WAG

May

Improve

Condensate
A.S.

CuHick,

M.F.

Cohen,

SPE,

r.A

sensitivity

H.S.

and

Lu,

J.P.

and

Mobil

Watson,

E&P

SPE,

-.O

of the process
gas.

The

to several

process

iinchdkrz

variables,

mechanics

were

reservoir

confrmed%y

Technical

Jones,

SPE,

Consultant,

and

Center

process
may improve
sweep efficiency
and gas-condensate
recovThe study used extensive
numerical
stimulation
to inYeStiga@
the

Iavering.

ktbomto~

L.G.

Center

E&P

(WAG)
reservoirs.

--v-,

---

Technical

Mobil

This paper shows Smt the water-alternating-gas

.x+h
.,wm
.... . m.ti
. . . . ...
..Q
. cvcl
. . i. v i. hi shly stratified

.. .. .. .mmn.a
. .. . . .
trapped

Recovery

SPE,

ummary.

Gas=

uermeabtiw,

dis~ia~ements

relative

permeability,

in jaycred

caPflm

pressure,

ad

co;e.

Introduction

Many

WAG

process

to improve
cible

sweep

floods

ciency
Gas

lead

pointing

study,

verting

agent

yield,

swept

that

Water

because

pmce.vs

waters

practice,
because

and

traps

be avoided
and

water

of

the

present

simulation

by

ad
that

by

total

by

is un-

possl%lities

detailed

concerns

about

production.

volume

potential

slug

with

Gas

small

and

es-

re$ervok

discuss

the effects

performance.

effects

from

We

water

ing
Fluid

the proc-

of the simdatiom

process

VOU. Our

remfts

maintenance

from

the WAG

process.

represents

a 16CMcre

positional

simulator

state

@OS)

model

inverted
that

fluid

has

prototype
compae

gas injection
three

five-spot

incorporates

strata

pdtem.

The

re.serpressure-

with those

and

from

approximately

We use a ddly

a Peng-Robirmm

properties.

mcdels

simulator

was

described

layer

model,

The

is a layer-cake

meability

layers

resenmir

kh core

(??&

1).

and

permeabfily

strata

a geometric

average

permeability

layer

is

ratios

of=

moderate-permeability

model
data

moderate,

within
=8%
100:1

called

model

The

welI-log

(high,

permeability
and

model,

the

strata,

with

is a

proto~e

&at

were

three

different
developed

averaged

into

and low permeabtity)

permeability

of the total
and

the three-permeability

ranges.

single

phase

sensitivity
density

tive

mobility

thickness

= 10: l.compared
respectively.

and

For

the

199S Society.5

Pe!mleutn Engineers

slug

distance]
y di-

balanced

water

at a reservoir

water

slug

water

cycles

a cumuki-

was

cvcle

=0.035%

WAG

Fluids
chosen.

injection)
atier

HCPV,

were

initial
and the

performed

representative
Table

dur-

gas were

of three

compares

in representative
and

gas-cycling

They

were

typical

the fluid

char-

projecfi.

three-component

butane:

and

The

synfietic
assumed

case,

fluids

to be fmt-

gas

(OHIP)
after

injection
is at

Relative

assumed

rela-

to be 75%

repotied

by

et al. 2

2 shows

12%,

was

permeability

Chierici

Fig.

was

by water

relative

limestone.

enters

tie

and

the rela-

kv/kH

was

layer

(i.e.,

use

stratum,

injection

the

WAG.
compared
sweep

reducing

gas rekis divert-

it sweeps

that stratum.

Be.cau*

water
gas

cases

of gas

Almost

90%

with

=80%

is less

efficient

from

layers

required

287.
and

SW=PS

more

40%

of the top layer

with

continuous

ii the

witi
less

original
the

second

100-md

gas-swept

because

condensate

illustrates

the
the

significantly
l-red

WAG

fraction

for both

mecba-

preferentially

gas therefore

is @creased

injection,

for

gas break-

the dry

but recovered

=61%

gravig

wate<

wellbore,

into the bottom

total

with
fnitial
and

Injected

injected

displaces

curves
hydroca-

HCPV).

(mobility),

where

efficienq

4 compares

cases,

at 0.17

hjected

ratio,

and

injection,

compared

at the injection

mobility

At 1 HCPV

with

years

in that stratum.
10-md

the recovery
of origimd

(a 28 % increase.

viscosity

also crossflow

WAG

19.7

years

Y*S

efficiently

continuous

3 shows
is =78%

to tfds improvement.

100-md

gas

Fig.

recovery

after
19.1

=3.3

contribute

stratum

Re.mIts.

permeability,

ni.srns

both

were

Porosity

WAG

gas

in

were

gas saturation

and 0.1 water

used

cuwe.

rbon in place

achieved

viscosity
(i.e.,

to be 0.5:
Sknufator

Fw.

fluid

characteristics

happed

of an outcrop

permeability

HCPV

flow

saturations,

watec

saturation

injecdom

initial
endpoints

at 1 HCPV

ty.

fluid

for the blowdovm

permeabiliV,

segregation).

and 25%

saturation

(except

to relative

gravity

be representative

regions;

the simulation

determine

Base-Case

gas
copyright

those

base

The

Water

the low-

was

were

ratios

at trapped

has average
with

watsr

throughout

gas condensate

from

bigb-

of 76-BID
the first

.sa.ve). fn addition

and

tluee

by taking
The

base-

constant

fnjection

of kjecting

Fifteen

and dry

of a favorable
per-

(with

and reached

23 years.

days

Properties.

tive permeabili~

Configuration.

I-red

the

weWto-well

pattern

beeirmine

was 0.92.

propane,

ed to me top
Model

Each

with

through
of

well

after

(240

Rock

of ethane,

com-

equation

1 shows

con%ct miscible
because
the pressure. was maintained
above the gascnndemate
de~oint
pressure;
the hydmcabons
therefore
remdmd

to.

not for a particular

model

by contimmus

The

for

in general,

one cmss-sextional

operations

previously.

is to use synthetic,

mechanisms

a 23-ft-thick,

Fig.

was 82,5CNI scfiD

HCPV

projects

assumed

propose

and

100~md

acres.

the sas.

gas condensate

tive

The

middlq

10-md

S-tl-thick,

23 years.

and

28%.

permeabilities..

69-t%tbick,

an

and a 1,870-ft

to the gas

ratio

top;

bottom.

five-spot

consisted

with

the

(22x5)

WA,G

gas breaktfuough.

of
ad-

injection

data that demonstrate

different

water

injectivity

injeztion.

on WAG
adverse

to

production

only

compositional

system

displacement
core

water

so that

of a fully

layered

reserves

Simulation

to study

equal

at the

in the

gas injection

acteristics

water invasion,
and reducin a WAG prOc=s,
wat~

me used.

water

parameters

losing

condensate

volume

results

laborato~

in a two-layer

of

the process
each

of a synthetic
process

gas

into a gas-ccmden-

= 160

of = 1.22

gaslwater

through

mobility,

of the reservoir

tive

akematelv

channels
strata

is not injected

not

water

after

and

and present
ess

gas,

total

is restored

reservoir
dress

dry

by designing

a small

sentially
We

as a di-

cb~ek,

favorable

pat

tipped
gas candensae,
killing wells with
ing injectivity.
h conuast
to a wate.fflood,

slugs

gas sweep

high-pemneability

[110 cefls

of

has a horizontal,

at the

an inverted

Condmmus

of

simu-

by acting

gas to lower-permeab~ky

the lower

because

,improves

stratum
stratum

model

gas-cycling

reservoir

fo!lows

costs

recovery

entering

high-penneabfity

mension)

dkap-

In this computer

model
straw

low-permeability
representing

reservoirs

efficiency,

compression

increases

of the

eftl

in a gas-

case

sweep

strata.

The 2D cross-secdonal
moderate-permeabiliV

gas.

conventional

can

sweep

process

out of the low-permeability

sweeping

~s-

to improve

low

the WAG

dry

applied

ad

in gas-condensate

high

by preferentially

and

by

sate

and

Wd

reported.

breakthrough,

gas coridensate

imbibition

been

pressure

we show

preferentially
h

gas

injected

sweeping

not

recove~.

&vetiing

proposed

gas fi.fiscibl~

of WAG

in high-permeability

and ultimate
and

has

condensate

gas channeling
lation

Use

to maintain

to early

been

pressure-maintenance

reservoir

injected

have

of tijected

in oil reservoirs.

in a gascycling,

condemsatc
can

applications

efficiency

WAG.
of gmwigas

than

condensate.

remaining

at 1

superior

sweep

is swept

by dry

gas injection.
layer

because

TABLE

PRODLWON

lNJEOT[ON

I-MODEL,

iA60Rii0RY

CONDENSATE-RESERVOIRS

wEU

WELL

FLUID

PROPERTIES

Laboratory
and
Fluid

Resewoir

Simulator
Model

Properties

ABC
--

..:.

viscosity
#

6.0

.3.8

5,7

5.5

13.5

10,0

16.3

16.5

H*OUJM

i%omk

Density
p

H,O/p

2.1

2.2

2.1

3.4

3.3

5.0

pressures

for simulator

RI

pH,O@Ig

pus

Fig.

1 Three-permeability

layer

the

average

tibkout

model.

Because

affect
of gas override.

Gas channeling

tum is predominant
Although
botb
tum

from

water
the

in the lower
tum

Fig.

that

the

movement

high

fn addition

continuous

sequence,

dfierent

Tab[e

for

a 3D

permeabilities

tions.

The

puted

by normalizing

the

relative

case,

Fig.
gas

recovery

ities

were

duction
water

in Fig.

6 shows
same

capill~

used

for

the simulation

the same
with
tbmugh

to, retain

The

results

and

without

somewhat

the water..

remaim

low

until

Fig.

very

from

case

for

model.

there

h?wever,
of the

flood.

key

for

@e other

relative

permeabili~

potentially

would

result

tr~ds

low-

wO~d

model

showed

gas

injection

2D model,

a 23 % increase

pared

with

that

nOt

same

layering
ceifs.

The

model

fiv,~spot

pattern

iniection

and

1,870

production

of gas

that

75%

the

with

WAG

ery

while

is diverted

9 com-

cQmhad

the

and 330
160-acre
The

as those

and
gas
strata.

because
the

used

for

only

override.
Recovery

into the bottom

ratiO
which

Shmdation

bas

a mobfitv

a ccmrsen.ingstratum

decreasing

38%

ORE

Gas

does

with

However,
straw.

to 54%

incremental
became

Th?refOre,

be-

effectively
OHfP

and increased

any

displacement

shows

injected

crossflow

by 42%

at the

depth)

at 1 HCPV
not

improves

I-red

dis-

Of twO shOuld

of

gas channeling

is fmmwater

is about

of a miscible

100%.4

permeability

stratum.

sweep

water,

because

mobility

the high-permeabtity

of reduced

10-md

stratum

that

with

areal. sweep

dw-gas

WiOI mO~Jity

Sequence.

recovers

lower

that

same

good

areal

approach

(i.e.,

model

of severe

from

~je~~

and producer.

the

The

The

pattern

should

sequence

gas cycling

achieved

condensate.

to 85%,3

=0.1,

that

from

by the

3D model

of an inverted
injector

displacements.

on a five-spot

of the

tie

with

shown

in the y dimension

one-eighti

and WAG

mobility

top

is no cap!lary

The

were

Re-

the bas~

improvement
to that

at 1 Hcpv

ft between

conditions

grids.
from

stu~y.

gas injection

of

recove~
simik

3 cells

simulated

with

simula-

by subdividm~

m those

gas injection.

as the 2D model,

of vertical-

six e+i-tiicknms

in rwOveV

of continuous

of tive

identical

A 3D

into

Pr*

into

almost

number

we conducted

instead

continuous

water

pro-

.gids

vertically
were

of the

effect

prediction,

vertical

Coarsening-Upward

As expected,

the

over

cause

Fz.

test

override

Model.

the

as those

water

nine

the model

permea.bil-

the

with

hysteresis

but, the

WAG

ratio

60!~u0m

the same

and

dld not signiticantiy

pmperdes

made

3D

reach
for

To

on gas

10-md-strata

top

sults

upw~d

fOr tie

pressnre.
when

end

using

mm

placement

strata.

8 compares

cases,

tion

twice

com-

curve

and relative

earlier

grids

of favorable

satura-

were

adjusted

two

W=

capillary

fq both
the

pressure

are essentially

for all strata.

for its

pressure

other

saturations

Model

duection

Both

2 wiOI the individual-stratum

recovery

the residual

).

wa.i assigned

stratum

the capilhy
the

A mapped-gas
slightly,

total

layers

mcdel

residual

was

caMs.

stratum

CUIWW for each

the crews

where

layer

individual-stratum

The

breaks

duction

the

four

appropriate

stratum.

curves

pressure

lists

a liited

with

were

assumed.

in the 2D

Each

saturations

and WAG

a coarsening-

pressure

permeabtity

7 compqes

a model

an

results.

Fig.

for the cases

model,
sequence,

and

and a capilkmy
3

rela-

variations

runs

base-case

recoiev

the

we compared

model

a fine-gfid

saturations.

10-md

residual

model,

several

Model.

Table

@e.

water

(No

properties

ihi

er

Free-Grid

stra-

from

we used

cases.

WAG

with

change.)

produced.

low

(the four-permeability

the

permeability

fi awaY

sweep,

a coarsening-downward

summdzes

resid~d

stra-

l-red

results,

hysteresis

occurs

the

has been

to the base-case

gas

case,

permeability.

340

no water

of effective

IndiniduaWfralum-Property

a relative

is SW

model,

vertical-crossflow
with

l-red

displacement
from

in

viscosiv.

individual-stratum-propew
upward

water

and flat

is the result
and

Cases.
with

stratum

nms

pressure.

use of indi~iduaf-stratum

the

sensitivi~

in WAG.

I-red

the bottom

recovery

waterfront

injection

permeability,

Sensititi@

the

into

A stable

consequently,

at 1 HCPV

WAG

bypasses

downward

stratum.

stra-

significantly.

5 shows

Its slow
tive

100-md
stratunu

high-permeabfity

case but is reduced

completely

crossflow

is improved

producer

tie

in the gas injection

dry gas almost

cases.

through

reservoir

capilfay

2,0
4.3

recovwwmy

Iiffle dry gas

water

sweePs

,.-.?.

1NJSC70N

0.8
0.6
WLATNE

04

=RMwlmv

0,2
E.
00

0,2

0.4
WATER

0.6

0,8

SATURATION

Pig.

2Base.case

relative

permeability

curve.

Fig.

3Three-permeability

model

layer

recoveries.

.,
SPE Reservoir

EI&er&

Augu~

1993

CONTNUOUS

Y/m

PRODWER

1NJEC70R

QA.S

m%

,80,

M
Fig.

4Original

tbe

t-red

er,

improving

gas

condensate

stratum

bottom

in addition
overall

to diverting

vertical

25%

WAG

compared

and

gas

for WAG).

and the base

case

100-md

case.

in-

At

100-md

witi

faster

front

with

is not invaded

depth,

continuous
this case

in the bottom

has

340

at

recovery

for
between

moves

water

lay-

stratum

and increases

difference

the

100-md

increasing

sweep

compaed

stratum

the

(61 % recoveV

A noticeable

1 HCPV,

the

moved

ft away

efficiently

to only

for the base

by gas or water

case.
fverticul

between

WAG.

stmta,

restricted

at 1 HCPV

stratum

Penneabil@).

reservoir

With

OHIP

into

the

mm.

Consequently,
bas

crossflow,

To prevent
five

cycles

was

continued

.abnost

water
(i.e.,

mntinuous
O.O4%

of HCPV),

cantly

when

The
process.

WAG

as

WAG

also

projects.
yam,

an

is recovered,

167

z 0.60

plus

pressore

The

Stone

The amount

OtiY

was

that water

46%

ery

relative

HCPV

Gas
for

after

injection

19.4

years,

compared

prnducdon

that yields

was

critical

10%

that

higher

with

reduced

from

of that

to 27 % at the end of the WAG

(approximately

movement

slowed
during

through

injected

the

the 10@md

in the

operation

and to

Laboratory

fommnce

gas

effects

relative
,cecovery

uldmate

gas recov-

after

reported

psia.

0.30.

condensate-liquid
h addition,

of the blowdown

in a layered

ed a core of two
a 10-red

12-in. -long

air permeability,

a 0.3-md

core

to that

WAG

by Hawes

demonstrated

air permeabili~,

that

in the simulations.

hemicylindricd
267.

porosity

11.3%

TABLE

outcrop
Texas

porosity

2SIMULATION

CASE

(gas
et al. 6

per:

construct-

ti,estone

cream

kdiana

WAG

We

slabs

ltiestone

and

limestone.

The

SENSITIVITIES

<2%

Recovery
(Oh

OH[p)

Recovery

WAG
Recovery
(oh)

(o/a OHIP)

case

at 1 HCPV

Baze

case

61

78

2s

Coarsening

upward

3s

54

42

Coarsening

downward

62

78

25

crossflow,

= 0.1
atSw

3D, one.eighth
spot pattern
Four-permeability
layer model

80

Incremental

WAG

Gas

smtum

injection

100

*D

was

hysteresis

w25 analogous

kw=l

40

done,

WAG

PRE2SURE

for tbr=-phase

saturation

improved

The

YO1% at 5,981

Coreflood

floods

kv/kH

P.:

it the surface.

=40

to account

an EOS
dewpoint

included).

Limited

of

signifi-

injected.

CAPILLARY

used

of

we used

=6,170-psi

Continuous

of gas channeling
65%

with

at the end

Case

was

15 years

was not avoided

produced

significantly

15

resemoir

or

effect,

dropout

WAG

stopped.

improved

cycling

gas for

bas~case

of blowdowi

fluid

condensate

permeability
not

the

= 175 bbllMMscf

liquid

SI models

Laboratory

injection

injected).
injection

for a reservoir

shows

in older
we cycled

stra-

recovered.

water

were

using

25 years

25 % over b[owdown

was

WAG,

of blowdown.

a mzximum

10

l-red

l-red
0.2

Fig.

with

location.

Blowdown

to blowdown

for liquid<ondensate-dropout

at 175P

has

water-front

Early

injeqted,

by either

description

fluid

to

blowdown

10 years

To account
model

model

an alternative

HCPV

folfowed

WAG

by about

preferen-

the

im.prOvement

water

of water

injection

profde

after

water
HCPV

a 54%

Akbougb
bbl

indicadng

water

injection

flows

into

OHIP

stopped

HCPV
At

water

419S

only

be

To compare

model,

layered

Alternative

may

or

with

54%

the bottom

goes

through

we

at =0.175

only

little

only

production,

gas injection.

WAG,

and

with

for 23 yeizrs.

71 % OHIP

completely,

with

is restrict-

recovers

recove~tlom

breaks

.Wa=I

cros$ow
a dramatic

gas injection

stratum

injected,

verdcal

improves

Lhtle

however,

100-md

been

ff

recovery

injection.

is obtiinet

tially
water

5Three-permeaMhw

permeability;

Crossflow
ed

vertical
injection

the producer,

The top l-red

in this

1 HCPV

recovery.

Whh

is that, the waterfront

stratum,

ft from

and

permeability

improves

with

gas and 78%

200

gas from

sweep

Sequence.

of the model

at 1 HCPV,

at

W.

Coarsening-Doynwmd

the

remaining

At

HCPV

46

71

54

61

SI

33

61

75

23

45

72

60

of five-

Iniected.

,,
D
k

TABLE

3LAYER

RESIDUAL

.D~
o

0,2

04

WATER

(4=

1294)

6.Capiilary

pressure

curve

for

lo-red

7
!.,

0.s

SATURATION

.-..1
Individual-1

Fig.

SATURATIONS

.20

rock

layer.

ayer-property

3
model

,,,

...

,..
1

,.

84

Fig.

7-Gas-condensate

10

10WAG

as

10

m.

W.*

......$:
f=)
mGEkLwER

k L4YER
03

,.

40

alternative.

CORE
cE.4aAcrEmar1c3
k L.u%R

30

a blowdown

recovew.

BIG+

1.

p,:,

Fin.

BWIWKWN

WAG

1-+1

1:

CORE

FiOLDEX

m
FIUSXJRE

TRANSDUCER

GAS

GAsWAma
:

SER411ATOR

C~x

C3
C4

Fig.

8-Cumulative

water

Fig.

production.

11 Coreflood

apparatus

schi!kailc.

. ... . .. .

.,
m

!4

II

m
0,s
WAG
,,7

0.,
WAG

RECOVERY,

MK.lloll
m?

-?*

0.5

17

c.3N.Nu.0%

m
,.,

--

.x2

,,03

,.10

Fig.

9Resewoir

slabs

were

placed

The

10-md

layer

in a rubber

end cross

filled

eDoxv

with

coretio~

Fluids
sate,

used

sleeve

29%

section.

to form

of the

The

onIY at the core

comparison.

a 2-in,

PV.

interface
inlet.

Fig.

were

between

Fig.

5%

mately

the

same
was

brine,

propane

% butaoe

ratios

mix

at 1,500

as those

for

fuat-contact

the

psia

11 ~so

and

simulation

miscible.

The

lioear

velocity

of = 2 tVD,

velocity

depended

on the

degree

of channeling

rate

12-WAG

ayered

was

is a schematic

effect

and found

gas

to represent

at a nominal

210

the layera

to represent

ducted

the injection

~g.

core

11 is a schemmi[

in the

vs.

cora,

Texas

that

dry

gas.

150F

were

fluid

(Table

coreflood
although

conden-

1); gas
were

acmd

or bypassing.
gas floods

Fluid

approxicon-

velocities
connate

water

relative

permeability

conducted

and

on

achieved
and

28%

essentially

the same

bre~ough
Endpoint

for trapped

gas
for

HCPV

saturations

and

measured

measured

from

90 + % recovery

at 0,65

10 ftlD.

were

saturation

recovery

bottom.

= 0.1

for

the

the

fndkma

for linear
of 25 % for

endpoint

Texaa

cream.

liiestone

water
The
was

29.5%.
Initial

fluid
We

layer

and the same

of 0.05,2,

trapped-gas

eontinuOus_gaS-injectiOn

Io-md

cream

at 1.2 HCPV

and a 95 % ethane/5
and-viscosity

tested

-diameter

-.

pmwm

e:

app&atus.

density

displacement

pressure

contains

of the core
of the

.4.

.WfAnr

+.-

QAS

Iilfing
25

PV

fluid

samrafiom

the core
of mineral

with

in the

brine,
oil.

Water

then

layered
flushing

saturations
SPE

Reservoir

core
out
after

were

established

the brine
the

Engineering,

01

by

with

up to

flush

were

Angnst

WY3

m
5+

.
WA,

,.7
WAG

,0
*.17.

,,0

OIUGUWL

69

FLum

IN

,,

RECOVEW,
mA&lOh

0..

&

EFFmFNT

CONTINUOUS

GAS

,..

40

,,

,.,

--

10

,.,

~J

.40..50.3112

Fig.

0.0

13Effluent-concentration
Io-md

layer

=27

% of total

core

until

on

Soltrolw

solvent

folowed

floods:

a continuous

a WAG

flood

witi

the
cycles

weter

by

continuous

the

layer

HCPV

Fluids

iayeied

Fig.

Core-

produced

oil was

from

14WAG

We

conducted

four

ex-

the

layer

on

10-md

the 10 md-layer
on the top,
The

with

at a constant

layer

on

0.s
HCRV

i.

PRODUCE.

injection

iecove~fror

top.

bottom,

a WAG

floods

alternating

produced

on.the

and

WAG

0.6

continuous-gas.

10-md

with

with

layer

,N,WTION

0..

vs.

core,

.3As

the

flushed

gasflood

gas slug

were

not

propane.

with

10-rnd

was

mineral

on the bottom.

of a 0.05

slug.

The

gasflood

with

10-md

from

0,,

-wA~wA~R-

F8A~10NmTAL,

layered

water

~je.ction.

the top,

PRODUCED

history

addkional

WAG

HCPV

bottom.

perimental

tion

0.,

TUTAL

FR.4CTION

floud,

COwmws

flood

used
a 0.05

iajecHCPV

1,500-psi

back-

s.iK

pressure
Experimental

Rusufts.

recuvered

46%

With

more

OHIP

the 10-md
than

layer

on the bottom,

continuous

gas

L_12221
,

WAG

injection

recov-

U,4R60SI

ered

(at 1.2 HCPV

produced).

Fig.

12 shows

propane

recoveries

XNMXtON

vs.

total

Fig.

fluid

produced

13 shows

tion decreases
with
mix)

WAG
began
and

.-s

dramatically

WAG

have

core

layers.

diverted

gas

and

history;

continuous.

gw

WAG

shows

flood.

after

was

stopped

The

floud

bre~ough
along

Fig.

cOmP@f

that

tie joint

the intervals

Water

0.34

was

HCPV

at 0:54

water

HCPV

moduced

when

produced

water

first

had been

produced,

=0.1

was

the

itieckd.

or after

1 HCPV

HCPV

total

Water
eight

water

during
totaf

pro-

~j@On

Whb

the

10-md

the recoveries,
drops

The

duction

kick
prod&ion

cycles.

of the 0.39

HCPV

in the effluent

did
water

tutd

=0.65

begin

iqiected.

water

layer

there

After

1.2 HCPV

produced

total

when

of Experiments.

the same
bottom.

produced.

enceontbe.

interface

flood.

pending
Whh

cases

on whether

the 10-md

effectively

was
between

diverts

slightly

is on the

if tie

10-md

The

between
layer

on the bottom,

gas into the upper

along
the

is on the
recuvery
0.3-md

equal

layer.

infln-

basis

models,

floods,
or tie
higher

Wkh

layer

processes,

then
and

the 0.3-md

lay-

itdoes

than

is on

is completely

top,

layer,

volume

layer

top.
swept

recovery

is gO% and 52%

the

the

of crossflow

when

fills more
10-red

10-md

and

of our

siimdation

we can estimate

fluid

voir.

in both

improvement
when

the

10-md

respectively.

results

the WAG

from

five

process

different

reservoir

sensitivity

to reservoir

properties.
Pohasity

In our

cogmmnly

studies,

a lower

target

tie

&ata

for

WAG

correlates

thepomsi~of

porusity

Pemneabifity

detop.

WAG

contrast,

higher

because
voir

cremental
The
both

severe

can

contrast,
of

the interface.

bottom

is much

10The

SWWP

WAG

later

WAG
and

enters
because

Sensitivities

tluencm

recoveries

subsequent

gas channeled

top

the

propane.

is a potential

almost
was

the

layer

bottum

core

to permeability
a.lllayers

in the low-penneabitity

would

have

been

in a reser-

is tie

same.

somlum,

If we

the recOv-

lower.

had virtuOD tic

,when

than

the water

the

the low-permeability

initially
as well

occurs

when

and

from

Porosity.

water

at 1.2 HCPV

earlier

lighter

there

difference
the

layer

even

that

was

recovery

the layers

dine.

indicated

is a significant

=58%

layer

that

layered

or

production,
HCPV

floods

10-md

ethaneis

gas-breaktbmugh
gas floods

thematrixinboth
There

had

because

high-permeabilig
in the two

the

breakthrough

wasontop

continuous-gas

whether

Bodugastloods

Etime

mdlayer

The

recoveries

layer

continuous-gas

had used

Dikussi?n

because

O.3-md

layer

ery

or tie

tie

OD the

pro-

injected.

ally

water
layer

breakthrough

er is on the bottom

Process

gasflood

produced,

of the 0.63

however,

the low-permeability
Water

from

top.

in the

WAG

HCPV

on

by

is a propane

in the

0.79

history

layer

ontbetup,

sweeps

tbe

14 compares

Cuncentmtion

HCPV

until

had been

recuve~

Fig.

for the continuous

whereas

at

not

improved

produced).
propane

breakthrough,

beginning

HCPV
HCPV

WAG

15 compzes

propane
after

Water
=0.40

on the top,
(at 1.2 HCPV

and Fig.

rapidly

0.16

layer

gas injecti&

effluents.

Io-md

If we assume

WAG

irijekd:

2g % over

15Eff[uent-concentration

flood,

tbe gas

between

injected

at 0.51

l.1

PRODUCED

produc-

inje~On

indicates

by channeling

ECPV

floods.

propane

imbibition.

12 also

water

with

The rapid

cases.

been

the WAG
duced,

the continuous
concentmtion

propane
pmducdon.
DW gas (i. e., the ethaneibutane
to be produced
at = 0.15 HCPV
in both the continuous

may

Fig.

for

the effluent

TOTAL

is less

gas

cont+wt

strongly

higher

permeability

with

recove~
of irjected

effectively

witl

WAG

can be expected

gaS in a highly

by water

channeling

stmdOed

injection.

and

thus

in-

With

resersmaller

a Iower

WAG

in-

a marked

effect

recovery.
direction

of permeabilky

the continuous-gas

meabfity

Generafly,

incremental
channeling

be reduced
there

Permeability

Contrast.

performance.

in the top stratum,

water

to swq

lower

10-md

stratum,

water

strata.

layering

and WAG
When

undersides

gas severdy
the Iiighest
und

has

processes.

diverts

~ltb

overrides

Per-

and water

tends

permeabfity
gas

on

the. &he$t

to higher

is ih the lowest
layers.
211

Relative

Water

meabdity

Pemtwability.

endpoint,

:CY. when
We
used
a
instead of 0.1 at residual
was

slightly

23 years

higlier

was
more

at the producer

gravity
had

a small

of water
effect

relative

OD WAG

perIecOv-

relative
permeabtity
endpoint
of 1.0
gas saturation,
WAG incremental
recovery

at 1 HCPV

through

curves

ordy

water

the same.

exhibits
bility

The magnitude

has

km,

injection,

With
crossflow,

km,

The

effect

recovery

water

has higher

earlier.

little

but tddmate

larger

is more

injectivigf,

shape

100-md

Gas

Saturation.

of residud

or trapwd-gas

been

tht

Iower

WAG

effect

in 0.24-darcy
with

saturation

our basmase

result

because

front

in the more-permeable

recovery

would

have

by water,

28%,

less dry gas would

a higher

have been

strata

been

depends
WAG

from

watertlooded

S,g h~

recovery
behind

and waterflood

fdgher

If the

S,!.

&apped

et al.s

sis,

Densities

those

used

recovery

Viscosities.

in the base
because

fwtively.
wilf

and

water

Viscosity

block

cosity

the

ratio

conversely,

case,

we

will

ratios

expect

strata.

compensate

intluence

would

result

a low

viscosi~

incremental

would

ef-

of dry

WAG

condensate

models

ance

water

to inject
the

and

trast

between

to benefit

gas;

segregation,

incremental

contrast

strata,

between

Pvs,

a WAG

sitive

ratio

of

low

ratio

would

de-

vertical

permeability

con-

1:1

appeam

1:1

gas

for

Discussion

ventional

and

showed

that

tical

dering

gas

affect

results7
from

cotinned

this.

show

that

layer,

tending

ability

layer

Sorbic

gas

frontal

in singfe-phase

in proportion
served

to kh.

in our

in all strata

the

displacing

simukuiorq

i.e.,

and

water

Soucemarianadin

et al 9 reported

practice

waker
water

Iock

reduce

blowdown
needed
et al.

stage.
to remobilize

and

Fishlock

aPPmxkatelY
PV or more
with

Chierici

et il.

thre.$holdfor

trapped

pressure
s2

costs,

improve
releasing

reservoir

and lowered

injectivity.

imps dry gas,

is very

injection

recovety

after

Our

and

with

the WAG

gas

blowdown

is occupied

water

samration

study

not the desired

low,

space

in conto trapPed

injectivity
process.

is Iarger

after

by water.

S =

or-

SiW

eadier

L
L2

sm+mtion,

fraction

irreducible

residual

y = viscosity,
p =

density,

.$ =

porosity,

tit
m/L3
fraction

work

gas remobtition

to

a front

during

WAG.
hysteresis

that

indicated
when

gas
=

horizontal

~ti~

injected
~ = re$idu~

ob-

moved

&=

whereas

rm.mvoir

fluid

V = vertic2J
w = water

strata.

from

laboratov

a WAG

after
there
water

process,

occur

it
tie

increase
Both

blowdown

mm

was

waterflood
no

injection

gas

th~

Mobfl

J.A.

Bamhart

R&D

COIP.

for

for permission

conducting

the

to publish

laboratory

this

work

experiments.

References

is

Hawes
after

were reached
with 2
they did not study gas
the

We
and

et al.

during

saturation

blowdown.

their

Acknowledgments

Fkh-

to ffawes

would

a large

in ga$)water.

et al. 6 and

According

gas during

maintained

layers

those

mobifity,

fhe hysteresis

tie

conducted

g=

immis-

the core

results

Subscripts

nnit-mobility

similar

by Hawes

with

fiat

per-

media.

exists

showed

et al.

swept
arc

true residual
gas saturations
of water
injection.
However,

injection

212

work,

They

less tijected

could

of reserves

water

reservoir

thickness,

of different
two-phase

sitqifai

repmted

hysteresis

et al.s

witi

WAG

loss

production

more

is sen-

gas saturation,

liquids.

primarfly

&-y-gas

permeability,

to crossflow

For

developed

did not include

gas recove~

Fishfock

because

trapped

condensate

of potential

after

and layer

core.

displacement

porous

curves

et al. lo If this

would
and

studies

permeabiliw

total

gmviy

performance

a gas-condensate

production,

restored

perform-

compression

more
into

ffiat water

condensate;

WAG

Therefore,

by reducing

because

in the highest-permeabili~

in multilayered

Oux simulation
relative

gas

in the five simu-

to gas mobility,

WAG

more

irjecti&.

recovering

on water

stable,

results

of its favorable
preferentially

layers

fluid

er al.s

dry gas channeIed

experiments

and

heterogeneous

sortie

because

relative

fluid properties,

is not injected

in the lower-perme-

between

miscible

in

displacement,

to superior

ga.s-

contbmous

g:

ver-

confirm

leads

with

contributing

simhicmtly

the mo-

higher-permeabtity

advancement

crossflow

displacements

miscible

mobiIity

recovery

dkplace-

stratified

displacements.

et al. 8 repoti

meabilities
cible

contrast

to an adjacent

aids

studies

Our gasflcods

ftom

that

when

Our

out of
as long

work%e.?

imbibition

Permeability

layer

in miscible

Early

systems.

an unfavorable

ta reduce

inecbadsms

recove~.
displacement

si@tic2ntly.

the Iow-permeability

identified
capilfary

in stratified

the process

that

from

in ah immiscible

is favorable

displacing

to higher

resulting

efficiency

ratio

studies

lead

crossflow

sweep

bility

laboratory
and

hystere

recovery

28 % to 54%

layering,

however,

WAG
in WAG

Fish-

gas

coreflood

recovery

permeability.

substantially
sale,

shows,

is Pre-

factors

continuous

is essentially

simulation

inchrded

gas

and

and

of trapped

from

permeabili~-

5. Ultimate
Our

that

laboratory

with

ranged

recovers

gas saturation,

pefmeabflity

1.?s than

gas than

and

watermobility

to reservoir

4. Water

ferred.

opemte

et al

liited.

gas-condensate

and relative

economics

needed

water

or large

of much

of

vertical

of approximately
crossflow

a WAG

amount

nomtalfy

amount

relatively

restricted

layers,

optimum

We

minhmiin

With

with

The

strata pertneabihies,

layer
the

recovery.

recovery;

Ratios.

on resemoir

to inject

good

and

individual

process

to achieve

Sizes

depends

permeabiliv,
sign

SIug

process.

investigated.

favorable

are

3. WAG
Gas

was

WAG

in Hawes

ultimate

experi-

no ~eshold

water-invaded

percolation

limit

compmd

dominant

vis-

and
and

not

uncon-

hysteresis

fn our

coks,

simulations

to simulations
improves

reservoirs

2. The

recovery

Water

core.

partially

than

that

did

Improvement

lation

water

water-to-gas

reduce

their

volume

WAG

irjection.

more

diversion

lower

concluded

regions

1. &cordmg

than

injected

A ~gh

effective

ratio

WAG

effectively

strata.

in more

larger

for gas override

how

high-permeahilby

dfierences

higher

in 1.28-darcy

smaller

the constant-pressure

much
From

4- to 13-darcY

a much

was oidy

the hystere-

Conclusions

gas-condensate

the low-permeability

At density

during

was

et al.

with

low-pemneabtity

the reservoir

as injected-water

would

than

that

in lower-permeability

the water

ments,
Fluid

core

packs.

Hawes

compared

relatively

permeability

indicated

gas is low

et al. 6 r~ported

observed

studi.i-s,

on the amount

cores

layered,

were

et af. 10 also

to mobtie

Hawes

ments

the

recoveries.

recovery

sands.

fn these

permea-

Ffihlock
needed

consolidated

solidated

lock
Trapped

depletion.

sis in saturation

effects

and breaks

of the relative

on predicted

after

mObiie,

during

phase.
saturation

was continued

1.

Harper,

I.L.

et

al.:

Composid.oml

Sitdator

for

Performing

Field Studies in a Vector Computing

Environment,
paper SPE
presented at tie 1985 SPE Middle East Oit Tedmicat
Conference
Exhibition,
Bahrain, March 11-14.

l-age

13714

and

2. Chierici, G. L., Ciucci, G. M., and Irmg, G.: Expetientd

Resean?h
on Gas Saturation Behiad the Water Front in Gas Reservoirs
Subjected
to Water Drive, Proc.,
8ixth World Pet. Cong., FrankliItiarmMain
(1%3)

4s3.

SPE Resemoir

Engineering,

August

1993

3.

Smlkup
son,

4.

Craig,

(1983)

.%ies,

St...

6.

Hawes,

Data,

R.I.

et

Condensate

8.

Yokoyama,

Y.

al the

tion,

Antonio,

San

K. S.,

menrs

in

paper

SPE

ference
9.

Mediz

tion,
10,

R. S.,

and

Dallas,

19S7

Sept.

Sweep
stable

SPE

and

CapMary

Pressure

pap

SPE
and

Recovery

SPE

on
10109

Exbibi.

O1-Displacemmt

E.x@-

Mechanisms,

Annual

Technical

Culllck

Lu

A.S.
in Multilayered

Unstable

Flow,

Technical

Porous

paper

C.mfcrence

SPE
and

Culllck

ing

16955

ing

%+erimental

Studies

on the Waledlced
SPERE

by Blowdown,

Residual
@lay

in

Metric

Conversion

bbl
ff
ft3

4.046873

E01

ha

1.589873

E01

m3

3.C4S*

E01

2.831685

E02

~F-32)/l.8

m3

OC

Cohen

hysicsl

chemistry

ngimser
>ined

in

2.54*

E+OO

cm

ombustion

md

9.869233

E04

pm2

ons.

psi

6.894757

E+OO

kPa

in.

1980

bandonment.
Woversio

factor

original

mnuscrlpt

sql,
at

SPE
3,1992.

the

i 989

t,

exacl

received

PaFaracmPted
SPE

G=

for
Technology

fcr

rev$ew

Pukllcathm
SYnwas(um

June
Cct

7,1989.
5,1992

held

Ravised
Pa$ar(SPE

in

Dallas

mmmrlpt
191

J...

7-9.

14)

ultsnt,

received
M

both

retired

. >ined

all

and

from

Transient

in

is

and
an

U.

was

He

holds

Tech.

Photo
unavailable.

and

PhD

in 1992.
and

degrees

Jones

wss

a PhD

degree

biographical

and

petroleum

studies.

1970-71.

in applied
information

He
en-

engineering,
of

the

during

and

a coninterests

in petroleum

in chemical

MEPTEC

meas-

Jones,

principal

a member

development

applica-

steamflood

LG.
His

He
in-situ

rate

sand-control

during
at

on
well

civil

in
staff

MEPTEC.

and

degree

chairman
adviser

at

and
in

a BS

in chemdegrse

research

degrees

holds

Develop-

is a senior

quality

CommOtee

simulation

f.u

horizontal

Technical

engineering

reservoir

1980.

are

and

Stste

Testing

1986-89
hen

MS

Ohio

He

a PhD

U. of Wyoming.

MEPTEC

in 1959.

U. and

modeling,

MS
the

Shell

Group

and

flow

Cullick

degree

in steam

and-completion

Mobil

gineering

are

fe-

and

for

U. H.S.

gas

charac-

BS

conducted

projects

holds
fmm

from

re well-testing

presented

State

flowline

Lu

ngineering,

.smm

reservoir

holdsa

Tulane

hss

studies

and
current

assessment,

Recovwy

and

steam

He

Ohio

steam

current

urements,

from

Thermal

In
and

His

istry
born

the

Mobil

Co.

on

enriched-gss

His

worked

ment

join-

worked

behavior,

are

risk

Since

has

scaleup/averaging.

previously
acre

phase

interests

attribute

Factors

he

projeots.

terization,
SI

Technical

in Dallas.

1981,

fluid

search

engineer-

E.SP

fiooding,

production

387

associate

Mobil

miscible

fiooding,

1988)

at

(MEPTEC)

Mobil

C02

Its Pmducdon

is an

adviser

Center

Exhibi-

27-30.

ad

Jones

Con-

27-30.
Efficiency

Annual

Gas-

20-22.

Conference

of

19S7

at the 1986 SPE

Media;

Technical

Analysis

.,
..-=
~
LLiL

and

53.

Wateflmdhg

of

Porous

at the

etaf.:

et aL:

T.P.

Saturation

4,

Oct.

T.C.:

Mono-

PemfeabiliN

No.
of

Effects

Rowe,

Core

Wlween

Sept.

The

Annual
5-7.

presented

at the

FMhxk,
Gas

SPE

Oct.

A.

Dallas,

.%Jdies

in StadfIed

Exhibition,

Conuast

prewnted

12,

London,

L.:

Lake,

Wat,

Soucemarianadin,

I@hard-

50.

paper 8PE 15S75 presented

1981

16706

SPE,

Wate@mding,

Relative

Tech.,

Feasibility

Heterogeneous

and

Pet.

Conference,

and

of

(1971)3,

Three-Phase

C&.

Displacements

presented

Sorbic,

al.:

Pcmleurn

Immiscible

Series,

Aspects
TX

of

.?.

Reservoirs,

European

7.

En@neenng
Richardson,

,Estimation

Oil

Monogmph

44-46.

SPE,

H. L.:

Residual

Di@ac?ment,

8;

Reserwir

F. F.:

graph
5.

Miscible

F.I.:

TX

Pressure

1983-85
Martin

and

has

and
F.

worked

applications
mechanics
for

J.P.

Co.

since
from
Watson

Cd

FRmC~ANDIOG
Geometric
Average
Permeability
(md~
Res. C
w
44
112

Permeability
Strata
!iigh Perm,

z of
_TStal
Thicknes
~v,
B
&
9
8

Permeability
Ratio to
COSMOS
Lo
e rm Layer
MQ!M
&p
e
8
80
132

COSMOS

100

Strata

Moderate
Strata

Perm.

9.7

69

69

69

13

11

10

0.55

0.85

22

23

23

(<30 md)

Low Perm.
Strata

6.913

(<2 md)

continuous
Gas
Caae
Baae Caae
Regressive

Layering

VAG
VAGIncremental
MCQYSKx~

61

70

28%

38

54

422

62

78

25%

46

71

54%

61

81

33Z

61

75

23Z

(High Perm. at Top)

Transgreasive

Layering

(High Perm. at Bottom)

Limited

Krw

Cross-Flow
1 at Srg

3-D, 1/8 of 5-spot

All

recoveries

at 1 HCPVinjected.

Recovery

,,.

!.

SeE 19114

.
.

INJECTOR
I

~~RMEABIL\Ty
Ml
1

PRODUCER
A

4351+.,

12

THICKNESS

feet
15

44

0.55

20

4.8

24

4.8

23

~=o
FIGURE t

feetl

FOUR-PERMEABILITY

STRATA GRID MODEL

0.9 0.8 0.7 WAG

0.6 EcovERy
0.5 FRACTION OHIP
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -

0.0

0.2

ox

0.4

0.8

to

1,2

HCPV INJECTED
FIGURE 2

RECOVERIES FROM THE FOUR-PERMEABILITY

WAG
INJECTOR

STRATA MODEL

CONTINUOUS GAS
PRODUCER INJECTOR

HIG
L

PRODUCER

81-100%

~lq

11-5f!~

51-80%

IJ

0-10%

FIGURE 3: INJECTEO+AS
CONCENTRATION AT 1 HCPV INJECTED FOR THE
FOUR-PERMEABILITY STRATA MODEL
6s7

..

INJECTION
WELL
PERMEABILITY

-i4-

34.5

10 MD

34.5

10 MD

100 MD

11.5

1 MD

11.5

1 MC

-. 1870

z-

feet

FIGURE 4: THREE-PERMEABILITY

STRATA MODEL

1.0
1 HCPV INJECTION
0.9

0.8

0.7
WAG
.0.6
RECOVERY
0*5
FRACTION OHIP
0.4

1 HCPV
INITIAL WAG
WATER INJECTION

CONTINUOUS

NJECTION

GAS

0.3
0.2
0.1
/

0.0
0.0

_,

4.0

8,0

12.0

16.0

20.0

24.0

TIME (YEARS)
FIGURE 5: RECOVERIES FROM THE THREE-PERMEABILITY

STRATA MODEL

.,-

CONTINUOUS

0-

GAS

1911

WAG

10%

11-

50%

FIGURE 6: ORIGINAL GAS CONDENSATE REMAINING AT 1 HCPV INJECTION

INJECTOR

PRODUCER

T
3600

DAYS

5400 DAYS

Tr
00 DAYS

HIGH
PERM
LAYER

m
m

FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF WATER FRONT FOR THE THREE-PERMEABILITY

STRATA MODEL
.

5s9

2400
t
2200
F
2000 PRESSURE,
PSIA

1800 -

1600 -

ti
1400 -

1200
o

12

16

20

24

TIME (YEARS)
FIGURE8:

INJECTION WELL PRESSURE - LIMITED CROSSFLOW

(5 WAG CYCLES)

100
90

80 .

~~

70

CONDENSATE
RECOVERY
(% OCIP)

1:1 WAG

BLOWDOWN

5183 psia

60

50

40

~1
GAS CYCLING

1156 psia

30

.BLOWDGWN

20
10
0
o

10

20

30

40

TIME (YEARS)
FIGURE9:

WAG AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BLOWDOWN

w

CASE

:.. ..

... .,...,.

CORE

HIGH k LAYER

HIOH k LAYER LOW k LAYER

k(md)
POROSITY
TRAPPED GAS

26%

11.3%

28%

29.8%

.i!iii!f
C2
/ C4

AP TRANSDUCER

RIN

c~

LOW k LAYER

0.3

10

.
a

0:4
L
I
1.5
1

u
GASI WATER
SEPARATOR

FIGURE 10: CORE FLOOD APPARATUS SCHEMATIC

0.9
t
0.8 WAG
0,7 0.6 RECORERY,
FRACTION 0.5 OHIP
0.4 -

CONTINUOUS

0.3 -1 -n-

GAS

m-u

0.2 -

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

TOTAL HCPV PRODUCED

FIGURE lt

WAG VS. CONTINUOUS GAS INJECTION RECOVERY FROM LAYERED

CORE -10 MD LAYER ON BOTTOM

Ml

100
90 80 70 60 MOLE
lX$t4:;

EFFLUENT

50 40 CONTINUOUS

GAS

30 20 10 0
0.0

I
0.2

[
0.4

I
0.6

1
0.s

1
1.0

1
1.2

TOTAL HCPV PROOUCED

FIGURE 12 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION HISTORY FROM LAYERED CORE FLOOD 10md LAYER ON BOTTOM

0.9
0.8 I
WAG

0.7 -

0,6 RECOVERY,
FRACTION
OHIP

.~

0.5 -

CONTINUOUS GAS
0.4 0.3 0.2 -

1-11.-0

0.1
0.0 ~-0.0

0.2

0.4

H
MH*H
WAG WATER
INJECTION

0.6

+-l

0.8

1.0

1.2

FRACTION TOTAL HCPV PRODUCED

FIGURE 13: WAG VS CONTINUOUS GAS INJECTION RECOVERY FROM LAYERED
CORE - Iomd LAYER ON TOP

100
90 -

so70 60 MOLE %
ORIGINAL
FLUID IN
EFFLUENT

50 40 -

CONTINUOUS GAS
30 20 10 0
0.0

1
0.2

t
1
I
1
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.6
FRACTION TOTAL HCPV PRODUCED

I
1.2

FIGURE 14: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION HISTORY FROM LAYERED CORE FLOOO

10md LAYER ON TOP

SPE
=-Lf~~m#m-

SPE 19114
WAG Process Promises Improved Recovery From
Gas Condensate Reservoirs: Part n-Simulation
Sensitivity Studies and Lab Corefloods
by A.S.

Cullick,

H-S.

Lu, and

J,P,

Watson,

Mobil

R&D Corp.

SPE Members

Copyright 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This papar was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symfmsium held In Dsllas, Texas, June 7-9, 1989.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee folfowingreview of Information contained in an abetract submitted by the WfhOr(S). ~tanta
Of the PS
as pressnted, have not bean reviewed by the Society of Petrofeum Enginaara and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as Pfe*nt@, d~s not ~~lY
rany f.maitionof the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papars presented at SPE maatinge are eubjacf to publi@on review by,Editorial Corrsmitfaasof the Swl
of PetroleumEngineers. Permiaaicirto copy is restrictedto an abstractof not more than S00 worde. Illustrationsmey notbe copied. The abstractstroutdcontakrconspicuousse~
of wirara and by Mom tha paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Sox S33S3S, Richardson, TX 7EOS3-383S. Telex, ?3G9SSSPEDAL.

ERRATA
CORRECTED

FI IIRE

WAG

CONTINUOUS GAS

m
m-
I$?2zl11- 5%
FIGURE 6: ORIGINAL GAS

REMAINING AT 1 HCPV iNJECTiON