios Prior to Up-Dip WAG Injection

Figure 15 - Comparison of Field Recovery Factor for Different Gas Injection Scenarios Prior to Up-Dip WAG Injection

Conclusions
Up-dip water-miscible gas injection shows good performance in recovering oil from dipping reservoirs. The complete
segregation distance computed by a numerical model has good agreement with the analytical method previously derived for
dipping reservoirs. The model even shows slightly better performance than for a horizontal model with the same properties.
A systematic parameter study showed that up-dip water-miscible gas injection has the same behavior as a horizontal model.
Assuming that average properties of the reservoir are constant, a layered isotropic model with decreasing permeability from
top to bottom helps the process of having better recovery by decreasing gas mobility at top, while anisotropy in layered model
complicates the process and affects the shape of the mixed zone. This suggests that the analytical method for computing
complete segregation distance in which only vertical permeability is present, works much more accurately with the assumption
of isotropic permeability. This assumption has not been considered in most of the research works in the literature.
Increasing total injection rates accelerate the production of oil by extending the mixed zone, but the ultimate recovery is the
same, which seems to be a result of the change in the thickness of segregated zones. Decreasing WAG ratios, or in other words
increasing the size of solvent slug, increases ultimate oil recovery factor, but this effect deteriorates as we use smaller WAG
ratios. Prior gas injection or continuous gas injection can give a better recovery in the process but the amount of injected gas
and thus the cost increases dramatically.
SPE 164836 11

Considering the discussions above, especially noticing that in real field cases the existence of heterogeneities can result in
early gas breakthrough, injection of water with gas lowers this possibility and gives better sweep efficiency, as well as good
microscopic efficiency. Thus, up-dip water-miscible gas injection may be a good alternative to continuous gas injection. Also,
economical and technical considerations such as water and gas supply are additional advantages for this option and make it
more attractive in field cases.

Acknowledgment
We would like to express our special thanks to Curtis Hays Whitson for his very valuable comments on this work. We also
appreciate Statoil for its financial support through publishing this study.

References
Blackwell, R. J., Terry, W. M., Rayne, J. R., Lindley, D. C. and Henderson, J. R.: Recovery of Oil by Displacements with Water-Solvent
Mixtures, PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME, 219, 293-300 (1960).
Buckley, S. E. and Leverett, M. C.: Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands, PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME, 146, 107 (1941),
DOI: 10.2118/942107-G.
Caudle, B. H. and Dyes, A. B.: Improving Miscible Displacement by Gas-Water Injection, PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME, 213,
281-284 (1958).
Christensen, J. R., Stenby, E. H. and Skauge, A.: Review of WAG Field Experience, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 4 (1), 97-106
(2001), DOI: 10.2118/71203-PA.
Dijke, M. I. J. v., Lorentzen, M., Sohrabi, M. and Sorbie, K. S.: Pore-Scale Simulation of WAG Floods in Mixed-Wet Micromodels, SPE
Journal, Volume 15, Number 1 (2010), DOI: 10.2118/113864-PA.
Dijke, M. I. J. v., Sorbie, K. S., Sohrabi, M., Tehrani, D. and Danesh, A.: Three-phase flow in WAG processes in mixed-wet porous media:
pore-scale network simulations and comparison with micromodel experiments, paper SPE 75192 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma (2002), DOI: 10.2118/75192-MS.
Fatemi, S. M., Sohrabi, M., Jamiolahmady, M., Ireland, S. and Robertson, G.: "Experimental Investigation of Near-Miscible Water-
Alternating-Gas (WAG) Injection Performance in Water-wet and Mixed-wet Systems," paper SPE 145191 presented at the Offshore
Europe, Aberdeen, UK (2011), DOI: 10.2118/145191-MS.
Hustad, O. S. and Browning, D. J.: A Fully Coupled Three-Phase Model for Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability for Implicit
Compositional Reservoir Simulation, SPE Journal, Volume 15, Number 4, (2010), DOI: 10.2118/125429-PA.
Jenkins, M. K.: An Analytical Model for Water/Gas Miscible Displacements, paper SPE/DOE 12632 presented at the SPE/DOE Fourth
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK (1984), DOI: 10.2118/12632-MS.
Killough, J. E. and Kossack, C. A.: Fifth Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators, SPE paper 16000-MS
presented at SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas, (1987), DOI: 10.2118/16000-MS.
Lawrence, J. J., Teletzke, G. F., Hutfilz, J. M. and Wilkinson, J. R.: "Reservoir Simulation of Gas Injection Processes," paper SPE 81459
presented at the SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain ( 2003), DOI: 10.2118/81459-MS.
Namani, M. and Kleppe, J.: Investigation Of The Effect Of Some Parameters In Miscible WAG Process Using Black-Oil And
Compositional Simulators, paper SPE 143297, presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference Held in Kuala Lumpur, Malysia
(2011), DOI: 10.2118/143297-MS.
Namani, M., Kleppe, J., Hoier, L., Karimaie, H. and Torsater, O.: Analytical Model for Zones Distributions in Non-Horizontal Miscible
WAG Injection, Energy and Environment Research, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2012), DOI:10.5539/eer.v2n2p159.
Righi, E. F., Royo, J., Gentil, P., Castelo, R., Monte, A. D. and Bosco, S.: Experimental Study of Tertiary Immiscible WAG Injection, paper
SPE 89360 presented at the Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery Held in Tulsa, Oklahoma (2004), DOI: 10.2118/89360-
MS.
Rossen, W. R., Duijn, C. J. v., Nguyen, Q. P., Shen, C. and Vikingstad, A. K.: Injection Strategies To Overcome Gravity Segregation in
Simultaneous Gas and Water Injection Into Homogeneous Reservoirs, SPE Journal, Volume 15, Number 1 (2010), DOI: 10.2118/99794-
PA.
Shahverdi, H. and Sohrabi, M.: Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Hystresis Model for Simulation of Water Alternating Gas (WAG)
Injection, paper SPE 152218 presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 14-18 April 2012, Tulsa, Oklahoma (2012),
DOI: 10.2118/152218-MS.
Skjæveland, S. M., and Kleppe, J.: Recent Advances in Improved Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs, SPOR
Monograph, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (1992), ISBN: 82-7257-340-7.
Stone, H. L.: Vertical Conformance in an Alternating Water-Miscible Gas Flood, paper SPE 11130 presented at 57th Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New Orleans, LA (1982), DOI: 10.2118/12632-MS.
Todd, M. R. and Longstaff, W. J.: The Development, Testing, and Application Of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood
Performance, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 24, Number 7 (1972), DOI: 10.2118/3484-PA.