Visualization of Oil Recovery by
Water-Alternating-Gas Injection
Using High-Pressure Micromodels
M. Sohrabi, D.H. Tehrani, A. Danesh, and G.D. Henderson, Heriot-Watt U.
Summary
The use of WAG (water-alternating-gas) injection can potentially
lead to improved oil recovery from the fields. However, there is
still an incomplete understanding of the pore-scale physics of the
WAG processes and how these lead to improved oil recovery.
Simulating the three-phase flow for prediction of the WAG
performance in oil reservoirs is an extremely complex process.
The existing three-phase relative permeabilities used in
simulation are very approximate and do not properly account for
the effects of fluid interfacial tension and rock wettability.
Network model simulators are being developed to enable the
prediction of three-phase relative permeability under different
wettability conditions. However, such simulators need to be
verified against experimental observations. In this paper, we
present experimental results and discussion of a series of
capillary-dominated WAG tests carried out in glass micromodels
with wettability conditions ranging from water-wet to mixed-wet
and oil-wet. Pore level fluid distribution and flow mechanisms
were studied, and fluid saturation, at different stages of the
experiments, were measured. The results showed that, under any
of the wettability conditions, oil recovery by alternating injection
of WAG was higher than water or gas injection alone. WAG
recovery was observed to be higher for the oil-wet model than
that in the mixed-wet one, which in turn was higher than that in
the water-wet micromodel. Given enough time and more cycles
of WAG injection, the recovery of the mixed-wet model seems to
catch up with that of the oil-wet model.
Introduction
WAG injection is being increasingly applied as an improved oil
recovery method, particularly in reservoirs that have been
waterflooded. Christensen et al.1 reported a review of some 60
field applications of WAG. Several field trials have been reported
as being successful (for instance, in Kuparuk,2 Snorre,3 and
Gulfaks fields4). Both immiscible4–6 and miscible gases7 have
been used. A large number of coreflood experiments8–12 and
analytical and numerical simulations11,13 have been carried out. A
study in 1993 demonstrated that the WAG process could be used
for improving the hydrocarbon recovery in gas/condensate
reservoirs.14 Most of the research work conducted so far has been
on either coreflooding8–10 or numerical simulation,11,12 sometimes
alongside field trials. The relationship between the injection
gas/water ratio (GWR) and oil recovery has been empirically
investigated using core displacement experiments, often at low
pressure and generally with water-wet cores.8,10 Extensive
research is in progress to develop network model simulators that
can predict three-phase flow in porous media with immiscible
[high interfacial tension (IFT)] and near-miscible (low IFT) fluids
and rocks of different wettability. These simulators need to be
verified against the experimental observations. This has been
carried out to some extent for water-wet systems and using core
observations. In the current project, we carry out experiments with
_____________________________________
Copyright © 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 89000) was revised for publication from paper SPE 71494, presented at
the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30
September–3 October. Original manuscript received for review 20 November 2001.
Revised manuscript received 15 October 2003. Manuscript peer approved 28 June 2004.
micromodels that can be used to obtain an in-depth understanding
of the physical processes involved, and to use such information in
development and verification of three-phase network model
simulators. As far as we know, no micromodel visualization of the
WAG injection process has been carried out to directly observe
the physical processes taking place in the porous media, using live
oil, live water in equilibrium with injection gas, and models with
different wettability. Larsen et al.15 reported some results of their
WAG micromodel studies. No detail of the experimental
procedure and no images of fluid distributions, or recovery results
from the micromodel tests, were presented.
Etched-glass micromodels are useful for viewing pore-level
events because of their visual clarity. Micromodels were used as
early as 1960 for fluid displacement studies.16 The ability to see
the movement of fluid interfaces makes it possible to distinguish
between a variety of mechanisms that may take place in a porous
medium when more than one phase is present. Chatzis and
Dullien17 presented an excellent example of the use of the
micromodel to evaluate existing theories of two-phase flow in a
simple geometry. Lenormand and Zarcone18 have taken
advantage of the well-defined shapes of capillary tubes in their
molded resin models to compare the results of calculations of
two-phase flow in both drainage and imbibition processes with
observation results. Micromodel observations have played a
significant role in development of network models for application
to multiphase flow. The procedure has been successfully applied
to network modeling of two-phase flow in simple or idealized
porous media using pore-scale physics identified in micromodel
experiments (Lenormand et al.,19 Blunt and King,20 Blunt et al.,21
and Billiote et al.22). In recent years, several advancements in
pore-scale modeling have been made. Οren, Bakke, and
coworkers23–25 have developed network models based on the
pore-space geometry of the rock of interest. The application of
network modeling techniques to three-phase flow is considerably
less developed than for two-phase flow, especially for oil-wet and
mixed-wet porous media. This is because our understanding of
the pore-scale physics of three-phase displacement is still
incomplete. However, previous micromodel works (Oren and
Pinczewski,26 Oren et al.27) suggested that it is possible to learn a
great deal about physics of the three-phase displacement in order
to take major steps toward developing realistic network models
for three-phase flow. For water-wet media, the pore-scale
mechanisms are rather well established. But the behavior of oil-
wet and mixed-wet systems has a less firm experimental basis.
Kovscek et al.28 have provided a pore-level scenario for
wettability alteration that has been used to describe fluid
configurations of two- and three-phase displacements.29–32 Van
Dijke et al.33,34,35 have presented a network model simulator for
modeling three-phase flow processes, in particular WAG
injection cycles. Using the micromodel results that we presented
in two previous papers,36,37 they showed a good agreement
between simulation and experiment, in particular with respect to
the displacement mechanisms during the WAG cycles. Piri and
Blunt38 presented a network model of three-phase flow to capture
relative permeabilities, saturation paths, and capillary pressure for
media of arbitrary wettability.
In this paper, we present a description of the fluid distribution
and the pore-scale physics and mechanisms for flow under the
WAG processes at different wettability conditions.
 PT 3 15
14
16
PT 4
Micro
model
PT 5
Micromodel tank
Pressure transducers
8 7
PT1 Inj. pump
PT2 Ret. pump
PT3 MM outlet
PT4 MM inlet
PT5 Overburden
Fig. 1—Schematic diagram of the high-pressure micromodel rig.
Objective
The objective of the WAG Consortium Project at Heriot-Watt U.
is to improve our understanding of the physical principles
underlying the processes of WAG injection in oil reservoirs. This
information is being used to develop a network model simulator
that can produce complex pore-scale three-phase relative
permeability and capillary-pressure functions applicable to WAG
injection.
To do reservoir development planning for possible
implementation of a WAG scheme, the operator needs reliable
performance and hydrocarbon recovery predictions that are
required for accurate economic evaluation. To achieve this, good
simulation models that incorporate proper reservoir fluid and rock
description are needed. One type of such data consists of accurate
sets of relative permeability functions for each fluid phase and
capillary pressures in a three-phase fluid flow regime and for
different rock wettability. But it is impractical to measure these
for all the different rock types and fluids present in a reservoir
and describe them in terms of IFT, which itself is a function of
fluid composition and pressure. The approach we have adopted at
Heriot-Watt U. is to develop a three-phase 3D mathematical
network simulator, which includes all the significant physical
flow processes involved in WAG injection, as accurately as
possible. But to gain confidence that such a simulator can indeed
reflect physics of the flow realistically, we need to test it against
some actual physical experiments that involve the flow of all
three phases in a process that closely mimics the WAG injection
in porous media. We have designed a micromodel system in
which we can perform the actual WAG injection at different
pressures; observe and record the flow processes; and measure
the model wettabilities, fluid saturations, and recoveries. To
enable us to magnify and view the pore-scale images and to
analyze the fluid flow, we have had to use 2D glass micromodels
model fluids with precisely known properties. Although the
results will not be directly applicable to real reservoirs, they can
be used to verify the accuracy of the predictions made by our
network model simulator. We will run the pore-scale simulator to
predict the fluid distributions and the recoveries for a given set of
pore geometry, wettability, and fluid properties. If these agree
with those observed and measured in the micromodels, we
shall then have enough confidence to operate it with real
reservoir fluids and rock properties in 3D mode to calculate
the required pore-scale relative permeability and capillary
pressure functions. These will later be upscaled for use in the
Gas
charging
13 12
return
Retract
vesel Water Oil Gas
fluid
PT 1
4 3 2
6 5 1
Fluid storage tank
9 Injection
injection pump
pump
Pump charging
lines
PT 2
10
11 Retract pump
reservoir-scale numerical simulation. We have performed a series
of WAG experiments at different pressures (gas/oil IFT ranging
from high values to intermediate and very low values) with
water-wet, oil-wet, and mixed-wet glass micromodels. This paper
presents the results of the WAG tests carried out using one fluid
system (one set of IFT values). These micromodel experimental
results are being used and studied for developing and completing
a network model simulator on which some results have already
been published.33,34
Experimental Facilities
A high-pressure micromodel rig was used to perform the WAG
experiments at pressures of up to 6,000 psia. However, the
experiments reported here were all carried out at 500 psia and
100°F, and the fluid system used represented an immiscible one.
The schematic diagram of the high-pressure micromodel rig is
shown in Fig. 1. The rig consists of the following main parts:
Temperature-Controlled Oil Baths. These include a fluid
storage chamber and a micromodel housing chamber. The fluid
storage chamber is used to maintain the fluids and their high-
pressure vessels and all flow-path lines and fittings at constant
temperature of 100°F. The micromodel housing chamber is a
temperature-controlled oil bath (similar to a fluid storage
chamber) used to keep the micromodel and its associated parts at
a constant temperature equal to fluids temperature.
Pumps. High-accuracy, low-rate pumps were used to control
flow of fluids through the micromodel. The rate of fluid injection
and production was as low as 0.01 cm3/h corresponding to a
velocity of approximately 1.2 m/d and capillary number of 1E-7.
Optical System. In all the micrmodel studies, the majority of
data acquisition is achieved by visual observation. Thus, it is
important to use high-definition optical equipment for image
capture and analysis. The optical system is shown schematically
in Fig. 2. A computer-controlled linear drive system was used,
which allowed a magnifying video camera to be positioned
automatically at any part of the micromodel and sequentially or
continuously sweep the micromodel for video recording. The
camera was capable of working at a magnification of up to 400
times. While running an experiment, in addition to continuous
video recording, still pictures of the micromodel were digitally
grabbed by a computer interface and recorded. These pictures
 Moving
directions
Camera
Monitor
Macintosh
Linear drive
Fig. 2—Schematic diagram of the optical system.
were later used for image analysis and saturation measurement
purposes.
Glass Micromodel. A 2D pore structure is etched onto the
surface of a glass plate, which is otherwise completely flat. A
second, optically flat, glass plate is then placed over the first,
covering the etched pattern and thus creating an enclosed pore
space. This second plate, the cover plate, has an inlet hole and an
outlet hole drilled at either end, allowing fluids to be displaced
through the network of pores (Fig. 3). Because the structure is
only one pore deep, and the containing solid walls are all glass, it
is possible to observe the fluids as they flow along the pore
channels and interact with each other. It is also possible to
observe how the geometry of the pore network affects the
patterns of flow and trapping of the fluids. Fig. 4a shows a
magnified picture of the pore pattern of the glass micromodel
used for this study. This pattern, which has been designed by our
network modeling team, has been repeated a few times to make
the full length of the micromodel, which is shown in Fig 4b. The
porous pattern has a width of 6 mm and a length of 38 mm. The
depth of the pores is 35 µm, and their width has a uniform
1.1 distribution from 30 to 300 µm. The pore volume of the
micromodel is estimated to be approximately 0.01 cm3.
Test Fluids
The fluids used in the experiments consisted of distilled water, n-
decane, and methane equilibrated at 500 psia and 100°F. To
distinguish between the liquid hydrocarbon and the aqueous
phase, the color of the n-decane was changed to red using a
hydrocarbon-soluble dye, and, similarly, the color of the water
was changed to blue using a water-soluble dye. Both the blue
water and the red n-decane were filtered using fine filter papers to
remove any undissolved dye particles.
Inlet
Cover plate
Fig. 3—The etched plate and the cover plate are brought together to form an enclosed pore space through which fluids can
be displaced.
Light source
Monitor
Micromodel
Video recorder
Fluid Preparation. Filtered blue water and methane were
brought into equilibrium at the desired pressure and temperature.
The same procedure was followed for the equilibration of gas and
oil. The solubility of oil in water was considered to be negligible
(at 500 psia and 100°F).
Fluid Properties. The equilibrium properties of the water, n-
decane, and methane system at 500 psia and 100°F and the effect
of dye, where shown, are estimated in Table 1. Spreading
coefficient is 3 mNm–1, which is very close to zero, taking into
account the accuracy of the previously mentioned IFT values.
This indicates that the system is spreading oil on water in the
water-wet model. The items shown in bold characters represent
the major component in each fluid.
IFT values are equilibrium values and have been at the
pressure and temperature of the experiments. The effect of
dissolved water on the viscosity and density of hydrocarbon
phases has been ignored. The effect of dye on density and
viscosity of the liquids at micromodel conditions of 100°F and
500 psia has been calculated.28 The effect of dissolved gas in
water on its viscosity is believed to be a small reduction, but it
has not been calculated.
Water-Wet Model Tests
The following procedure was performed for water-wet model
tests. Initially, the micromodel was saturated with clear distilled
water and pressurized to 500 psia. The dead water was
subsequently displaced with blue live water, equilibrated with gas
at 500 psia and 100°F. To simulate the primary drainage (initial
migration of oil into the water-bearing porous medium),
equilibrated oil (red n-decane) was injected from the top of the
vertical micromodel. Oil injection continued until it reached the
base of the micromodel. The displacement is dominated by
Outlet
Two-dimensional etched pore structure
Fig. 4—(a) Micromodel pore pattern which has been repeated a few times to make the (b) full length of the acid-etched micromodel.

capillary forces, with the oil invading individual water-filled

pores in an order determined by the individual pore threshold TABLE 1—THE EQUILIBRIUM PROPERTIES OF THE
capillary pressure, which is affected by the topology of the WATER, N-DECANE, METHANE SYSTEM
micromodel pores. Two-phase displacements like this have been –3
Density (g/cm )
described in detail by Lenormand et al.18,19
To avoid oil getting into the lower pipes containing the water Water (H2O+C1+dye)
39,40
1.0026
and gas phases, the oilflood wa s stopped at the bottom of the Oil (nC10+C1+dye)
41
0.7062
micromodel. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of oil (red) and water 41
Gas (C1+nC10) 0.0209
(blue) after the primary drainage of water. As can be seen from
this figure, as the result of oil injection some of the resident water Viscosity (mPa•s)
has been replaced by oil. Water is still present in some of the Water (H2O + dye)
39
0.67
pores, not necessarily in the smallest. The larger pores that still 41,42
Oil (nC10+C1+dye) 0.60
contain water are the ones that are surrounded by tighter pores, 41,42
which need higher capillary pressure before their water could be Gas (C1+nC10) 0.010
displaced. Water is also present as a thin film on the sides of the Interfacial Tension (mNm )
–1

oil-filled pores. The micromodel was scanned vertically in 10

Gas/Oil 16
separate sections. In Fig. 5, the full-size image of the micromodel
has been divided in two halves, which are shown separately, the Gas/Water 58
top half on the left and the bottom half on the right side. After the Oil/Water 39
oil injection stage, resembling the migration of oil into the
 Fig. 5—Primary drainage, water-wet model.
water-bearing formation, water was allowed to enter the
micromodel from the bottom, prior to the initial waterflooding.
Some spontaneous imbibition of water into the micromodel was
observed. Water was then injected into the model at a low rate of
0.01 cm3/h from the base to establish the waterflood residual oil
saturation (Sorw). This rate corresponds to a capillary number of
2.52E–7. Note that the oil had been injected into the micromodel
from the top and had stopped at the base of the model before the
waterflood was carried out from the bottom of the model. During
this initial waterflood, water was observed to flow on the sides of
the pores, rather than forming a distinct waterfront. In fact, both
fluids (oil and water) were simultaneously moving in the same
pore. This is an important feature, which is strongly linked to
noncircular cross-section and topology of the pores. What we
have seen is a stable flow, which is not followed by a piston-type
displacement and not very often followed by a snap-off. This will
be referred to as “corner filament flow.” The water filaments
were seen to thicken progressively, leaving oil filaments in the
Fig. 7—Water/oil distribution before waterflood.
Fig. 6—Initial waterflood, water-wet model.
middle of the pores; as a result, the residual oil was very
continuous. The fluid distribution in the micromodel at the end of
waterflooding is shown in Fig. 6. The flow process was recorded
on video, and still pictures of the final fluid distributions were
taken digitally and stored in a computer.
Fig. 7 is a magnified image of a section of the micromodel at
the end of primary drainage of water (oil injection through water-
saturated micromodel). It demonstrates the relative position of the
wetting phase (blue water) and nonwetting phase (red oil) in a
strongly water-wet micromodel. The small pores and the dead-
end pores are mostly occupied by water. The direction and the
shape of the water-oil interfaces are good indications of strongly
water-wet conditions. Fig. 8 shows a magnified image of the
same section of the micromodel at the end of the waterflood. It
can be seen that some relatively large pores are filled with water,
as these pores are surrounded by smaller pore throats from which
water could not be displaced by oil, because its pressure did not
exceed the oil/water capillary pressure.
Fig. 8—Water/oil distribution after waterflood.
 Fig. 9—Water-wet micromodel after initial waterflood.
Comparison of Figs. 7 and 8 highlights the strength of corner
filament flow of water (rather than piston-like displacement)
during waterflooding. The slow thickening of water filaments at
the sides and corners of oil-filled pores during waterflooding is a
consequence of noncircular cross section of pores and strongly
capillary-dominated flow regime.
The oil that is left behind after waterflood is what is referred
to as residual oil saturation to waterflood (Sorw). This oil is
trapped and could not be recovered by continuation of
waterflood. To see how much of this oil can be recovered by the
WAG process, five cycles of gas followed by water injection
were performed. Both the gas and water were injected from the
base of the model at the same slow rate (0.01 cm3/h) at which the
initial waterflood had been performed. In each cycle, the injection
of gas or water continued until no further oil production or
change in fluid distribution was observed.
During the first-cycle gas injection, the invading gas first
comes in contact with water (as there is no oil in the lower
Fig. 11—First WAG-cycle gas injection, water-wet.
Fig. 10—Water-wet micromodel after first gas injection.
piping) and forms some gas/water interfaces. The gas continues
to advance by direct displacement of water until it is faced with
the first oil filament of the previous waterflood. On the approach,
the water between the moving gas and the stationary oil filament
shrinks by draining through the wetting layers. The water film
finally ruptures, allowing the gas to directly contact the oil
filament, which is in the middle of the pore surrounded by water.
This happened at a number of pores. Which pore will be invaded
by the gas depends on the entry pressure of the pore containing
the oil filament and topology of the pore. The entry (threshold)
pressure here does not depend on the pore size (conventionally
larger pores have lower threshold pressure); rather, it depends on
the filament size, because water surrounding the oil filament
occupies a significant part of the pore (Fig. 8). This signifies that
the accurate modeling of this process needs careful attention to
pore entry pressure. Upon the invasion of the first pore containing
oil, the oil spreads between the water and the gas phases by
forming a layer of oil. The oil displaced by the gas moves ahead
of the gas to invade the adjoining pores. From this point on, the
advancement of the gas front in the micromodel is either by direct
displacement of water or by double displacements in which gas
displaces the oil, which in turn displaces the water. As the
residual oil (remained after the initial waterflood) is rather
continuous (in the form of narrow oil filaments in the middle of
some pores), the gas preferentially invades oil-containing pores.
This process results in forming a small oil bank that moves ahead
of the gas front, supplying oil into the downstream oil filaments
and coalescing with them. The displacement of oil by gas is
piston-type, causing the narrow oil filaments to become fatter.
The coalescence of the oil filaments with the moving oil bank
makes it more likely that the flowing gas continues to invade the
reconnected oil pores rather than water pores. At the end of this
gas injection stage, the remaining oil in the model can be divided
into two types: (1) in the form of narrow oil filaments in the
middle of the pores that have not been contacted by the invading
gas or its associated oil bank (pores which have not been
accessible to the gas) and (2) in the form of thick oil blobs
connected to the gas channels in the pores which have been
invaded by gas. Fig. 9 shows a section of the micromodel after
waterflood and before the first gas injection. Fig. 10 shows the
same part of the micromodel after the first cycle of gas injection,
with the blue, red, and yellow colors representing water, oil, and
gas, respectively. To distinguish the colorless gas from the
colorless glass (resembling grains in a natural porous medium),
the gas was digitally colored in yellow using a computer program.
Comparison of Figs. 9 and 10 highlights that during gas injection,
the gas has mainly invaded oil-containing pores, and that those
narrow oil filaments that have been contacted by the incoming
gas have thickened. The injection of gas continued until stabilized
conditions were achieved. Fig. 11 shows the entire micromodel
after the first-cycle gas injection. At the end of the first-cycle
gas injection, water injection commenced again at the same
rate of 0.01 cm3/h (~ 1.2 m/d). During water injection, water
films around the thick oil blobs, formed during the
 Fig. 12—First WAG-cycle water injection, water-wet.
preceding gas injection, began to thicken and soon appeared as
thick layers. As these water layers grew in thickness, the oil was
forced into the gas channels (pores occupied by the continuous
gas phase). Some of this oil would be recovered by two
processes: (1) flow through the layers of oil that were connected
all the way to the outlet, and (2) double displacement (i.e., gas
displacing a liquid which would in turn displace another fluid).
Finally, when the water layers became thick enough, the
continuous gas path became fragmented and disconnected, and no
more oil and/or gas production was observed (water was being
injected, and only water was being produced by the film flow).
Fig. 12 shows the fluid distribution in the micromodel after the
water injection period of the first WAG cycle, following the first
gas injection. Comparison of Figs. 11 and 12 shows that during
the water injection, both the thick oil blobs and the gas have been
narrowed as a result of water layers growing on the surfaces of
the pores. In addition to some oil production, this alternating
injection of gas and water brought about some favorable
redistribution of the fluids within the porous medium. Because of
this fluid redistribution, when gas was injected in subsequent WAG
cycles, it would not follow the same path as the previous gas did.
At the end of the first-cycle water injection (when no more
changes in fluid distribution and saturations were observed), the
second WAG cycle began with gas injection. During this gas-
injection stage (and in fact during all WAG cycles after the first
one), in addition to double displacements, multiple displacements
were also observed (e.g., chains involving gas/oil/water/oil/gas
displacements). As chain displacements are performed with more
difficulty than are double displacements, the incoming gas would
invade new pores rather than following the path it had followed
during the previous-cycle gas injection. The result is that during
the second-cycle gas injection, new pores are invaded, which
effectively means improved recovery efficiency for gas injection.
Fig. 13 shows the micromodel after the second-cycle gas
injection. Comparison of Figs. 12 and 13 reveals that during the
Fig. 13—Second WAG-cycle gas injection, water-wet.
second-cycle gas injection, the gas has followed a new path and
some new pores have been invaded.
The alternating gas and water injection continued until five
cycles were completed. The redistribution of fluids was again
observed during further WAG cycles, but the additional recovery
of oil after the second cycle was not significant.
Experiments With Oil-Wet Model. The same fluid system and
glass micromodel that were used for the water-wet model
experiments were also used for the oil-wet model experiments.
Prior to the commencement of the latter experiments, the
micromodel was aged (in situ) in a North Sea crude oil for three
weeks. The crude oil was carefully selected through
experimenting with glass slides.32,33 This procedure ensured
strongly oil-wet conditions that were verified by visual
observation of the oil-water interface curvatures during the tests.
Fig. 14 shows a magnified section of the oil-wet micromodel.
The shapes and contact angles of the water/oil interfaces are
indicative of strong oil wettability. It can be seen that oil occupies
smaller pores and is connected (through wetting layers)
throughout the pore network.
Initially the oil-wet micromodel was saturated with dead oil
(clear n-decane) with no water present. After pressurizing the
system to the experimental pressure of 500 psia, it was allowed to
reach thermal equilibrium at the experimental temperature of
100°F. The clear dead n-decane was subsequently displaced with
red live decane that was previously equilibrated with gas at 500
psia and 100°F.
To emulate an initial waterflood, live water was injected into
the fully oil-saturated micromodel from the bottom at the same
low rate (0.01 cm3/h, Nc = 2.52E–7) that was used for water-wet
model experiments. Fig. 15 shows fluid distribution in the oil-wet
micromodel at the end of this initial waterflood. As one
would expect, there is no spontaneous flow of water into the

Fig. 14—A magnified section of the oil-wet micromodel.
micromodel (unlike water-wet model experiments), nor is there
any layer or corner flow, because the porous medium is strongly
oil-wet and the incoming water is a nonwetting phase. Instead,
the displacement of the resident oil by the injected water is all
piston-like. This is in contrast with the pattern of flow of water,
which was observed during water-wet model experiments. In a
water-wet model, during waterflooding, water crept into the pores
(from the sides) by spontaneous imbibition. No oil-filled pores
were bypassed, and residual oil saturation was mainly uniform in
the form of oil filaments in the middle of the pores. However, as
can be noticed from Fig. 15, in an oil-wet model, some of the oil-
Fig. 15—Oil-wet micromodel at the end of the initial waterflood.
filled pores are completely bypassed by the incoming water. The
two-phase fluid distribution here is similar to that for primary
drainage of water in the water-wet case (Fig. 5), but with the
positions of the oil and water phases being reversed.
Like the water-wet model experiments, the alternating
injection of gas and water began after initial waterflood. Gas
injection commenced from the bottom of the vertical micromodel
again at the same low rate of 0.01 cm3/h. One of the main
differences here (as opposed to the water-wet case) is that oil is
the wetting phase, water is the nonwetting phase, and gas is the
intermediate phase. Note that the gas/oil IFT is less than the
water/oil IFT; therefore, gas, not water, is here the intermediate
phase, and the system is a nonspreading system (i.e., none of the
liquids spreads over the other). Lack of spreading layers not only
affects the distribution of the three phases and formation of three-
phase contact lines, but more importantly it has a significant
effect on the pore-scale displacement mechanism. Because of
lack of spreading water and/or gas layers, the only phase which is
hydraulically connected all the way between the inlet and the
outlet is the oil, and both water and gas have formed disconnected
clusters. This is in contrast with the water-wet case, in which the
water was hydraulically connected through the wetting films and
the oil through the spreading films. This was confirmed by the
pattern of flow and distribution of fluids during the WAG cycles.
During the first gas-injection period, the gas was observed to
preferentially enter oil-filled pore throats because of gas/oil IFT
being less than that of gas/water IFT. In some pore throats, which
were occupied by water, the water would completely block the
progress of the gas front. In these cases, the gas pressure would
rise, and eventually the blocked pore would momentarily open,
letting some gas escape toward the next oil-filled pore, and the
pore throat would close again by water. In these situations, there
appeared to be two half-cycles. In the first half-cycle, the pore
(occupied by water) is closed, and the flow of gas is stopped and
the gas pressure keeps rising. In the next half-cycle, the gas
Fig. 16—First WAG-cycle gas injection, oil-wet.
pressure that was gradually building up exceeds that of the
gas/water capillary pressure, at which time the pore opens and
part of the gas flows to the next pore on the downstream side.
After some gas has flowed out of this pore, the gas pressure
drops, and the first half-cycle begins again.
Water, being the nonwetting phase, is located in the middle of
the pores (as a result of the pore surface being wetted by oil).
Also, generally the IFT of gas/water (58 mN/m in this case) is
more than the IFT of gas/oil (16 mN/m in this case), which makes
it much more difficult for gas to enter water phase than oil phase.
Another difference between the oil-wet and water-wet cases is
that very few double or multiple displacements are observed
during the first gas-injection period. Double displacement (i.e.,
gas displacing water), which itself would displace oil, rarely
happens here because of the IFT value of gas/water being much
higher than that of gas/oil. However, in positions where gas can
have easy access to oil, it enters the oil-filled pore, displacing it,
which would in turn displace some water. Moreover oil, being the
wetting phase, maintains its hydraulic continuity throughout the
micromodel, which makes its drainage through the oil-filled
corners possible. These collective effects make circumstances in
favor of gas invading oil-filled pores, thereby resulting in higher
oil recovery compared with that of water-wet model experiments.
Fig. 16 shows the oil-wet model at the end of the first WAG-
cycle gas injection. As there was little water displacement during
the gas injection, the water maintained its high saturation.
After this gas injection, the first WAG cycle continued with
water injection. As the main structure of the water phase was not
much disturbed during the previous gas injection (because gas
had invaded mainly oil-filled pores), water had to do little to re-
establish a continuous path from the inlet toward the outlet of the
model. Some gas snapoff was observed during this water
injection stage. The gas snapoff was caused by oil that was
displaced by the water. Fig. 17 shows the micromodel after the
first-cycle water injection.
Fig. 17—First WAG-cycle water injection, oil-wet.
The experiments continued with successive injection of gas
and water until five cycles were completed. In the higher-order
WAG cycles, gas invaded more oil-filled pores, again leaving the
water pores almost undisturbed. Fig. 18 shows the oil-wet model
after the second-cycle gas injection. Comparison of Figs. 16 and
18 shows that the water-filled pores remained uninvaded, while
more oil has been displaced and recovered from the oil-filled
pores. Along with increase in oil recovery, the trapped gas
saturation has also increased with gas injection in successive
WAG cycles. However, there are some oil patches surrounded by
water-filled pores, which have been bypassed and remain
untouched by the invading gas. This is because of water shielding
effects, which blocked the incoming gas.
Experiments With Mixed-Wet Model. The same glass
micromodel and the same fluid system that had been used for the
previous water-wet and oil-wet model experiments were used for
the mixed-wet model tests.
In mixed-wet micromodels, we have carefully examined the
oil/water interfaces in the majority of the pores to check their
wettability. For each experiment, 700 to 1,200 water/oil interfaces
were examined and considered to be water-wet, oil-wet, or
neutrally wet. For statistical purposes, when the contact angle of
the interface and the pore side within water was clearly less than
90°, that position was considered to be water-wet. When that
angle was clearly larger than 90°, it was considered to be oil-wet.
The pore was considered to be neutrally wet when the contact
angle was approximately 90+5°. We observed that within some
pores there were both water-wet and oil-wet sites. Table 2 shows
the results of these qualitative measurements as percentages of
preferentially water-wet, preferentially oil-wet, or neutral-wet.
We achieved mixed-wet micromodels with different degrees
of oil and water wetness. Here, we report the results of a mixed-
wet model WAG experiment with almost equal numbers of
water-wet and oil-wet pores. In this system, approximately 38%
Fig. 18—Second WAG-cycle gas injection, oil-wet.

TABLE 2—PERCENTAGE OF OIL/WATER INTERFACES FOR
MIXED-WET EXPERIMENTS
Exp. No. % Water-Wet % Oil-Wet % Neutral-Wet
1 36.4 46.7 16.9
2 43.2 35.2 21.6
3 38.3 37.9 23.8
of the interfaces showed water-wet tendency, while 38% showed
oil-wet tendency, with the remaining 24% of the pores showing
neutral wettability.
For mixed-wet model experiments, the same test procedure
that was used for water-wet model experiments was followed.
Initially, the micromodel was saturated with clear distilled water,
which was subsequently displaced with blue live water. To
simulate the primary drainage (initial migration of oil into the
water bearing porous media), equilibrated oil (red n-decane) was
injected from the top of the vertical micromodel and continued
until oil reached the base of the micromodel. The only difference
between water-wet and mixed-wet procedures was the rate of the
initial oil injection. In water-wet model experiments, the primary
drainage of water by oil (initial oil injection) was carried out at a
slow rate of 0.01 cm3/h. In mixed-wet model experiments,
however, because of the presence of oil-wet pores, initial oil
injection at such low rates (0.01 cm3/h) would result in oil
imbibition into oil-wet pores. This would cause the oil to flow
mainly through the oil-wet pores without displacing much water,
which would in turn result in a rather low value of initial oil
saturation. To achieve a reasonable amount of initial oil
saturation, the injection of oil into a water-filled micromodel was
performed at a higher rate of 2 cm3/h. The high-rate oil injection
was more efficient than the low-rate oil injection (during the
water-wet model tests), and viscous forces dominated the
displacement. After establishing the initial oil saturation (Soi),
water was reinjected at our usual low rate (0.01 cm3/h) into the
micromodel, simulating an initial waterflood into a mixed-wet
porous medium. Then, five cycles of gas followed by water
injection were conducted at the same low rate (0.01 cm3/h) as that
which we used in strongly water-wet and strongly oil-wet model
experiments.
Discussion
In water-wet model experiments, during the initial waterflood, as
water is the wetting phase and the rate of water injection is well
within the capillary-dominated regime, water flows in the corners
of the pores in the form of filaments surrounding the oil that is
present in the larger pore bodies. These water filaments were seen
to thicken progressively, leaving oil filaments in the middle of
pores and finally causing oil snapoff at some pore throats. The
micromodel pores etched by hydrofluoric acid on a glass are not
exactly a square shape, but they do have some sharp corners in
which the wetting phase can advance. The oil recovery by
waterflood occurred as the result of this corner filament flow of
water, rather than by piston-like displacement.
As the IFT between gas and oil is much less than the IFT
between gas and water, when gas is faced with pores of equal
radius, it prefers to enter those filled with oil. The displacement
of oil from the oil-filled pores by gas causes a small bank of oil to
move ahead of the gas front. The oil flowing ahead of the gas is
added to the oil already present in those pores, resulting in an
improvement in the oil mobility. The oil recovery by gas injection
alone, however, is very small, on the order of 6% of the
waterflood residual oil. During the subsequent water injection,
water invades the gas-filled pores. Consequently, the gas
channels are observed becoming narrower as the water layers
grow, and finally the gas becomes fragmented because of snapoff,
which takes place at some pore throats. After switching from
water injection to gas injection, more pores are invaded by gas.
80
70
Oil recovery, %Soi
60
50
40
30 Oil-wet
Mixed-wet
20
Water-wet
10
0
W 5
od
5
1
4
3
er l
a
er
as
as
as
as
as
er
er
er
er
W niti
flo
at
at
at
at
at
G
G
I
W
W
at
Fig. 19—Oil recovery shown as percentage of original oil in
place for the five WAG cycles and different micromodel
wettabilities.
Thus, the fluid distribution in the micromodel for this second
cycle of gas injection is different from that of the first cycle.
However, further change in fluid distribution and additional
recovery of oil diminish as the WAG injection proceeds. After the
third WAG cycle, no significant change of fluid distribution is
observed within the micromodel.
Fig. 19 compares recovery of additional oil after initial
waterflooding, attributable to WAG injection in experiments at
different wettability conditions. These values have been obtained
through image analysis of the pictures taken during the
experiments and are liable to a point error of approximately 2%.
For the water-wet model experiment, the initial waterflood
recovered approximately 47% of the initial oil in place (IOIP).
Five cycles of WAG injection recovered an additional 11% of
IOIP. The extra oil recovered after two cycles of WAG was only
approximately 1% of initial oil in place. This shows that the
majority of the benefit of WAG injection in the water-wet model
has come after the first two cycles.
In oil-wet model experiments, because water is a nonwetting
phase, it has to be driven into the porous medium. As a result of
change in wettability of the micromodel from water-wet to oil-
wet, the mechanisms of flow of water into oil pores change from
corner filament flow (water imbibition) to piston-like flow (oil
drainage). Surface forces between the fluids and the solid (oil-wet
glass) locate the water (non-wetting fluid) in the middle of the
pores. Also, because the IFT of gas/water is higher than the IFT
of gas/oil, the gas, which follows an initial waterflood, finds it
difficult to displace water. When faced with both water and oil,
the injected gas prefers to enter the oil-filled pores, bypassing
water-filled ones. The result is that the gas front has a higher
tendency to displace oil than water. Therefore, some oil in
addition to that produced during the initial waterflood would be
recovered during the gas injection. After the initial waterflood,
the subsequent water injections during the WAG injection cycles
did not noticeably improve the recovery efficiency. However,
during the subsequent gas injections, some new pores were
invaded by gas, resulting in some oil recovery. Still, water
blocking prevented gas from invading some of the oil-filled pores
that were surrounded by water. Fig. 19 shows that oil recovery
for the oil-wet model experiment is the highest. The initial
waterflood produced 52% of the IOIP, and the subsequent WAG
injection recovered an additional 23% of IOIP. Again, very little
oil was recovered after the second WAG cycle. In mixed-wet
micromodels used for this study, some pores had water-wet
characteristics, and some had oil-wet or neutral characteristics.
As a result, the flow mechanism observed during mixed-wet
model experiments was a combination of the processes observed
in water-wet and oil-wet model tests. Fig. 19 also shows the
recovery curve for the mixed-wet model experiments. An odd
feature of the mixed-wet model experiments (compared to water-
wet and oil-wet model experiments) was that oil recovery was not
limited to the first two or three cycles. As can be seen, even the
fifth cycle had a significant contribution to the amount of oil
recovery. In the mixed-wet model experiment, 28% of the IOIP
was recovered during the WAG injection, in addition to the 50%
that was recovered by waterflooding.
It should, however, be remembered that these are the results
of experiments carried out with a 2D micromodel with a pore-size
distribution that has little resemblance to that of real rocks.
Therefore, the recovery figures are not directly applicable to real
field conditions. However, the results of these experiments can be
used to verify the validity of a 2D network model simulator with
the same pore characteristics and wettability. Relative
permeability functions applicable to real field conditions will be
obtained later, using the verified network simulator in 3D and
three-phase mode with realistic rock and fluid data.
Conclusions
The results of the experiments presented in this paper, all of
which were carried out in the same glass micromodel, but with
different wettability, improved our understanding of different
mechanisms during two-phase and multiphase flow. As a result of
these experiments, we have learned that, first, during
waterflooding in strongly water-wet systems, water can form
stable thick water layers around the oil; second, during gas
injection in strongly water-wet systems, double and multiple
displacements are very common and have to be accounted for,
whereas in oil-wet systems these are very rare; third, during the
WAG injection, the gas that is injected alternatively with water
will create a different path in each cycle rather than going through
the same path. These are important mechanisms which are being
studied and used for developing and completing network model
simulators.
The results of the micromodel experiments reported here can
be summarized as follows:
1. In a strongly water-wet micromodel, during waterflood, water
layers surrounding the oil-filled pores thicken progressively,
leaving evenly distributed narrow oil filaments in the middle of
the pore bodies caused by snapoff at pore throats.
2. In a strongly oil-wet micromodel, water flows by piston-like
displacement through the oil-filled pores without snapoff,
resulting in complete displacement of oil from the invaded pores.
3. In a mixed-wet micromodel, water flow is governed by a
combination of layer flow (wetting characteristics of water in
water-wet surfaces) and piston-like displacement (nonwetting
characteristics of water in oil-wet surfaces).
4. By injecting gas and water alternately, more oil can be
produced than would otherwise be produced by either water or
gas injection alone.
5. The main mechanism responsible for additional oil recovery
during immiscible (high gas/oil IFT) WAG injection is
redistribution of the fluids, which results in new pores being
invaded by gas.
6. For the set of the fluids and conditions we used, the WAG
recovery efficiency was generally higher for the oil-wet and
mixed-wet models than for the water-wet model.
7. In the mixed-wet model, additional oil recovery was obtained
gradually, approaching that of the oil-wet model, after 5 WAG
cycles, whereas for both water-wet and oil-wet models, the
additional oil recovery diminished after the first two cycles.
Nomenclature
Soi = initial oil saturation
Sorw = residual oil saturation to waterflood
Acknowledgments
The WAG project at Heriot-Watt U. is equally sponsored by: the
U.K. Dept. of Trade and Industry, BHP Billiton Ltd., BP plc,
Norsk Hydro a.s.a, PDVSA Intevep, Shell Expro U.K., Statoil
a.s., and Total Exploration and Production U.K. All are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1. Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., and Skauge, A.: “Review of WAG
Field Experience,” paper SPE 39883 presented at the 1998 SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico,
Villahermosa, Mexico, 3–5 March.
2. Hallam, R.J., Ma, T.D., and Reinbold, E.W.: “Performance Evaluation
and Optimization of the Kuparuk Hydrocarbon Miscible Water-
Alternating-Gas Flood,” paper presented at the 1993 EAPG IOR
Europe, Moscow, 27–29 October.
3. Nybraten, G., Svorstol, I., and Andfossen, P.O.: “Water-Alternating-
Gas Pilot Evaluation for the Snorre Field,” paper presented at the 1993
EAPG IOR Europe, Moscow, 27–29 October.
4. Dalen, V., Instefjord, R., and Kristensen, R.: “A WAG Injection Pilot
in the Lower Brent Formation at the Gullfaks Field,” paper presented
at the 1993 EAPG IOR Europe, Moscow, 27–29 October.
5. Ma, T.D. and Youngren, G.K.: “Performance of Immiscible-Water-
Alternating-Gas Injection at Kuparuk River Unit, North Slope,
Alaska,” paper SPE 28602 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September.
6. Nybraten, G., Svorstol, I., and Andfossen, P.O.: “Water-Alternating-
Gas Pilot Evaluation for the Snorre Field,” paper presented at the 1993
EAPG IOR Europe, Moscow, 27–29 October.
7. Hallam, R.J., Ma, T.D., and Reinbold, E.W.: “Performance Evaluation
and Optimization of the Kuparuk Hydrocarbon Miscible Water-
Alternating-Gas Flood,” paper presented at the 1993 EAPG IOR
Europe, Moscow, 27–29 October.
8. Minssieux, L. and Duquerroix, J.P.: “Water-Alternating-Gas Flow
Mechanisms in Presence of Residual Oil,” paper SPE 28623 presented
at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 25–28 September.
9. Skauge, A. and Aarra, M.: “Effect of Wettability on Oil Recovery by
WAG,” paper presented at the 1993 EAPG IOR Europe, Moscow, 27–
29 October.
10. Zekri, A.Y. and Natuh, A.A.: “Laboratory Study of the Effects of
Miscible WAG Process on Tertiary Oil Recovery,” paper SPE 24481
presented at the 1992 Abu Dhabi Natl. Oil Co./SPE Conference, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 18–20 May.
11. Larsen, J.A. and Skauge, A.: “Simulation of the Immiscible WAG
Process Using Cycle-Dependent Three-Phase Relative
Permeabilities,” paper SPE 56475 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
12. Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., and Skauge, A.: “Compositional and
Relative Permeability Hysteresis Effects on Near-Miscible WAG,”
paper SPE 39627 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 19–22 April.
13. Nguyen, T.A. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: “Immiscible Carbon Dioxide
Floods, Using Impure Gas in the WAG Mode,” paper presented at the
1993 Annual CIM Petroleum Society Technical Meeting, Calgary,
9–12 May.
14. Cullick, A.S. et al.: “WAG May Improve Gas-Condensate Recovery,”
SPERE (August 1993) 207; Trans., AIME, 295.
15. Larsen, J.K., Bech, N., and Winter, A.: “Three-Phase Immiscible
WAG Injection: Micromodel Experiments and Network Models,”
paper SPE 59324 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 3–5 April.
16. Mattax, C.C. and Kyte, J.R.: “Ever see waterflood?” Oil and Gas J.
(1961) 59, 115.
17. Chatzis, I. and Dullien, F.A.L.: “Dynamic immiscible displacement
mechanisms in pore doublets: Theory vs. experiment,” Colloid
Interface Sci. (1983) 91, 199.
18. Lenormand, R. and Zarcone, C.: “Role of Roughness and Edges
During Imbibition in Square Capillaries,” paper SPE 13264 presented
at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 16–19 September.
19. Lenormand, R., Zarcone, C., and Sarr, A.: “Mechanisms of
displacement of one fluid by another in a network of capillary ducts,”
J. Fluid Mech. (1983) 135, 337.
20. Blunt, M. and King, P.: “Relative permeabilities from two and three-
dimensional pore-scale network modeling,’’ Trans. Porous Media
(1991) 6, 407.
21. Blunt, M., King, M.J., and Scher, H.: “Simulation and theory of two-
phase flow I porous media,’’ Physi. Rev. A (1992) 46, No. 12, 7680.
22. Billiote, J.A., De Moegen, H., and Oren, P.E.: “Experimental
Micromodeling and Numerical Simulation of Gas/Water
Injection/Withdrawal Cycles as Applied to Underground Gas Storage,”
paper SPE 20765 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–26 September.
23. Bakke, S. and Øren, P.E.: “3D Pore-Scale Modeling of Sandstones and
Flow Simulations in the Pore Networks,” SPEJ (June 1997) 136.
24. Øren, P.E., Bakke, S., and Arntzen, O.J.: “Extending Predictive
Capabilities to Network Models,” SPEJ (December 1998) 324.
25. Øren, P.E. and Bakke S.: “Process-based construction of sandstones
and prediction of transport properties,” Trans. Porous Media (2002)
46, 311.
26. Øren, P.E. and Pinczewski, W.V.: “The effect of film flow on the
mobilisation of waterflood residual oil by gas flooding,” paper
presented at the 1991 European IOR Symposium, Stavanger,
May 21–23.
27. Øren, P.E., Billiotte, J., and Pinczewski, W.V.: “Mobilization of
Waterflood Residual Oil by Gas Injection for Water-Wet Conditions,”
SPEFE (March 1992) 70; Trans., AIME, 293.
28. Kovscek, A.R., Wong, H., and Radke, C.J.: “A pore-level scenario for
the development of mixed wettability in oil reservoirs,” AICHE J.
(1993) 39, No. 6, 1072.
29. McDougall, S.R. and Sorbie, K.S.: “The Impact of Wettability on
Waterflooding: Pore-Scale Simulation,” SPERE (August 1995) 208.
30. Blunt, M.J.: “Pore-Level Modeling of the Effects of Wettability,”
SPEJ (December 1997) 494.
31. Blunt, M.J.: “Physically-based network modeling of multiphase flow
in intermediate-wet porous media,” J. Petroleum Sci. and Eng. (1998)
20, No. 3/4, 117.
32. Hui, M.H. and Blunt, M.J.: “Effect of wettability on three-phase flow
in porous media,” J. Phys. Chem. B (2000) 104, 3833.
33. van Dijke, M.I.J. et al.: “Three-Phase Flow in WAG Processes in
Mixed-Wet Porous Media: Pore-Scale Network Simulations and
Comparison With Micromodel Expeiments,” paper SPE 75192
presented at the 2002 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, 13–17 April.
34. van Dijke, M.I.J. and Sorbie, K.S.: “Pore-scale network model for
three-phase flow in mixed-wet porous media,” Physical Review E 66
(October 2002) 046302.
35. van Dijke, M.I.J. et al.: “Simulation of WAG floods in an oil-wet
micromodel using a 2D pore-scale network model,” paper presented at
the 2004 International Symposium on Reservoir Wettability, Houston,
16–18 May.
36. Sohrabi, M. et al.: “Visualization of Oil Recovery by Water
Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Using High-Pressure
Micromodels—Water-Wet System,” paper SPE 63000 presented at the
2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4
October.
37. Sohrabi, M. et al.: “Visualization of Oil Recovery by Water
Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Using High Pressure
Micromodels—Oil-Wet and Mixed-Wet Systems,” paper SPE 71494
presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–3 October.
38. Piri, M. and Blunt, M.J.: “Pore-Scale Modeling of Three-Phase Flow
in Mixed-Wet Systems,” paper SPE 77726 presented at the 2002 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September–2 October.
39. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1960)
457–59.
40. Danesh, A.: PVT and Phase Behaviour of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids,
Elsevier Press, London (1998).
41. Reamer, H.H. et al.: “Phase Equilibria in Hydrocarbon System—
Methane-Decane System,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
(December 1942) 34, No. 12, 1526.
42. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G., and Clark, C.R.: “Calculating Viscosities of
Reservoir Fluids From Their Compositions,” JPT (October 1964)
1171; Trans., AIME, 231.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft × 3.048* E–01 = m
°F (°F - 32)/1.8 = °C
psi × 6.895 E + 0 = Pa
*Conversion factors are exact.
Mehran Sohrabi’s research interests include hydrocarbon
recovery mechanisms, high-pressure fluid flow in porous
media, enhanced hydrocarbon recovery, gas injection, and
application of acoustic waves to fluid flow through porous
media. e-mail: mehran.sohrabi@pet.hw.ac.uk. Sohrabi holds
a BS degree in reservoir engineering from the Abadan Inst. of
Technology (AIT), an MS degree in petroleum engineering
from Tehran U., and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering
from Heriot-Watt U. Dabir Tehrani is an Honorary Professor and
Research Consultant at Heriot-Watt U. e-mail:
dabir.tehrani@pet.hw.ac.uk. He has had 47 years of
experience in the oil industry, including the positions of
Petroleum Engineering Manager (OSCO), Reservoir
Engineering Manager (Britoil), Reservoir Studies Manager (BP
plc Exploration), and teaching reservoir simulation and
research in reservoir engineering subjects at Heriot-Watt U. His
current research interests include gas condensate recovery
and water-alternating-gas injection. He holds degrees in
mathematics from Tehran U. and petroleum engineering
from Birmingham U. Ali Danesh is a professor of petroleum
engineering at Heriot-Watt U. e-mail: ali.danesh@pet.hw.ac.uk.
He was a professor at AIT before joining Heriot-Watt U. in
1985. His current research includes PVT, modeling of reservoir
fluid by equations of state, measurement and modeling of
fluid properties, gas condensate recovery, water-alternating-
gas injection, heavy oil reservoirs, and recovery mechanisms
in fractured reservoirs. Danesh holds a BSc degree in
petroleum engineering and a PhD degree in chemical
engineering. Information on Graeme Henderson was
unavailable.