Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/324755192
CITATIONS READS
30 4,231
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Investigation of fluid-fluid interactions during Smart Water injection to Asphaltenic oil reservoirs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Shokufe Afzali on 25 April 2018.
Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel
Review article
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) injection is a relatively mature oil recovery technique in hydrocarbon reservoirs
Water Alternating Gas (WAG) that has long attracted the interest of the oil and gas industry due to its successful performance. The main goal of
Water Injection the WAG projects is to control the mobility and to decrease the problem of viscous fingering, leading to improved
Gas Injection oil recovery by combining the benefits of Gas Injection (GI) and Waterflooding (WF). Implementation of a new
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
EOR/IOR project requires a comprehensive knowledge of previous successful and failed experiences, and ade-
Mobility
quate understanding of the technical and non-technical aspects of the recovery process. This knowledge may be
Displacement mechanisms
attained from reviewing similar projects that were reported in the literature. Despite great applications of the
WAG injection in hydrocarbon reservoirs and extensive studies, the last comprehensive review goes back to
1998, focusing on the field applications only. There are a few review papers that are more updated; however,
they are either dedicated to a particular aspect of the WAG (such as CO2 abnormalities), or applications in a
specific geographical region (such as North Sea). An updated comprehensive study, covering recent experiences
and lessons that are learnt from previous studies, seems to be imperative. This paper reviews the WAG theory,
applications, governing mechanisms of fluid displacement and oil production from pore to field scale. It also
addresses the most common challenges and operational problems along with the remedies during WAG projects.
The effects of important variables such as reservoir properties, fluid properties, and operating conditions on the
performance of WAG are studied from experimental, simulation and modeling, and pore-scale investigations.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nimar@mun.ca (N. Rezaei).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.04.015
Received 12 February 2018; Received in revised form 30 March 2018; Accepted 2 April 2018
0016-2361/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
[13]. Because of the gravity segregation problem, a majority of the attic permeability heterogeneous reservoirs, WF features poor injectability,
oil is displaced by the gas phase and that of the bottom oil by the water. low production rate, high Water Oil Ratio (WOR), and low oil recovery
The down dip injection scheme results in dispersed flow zones as the factor [17]. Through numerical simulations, Liao et al. investigated
attic oil is being produced [13]. In 1991, the technical potentials of three different technologies to implement WAG injection: 1) Allocation
surfactant flooding and WAG injection were evaluated by the Norwe- Of Injection Rates (AOIR), 2) Tapered Water Alternate Gas (TWAG),
gian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) and three Norwegian oil companies and 3) AOIR-TWAG. All of these methods provided a higher recovery
[14]. Since then, WAG injection was extensively applied in the Nor- factor, compared to the conventional WAG injection [17].
wegian Shelf; chemical EOR techniques were also used in a few pilot Experimental and modeling studies have demonstrated that a high
studies [14]. The WAG performance is highly affected by the injection recovery of up to 90% is achievable in simultaneous water and gas
strategies (e.g., injection well pattern, WAG ratio, number of WAG injection using the five-spot pattern, while gas injection alone usually
cycles, volume of each cycle, and injection rate and pressure). Different results in a residual oil saturation of 20–50% [18]. One of the best WAG
optimal strategies in terms of recovery factor and economic aspects strategies was applied in the Brent reservoir of the Stafjord field [19] in
were found in the literature. Simulation results reported in the litera- which WAG injection horizontal wells were practiced; the injection well
ture show that multiple WAG cycles with high Voidage Replacement was deeply perforated, while the production well was sidetracked [19].
Ratio (VRR) in the gas cycles at a WAG ratio of 1:1 result in the op- Panda et al. proposed an optimal design strategy through applying
timum oil recovery [15]. Different WAG scenarios have been studied. WAG injection in Eileen West End (EWE) reservoir, Prudhoe Bay field
For instance, Kulkarni and Rao performed a set of tertiary immiscible [15].
and miscible core flood experiments to compare WAG and Gas Injection The WAG injection process combines the imbibition and drainage
(GI) processes [16] in which WAG injection was found to be superior to mechanisms during successive injections of gas and water cycles in a
GI [16]. WAG is also found effective in heterogeneous reservoirs. In low three-phase regime in the reservoir [5,20]. Designing an optimal WAG
219
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
process requires fine-tuning of the critical parameters that affect the oil the capillary number by three orders of magnitudes, the residual oil
recovery characteristics. Weak performance of WAG in some projects saturation will decrease by 50% [24]. In a miscible displacement pro-
can be related to inappropriate WAG parameters such as the number of cess, the capillary number becomes infinite and the residual oil sa-
cycles, volume of each cycle, and the injection rates of the gas and turation in the swept region may approach zero upon a favorable mo-
water phases. Hence, WAG optimization is a proper scheme to control bility ratio [25]. The performance of flooding processes such as water,
the gas mobility to increase the oil recovery [21,22]. These optimal gas, and WAG injection is highly dependent on the macroscopic (vo-
parameters can vary with the reservoir rock and fluids characteristics lumetric) and microscopic (displacement) efficiencies [24]. Displace-
[7]. The optimal design of the WAG process needs strategic planning ment efficiency is attributed to the produced oil from the pore spaces by
which includes a milestone for the equipment installation, main- the injecting fluid, while the volumetric sweep efficiency corresponds
tenance, and operation activities over the life of project. to the amount of produced oil which has been in contact with the in-
To the best of our knowledge, no systematic reviews were found in jected fluid [26]. The total oil recovery efficiency is resulted from
the literature on WAG processes to cover the influences of reservoir and combination of both displacement efficiency (Ed) and volumetric effi-
fluid properties, operating conditions, process mechanisms, trends in ciency (Ev) [27], as given below:
the WAG research, controversial theoretical and experimental aspects
E = Ed × Ev (3)
of the WAG at multi-scales.
This comprehensive review paper covers a wide range of research where E is the total recovery efficiency (%).
studies related to WAG processes in the literature. It is structured as In the case of gas injection, an unfavorable mobility ratio leads to
follows: first a brief description of process mechanisms along with the gas fingering phenomenon which reduces the sweep efficiency. This
governing equations corresponding to the three-phase flow in porous problem has been reported in several field cases [28–30]. Gas fingering
media will be provided. Based on the shortcomings of conventional and consequently, early gas breakthrough might be resulted from the
WAG processes, different WAG configurations have been suggested by reservoir heterogeneities such as fractures and high permeable layers
researchers which will be described. Then, we will study the effects of [31,32]. The injection of water slugs along with gas injection can ap-
different variables on the performance of WAG including, petrophysical preciably lower the gas effective permeability in the reservoir. Conse-
properties, fluid properties, and operating conditions. After that, a re- quently, the fluids’ leading interfaces will be stabilized, resulting in
view of the pore-scale of WAG including experimental and theoretical improved overall sweeping efficiency. Another important mechanism
studies will be summarized. The large-scale implementations of WAG during the WAG injection processes is gravity segregation caused by the
technology (pilot and field cases) will be discussed. Then, the mathe- density difference between the phases. The gravity segregation im-
matical modeling of WAG processes from classical works to modern proves the vertical sweep efficiency by displacing the oil, especially the
studies with focus on the three-phase relative permeability, capillary attic oil at the bottom of the reservoir which might have been bypassed
pressure, hysteresis models, saturation distribution, and production due to gas migration to the upper part of the reservoir. Viscous and
trend/behavior will be briefly explained. The technical and non-tech- gravity forces control the vertical sweep efficiency. To illustrate the
nical WAG challenges and conclusions will be addressed at the end, contribution of the forces, the viscous/gravity dimensionless number
after which conclusions will be given. (Rv/g), which is obtained by changing the dimensionless gravity number
220
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
221
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
that the overall incremental recovery of the hybrid process was only was also implemented in the Cymric field [54] in which the project
0.7% OOIP higher than the case of single-slug CO2 injection. The hybrid started with two cycles of steam injection over a 4-month period. The
injection outperformed the WAG injection case, while the overall re- subsurface temperature data indicated that the WASP can effectively
covery of the hybrid case was 1.2% OOIP lower than that of the WAG control the steam channeling in the down-dip producers; but no con-
injection [41]. In 1992, Shell developed an empirical model to obtain siderable breakthrough control was noticed in the up-dip reservoirs.
the optimized recovery of the gas injection technology. Similar to the WASP was also efficient in terms of reservoir pressure maintenance, oil
hybrid-WAG process, four to six years of continuous CO2 injection were production pattern, thermal efficiency, and economic prospective [54].
followed by 1:1 WAG injection to take the advantages of both con- In 1999, four (4) Petrotrin’s steam flooding projects were converted to
ventional WAG injection and continuous CO2 injection [42]. The early WASP at a low capital costs. The field experienced an 18% reduction in
EOR results showed an increase in hydrocarbon Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) the oil production in 1988 when the steam flooding became mature;
and a decrease in the CO2 production. Due to the process being on- through applying WASP in 1999, the oil production rate increased by
going, the quantitative data were not reported. 12%. This incremental increase in the oil production could have been
higher if there was no water supply shortage. Applying WASP instead of
2.1.2. Simultaneous Water-Alternating-Gas injection (SWAG) steam flooding also featured a better economic perspective, as the di-
In 1963, Humble Oil and Refining Co. first applied the simultaneous rect operating expenditure per barrel of produced oil was reduced by
injection of water and enriched gas in the Seeligson Field Kleberg 33% which was mainly due to a decrease in the steam and workover
Country, Texas [43]. They used a low injection rate and a high injection costs [55].
pressure during the process. Although this process lacks a cyclic nature,
it is often classified as a variation of WAG in the literature. In 1964, 2.1.4. Foam Assistant WAG injection (FAWAG)
water alternating enriched gas was also implemented. Despite having a The main application of foam in EOR processes is to reduce the
higher injection rate in the first cycle, less gas was observed at the mobility of gas phase which leads to improved sweep efficiency and
production wells, and the saturation of water around the wellbore in- delayed breakthrough [56,57]. The idea of using foam to control the
creased in the following cycles. Based on the literature studies, SWAG fluid front mobility was first introduced by Bond and Holbrook in 1958
provides a higher mobility control than WAG injection. It causes more [58]. CO2 foams with surfactants have been especially utilized as an
stable gas displacement, resulting in improved oil recovery [44,45]. In effective mobility reduction approach. The stability and properties of
Joffre Viking Tertiary Oil Unit (JVTU) pilot study, various injection the foam are among the main factors which influence the performance
strategies such as continuous CO2 injection, water alternating CO2 of FAWAG processes [56]. In a series of core-flood experiments, the
(CO2-WAG) injection, and simultaneous injection of CO2 and water performances of SWAG and FWAG were evaluated [59], showing a
were tested. Dual tubing strings for the SWAG operation were installed promising performance of the SWAG process in reducing the problems
in the pilot study. The results showed that the simultaneous injection of with adverse mobility, gravity segregation, and viscous fingering;
water and CO2 at the ratio of 1:1 yields a higher improvement in the however, a higher Recovery Factor (RF) was attained in the FAWAG
sweep efficiency than the conventional CO2-WAG and continuous CO2 process in which the RF increased to 61% first, and the RF further in-
injection [46]. Experimental results [18] have also revealed a higher creased to 92% after the FAWAG application, as illustrated in Fig. 3
sweep efficiency in the SWAG; the simultaneous injection of water and [59].
gas resulted in 90% sweep efficiency in a five-spot flooding pattern, Foam injections were used in different EOR projects in the North Sea
while the gas injection alone led to 60% ultimate sweep efficiency [18]. field for the purposes of mobility control and production well treatment
In some cases, the simultaneous injection of water and gas is referred to (to reduce produced GOR) [60–62]. Foams can be generated in situ,
the processes that a solution of water and dissolved CO2 is injected into mostly in the high-permeability layers because of the lower resistance
the reservoir—a process which is often called carbonated water injec- to fluid flow. The in-situ foam generation from a given surfactant is a
tion or “fizz flood” [47]. Compared to the WAG-EOR processes or full- dynamic phenomenon which depends on the oil saturation and capil-
scale miscible gas flooding, the carbonated water injection might not lary pressure [63].
offer remarkable economic benefits. Carbonated water injection has Fig. 4 shows a schematic of the displacement patterns in continuous
been proven successful in naturally fractured reservoirs and in low gas (CO2) injection (in Fig. 4(a)), conventional WAG injection (in
permeability reservoirs (e.g., Austin chalks) [48–51]. Despite the ad- Fig. 4(b)), and FAWAG (in Fig. 4(c)).
vantages of the SWAG injection, there are several drawbacks with this In 1997, a large-scale FAWAG injection was applied in the Central
process such as higher costs for well completion, equipment and op- Fault Block (CFB) in the Snorre field where 2000 tons of a commercial
eration; complex design; gravity segregation; and gas-front instability
[7].
222
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Fig. 4. Schematic of challenges and benefits of (a): continuous gas injection, (b): conventional WAG injection, and (c): FAWAG injection in a reservoir (modified after
[64]).
grade surfactant were injected into the reservoir to conduct two in- to the use of any chemical slug such as alkaline, surfactant, and polymer
jectivity tests and two full-scale recovery tests [62,65]. Due to the gas during the WAG process to control the mobility and to reduce the IFT
leakage in one of the wells, the process of FAWAG injection was stopped [69]. A higher efficiency was attained in CWAG, compared to the
in CFB, and the project was moved to Western Fault Block (WFB) in the conventional WAG injection. According to the simulation results, it was
Snorre filed. The main objective of the FAWAG process in WFB was to estimated that PAG increases the oil recovery up to 14.3%, which is
increase the gas sweep efficiency, which led to an increase in the gas 7.0% higher than that of the WAG injection in TR78 section of the
storage and a decrease in the GOR at the production wells [56]. In a North Burbank Unit [70]. The simulation results also showed a re-
series of FAWAG coreflood tests [66], the foam generation was found to markable GOR reduction (at production well), a noticeable delay in the
decrease with an increase in the gas density. At a constant density, a gas breakthrough, and an improvement in the gas and water sweep
CO2-rich foam exhibited a better mobility control than CO2-lean foam. efficiencies during the PAG processes [70]. Fig. 6 illustrates the simu-
The foams enable to benefit from three-phase flow (microscopic-scale lation results in terms of oil production rate versus time for the recovery
sweep efficiency), and the foam lamellas help to control the gas mo- methods of CGI, WAG, PAG, and polymer flooding [70]. In 2014, Li and
bility [66]. The stability and mobility of foams (as the main parameter, Schechter studied the effects of polymer concentration and adsorption
affecting the foam propagation and stability) were investigated by a on the efficiency of PAG where CO2 was used as a gas phase [71]. The
series of laboratory tests at different injection rates [67]. It was con- PAG performance was found to strongly depend on the polymer ad-
cluded that the Mobility Reduction Factor (MRF) increases by in- sorption, and a higher oil recovery was expected at a lower polymer
creasing the flow rate. The MRF is defined as follows [67]: adsorption. In homogeneous reservoirs with a permeability higher than
500 mD, the PAG process gave a 7–15% higher oil recovery than the
Δpwith − foam
MRF = WAG injection [71].
Δpwithout − foam (12) PAG exhibits an acceptable performance in low and high perme-
ability heterogeneous reservoirs with the heterogeneity coefficient
in which, Δpwith − foam and Δpwithout − foam are the pressure drop across the
(VDP), ranging from 0.5 to 0.9. It was estimated that 2.1 lb/STB polymer
porous medium with and without foam, respectively. The effect of in-
is needed to increase the oil recovery factor by 20% (which is 12%
jection rate on the stability of foams was investigated in Surfactant
higher than the recovery factor for the WAG injection) where the eco-
Alternating Gas (SAG) injection tests [67]. At low flow rates, SAG
nomic feasibility is met [71]. The coreflood experiments indicate that
showed a poor efficiency in generating foam, resulting in a low MRF. In
addition, SAG caused high MRFs at various flow rates due to the fre-
Oil RF (% OOIP) Gas Utilization (Mscf/bbl)
quent contact and mixing between the gas and surfactant phases [67].
20 7
18
2.1.5. Polymer Alternating Gas (PAG) injection 6
16
Gas Utilization (Mscf/bbl)
223
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
224
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
inferred from two-phase relative permeability data and a three-phase also investigated, and the model parameters that created the most un-
relative permeability model [91,92]. certainty were identified. Their analysis showed that the models in-
Relative permeability is a lumped variable that considers the im- troduced by the experimental observations of hysteresis cannot be
pacts of heterogeneity, wetting properties, porosity, pore size dis- generalized to the cyclic gas and water injection during the WAG pro-
tribution, Interfacial Tension (IFT), and fluid saturations [7]. As dis- cesses. To illustrate the effects of relative permeability model (con-
cussed previously, one of the main mechanisms during the WAG sidering hysteresis) on the performance reservoir simulations, they used
injection is the IFT reduction as that gas-oil IFT is lower than water-oil a five-spot pattern model in both homogeneous and heterogeneous re-
IFT, resulting in more oil being displaced from the pore spaces com- servoirs, which is a modified version of PUNQ-S3 model. This model is a
pared to WF [3]. IFT affects the relative permeability curvatures. For reservoir model originally suggested (as a test case) for production
instance, in a completely miscible process, the IFT value is zero and the prediction under uncertainty. They designed their models with and
relative permeability is a linear function of saturation with a slope of without hysteresis and noticed great differences in the simulation re-
one [93]. There are numerous research works in the open sources, sults. They concluded that the relative permeability models involving
discussing the IFT impacts on the relative permeability in gas con- hysteresis are required to correctly forecast the performance of the
densate reservoirs. This discussion can be extended to other miscible or immiscible WAG injection processes. They found the available relative
near miscible EOR projects such as WAG injection processes [93–95]. permeability models with hysteresis need modifications to improve the
Harbert performed coreflood tests using alcohol, brine, and oil samples. model accuracy and its generalization capability [101].
It was concluded that as the IFT decreases, two phases have less in- The effect of rock wettability on the relative permeability during the
ference with each other, and the relative permeability curves are shifted WAG injection is also important. Shahverdi et al. investigated the re-
upward [94]. lative permeability and hysteresis in the WAG process with various rock
Skauge and Larsen designed a set of WAG injection experiments at wettability conditions where a series of two-phase coreflooding ex-
different rock wettability states under unsteady state conditions [96]. periments were conducted at unsteady state conditions [102]. Their
They measured the three-phase relative permeability at various stages results exhibited a significant reduction in the three-phase relative
of gas and water cycles. In each cycle, the relative permeability for all permeability, and consequently a reduction in the gas mobility and
phases showed irreversible hysteresis effects. The gas phase was found injectivity at different wettability conditions. They observed the hys-
to exhibit strong hysteresis effects regardless of the wetting state of the teresis effects for all three phases (oil, gas, and water) to be different at
rock. The relative permeability of non-wetting (gas) phase was more various wettability states during the WAG injection. It was found that
affected by the hysteresis, and at a similar saturation, the relative the relative permeability of each phase is a function of two independent
permeability to the non-wetting phase (krg) was lower when decreasing saturations [102].
the gas saturation path (imbibition cycle), compared to the increasing
saturation path (drainage cycle) [96]. 3.3. Wettability
In another work, Larsen and Skauge present a relative permeability
model that is applicable for local hysteresis effects. Their hysteresis Wettability is one of the main factors in controlling the fluids flow
model accounts for both wetting and non-wetting phases. The model and distribution in a porous medium [103]. The wettability of a re-
also considers the reduced mobility and irreversible hysteresis loops servoir influences the vital variables such as capillary pressure, relative
during the three- phase flow of the WAG injection processes. Their permeability, dispersion, and electrical properties (resistivity or/and
model takes the initial saturation and relative permeability values of conductivity) [103]. It has been proven that the wettability plays an
the wetting and non-wetting phases as the input data [38]. Egermann important role in tertiary oil recovery processes such as hot water in-
et al. implemented successive drainage and imbibition experiments jection, surfactant flooding, miscible flooding, and alkaline flooding
(WAG injection) for various initial saturations and proposed a three- [103]. The reservoir pore spaces are known to be initially in contact
phase model (including the hysteresis) which was validated by the with water. As a result, they were initially water-wet. After oil migra-
experimental data. They found the hysteresis to depend on both sa- tion to the water-wet reservoir rock, the oil phase was able to invade
turation history and displacement history. They observed two types of the larger pores and the water remained in the small pores. However,
hysteresis: mechanism (imbibition/drainage) and cycle (history) hys- fluid phases may flow out of the pores as an interplay between the
teresis. In a large scale of WAG injection, the ratio of vertical perme- capillarity and gravity forces which might lead to wettability alteration
ability to horizontal permeability (Kv/Kh) has a significant influence on of the rock surface. The polar components of the crude oil such as as-
the overall production efficiency [97]. Based on the experimental data, phaltene and resin might be adsorbed onto the pore surface and alter
Element et al. validated the hysteresis models [98]. They designed a the wettability to oil-wet or mixed-wet [104–107].
series of experimental tests to investigate the secondary and tertiary The experimental and modeling results show that more oil trapping
immiscible WAG injection in water-wet and intermediate-wet Berea occurs in the water-wet rocks, compared to the oil-wet rocks during
cores. They concluded that the hysteresis cycles are irreversible; the gas WAG injection [40]. In the WAG injection, other aspects such as re-
trapping by water leads to a reduction in the residual oil saturation; and covery, injectivity, optimum WAG ratio, and three-phase relative per-
both water and gas permeability values reduce. Thus, the fractional meability are all affected by the wettability condition. For instance, an
flow varies with the trapped gas saturation, and the land trapping factor experimental study conducted by Jackson et al. suggested that an op-
(C) changes between the hysteresis cycles as shown below. timum WAG ratio of 0:1 (continuous slug injection) is attained in the
1 1 water-wet reservoirs, while this optimal ratio is 1:1 in the oil-wet re-
C= − servoirs. In tertiary floods in water- wet cores, the gravity override is
Sgt Sgi (13)
the main factor in controlling the oil recovery factor.
where C represents the land trapping factor, Sgt is the trapped gas sa- The tertiary floods in oil-wet and water-wet reservoirs have similar
turation, and Sgi is the initial gas saturation [99,100]. They also con- gravity-to-viscous force ratios, but the first one is mainly controlled by
cluded that Carlson and Killough’s two-phase hysteresis models cannot viscous forces, while in the second one, the gravity forces are dominant.
adequately describe the secondary and tertiary WAG processes [98]. Stern conducted a series of tertiary multi-contact CO2 coreflooding tests
Spiteri and Juanes studied the impact of the relative permeability and investigated the impacts of wettability and WAG ratio on the dis-
hysteresis on the efficiency of WAG processes at the field scale in which placement mechanisms and recovery factor. He reported a lower oil
the three-phase relative permeability was inferred from the two-phase recovery factor due to less recovery from the bypassed oil at high WAG
relative permeability data. They applied history-depending saturation ratios in water-wet rock samples. However, in mixed-wet rocks, the
function in their simulation runs. The validity of existing models was recovery factor was found to be less affected by the WAG ratio. This is
225
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
due to the wall-coating on mixed-wet surfaces that enhances the in- They reported the ultimate recovery factors of 87%, 70%, 66%, and
teraction among oil and solvent [108]. 50% for SAG, WAG, WF, and gas injection, respectively, which can be
Wettability also influences the three-phase relative permeability inferred from the recovery plots, depicted in Fig. 9 [120].
and displacement hysteresis during the WAG processes. Reliable mea- There are some advantages using nitrogen in the WAG processes,
surements of the relative permeability (for application in the WAG compared to CO2. For instance, CO2 is a highly corrosive gas, while
processes) need careful and complicated methodologies. Shahrokhi nitrogen is an inert gas in many cases [121]. Ghafoori et al. experi-
et al. examined different three-phase relative permeability models (e.g., mentally investigated the performance of WAG injection and Con-
Stone I, Stone II, IKU, Carlson, Killough, and Jargon) and compared the tinuous Gas Injection (CGI) processes using nitrogen and CO2 in a
results for various rock wettability conditions. They concluded that carbonate porous sample. According to their results, the WAG injection
none of the available methods can accurately predict the experimental with both gases exhibited a higher performance, compared to the CGI
WAG injection data in the mixed-wet reservoirs [109]. There are also process. The ultimate oil recovery was not sensitive to the size of ni-
several micro-scale studies of the wettability effects in WAG, using trogen slugs in the WAG injection. Furthermore, CO2 WAG injection
micro-models. For example, a set of capillary dominant WAG injection attained about 13% more oil recovery than nitrogen WAG injection
tests were conducted by Sohrabi et al. in glass micro-models [110]. [122]. Although CO2 is a relatively expensive gas, it has been utilized
They concluded that the WAG injection process has a higher oil re- for many miscible injection EOR operations. Among 60 WAG field ap-
covery factor than WF or gas injection alone regardless of the type of plications reviewed by Christian et al., 28 WAG injection cases em-
wettability. The pore-scale observations revealed that the fluids in the ployed CO2 as the injected gas [6]. Initially, there were some concerns
WAG injection process find new flow pathways in the porous medium regarding the CO2 flooding (e.g., in CO2-WAG) such as water blocking,
(in each cycle) which are different from those in the previous cycles. It corrosion, injectivity loss, low oil production, and production concerns.
was reported that the WAG injection in the oil-wet and mixed-wet However, most of these problems have been resolved through en-
systems is more efficient than that in the water-wet models. Having gineering experience, efficient management, and optimal process de-
additional injection cycles in the mixed-wet models leads to a gradual sign [7]. One of the main concerns regarding the CO2 WAG injection is
increase in the oil recovery, while there is no significant oil production the injectivity loss. For example, it has been reported that on average, a
in the oil-wet and water-wet systems, after two cycles [111]. Providing 20% water injectivity loss occurs in the WAG operations using CO2
further clarification, Fig. 7 depicts the effect of wettability on oil re- [123]. There are some suggestions to compensate this drawback by
covery (in terms of initial oil saturation) over various WAG cycles in adding more injection wells, creating fractures, increasing the injection
glass micro-models with different wettability [111]. pressure, and decreasing the WAG ratio. For more details on injectivity
According to Fig. 7, the WAG process in the oil-wet porous system loss issues during WAG injection, readers may refer to a review by
leads to the highest oil recovery factor in each cycle, while the water- Rogers et al. [7]. An analysis on Wilmington field test in Tar zone block
wet porous model experiences the lowest oil recovery under WAG op- V CO2 injection project indicated that the high oil recovery in im-
eration, compared to other wetness conditions. The ultimate oil re- miscible CO2 injection is attributed to two major mechanisms: first, is
covery for oil-wet and mixed-wet models (after five injection cycles) are the displacement of a part of the oil by the gas that had been bypassed
however similar. by water (in the water injection cycle); and the second one is related to
Abdi et al. [112] showed the effect of WAG injection on the wett- the relative permeability alteration, swelling, and viscosity reduction
ability of rock through contact angle measurements, using oil/water which have a long term impact on the project performance [124].
system before and after WAG injection in Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. Another advantage of CO2 is that it causes more gravity segregation in
As it is clear from Fig. 8, the core is initially water-wet and the contact zones with a greater water saturation, compared to those with a higher
angle of water on the rock surface is 21° prior to the WAG process (the oil saturation. This phenomenon improves the sweep efficiency [7]. The
contact angle of oil droplet on the rock in the presence of water is 159°). design screening criteria for CO2 injection include some limitations
After the WAG injection, the contact angle of water on the rock is such as minimum depth, oil viscosity range, and value of oil specific
changed to 112° [112]. It implies that the wettability of rock is altered gravity [76]. Moritis’ EOR survey showed that the number of CO2
to oil-wet upon implementation of WAG strategy. The wettability al- miscible projects is increasing while the application of other injecting
teration might occur due to various factors such as asphaltene pre- gases such as nitrogen and flue gases is decreasing over time [76].
cipitation, water salinity, and the CO2 effects. The wettability and its Despite the environmental benefits of using CO2, most of the offshore
change are not, however, the sole factors in governing the recovery WAG projects inject hydrocarbon gases due to the availability in the
mechanisms [108,113,114]. production site. In a review study, 24 offshore fields out of 60 reviewed
fields used hydrocarbon gases in dry or enriched forms [6]. In a study,
4. Effects of Fluid Properties on WAG
226
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Fig. 8. Schematic of contact angle measurements for oil-water system on the rock surface (a) before and (b) after WAG injection (modified after Abdi et al., 2014
[112]).
227
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
In the recent decades, gas injection has become one of the most
applicable and environmentally friendly techniques in enhanced oil
recovery from oilfields. This technique is more efficient when the in-
jected gas is at nearly or completely miscible condition with the re-
servoir oil [134]. Miscible or near Miscible WAG (nMWAG) injection
Fig. 11. The effect of brine salinity on oil recovery for WAG and WF in tertiary
processes generally feature a higher recovery factor compared to Im-
oil recovery mode [127].
miscible WAG (IWAG) injection [6]. Factors such as injectivity loss and
pressure maintenance failure can negatively affect the life-span and
permeability of water and oil curves highlights that the smart water performance of miscible and immiscible gas injection processes [76].
injection during CO2-WAG injection alters the wettability towards more There are no certain screening criteria to decide between the miscible
water-wet. The impact of divalent ions such as Mg2+ and Ca2+ in the or immiscible injection strategies. Thomas et al. inquired the im-
composition of the smart water in CO2-WAG injection was also in- portance of miscible gas injection [135]. Based on their study, the
vestigated. It was found that an increase in the concentration of these miscibility condition is not required as long as the desired recovery is
divalent ions improves the oil recovery due to a decrease in the ion achieved at reduced interfacial tension. The success of such processes
binding at the interface of carboxylic oil components and the rock depends on an interplay between the mobility, IFT, and a safety factor
surface [132]. Hence, modifying the brine chemistry during the WAG to account for problems such as gravity overriding [135]. Miscible
injection is clearly demonstrated by determining the variation of the flooding is normally implemented by increasing the reservoir pressure
relative permeability of phases which needs further experimental and above the Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP). It is conducted with or
simulation research works. Cuong et al. studied the mechanisms and without WAG injection to lower the IFT between the gas and oil phases
advantages of CO2 Low Salinity WAG (CO2-LSWAG) injection through and to control the viscous fingering. In the case of nearly miscible
coupling a model for ion exchange with geochemical mechanisms in the processes (nMWAG), the injected gas slugs displace the oil bank which
coreflooding tests [133]. Their modeling results highlighted the pro- is also referred to multi-contact WAG injection. The main role of the
mising aspects of the CO2-LSWAG mechanisms (in terms of recovery water slugs is to achieve a better volumetric sweep efficiency in the
performance) such as chemical reactions, ion exchange process, and nMWAG process due to lower residual oil saturation after near miscible
wettability alteration. They showed that the CO2-LSWAG eliminates the gas cycle. MWAG processes in very early trials have been commonly
late production problems that usually occur during the WAG injection performed in onshore fields using solvents such as propane which is not
Fig. 12. Dynamic contact angle of unaged Grey Brea sandstone at 500 psi and 149° F with different salinities (Formation brine: 174,156 ppm, Seawater: 54,680 ppm,
and NaCl: 5000 ppm) during the CO2-WAG process [131].
228
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
currently economical [136]. Production history analysis of the oilfields ultimate recovery factor values were 61.2% PV and 82.4% PV in the
under MWAG shows that a close well-spacing is used in the majority of tertiary and secondary WAG injection operations, respectively [141]. In
the projects. However, recent offshore MWAG projects have been another research work, Nezhad et al. [20] conducted IWAG experi-
conducted using large well-spacing as well [136]. Although the mass ments using CO2 gas in water-wet sandpack with a permeability of 502
transfer between the gas and oil phases might happen during the IWAG mD and a porosity of 37% under a particular operating condition (e.g.,
injection (which can enhance the oil recovery), IWAG injection is 1500 psig and 190 °F where the WAG ratio was 1:1 and the slug size
strictly referred to the injection of gas slugs that cannot develop mis- was 0.3 PV). Based on the research output, no appreciable difference in
cibility with the oil phase. Skauge and Sorbie studied both miscible and the ultimate recovery of the secondary and tertiary recovery modes was
immiscible mechanisms through analyzing the WAG injection at pore noticed. It was also found that the ultimate recovery of the secondary
scale, core scale, and field scale. The pore scale experimental results (in WAG injection was 76.6% OOIP using three WAG cycles, which was
micro-models) showed higher oil recovery in the IWAG process, com- slightly higher than the ultimate recovery factor of the tertiary WAG
pared to the WAG process [137]. This enhancement is resulted from the with four WAG cycles (e.g., 75.2% OOIP) [20].
gas spreading to the larger pores due to the microscopic dispersion
during the gas cycles. In nMWAG processes, less gas trapping occurs, 5.2. Injection pattern
resulting in an increase in the size of the gas clusters within the con-
tinuous oil phase in the system and eventually sweeping almost all of Selection of optimal injection pattern is an important stage in de-
the contacted oil [138,139]. signing a WAG injection project. This refers to the best injection pattern
that involves more contact of the displacing fluids (water and gas) with
5. Effects of Operational Parameters on WAG the reservoir fluid (oil) [26]. Several vital factors that should be con-
sidered in designing optimal injection pattern include reservoir het-
5.1. WAG in secondary and tertiary recovery modes erogeneity, directional permeability, fracture directions, the physical
properties of the injected fluids, well intervals, and performance of
In the literature, there are a few research works on comparison of injection and production wells [142]. A review of the WAG field cases
secondary and tertiary WAG operations in terms of efficiency reports that the five-spot injection pattern is the most common con-
[140,141]. Jackson et al. [140] studied the secondary and tertiary figuration in onshore fields [6]. Although the five-spot patterns with
miscible CO2-WAG injection in water-wet and oil-wet glass beads close well-spacing dictate a higher costs to the project, compared to
porous systems. The packing had a permeability of 8 D and a porosity of other patterns, they are still the favorite injection patterns (especially in
30%, and a WAG ratio of 1:1 was used. The short-term recovery (up to 1 miscible operations in Texas, USA) due to enabling more careful control
PV) curves exhibited different trends for the secondary and tertiary on pressure of miscible processes [6]. Other criteria such as geological
WAG injections in the water-wet and oil-wet media (see Fig. 13). For characteristics and operating and capital costs also control the well
instance, a greater oil recovery was attained during the secondary WAG placement and injection pattern (such as the North Sea field) [13].
process in the water-wet medium, compared to the tertiary mode of the Pritchard et al. concluded that as the injection pattern size reduces, the
WAG process. However, an opposite behavior was noticed in the case of oil recovery factor in tertiary EOR improves. In Judy Creek oilfield, the
oil-wet porous system in which the tertiary WAG operation led to a five-spot configurations with a 40 acre pattern size attained the highest
higher recovery performance (about 14% for the tertiary mode, com- oil recovery [143]. For port Neches field, using WAG injection and
pared to 10% for the secondary WAG process), as seen in Fig. 13 [140]. modifying the injection pattern were reported among the main reasons
The longer-term recovery history in water-wet media, which was for an oil production improvement [144].
obtained in a research work by Al-Netaifi [141], was in agreement with Extensive upward gas migration in the formations flooded by WAG
the results illustrated in Fig. 13. According to these research in- causes a low volumetric sweep efficiency for the gas phase [145]. For
vestigations, a significant improvement in the ultimate recovery of this case, reservoir simulations suggest the horizontal WAG injection to
secondary miscible WAG was observed, compared to that in the tertiary achieve a higher gas volumetric sweep efficiency, compared to vertical
miscible WAG injection in Berea cores. The WAG tests were conducted injectors [145]. For instance, a compositional simulator model was
using brine-decane-CO2 system at a WAG ratio of 1:2, and a slug size of employed to simulate the WAG process in the Alpine field. The results
0.2 PV in 2 ft Berea cores. Although the tertiary WAG tests were per- showed that the horizontal wells have a higher performance (with 59%
formed at a higher pressure (2370 psi in the tertiary WAG, compared to oil recovery factor), compared to vertical wells (with 50% oil recovery
2240 psi in the secondary WAG) and in a higher permeability core (284 factor) [145]. The WAG injection strategy using horizontal wells is
mD in the tertiary WAG vs. 245 mD in the secondary WAG), the more suitable for thin reservoirs that contain low permeable layers with
Fig. 13. Oil recovery in secondary and tertiary miscible WAG injection for (a) water-wet and (b) oil-wet packings of glass beads (modified after Jackson et al., [140]).
229
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
230
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
minus the saturation of the phase that is trapped [161]. Van Dijke et al.
used a network model to simulate the WAG injection in a water-wet
micro-system where the WAG operation was conducted after the pri-
mary drainage and WF [162]. A good agreement between their simu-
lation results and experimental data was attained. Multiple displace-
ment events were predicted by the pore network modeling at higher
numbers of WAG cycles as observed in the micro-models (even in
water-wet media). Network models have been able to forecast the
qualitative behavior of the phases in future WAG cycles such as the gas
clusters break-up and redistribution of the oil and gas phases that yield
a minor improvement in the oil recovery [162]. Al-Dhahli et al. de-
veloped a three-phase network model of WAG to determine the relative
permeability and capillary pressure functions where the effects of single
and multiple-displacements on the residual oil saturation were in-
vestigated [163]. According to the pore network modeling results, a
higher residual oil saturation was obtained in a single displacement
process, compared to a multiple-displacement process. This is mainly
because of the disconnected oil, water, and gas clusters that can be
mobilized in the multiple-displacement (WAG), while most of the
clusters are trapped and immobile during the single displacement
[163].
Fig. 14. Corner filament flow in a square water-wet tube: (a) profile along the A summary of the experimental investigations of WAG process in
diagonal line, (b) profile along the middle of the tube parallel with sides, (c) cores, packed columns, and micro-models is presented in Table 1.
water in the corners on top of the tube and (d) water in the corners on top of the In Table 1, the performance of WAG process is assessed through
water column (The grey shade shows the presence of water (wetting phase) and
recovery factor or residual oil saturation and is compared to baselines
the white color is attributed to the air (non-wetting phase)) [158]. (For inter-
such as stand-alone gas injection (GI) or WF processes. Different attri-
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.) butes of the experimental works such as WAG process (type, recovery
mode, number of cycles, slug size, water-to-gas ratio, temperature, and
pressure), WAG fluids (oil, gas, and brine), porous medium used (type
scale experiments. Sohrabi and Jamiolahmady conducted high pressure of porous medium and its permeability and porosity ranges), and the
pore-scale visualization study to understand the WAG injection me- WAG performance (recovery range and major conclusion remarks) are
chanisms at different wettability conditions where a strongly water-wet chronologically summarized.
glass micro-model was utilized (see Fig. 15) [159]. The experiments
showed that the relative permeability reduction and injectivity loss 7. Field and Pilot Applications of WAG Processes
occurs due to the gas trapping [159]. In fact, subsequent injection of the
water and gas cycles leads to fragmentation and trapping of the gas in 7.1. Field and pilot applications
pores, limits the available area for water to flow, and consequently
reduces the relative permeabilities [159]. Prior to conducting a WAG project, it would be vital to have a
The amount of trapped gas is a strong function of the IFT between comprehensive literature survey on similar field application studies. In
the oil and gas which highlights the importance of further investigation general, WAG injection is a mature EOR technology; so, there are nu-
on IFT impacts on gas trapping during the WAG injection process. merous successful WAG projects in the North Sea, US, and Canada. The
Sohrabi et al. repeated the tests for strongly oil-wet micro-model sys- field and pilot studies of the WAG injection processes are summarized
tems in another research study [160]. In the oil-wet micro-model, the in Table 2. This section provides details on the realistic large-scale WAG
flow was piston like displacement, and the residual oil appeared in the projects across the world.
form of pore surface films and pore corner filaments, surrounded by Christensen et al. reviewed WAG field projects from 1957 to 1996
throats [160]. Suicmez et al. employed a 3-D network model for Berea where the main process and reservoir characteristics influencing the
sandstone to predict the production rate and relative permeabilities, performance of successful and unsuccessful projects were system-
and to specify the displacement pathways during the WAG injection atically discussed [6]. USA with 37 WAG field projects (in the period
[161]. The relative permeability of water in the WF cycles (in the 1957 to 1996) has the highest number of executed WAG injection
presence of gas) is lower than that of the gas in the gas flooding cycles projects [6]. Many other WAG projects with various injection strategies
when the oil/water capillary pressure increases, resulting in the con- have been performed since 1996. Offshore (such as in North Sea) WAG
duction/continuity of the wetting layer. However, the relative perme- injection has different equipment design specifications, and drilling and
ability of gas is higher in the cycles after the first gas slug injection at operating expenses. Awan et al. reviewed EOR projects (including
high gas saturation due to the collective pore filling [161]. In the oil- WAG) in the North Sea fields during the period 1975 to 2005 [13]. In
wet porous medium, the relative permeability of water remains low 1997, Statfjord field experienced a pilot scale WAG injection in Brent
until water fills those pores in the porous system that maintains effec- reservoir in the North Sea [13]. Achieving successful results, the project
tive connectivity between the pores for fairly continuous flow of water was extended to the entire oilfield. At the beginning, the recovery factor
phase. It then increases rapidly. In the presence of water, the gas re- was 56% and the water cut was 70% in the Statfjord field. Over five
lative permeability has a lower value, compared to the case where oil years of WAG injection, the water cut was reduced (from 90% to 20% in
and gas are only present since oil is no longer the most wetting phase. some wells), and an increase in the oil recovery rate and GOR was
Suicmez et al. demonstrated the application of pore network modeling experienced [13]. In 2002, a field-scale immiscible WAG injection was
to estimate the three-phase relative permeabilities [161]. It was in- implemented in an isolated sub-block part of the Dulang field for the
dicated that the relative permeabilities are nearly independent of the first time [176]. The main objectives of this pilot test were to verify the
saturation path in the plot of relative permeability as a function of contribution of IWAG in improving the sweep efficiency, to obtain
flowing saturation, while other studies have reported irreversible hys- optimal conditions for the design and operation of WAG processes, and
teresis effects. The flowing saturation is defined as the phase saturation to determine typical ranges of recovery factor and capital and operating
231
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Fig. 15. WAG injection in a micro-model at different cycles and wettability conditions [159].
costs. The results obtained from the water and gas tracers’ injection cap, an oil ring, and a water leg at various depths [179]. They employed
tests indicated the possibility of high flow transmissibility between the a commercial chemical flooding simulator (e.g., CMG-STARS) to si-
wells and a reasonable increase in the oil recovery factor (by 7%) and mulate polymer and CO2 flooding. Hybrid approaches of WAG and PAG
production rate. The Dulang field was recognized as a good potential injection were applied by injecting water (or polymer) and CO2 with the
for WAG injection approach after these promising results [176]. In ratio of 1:1 where the duration of each cycle was three months. Ac-
2003, the first WAG cycle in the sandstone Ivanic pilot at Croatia oil- cording to their results, PAG with a recovery factor of 74% out-
field was examined where the CO2 injection rate was 50000 m3/d and performed the WAG injection with 68% recovery factor and CO2
the injection rate of water was 160 m3/d after six months of continuous flooding with 59% recovery factor. The higher recovery factor of PAG
CO2 injection [177,178]. The pilot study was run to evaluate the oil was attributed to the reduction of the reservoir pressure that had led to
recovery after five cycles (6 months of CO2 injection and 6 months of less injection volumes of water and CO2 fluids [179]. A WAG pilot was
water injection) over 19.5 years. Due to the financial problems, the established in a down-dip injector, located in offshore West Africa to
pilot test was stopped after two WAG cycles; however a decision was decrease the flare gas release (to environment) and to enhance the oil
made to establish a full-field project [177,178]. In 2005, an enriched recovery [180]. Through alteration of a water injection well to WAG
hydrocarbon WAG injection was implemented in a heterogeneous, low injector, the WAG process successfully attained the project goals in
dipping, and tight carbonate oil reservoir in Abu-Dhabi onshore oilfield, which the water cut and oil recovery curves were monitored over the
in the UAE [35]. The tests and observations did not show early gas project. After successful implementation of this pilot test, the down-dip
breakthrough, asphaltene deposition, and corrosion while operating the water injectors were changed to WAG injectors and this change caused
project. The only main problem was the injectivity loss during the WF promising recovery performance [180]. Based on a study conducted by
cycle which was compensated through increasing the injection pres- Hinderaker and Njaa, the ultimate recovery factor of the Norwegian
sure. Although, no recovery factor was reported for this project, an WAG/gas injection projects was in the range of 53% to 66%; a total oil
increase in the oil recovery by 10% was expected [35]. Kong et al. production of 2012 to 2026 MMSTB was achieved through utilizing the
conducted pilot tests of Polymer Assistant Gas (PAG) and WAG injec- WAG technique [183]. A pilot N2-WAG injection was conducted in Lake
tion in Cranfield reservoir located in Mississippi, USA, featuring a gas Maracaibo field, containing a light oil, and an increase of 4.4% STOOIP
232
Table 1
Summary of experimental studies on WAG.
Year WAG Process WAG Fluids Porous Medium WAG Performance Ref
S. Afzali et al.
Type Mode* Cycles Slug (PV) Ratio T (°C) P (MPa) Oil Brine Gas Porous Medium K (mD) ϕ (%) RFTot (%PV) Remarks
1983 SWAG s,t NA NA 4:1 93.3 26.5 Crude Synthetic HC Core 123–178 22.6–25.8 90.7–95.5 • For gravity-stabilized enriched [164]
(Prudhoe (20.93 g/ (mix) (D = 3.81 cm, gas flooding and SWAG, S or
Bay) l) L = 45.72 cm, were similar with an average of
53.34 cm) 2.26%STPV.
• In water-wet Berea, high
residual oil obtained at
Sor=19.4%STPV.
1985 MWAG s,t NA 0.05 0:1 NA NA Refine oil Water + - Naphta Packed 8000 30 4–8 • Slug size is more effective in [140]
1:1 Glycyrin (38 cm × 38 c- (secondary) secondary rather than tertiary
1:3 m × 2.54 cm) 3–11 recovery.
3:1 (tertiary) • In oil-wet packing, WAG ratio
7:1 of 1:1 gave the maximum
incremental recovery.
• Max incremental
RFWAG = 11–12% obtained in
oil-wet packing, compared to
3–8% in water-wet packing.
1991 CO2- s,t NA NA 0:1 37.8 23.4 Crude (Means Synthetic CO2 Berea 240–650 NA 69–92 • The effect of wettability on [108]
MWAG 1:1 and, (3.5 wt%) sandstone (Berea) RFMWAG was more pronounced
3:1 Fullerton, TX) (D = 2.54 cm, 110–234 at high WAG ratios.
L = 25.4–203 - (Carbonat- • Less RF obtained at high WAG
cm) e) ratio, especially in water-wet
Carbonate Berea core; however, in mixed-
233
(2.54 square, wet, the effect was
30.5, 203 cm insignificant.
long) • The effect of core length on
RFMWAG was minimal;
miscibility condition is met
even in the shortest cores (1 ft
long).
1992 MWAG t 4–10 0.0375–0.24 1:1 68.7, 15.3–18.2 Crude Formation CO2 Core 1.356–573 20.5–22.5 77.5–82.9 • Tertiary RF was in the range [165]
1:2 82.2 (Libyan) HC mix (Sandstone, 18.4–26.3% and total RF in the
2:1 Limestone, range 77.5–82.9%.
D = 2.5,3.8,10- • Total RFMWAG and GOR were
.2 in., not affected by the solvent-to-
L = 91.4 cm) water ratio when the solvent
slug size was fixed.
1993 WAG t NA 0.05 1:1 65.6 10.3 Gas Condens. Synthetic nC2, Layered 10 26 74, • RF = 74% (more permeable [86]
(nC3) (5% wt) nC4 Texas and (Texas) 85 layer at top) and 85% (10 mD
Indiana 0.3 11.3 layer bottom).
Limestone (Indiana) • The RF of gas injection was
∼58% regardless of the layers’
arrangement.
1998 IWAG t 10 0.2 4:1 23 1 Crude Synthetic CO2 + N2 Packing 11.1–13 37.2–42.1 41.6–51.3 • Increasing the concentration of [166]
(Aberfeldy (45.7 cm ×- N2 contamination (in N2+ CO2
HO) 45.7 cm × 2.2- mixture) from 0 to 30%
cm) decreased total RF from 51.3%
to 41.6%.
(continued on next page)
Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Table 1 (continued)
Year WAG Process WAG Fluids Porous Medium WAG Performance Ref
S. Afzali et al.
*
Type Mode Cycles Slug (PV) Ratio T (°C) P (MPa) Oil Brine Gas Porous Medium K (mD) ϕ (%) RFTot (%PV) Remarks
2004 WAG t 5 NA 1:1 37.8 3.4 C1+nC4 Water + - C1 + nC4 Glass micro- NA NA 58–78 • The min RF (58%) obtained in [111]
C1 model ww model; ow and mw models
(6 mm by had similar ultimate recovery.
38 mm, ww and ow models, no
• Insignificant
Pores: 35 μm production observed
deep and after two WAG cycles;
30–300 μm considerable production
channel width) obtained in the mw model after
two cycles.
2005 IWAG s,t 3.5 0.7 1:1 27.8 3.5 nC10 5% NaCl, CO2 Berea 136.1, NA 23–84.5 • RFWAG increased from 23 to [8]
MWAG 27.8 17.2 Reservoir (L = 30.48 cm) 450.0 84.5% after miscibility
(Yates, condition achieved.
TX) • RFMWAG was 12% higher in 5%
NaCl.
2006 CO2- t NA 0.2, 4:1 29 2.5 Crude Synthetic, CO2 Sandpack 1074–169- 39.1 37.5–42.2 • N2 decreased WAG recovery [167]
IWAG 0.8 (HO) 0.5% N2 (D = 5 cm, 2 (tertiary) by 18% compared to
FWAG foaming Flue gas L = 30 cm) CO2.
agent in • Maximum tertiary recovery and
brine total recovery were 6.24 and
42.2% both in FWAG from
which 36% was achieved in WF
alone.
• RFWAG increased with
concentration of CO2 in gas
234
mixture.
2007 MWAG s,t 5 0.5 1:1 NA NA Synthetic Water NA Packing glass 29,000 38 85–98 • Larger water slug resulted in [168]
0.05 1:4 (Isopar V) beads more fingering of solvent
4:1 (23 cm × 10 c- (paraffin).
m × 0.6 cm) • Max and min RF were obtained
at WAG ratios of 1:1 and 4:1.
2010 CO2- s,t 6 0.5 1:1 60 11.5 Synthetic Synthetic CO2 Berea 60.7–96.5 19.6–20.3 70–90 • RFWAG 50% and 35% more than [127]
MWAG (C10+C16) (1–32 g/l (D = 2.54 cm, RFWF with synthetic oil and
Crude NaCl + C- L = 26.7 cm) crude.
(Cottonwood aCl2) • RFWF affected by salinity;
Creek) RFWAG changed only slightly
(RF = 37 to 40% for salinity
1–32 g/l).
2010 CO2- t 4 0.5 1:1, 24 5 Crude Synthetic CO2 Sandpack 1256–339- 32.8–35.0 65.3, 71.9 • The incremental [68]
IWAG 0.2, 4:1 (SK heavy) (2, 4 g/l), (D = 5.1 cm, 4 RFIWAG = 15.3% and
PWAG 0.8 0.2% L = 30 cm) RFPWAG = 118.7%.
polymer • The incremental RF of IWAG
in brine and PWAG were 44.6% and
18.3% higher than that of
polymer flooding.
• The maximum ultimate RF of
71.89% was obtained in PWAG.
2011 CO2- t 4 NA NA 37.8 12.8 C1+nC4 Synthetic CO2 NA 65, NA 95–99 [169]
nMWAG (1 g/l) 1000
(continued on next page)
Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Table 1 (continued)
Year WAG Process WAG Fluids Porous Medium WAG Performance Ref
S. Afzali et al.
*
Type Mode Cycles Slug (PV) Ratio T (°C) P (MPa) Oil Brine Gas Porous Medium K (mD) ϕ (%) RFTot (%PV) Remarks
235
and FIWAG = 173.7%.
• Gas injection alone gave
RFCO2 = 173.5% and
RFN2 = 145.6%.
2012 CO2- t 1–5 NA NA 128 22.5 Crude Reservoir CO2 Sandstone core 323.3 21 64.6–97.9 • Using HC gas mix, 43% increase [125]
WAG HC (D = 3.8 cm, in IWAG recovery observed
IWAG (mix) L = 7 cm) when #cycles increased from 1
to 5.
• Incremental RF in CO2-MWAG
had 120% increase compared to
HC-IWAG (5 cycles).
• Tapering (increasing) WAG
ratio improved incremental
recovery but did not changed
total recovery much.
2012 IWAG t 10 0.1 1:1 57 8.5, 20.4 Crude Synthetic CO2 Berea core 64.7–76.9 19.3–19.7 20–73 • Increasing O2 contamination [170]
MWAG (South (16 g/l) + (D = 3.8 cm, from 0 to 10% (by mole)
Slattery, WY) O2 L = 25.4 cm) decreased the RFWAG from 12 to
10% in immiscible and from 33
to 27% in miscible mode.
• Total RF decreased from 28 to
20% in IWAG and from 73 to
57% in MWAG.
2012 CO2- s 11 0.2 1:1 25 0.34 Crude Synthetic CO2 Sand pack 12600–43- 36.1–40.6 25.4–47.3 [171]
WAG (Heavy oil) (10 g/l 000
NaCl)
(continued on next page)
Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Table 1 (continued)
Year WAG Process WAG Fluids Porous Medium WAG Performance Ref
S. Afzali et al.
*
Type Mode Cycles Slug (PV) Ratio T (°C) P (MPa) Oil Brine Gas Porous Medium K (mD) ϕ (%) RFTot (%PV) Remarks
236
L = 31.5 cm) • (e.g.,
51.9% > 46.2% > 42%).
• At other injection rates, the
performances of WAG, WF, and
GI were similar.
2015 CO2- s 5 2.5–8.2 1:1 65 3.5 Crude NaCl CO2 Grey Berea 62.1–79.2 17.6–19.1 61.6–64.6 • Aging changed wettability [131]
IWAG (5 g/l), (D = 3.8 cm, towards oil-wet and increased
Formation L = 50.8 cm) RFWF from 22.7% to 51.6%.
(174.2 g/ • Only with aging, LSW was
l), beneficial.
Sea water • RFWAG using LSW was 61.7%
(54.7 g/l) which was less than that with
sea water.
2015 SAG s,t 2–5 0.4–4 1:1 NA NA Crude Sea water CO2 Berea 113–120 19.8, NA • The stability of foam was more [67]
(15.8, (D = 3.92 cm, 32.5 stable at higher injection rate
30.8 g/l), L = 14.96 cm) and in small, but more frequent
0.5% surf. Reservoir cycles.
sea water (D = 3.74 cm,
L = 9.01 cm)
2015 CO2- s,t NA 0.2–3.5 NA 50 9, Crude Synthetic CO2 Bernheimer 13–1300 22–25 43.3–78.6 [72]
WAG 12.8 (North (183.8 g/ (D = 5.08 cm,
CO2- Burbank l) L = 15.24 cm)
PWAG Unit)
(continued on next page)
Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Table 2
[121]
WAG injection projects across the world.
Ref
1) RF = 74%, 2)
affected RF more in
Statfjord 1997 Field WAG Increasing incremental oil [19]
(53.1%).
(75.9%).
recovery
sweep efficiency
N2
WAG
WAG
PWAG
Siri 1999 Field SWAG Increasing oil recovery [175]
WAG Performance
RF
(60.4%) > RF
(63.0%) < RF
(RF = 88.5%)
Snorre 1997 Field FAWAG Improving gas sweep [56]
RF
• Immiscible:
efficiency
• scenarios:
• Miscible:
• Pressure
efficiency
West Africa 2009 Pilot WAG Reducing gas flaring and [180]
improving oil recovery
Lagocinco 2000 Pilot IWAG Increasing oil production [181]
Abu Dhabi 2007 Pilot IWAG Increasing sweep efficiency [182]
13–25
ϕ (%)
project caused a 2–3% improvement in the oil recovery at the field scale
L = 10 cm)
[182].
WAG Fluids
Reservoir
(200 g/l)
Brine
screening criteria for onshore reserves have been obtained mainly based
on engineering heuristic experiences, research activities, and field and
pilot scale projects [189]. The WAG process might be one of the EOR
Ratio
NA
[189]. Generally, WAG ratio and injection time scale are two critical
parameters in WAG processes. Hence, well spacing, injection pressure,
Slug (PV)
and permeability variation in the reservoir are among the most im-
portant parameters which affect the selection criteria for the WAG
NA
NA
[184].
In 1998, Manrique et al. also suggested screening criteria for WAG
t
Table 1 (continued)
CO2-
Table 4.
2015
Year
237
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
238
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
tested in the Etive formation. Heermans et al. [198] conducted math- • Early breakthrough [239–241],
ematical modeling of WAG in fractured porous media. They performed • Injectivity loss [6,73,75,82,123,233,241,242],
2D fine grid simulations using the dual porosity model and a transfer • Corrosion [243–245], and
function to account for matrix-fracture flow communication in a proxy • Asphlatene and hydration formation [6,13,246,247].
model. They found that the shape factor used in the transfer function is
significantly affected by the reservoir properties and the injection type. Awan et al. reviewed the EOR technologies, including WAG pro-
After conducting scaling analysis, they concluded that the effective jects, which were conducted in the North Sea fields [13]. They briefly
permeability to phases, and matrix and fracture permeability values discussed about the experimental, techniques, and global statistical
contribute the most to the recovery achieved by WAG. Skauge and Dale aspects of the EOR projects [13]. The operational problems and re-
[207] reviewed the progress in the modeling of WAG, focusing on ported limitations of the WAG projects in the North Sea fields were
three-phase capillary pressure and three-phase hysteresis models. They discussed. The main issues were related to equipment such as com-
proposed a methodology to obtain the three-phase capillary pressure pressor specification (e.g., compression of enriched gas) in Gullfake
model from two- phase capillary pressure data. A better match was field during miscible WAG injection, and tubing malfunction due to
attained (in the simulation of WAG) when the three-phase capillary heating and injected gas expansion in Brage field [240]. In the Brage
pressure model was included. Moreover, the inclusion of capillary field, the gas breakthrough occurred after three months of the WAG
pressure resulted in an increase in the oil relative permeability and a initiation, and a low sweep efficiency was observed in the next gas
decrease in the relative permeability of the injected fluid. The simula- cycles [240]. The main reason for this problem was a thin and high
tion study was able to predict the shape of recovery plot, breakthrough permeable layer that behaved as a thief layer which linked the pro-
time, and injection pressure better. Hustad and Browning [204] con- duction and injection wells.
ducted implicit compositional simulations of WAG where the three- The availability of gas for gas cycles is also a challenge, such as that
phase hysteresis is included. The relative permeability and capillary in the Gullfaks field [248]. Due to gas availability and market price, a
pressure were allowed to correlate to all three saturations, and three majority of the North Sea fields experience more gas injection in
sets of saturations in the hysteresis model were used. Both hysteresis summer, compared to winter [248]. In Snorre field, the leakage of
and hydrocarbon miscibility were considered and the end-points in the tubing annulus imposed a high cost in compressors’ maintenance due to
models (relative permeability and capillary pressure) were allowed to corrosion. Early breakthrough occurred due to the channeling of gas in
change dynamically by capillary number scaling to account for the high permeable layers. The issues reported above are among the main
compositional effects. The model was tested in water-wet and mixed- operational problems during the HC miscible WAG injection [6,241]. In
wet media, and the proposed model was found to improve the recovery Ekofisk field, the pilot operation was failed during the SWAG injection
results. Shahverdi and Sohrabi [201] conducted IMPES simulations of because of hydrate formation [249,250]. The same EOR process was
WAG with focus on the effect of the gravity segregation. When the implemented in Siri field and the main problems for this Iranian field
gravity segregation was included in the simulations, it decreased the were unfavorable field characteristics (low horizontal permeability and
total mobility; it was more pronounced in WAG with a smaller volume porosity) and the injectivity problems [249,250]. During the FAWAG
of the injected fluids. Duchenne et al. [196] adopted the mathematical operation in Snorre field (SnA-CFB), the major concerns were the in-
modeling framework of Larsen and Skuage [38] in the simulation of jectivity of gas below the fracture pressure and the vertical connectivity
WAG and developed an optimization algorithm to obtain the para- of the layers that prevented the foam propagation [6,241]. Injectivity
meters of three-phase relative permeability models, based on two sets of loss corresponding to the reduction in injection rates of gas slugs and
experiments. They argued that the history matching should be con- water slugs was an initial concern in this project in both continuous gas
ducted simultaneously for all experiments (at different conditions) and and WAG injection processes [82,242]. It has been claimed that about
not for individual experiments. The simulation results were validated 20% of the reported water injectivity loss happen in the WAG injection
by the coreflood tests at near miscible conditions in sandstone cores. It projects [123]. Rogers et al. reviewed CO2-WAG injectivity abnormal-
was found that simultaneous optimization (history matching) tends to ities, and systematically discussed the hypothesis and theories that
better results. Streamline (also called front-tracking) methods have also create this phenomenon during CO2-WAG injection [7]. They con-
been used for the modeling of three-phase flow in porous media that in cluded that the factors affecting the injectivity of CO2-WAG are oil bank
general combine the analytical solution to Riemann problem [216] with mobility, water salinity and pH, wettability, dissolution, precipitation
a front tracking method [223]. Researchers have implemented the and invasion of fluids, fluid trapping or bypassing, relative perme-
streamline method for modeling of WAG processes [211,224]. ability, reservoir heterogeneity, and phase behavior [7]. Ghahfarokhi
A summary of the studies that were found in the literature on ex- et al. observed two types of CO2-WAG injection patterns; 1) WAG-
perimental (in cores, sand-packs, and micro-models), and theoretical sensitive which is a general form of injectivity loss that occurred during
(macro- and pore-scale mathematical modeling and simulation) aspects above 150 injection patterns, and 2) WAG-insensitive which includes
of WAG is summarized in Table 5. This table is organized to chron- injectivity loss characterized by differences in injectivity profiles,
ologically show the focus of each study including the four categories of Dykstra-Parson (DP) coefficient, and injectivity indexes. The WAG flow
1) fluid properties, 2) reservoir properties, 3) operating conditions, and is not able to notably redistribute the injected flow profiles in high
4) pore-scale mechanisms. In the miscibility condition, M, I and nM are permeable and low heterogeneous regions of the reservoir. There is a
used for miscible, immiscible, and near miscible conditions. high chance of injectivity loss problem in wells with DP coefficient of
0.81 or more, and an injectivity index of 10 bbl/(psi. d) or less. Pro-
duction of oil, gas, and water for WAG sensitive-wells was lowered with
9. Theoretical and Practical Challenges of WAG Implementation decreasing Dykstra-Parson coefficient, while a majority of patterns
were WAG-insensitive so that no production decline was noticed. It was
9.1. Field challenges recommended to design longer CO2 and shorter water cycles (drier
WAG cycles) in the CO2-WAG injection operation for the wells with
Operating an EOR/IOR project at any scale (field, pilot or lab) is injectivity values lower than 10 bbl/(psi. d) [233]. One of the common
always associated with numerous limitations and challenges. In the challenges with the WAG injection is that the oil recovery rate sig-
WAG injection, process and thermodynamic conditions of both WF and nificantly decreases with more WAG cycle injections due to a significant
gas injection affect the production efficiency. Generally, the major increase in the water saturation and a reduction in oil phase dis-
practical challenges in most field applications of WAG can be classified continuity [157,162,215]. Although WAG can effectively controls the
as follows: gas mobility, highly heterogeneous reservoirs still challenge this
239
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
Table 5
Summary of literature works on WAG with their focus of study.
Effect Year Variable(s) studied Process Miscibility* Porous Medium Scale Ref.
M I nM
Fluid properties 1993 Mobility control CGI, WAG, SWAG M – – Sandstone Pilot [45]
2005 Brine composition and miscibility WAG, CGI M I – Berea sandstone Experimental [8]
2006 Gas type (N2, CO2, enriched gas) WAG – I – Sand pack Experimental [167]
2010 Brine composition WAG M – – Berea sandstone Experimental [127]
2010 Salinity WAG, PWAG – I – Sandstone Experimental [68]
2012 Gas type (N2, CO2) WAG, CGI M I – Carbonate Experimental [122]
2013 Salinity WAG M – – Sandstone Experimental [172]
2014 Salinity CGI, WAG, SWAG M I – Carbonate Modeling [130]
2014 Salinity WAG M – – Carbonate Compositional Simulator [133]
2014 Gas type (N2) SAG, WAG, WF, – I – Sand pack Experimental [120]
CGI
2015 Salinity WAG – I – Berea sandstone Experimental [131]
2015 Salinity WAG M – – – Simulation (CMG-STAR) [132]
2015 Gas type (N2, CO2, associated gas) WAG M – – Sandstone Experimental [121]
2015 Gel treatment WAG – I – – Simulation [225]
2016 Salinity WAG M – – Carbonate Compositional Simulator [226]
Petrophysical properties 1982 Heterogeneity CGI, WAG M – – – Simulation (Todd, Dietrich) [81]
1985 Wettability WAG, CGI M – – Bead-pack Experimental [140]
1988 Wettability WAG, CGI M – – Sandstone Experimental [40]
2000 kr WAG M – – Sandstone Simulation [91]
2003 kr WAG – I – Berea Sandstone Experimental [98]
2004 Vertical gas sweep SWAG M I – – Simulation (quasi steady-state) [227]
2005 kr hysteresis WAG – I – Berea sandstone Simulation (ECLIPSE 100) [101]
2005 kr, injection loss WAG – I – Glass micro-model Experimental [159]
2009 Optimal parametric design WAG M – – – Simulation [22]
2011 Wettability WAG, CGI, WF – – nM Sandstone Experimental [169]
2011 kr hysteresis, Pc, wettability WAG – I – – Network modeling [228]
2013 kr, hysteresis, wettability WAG – I – Sandstone Experimental and simulation [102]
2013 kr WAG M I – – Simulation [87]
2014 Heterogeneity, K WAG, PAG, CGI M – – – Simulation (ECLIPSE 100) [70]
2014 Relative permeability, wettability WAG M – – – Experimental [109]
Operational parameters 1985 WAG ratio, wettability WAG, CGI M – – Bead-pack Experimental [140]
1991 WAG ratio WAG, CGI M – – Berea Sandstone Experimental [108]
1992 WAG ratio WAG, CGI M – – Berea Sandstone Experimental [165]
1999 WAG ratio WAG M – – Sandstone, carbonate Experimental [165]
2001 WAG ratio, slug size WAG M – – Sandstone Simulation [197]
2003 WAG ratio, flow rate WAG M – – Bead-pack Experimental [146]
2003 WAG ratio, flow rate WAG M – – Glass bead pack Experimental [146]
2005 Injection pattern WAG M – – Carbonate Modelling [229]
2007 WAG ratio, viscous fingering WAG M – – – Experimental [230]
2010 Heated WAG Heated WAG – I – Sand pack Experimental [231]
2010 Slug ratio WAG, CGI, WF – I – – Experimental [171]
2011 Cycle time, slug size WAG, CGI, WF M – – – Simulation (E100, E300) [136]
2012 Tapering WAG – I – – Experimental [125]
2014 Injection rate WAG, CGI, WF – I – Carbonate Experimental [173]
2015 Injection pattern WAG – I – Carbonate Simulation (ECLIPSE) [142]
2015 Injection rate, WAG ratio, slug size WAG M – – Berea sandstone Simulation [232]
2016 Injection pattern, injection rate WAG M – – Limestone Field operation [233]
2016 Injection rate WAG, SWAG – I – Carbonate Simulation (ECLIPSE 100) [234]
2016 Tapering WAG – I – – Simulation [156]
Pore-scale mechanisms 2005 Three phase flow mechanisms WAG M – – Glass micro-model Experimental [157]
2000 Visualization of three phase flow WAG – I – Glass micro-model Experimental [158]
2006 kr, hysteresis, wettability WAG – I – Berea sandstone Pore network modeling [161]
2002 Three phase flow processes WAG – I – Glass micro-model Network modeling, [162]
Experimental
2011 Three phase flow processes WAG – I – Berea Sandstone Pore network modeling [163]
2013 kr, Pc WAG – I – Berea Sandstone Pore network modeling [235]
2008 Pore scale fluid distribution SWAG – – nM Glass micro-model Experimental [110]
2005 Oil displacement mechanisms WAG – I – Sandstone, micro- Simulation, Experimental [236]
model
2014 Recovery enhancement using nano- WAG – I – Glass micro-model Experimental [237]
particles
2014 Miscibility, IFT, wettability WAG – – nM Carbonate Experimental [238]
recovery technology. Choi et al. suggested gel treatment during the unfavorable conditions decrease the sweep efficiency that leads to low
CO2-WAG injection to overcome unfavorable sweep efficiency as a re- recovery factor [225]. They simulated the hybrid gel treatment with the
sult of gravity override effect and the channeling problem caused by an CO2-WAG injection, using dynamic gel viscosity in a heterogeneous
inappropriate mobility ratio between the oil and CO2 [225]. These heavy oil reservoir. To quantify the extent of permeability reduction by
240
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
gel treatment, the following equation was introduced by Lake et al., connectivity of the fracture network and the variability in the matrix
which is called Residual Resistant Factor (RRF): structure are two sources of uncertainties in fractured carbonate flow
behavior in WAG injection [253,254]. For example, Agada used data-
RRF =
( ) kw
μw
initial
driven surrogate modeling technique which significantly lowers the
w computational cost for the CO2-WAG injection in a fractured carbonate
( ) kw
μw
final (15) reservoir; the model evaluation was conducted in 13.2 s, using the
surrogate model compared to 8.2 h, using the numerical simulation
The (k w / μ w )initial and (k w / μ w )final are the ratio of water permeability runs for the three-phase flow in porous media [193]. To capture the
over the water viscosity before and after gel treatment, respectively. Eq. main mechanisms involved in WAG processes, further experimental
(15) is an assessment tool to demonstrate the permanence of perme- (macro and micro scales) investigations, pilot scale testes, and pore-
ability reduction during polymer solution flooding [251]. The simula- network modeling studies are needed so that a systematic parametric
tion results indicated a 31% improvement in the oil recovery after sensitivity analysis is conducted to identify all contributing parameters
applying micro gel assisted WAG (considering dynamic gel viscosity), with their relative importance [202]. Another major challenge in the
compared to conventional WAG injection because of better displace- modeling and simulation of the WAG processes is to obtain a correct
ment performance and mobility control (e.g., reduction in oil viscosity) estimation of the amount and thermodynamic conditions of the trapped
[225]. phases [255–257]. In many petroleum engineering simulators, it is as-
Another strategy to overcome unfavorable sweep efficiency and sumed that a thermodynamic equilibrium is established in grid cells
mobility ratio is Viscosity Reducing WAG (VR-WAG) injection which containing mobile oil and gas phases which does not occur in most real
was developed to improve the recovery of viscos-oil reservoirs. This cases, leading to considerable errors and uncertainties in simulation
technique leads to mixing of heavy components of the oil with pro- results [202,235,257]. It is also believed that optimization of WAG
duced lean gas to create Viscosity Reducing Injectant (VRI). This operations in terms of process design aspects, operating conditions, and
method reduces the oil viscosity up to 90% and improves the oil re- injected fluid properties is a challenging task which requires extensive
covery factor by 15–20% [252]. experience of research and engineering activities.
Generally, EOR techniques in fractured reservoirs are challenging
for the petroleum industry. Due to early breakthrough and flow chan- 9.3. Economical and practical aspects
neling in the fractures, the injected flow directly goes from the injection
wells to the production wells. Chakravathy et al. suggested water vis- WAG injection was originally developed to control the mobility of
cosified with polymer to be injected directly into the fractures in order gas phase in a porous medium during the gas injection process; it is the
to redirect the CO2 flow to the matrix and to postpone the breakthrough second widely used EOR process with promising economic benefits [8].
[239]. They also recommended that a cross-linked gel can be used for Increased concerns over the greenhouse gas emissions has led to the
the conformance control to overcome the water leak off to the matrix. evaluation and realization of CO2 potential as a carbon storage tech-
The control and regulation of injection operating conditions in WAG are nique. According to the previous studies, the CO2-EOR (WAG) projects
challenging, especially when CO2 is injected in the gas cycles. Gen- appear to be promising because of low cost of CO2 source, CO2 avail-
erally, the contact of CO2 and water leads to corrosion of tubing, re- ability, and high gas utilization efficiency (167–227 sm3 CO2/STB oil)
sulting in serious technical, environmental, and economic concerns [258]. With an increase in the global awareness about sustainability,
[243]. global warming, and new environmental regulations, the CO2-EOR is
receiving an increasing attention from energy industries [259].
9.2. Research challenges and problems It is believed that approximately two-third of the original oil is place
are bypassed after the primary and secondary recovery processes [260].
During the WAG injection in a reservoir, two processes of imbibition A recent report by the Department of Energy [261] suggests that the
and drainage are involved which take place sequentially; it results in tertiary techniques of CO2-EOR can recover an additional 20% of the
complex saturation patterns as both gas and water saturations increase Initial Oil In Place (IOIP). If it is applied to all of the U.S reservoirs, this
and decrease alternatively. Hence, a reliable modeling of WAG process additional recovery is equivalent to 87.1 billion barrels. At an oil price
requires a comprehensive knowledge of the three-phase relative per- of $70 per barrel and a CO2 price of $45 per metric ton, 45 billion
meability and capillary pressure, including the saturation directions barrels oil can be potentially produced by the CO2-EOR [261]. A sen-
and cyclic hysteresis effects [154]. Several correlations for determina- sitivity analysis on the economic factors of the CO2-WAG injection in a
tion of the three-phase relative permeability are provided in the lit- low permeable heterogeneous reservoir was conducted by Changlin-lin.
erature [8,38]; however, they suffer in situations where the mass Three configurations of WAG were suggested (allocation of injection
transfer between phases occurs, particularly when one phase dis- rates, tapered Water-Alternate-Gas, and their combinations). They in-
appears. Dynamic effects due to the evaporation of residual oil and vestigated different cases for oil price, varying between $50-$140 and
adsorption of injected gas in the residual oil also increase the com- found the peak in the Net Present Value (NPV) in the range of 2–4 years,
plexities. Previous studies show a remarkable error in the performance depending on the oil price and CO2 price [17].
of WAG obtained from simulations by applying inappropriate three-
phase model parameters [90,92,101,102]. An accurate prediction of the 10. Conclusions
three-phase relative permeability data based on the rigorous and reli-
able models or experimental outputs is still remaining as a challenging WAG injection is a mature EOR/IOR technique with successful ex-
issue. One of the challenges regarding the reservoir simulation of WAG periences in many projects from pore to field scales. Due to its proven
injection at heterogeneous reservoirs is the sensitivity of the process to performance, different variations of WAG were introduced by re-
the Kv/Kh (vertical to horizontal permeability) ratio. For example, searchers to enhance its production characteristics through modifying
Jackson’s simulation studies indicated that as the Kv/Kh ratio increases, the liquid phase, gas phase, and operating conditions. This includes
the vertical displacement improves, while it adversely influences the alternate processes such as Foam Assistant WAG (FAWAG),
overall oil recovery [140]. Simultaneous Water And Gas injection (SWAG), Polymer Alternating
WAG simulation in the fractured carbonate reservoirs becomes Gas (PAG) or Polymer Assistant WAG (PAWAG), and Water Alternating
computationally expensive due to the multiscale heterogeneities and High-Pressure Air Injection (WAHPAI). Despite extensive recent in-
matrix-fracture transfer mechanisms that should be involved through a vestigations on theoretical, experimental, and mechanistic aspects of
detailed model with a large number of grid cells [193]. The the WAG, no comprehensive review is available in the literature. In this
241
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
review paper, the effects of important variables on WAG performance [3] Touray S. Effect of water alternating gas injection on ultimate oil recovery; 2013.
(fluid properties, reservoir properties, and operating conditions) are [4] Shpak R. Modeling of Miscible WAG Injection Using Real Geological Field Data.
Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk; 2013.
extensively studied and summarized. The pore-scale and field scale [5] Surguchev L, Korbol R, Haugen S, Krakstad O. Screening of WAG injection stra-
implementations are also analyzed, and important technical challenges tegies for heterogeneous reservoirs. European petroleum conference. Society of
are given. The following key conclusions are drawn based on this re- Petroleum Engineers; 1992.
[6] Christensen JR, Stenby EH, Skauge A. Review of WAG field experience.
view. International petroleum conference and exhibition of Mexico. Society of Petroleum
Engineers; 1998.
• CO 2 is the most common gas used in the WAG operations and it has
[7] Rogers JD, Grigg RB. A literature analysis of the WAG injectivity abnormalities in
the CO2 process. SPE Reservoir Eval Eng 2001;4(05):375–86.
advantages over N2 or O2. The use of high pressure air is also re- [8] Kulkarni MM, Rao DN. Experimental investigation of miscible and immiscible
cently proposed due to its abundance. water-alternating-gas (WAG) process performance. J Petrol Sci Eng
• Brine composition and salinity are the important parameters in 2005;48(1):1–20.
[9] Knappskog OA. Evaluation of WAG injection at Ekofisk. Norway: University of
WAG. Low salinity water injection has been recently proposed for
Stavanger; 2012.
the water cycles; although the performance of LSW in WF is proven, [10] Pariani G, McColloch K, Warden S, Edens D. An approach to optimize economics in
its performance in WAG is controversial in the literature. a West Texas CO2 flood. J Petrol Technol 1992;44(09):984–1025.
• Five-spot pattern is found as the most common injection pattern [11] Sanchez NL. Management of water alternating gas (WAG) injection projects. Latin
American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference. Society of Petroleum
employed in the WAG projects. However, it may result in a poor Engineers; 1999.
volumetric sweep efficiency due to extensive upward gas migration. [12] Skauge A, Stensen JÅ. Review of WAG field experience. Oil Recovery–2003, In: 1st
Horizontal wells may be alternatively used to overcome this pro- International conference and exhibition, modern challenges in oil recovery; 2003.
p. 19–23.
blem. [13] Awan AR, Teigland R, Kleppe J. A survey of North Sea enhanced-oil-recovery
• WAG injection at equal volumes of water and gas cycles (WAG projects initiated during the years 1975 to 2005. SPE Reservoir Eval Eng
2008;11(03):497–512.
ratio = 1:1) is preferred and resulted in optimal oil production,
[14] Hinderaker L, Bygdevoll J, Bu T, Nybraten G, Krakstad OS. lOR Resource potential
though there are controversial works on the optimality of WAG ratio of Norwegian North Sea sandstone reservoirs.In: IOR 1991–6th European sympo-
in the literature. In general, the WAG ratio does not influence the oil sium on improved oil recovery; 1991.
recovery performance in mixed-wet formations. [15] Panda M, Ambrose JG, Beuhler G, McGguire PL. Optimized eor design for the
• The saturation history in individual drainage and imbibition pro- Eileen west end area, Greater Prudhoe bay. SPE Reservoir Eval Eng
2009;12(01):25–32.
cesses, and the chronological cycle history of the water and gas [16] Kulkarni M, Rao D. Experimental investigation of various methods of tertiary gas
injection in the WAG will significantly affect the distribution of injection. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers; 2004.
fluids in three-phase flow. Mathematical modeling of WAG demands
[17] Changlin-lin L, Xin-wei L, Xiao-liang Z, Ning L, Hong-na D, Huan W, et al. Study on
the inclusion of these two types of three-phase hysteresis effects that enhanced oil recovery technology in low permeability heterogeneous reservoir by
if accounted, will increase the oil mobility and decrease the gas water-alternate-gas of coflooding. SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference and
mobility, resulting in more realistic predictions. exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2013.
•
[18] Caudle B, Dyes A. Improving miscible displacement by gas-water injection; 1958.
In both miscible and immiscible WAG recovery processes, an accu- [19] Crogh NA, Eide K, Morterud SE. WAG injection at the statfjord field, a success
rate relative permeability model is needed to determine reliable story. European petroleum conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2002.
values of fluids distribution and production in the three-phase flow [20] Tabatabaei Nezhad SAR, Rahimzadeh Mojarad M, Oskouei P, Javad S, Moghadas
JS, Farahmand DR. Experimental study on applicability of water alternating CO2
in porous media. The relative permeability models become less ac- injection in the secondary and tertiary recovery. International oil conference and
curate in near miscible conditions when the mass transfer between exhibition in Mexico. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
the two phases occurs. Due to the complexity of the WAG flow [21] Bahagio D. Ensemble optimization of CO2 WAG EOR; 2013.
[22] Chen S, Li H, Yang D, Tontiwachwuthikul P. Optimal parametric design for water-
pattern, the classical techniques to obtain relative permeability may alternating-gas (WAG) process in a CO2-miscible flooding reservoir. J Can Pet
not be efficient. Technol 2010;49(10):75–82.
• Wettability significantly controls the performance of WAG pro- [23] https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-
2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf; 2016.
cesses. Optimal values of injection rate, WAG ratio, number of cy-
[24] Speight JG. Enhanced recovery methods for heavy oil and tar sands. Elsevier;
cles, brine salinity, and polymer additive concentration will be 2013.
significantly affected by the wettability. [25] Shahverdi H, Sohrabi M, Fatemi M, Jamiolahmady M. Three-phase relative per-
• Tapering (WAG ratio variation) is a potential strategy to control meability and hysteresis effect during WAG process in mixed wet and low IFT
systems. J Petrol Sci Eng 2011;78(3):732–9.
excessive gas production. It also reduces the response time and ac- [26] Ahmed T. Reservoir engineering handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing; 2006.
celerates the oil bank, reaching the production wells. [27] Thakur GC, Satter A. Integrated waterflood asset management. PennWell Books;
• The most common challenges in the WAG operation are early gas 1998.
[28] Holm L. Propane-gas-water miscible floods in watered-out areas of the adena field,
breakthrough, injectivity loss, corrosion, and the chance of asphal- Colorado. J Petrol Technol 1972;24(10). 1264–170.
tene precipitation and hydration formation. Hybrid gel treatment, [29] Moffitt P, Zornes D. Postmortem analysis: lick creek meakin sand unit immiscible
Viscosity Reduction WAG (VR-WAG), and polymer additives in CO2 waterflood project. SPE Annual technical conference and exhibition. Society
of Petroleum Engineers; 1992.
water are proposed as solutions to reduce the adverse mobility ratio [30] Watts RJ, Conner WD, Wasson JA, Yost AB. CO2 injection for tertiary oil recovery,
problems. Granny's Creek Field, Clay County, West Virginia. SPE enhanced oil recovery
symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1982.
[31] Birarda GS, Dilger CW, McIntosh I. Re-evaluation of the miscible WAG flood in the
Acknowledgement Caroline Field, Alberta. SPE Reservoir Eng 1990;5(04):453–8.
[32] Cuesta J, Merritt G. Caroline wag project, injectivity and interference test-a field
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support pro- example. J Canad Petrol Technol. 21. Canadian Inst Mining Metallurgy Petroleum
101 6th Ave Sw, Ste 320, Calgary Ab Tzp 3p4, Canada; 1982:33-.
vided by Memorial University (NL, Canada), Natural Sciences and
[33] Gharbi R, Peters E, Elkamel A. Scaling miscible fluid displacements in porous
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), InnovateNL (for- media. Energy Fuels 1998;12(4):801–11.
merly RDC), and Statoil Canada. [34] Arogundade OA, Shahverdi H-R, Sohrabi M. A study of three phase relative per-
meability and hysteresis in water alternating gas (WAG) injection. SPE enhanced
oil recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2013.
References [35] Figuera LA, Al-Hammadi KE, Amro B, Abdulla A, Aryani A, Mohamed F.
Performance review and field measurements of an EOR-WAG project in tight oil
[1] http://www.slb.com/services/technical_challenges/enhanced_oil_recovery.aspx. carbonate reservoir-abu dhabi onshore field experience. Abu Dhabi International
[2] Hustad OS, Holt T. Gravity stable displacement of oil by hydrocarbon gas after petroleum exhibition and conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014.
waterflooding. SPE/DOE enhanced oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum [36] Muskat M. Physical principles of oil production; 1981.
Engineers; 1992. [37] Chen Z, Ewing RE. Comparison of various formulations of three-phase flow in
porous media. J Comput Phys 1997;132(2):362–73.
242
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
[38] Larsen J, Skauge A. Methodology for numerical simulation with cycle-dependent enhanced water alternating gas (CWAG) injection. SPE EOR conference at oil and
relative permeabilities. SPE J 1998;3(02):163–73. gas West Asia. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.
[39] Lyons WC, Plisga GJ. Standard handbook of petroleum and natural gas en- [70] Li W, Dong Z, Sun J, Schechter DS. Polymer-alternating-gas simulation: a case
gineering. Gulf Professional Publishing; 2011. study. SPE EOR conference at oil and gas West Asia. Society of Petroleum
[40] Huang E, Holm L. Effect of WAG injection and rock wettability on oil recovery Engineers; 2014.
during CO2 flooding. SPE Reservoir Eng 1988;3(01):119–29. [71] Li W, Schechter DS. Using polymer alternating gas to maximize CO2 flooding
[41] Lin E, Poole E. Numerical evaluation of single-slug, WAG, and hybrid CO2 performance. SPE energy resources conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers;
Injection processes, dollarhide Devonian unit, Andrews County, Texas. SPE Reserv 2014.
Eng 1991;6(04):415–20. [72] Tovar FD, Barrufet MA, Schechter DS. Experimental investigation of polymer as-
[42] Tanner C, Baxley P, Crump III J, Miller W. Production performance of the Wasson sisted WAG for mobility control in the highly heterogeneous north Burbank unit in
Denver Unit CO2 flood. SPE/DOE enhanced oil recovery symposium. Society of Oklahoma, using anthropogenic CO2. SPE Latin American and Caribbean petro-
Petroleum Engineers; 1992. leum engineering conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2015.
[43] Walker J, Turner J. Performance of seeligson zone 20B–07 enriched-gas-drive [73] Latil M. Enhanced oil recovery. Éditions Technip; 1980.
project. J Petrol Technol 1968;20(04):369–73. [74] Donaldson EC, Chilingarian GV, Yen TF. Enhanced oil recovery, II. Processes and
[44] Attanucci V, Asbsen K, Wright C. WAG process optimization in the rangely carbon operations. Elsevier; 1989.
dioxide miscible flood. Paper SPE; 1993. p. 2662. [75] Rogers JD, Grigg RB. A literature analysis of the WAG injectivity abnormalities in
[45] Stephenson D, Graham A, Luhning R. Mobility control experience in the Joffre the CO2 process. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of
Viking miscible carbon dioxide flood. In: IOR 1991–6th European symposium on Petroleum Engineers; 2000.
improved oil recovery; 1991. [76] Kulkarni MM. Immiscible and miscible gas-oil displacements in porous media.
[46] Stephenson DJ, Graham AG, Luhning RW. Mobility control experience in the Joffre Citeseer; 2003.
Viking miscible CO2 flood. SPE Reservoir Eng 1993;8(03):183–8. [77] Craig FF. The reservoir engineering aspects of waterflooding. HL Doherty
[47] Christensen R. Carbonated waterflood results – Texas and Oklahoma. Annual Memorial Fund of AIME; 1971.
Meeting of rocky mountain petroleum engineers of AIME. Society of Petroleum [78] Matthews J, Hawes R, Hawkyard I, Fishlock T. Feasibility studies of waterflooding
Engineers; 1961. gas-condensate reservoirs. J Petrol Technol 1988;40(08).
[48] Perez J, Poston S, Sharif Q. Carbonated water imbibition flooding: an enhanced oil [79] Yokoyama Y, Lake LW. The effects of capillary pressure on immiscible displace-
recovery process for fractured reservoirs. SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery ments in stratified porous media. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition.
Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1992. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1981.
[49] Perez JM, Poston S, Berg R, Friedman M, Gangi A, Nighswander J. Improving the [80] Sorbie K, Wat R, Rowe T. Oil displacement experiments in heterogeneous cores:
potential to produce oil from naturally fractured reservoirs. International petro- analysis of recovery mechanisms. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition.
leum conference and exhibition of Mexico. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1994. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1987.
[50] Shenawi S, Wu C. Compositional simulation of carbonated waterfloods in naturally [81] Claridge EL. CO2 flooding strategy in a communicating layered reservoir. J Pet
fractured reservoirs. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium. Society of Technol 1982:2746–56.
Petroleum Engineers; 1994. [82] Gorell S. Implications of water-alternate-gas injection, for profile control and in-
[51] Shenawi S, Wu C, Jiang C, Luan Z. A new iterative mathematical model for the jectivity. SPE/DOE enhanced oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum
analysis of imbibition carbonated waterflood in naturally fractured reservoirs. Engineers; 1990.
Permian Basin oil and gas recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; [83] Fayers F, Blunt M, Christie M. Accurate calibration of empirical viscous fingering
1994. models. In: ECMOR II-2nd European conference on the mathematics of Oil
[52] Hong K, Stevens D. Water-alternating-steam process improves project economics at Recovery; 1990.
West Coalinga field. Annual technical meeting. Petroleum Society of Canada; [84] Hanssen J, Norvik H, Card J. Nitrogen miscibility with North Sea reservoir fluids.
1990. In: 4th Eur. Symp. on EOR, Hamburg; 1987. p. 1081–92.
[53] DeFrancisco S, Sanford S, Hong K. Utilizing WASP and hot waterflood to maximize [85] Jones L, Cullick A, Cohen M. WAG process promises improved recovery in cycling
the value of a thermally mature steam drive in the West Coalinga Field. SPE gas condensate reservoirs: Part 1–prototype reservoir simulation studies. SPE gas
Western Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1995. technology symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1989.
[54] Bautista L, Friedmann F. Water-alternating-steam process (WASP) alleviates [86] Cullick A, Lu H, Jones L, Cohen M, Watson J. WAG may improve gas-condensate
downdip steam migration in Cymric field. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery recovery. SPE Reservoir Eng 1993;8(03):207–13.
Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1994. [87] Zuo L, Chen Y, Dengen Z, Kamath J. Three-phase relative permeability modeling in
[55] Ramlal V, Singh KS. Success of water-alternating-steam-process for heavy oil re- the simulation of WAG injection. SPE Reservoir Eval Eng 2014;17(03):326–39.
covery at petrotrin; 2000. [88] Aziz K, Settari A. Petroleum reservoir simulation. London: Elsevier; 1979.
[56] Aarra M, Skauge A, Martinsen H. FAWAG: A breakthrough for EOR in the North [89] Dicarlo DA, Sahni A, Blunt MJ. The effect of wettability on three-phase relative
Sea. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum permeability. Transp Porous Media 2000;39(3):347–66.
Engineers; 2002. [90] Fenwick DH, Blunt MJ. Network modeling of three-phase flow in porous media.
[57] Zuta J, Fjelde I. Mechanistic modeling of CO2-foam processes in fractured chalk SPE J 1998;3(01):86–96.
rock: effect of foam strength and gravity forces on oil recovery. SPE enhanced oil [91] Christensen J, Larsen M, Nicolaisen H. Compositional simulation of water-alter-
recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2011. nating-gas processes. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of
[58] Boud DC, Holbrook OC. Gas drive oil recovery process. Google Patents; 1958. Petroleum Engineers; 2000.
[59] Tunio SQ, Chandio TA, Memon MK. Comparative study of FAWAG and SWAG as [92] Delshad M, Pope GA. Comparison of the three-phase oil relative permeability
an effective EOR technique for a Malaysian field. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol models. Transp Porous Media 1989;4(1):59–83.
2012;4(6):645–8. [93] Henderson G, Danesh A, Tehrani D, Al-Shaidi S, Peden J. Measurement and cor-
[60] Aarra M, Skauge A. Status of foam applications in North Sea Reservoirs. paper relation of gas condensate relative permeability by the steady-state method. SPE
2000;22:19–22. Reservoir Eval Eng 1998;1(02):134–40.
[61] Hanssen J, Holt T, Surguchev L. Foam processes: an assessment of their potential in [94] Harbert L. Low interfacial tension relative permeability. SPE annual technical
North Sea reservoirs based on a critical evaluation of current field experience. conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1983.
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; [95] Chen H, Wilson S, Monger-McClure T. Determination of relative permeability and
1994. recovery for North Sea gas condensate reservoirs. SPE annual technical conference
[62] Skauge A, Aarra M, Surguchev L, Martinsen H, Rasmussen L. Foam-assisted WAG: and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1995.
experience from the Snorre Field. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium. [96] Skauge A, Larsen JA. Three-phase relative permeabilities and trapped gas mea-
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2002. surements related to WAG processes. In: SCA 9421, Proceedings of the
[63] Skoreyko FA, Villavicencio AP, Rodriguez Prada H, Nguyen QP. Understanding International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Stavanger, Norway;
foam flow with a new foam EOR model developed from laboratory and field data 1994.
of the naturally fractured cantarell field. SPE improved oil recovery symposium. [97] Egermann P, Vizika O, Dallet L, Requin C, Sonier F. Hysteresis in three-phase flow:
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012. experiments, modeling and reservoir simulations. SPE European petroleum con-
[64] http://www.eor-alliance.com/solutions/foam/. ference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2000.
[65] Aarra M, Skauge A, Sognesand S, Stenhaug M. A foam pilot test aimed at reducing [98] Element D, Masters J, Sargent N, Jayasekera A, Goodyear S. Assessment of three-
gas inflow in a production well at the Oseberg Field. Pet Geosci 1996;2(2):125–32. phase relative permeability models using laboratory hysteresis data. SPE interna-
[66] Batôt G, Delaplace P, Bourbiaux B, Pedroni L, Nabzar L, Douarche F. WAG tional improved oil recovery conference in Asia Pacific. Society of Petroleum
Management with foams: influence of injected gas properties and surfactant ad- Engineers; 2003.
sorption. Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition & conference. Society of [99] Land CS. Calculation of imbibition relative permeability for two-and three-phase
Petroleum Engineers; 2016. flow from rock properties. Soc Petrol Eng J 1968;8(02):149–56.
[67] Mohd Shafian S, Kamarul Bahrim R, Foo Y, Abdul Manap A, Tewari R. Foam [100] Land CS. The optimum gas saturation for maximum oil recovery from displace-
mobility control during WAG injection in a difficult reservoir with high tem- ment by water. Fall meeting of the society of petroleum engineers of AIME. Society
perature and high acid gas. SPE Asia Pacific enhanced oil recovery conference. of Petroleum Engineers; 1968.
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2015. [101] Spiteri EJ, Juanes R. Impact of relative permeability hysteresis on the numerical
[68] Zhang Y, Huang SS, Luo P. Coupling immiscible CO2 technology and polymer simulation of WAG injection. J Petrol Sci Eng 2006;50(2):115–39.
injection to maximize EOR performance for heavy oils. J Can Pet Technol [102] Shahverdi H, Sohrabi M. Relative permeability characterization for water-alter-
2010;49(05):25–33. nating-gas injection in oil reservoirs. SPE J 2015.
[69] Majidaie S, Khanifar A, Onur M, Tan IM. A simulation study of chemically [103] Anderson WG, Conoco Inc.. Wettability literature survey-Part 1: rock/oil/brine
243
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
interactions and the effects of core handling on wettability 13932-PA. SPE J Paper [134] Jakupsstovu S, Zhou D, Kamath J, Durlofsky L, Stenby EH. Upscaling of miscible
1986. displacement processes. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Symposium on
[104] Basu S, Sharma MM. Defining the wettability state of mixed wet reservoirs: Petrophysics; 2001. p. 15–6.
measurement of critical capillary pressure for crude oils. SPE annual technical [135] Thomas F, Erian A, Chan M, Bennion D, Bennion D, Okazawa T. Does miscibility
conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1996. matter in gas injection? Annual Technical Meeting. Society of Petroleum
[105] Hirasaki G. Wettability: fundamentals and surface forces. SPE Form Eval Engineers; 1995.
1991;6(02):217–26. [136] Namani M, Kleppe J. Investigation of the effect of some parameters in miscible
[106] Morrow NR, Lim HT, Ward JS. Effect of crude-oil-induced wettability changes on WAG process using black-oil and compositional simulators. SPE enhanced oil re-
oil recovery. SPE Form Eval 1986;1(01):89–103. covery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2011.
[107] Crocker M, Marchin L. Wettability and adsorption characteristics of crude-oil as- [137] Skauge A, Sorbie K. Status of fluid flow mechanisms for miscible and immiscible
phaltene and polar fractions. J Petrol Technol 1988;40(04):470–4. WAG. SPE EOR conference at oil and gas West Asia. Society of Petroleum
[108] Stern D. Mechanisms of miscible oil recovery: effects of pore-level fluid distribu- Engineers; 2014.
tion. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum [138] Sohrabi M, Danesh A, Tehrani D. Oil recovery by near-miscible SWAG injection.
Engineers; 1991. SPE Europec/EAGE annual conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2005.
[109] Shahrokhi O, Fatemi M, Sohrabi M, Ireland S, Ahmed K. Assessment of three phase [139] Sorbie K, van Dijke M. Fundamentals of three-phase flow in porous media of
relative permeability and hysteresis models for simulation of water-alternating-gas heterogeneous wettability. Edinburgh, Scotland: Institute of Petroleum
(WAG) injection in water-wet and mixed-wet systems. SPE improved oil recovery Engineering, Heriot-Watt University; 2004.
symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014. [140] Jackson D, Andrews G, Claridge E. Optimum WAG ratio vs. Rock wettability in
[110] Sohrabi M, Danesh A, Jamiolahmady M. Visualisation of residual oil recovery by CO2 flooding. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of
near-miscible gas and SWAG injection using high-pressure micromodels. Transp Petroleum Engineers; 1985.
Porous Media 2008;74(2):239–57. [141] Al-Netaifi AS. Experimental investigation of CO2 miscible oil recovery at different
[111] Sohrabi M, Tehrani D, Danesh A, Henderson G. Visualization of oil recovery by conditions [Ph D. Thesis]. King Saud University; 2008.
water-alternating-gas injection using high-pressure micromodels. SPE J [142] Barkhan MH, Zargar G, Zakariyaei S, Jamal S. Studying the effect of injection
2004;9(03):290–301. pattern on water alternating gas (WAG) injection process using eclipse simulator
[112] Abdi M, Moradi S, Habibnia B, Kord S. Improving oil recovery during water in- software in an oil reservoir in Iran. Pet Coal 2015;57(3):234–40.
jection and WAG processes in asphaltenic oil reservoirs by using nonionic sur- [143] Pritchard D, Georgi D, Hemingson P, Okazawa T. Reservoir surveillance impacts
factants. Int J Sci Emerg Technol 2014;7(4). management, of the Judy Creek hydrocarbon miscible flood. SPE/DOE enhanced
[113] Patel P, Christman P, Gardner J. Investigation of unexpectedly low field-observed oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1990.
fluid mobilities during some CO2 tertiary floods. SPE Reservoir Eng [144] Bou-Mikael S. A new analytical method to evaluate, predict, and improve CO2
1987;2(04):507–13. flood performance in sandstone reservoirs. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery sym-
[114] Tiffin D, Yellig W. Effects of mobile water on multiple-contact miscible gas dis- posium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1996.
placements. Soc Petrol Eng J 1983;23(03):447–55. [145] Redman RS. Horizontal miscible water alternating gas development of the Alpine
[115] Green D, Willhite G. Enhanced oil recovery, vol. 6. SPE Textbook Series, TX, USA; Field. SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific section joint meeting. Alaska: Society
1998. of Petroleum Engineers; 2002.
[116] Christian L, Shirer J, Kimbel E, Blackwell R. Planning a tertiary oil-recovery [146] Al-Shuraiqi H, Muggeridge A, Grattoni C. Laboratory investigations of first contact
project for Jay/LEC fields unit. J Petrol Technol 1981;33(08). 1535–144. miscible WAG displacement: the effects of WAG ratio and flow rate. SPE inter-
[117] Greenwalt WA, Vela S, Christian L, Shirer J. A field test of nitrogen WAG in- national improved oil recovery conference in Asia Pacific. Society of Petroleum
jectivity. J Petrol Technol 1982;34(02):266–72. Engineers; 2003.
[118] Langston E, Shirer J. Performance of Jay/LEC fields unit under mature waterflood [147] Stalkup F. Miscible flooding fundamentals. Society of Petroleum Engineers
and early tertiary operations. J Petrol Technol 1985;37(02):261–8. Monograph Series; 1983:8.
[119] Kirkpatrick R, Flanders W, DePauw R. Performance of the twofreds CO2 injection [148] Bunge A, Radke C. CO2 flooding strategy in a communicating layered reservoir. J
project. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Petrol Technol 1982;34(12). 2746–256.
Engineers; 1985. [149] Stalkup FI. Displacement of oil by solvent at high water saturation. Soc Petrol Eng
[120] Salehi MM, Safarzadeh MA, Sahraei E, Nejad SAT. Comparison of oil removal in J 1970;10(04):337–48.
surfactant alternating gas with water alternating gas, water flooding and gas [150] Raimondi P, Torcaso MA. Distribution of the oil phase obtained upon imbibition of
flooding in secondary oil recovery process. J Petrol Sci Eng 2014;120:86–93. water. Soc Petrol Eng J 1964;4(01):49–55.
[121] Ahmadi Y, Eshraghi SE, Bahrami P, Hasanbeygi M, Kazemzadeh Y, Vahedian A. [151] Christie M, Muggeridge A, Barley J. 3D simulation of viscous fingering and WAG
Comprehensive water–alternating-gas (WAG) injection study to evaluate the most schemes. SPE Reservoir Eng 1993;8(01):19–26.
effective method based on heavy oil recovery and asphaltene precipitation tests. J [152] Kootiani RC, Samsuri AB. Analysis of first contact miscible WAG displacement of
Petrol Sci Eng 2015;133:123–9. the effects of WAG ratio and flow rate. Am J Eng Res 2013;2(12):373–81.
[122] Ghafoori A, Shahbazi K, Darabi A, Soleymanzadeh A, Abedini A. The experimental [153] Gorell S. Modeling the effects of trapping and water alternate gas (WAG) injection
investigation of nitrogen and carbon dioxide water-alternating-gas injection in a on tertiary miscible displacements. SPE enhanced oil recovery symposium. Society
carbonate reservoir. Pet Sci Technol 2012;30(11):1071–81. of Petroleum Engineers; 1988.
[123] Hadlow R. Update of industry experience with CO2 injection. SPE annual technical [154] Shahverdi H. Characterization of three-phase flow and WAG injection in oil re-
conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1992. servoirs. Heriot-Watt University; 2012.
[124] Spivak A, Garrison WH, Nguyen JP. Review of an immiscible CO2 project, tar [155] Masoner L, Abidi H, Hild G. Diagnosing CO2 flood performance using actual
zone, fault block V, Wilmington field, California. SPE Reservoir Eng performance data. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium. Society of
1990;5(02):155–62. Petroleum Engineers; 1996.
[125] Srivastava J, Mahli L. Water alternating gas (WAG) injection a novel EOR tech- [156] Khan MY, Kohata A, Patel H, Syed FI, Al Sowaidi AK. Water alternating gas WAG
nique for mature light oil fields a laboratory investigation for GS-5C sand of optimization using tapered WAG technique for a giant Offshore Middle East Oil
gandhar field. In: A paper presented in biennial international conference and ex- Field. Abu Dhabi International petroleum exhibition conference. Society of
position in petroleum geophysics, Hyderabad; 2012. Petroleum Engineers; 2016.
[126] van Batenburg DW, De Zwart AH, Doush M. Water alternating high pressure air [157] Dong M, Foraie J, Huang S, Chatzis I. Analysis of immiscible water-alternating-gas
injection. SPE improved oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; (WAG) injection using micromodel. Canadian international petroleum conference.
2010. Petroleum Society of Canada; 2002.
[127] Jiang H, Nuryaningsih L, Adidharma H. The effect of salinity of injection brine on [158] Sohrabi M, Henderson G, Tehrani D, Danesh A. Visualisation of oil recovery by
water alternating gas performance in tertiary miscible carbon dioxide flooding: water alternating gas (WAG) injection using high pressure micromodels-water-wet
experimental study. SPE western regional meeting. Society of Petroleum system. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers; 2010. Engineers; 2000.
[128] Sharma M, Filoco P. Effect of brine salinity and crude-oil properties on oil recovery [159] Sohrabi M., Jamiolahmady M. Mechanism of injectivity loss during water-alter-
and residual saturations. SPE J 2000;5(03):293–300. nating-gas (WAG) injection. Gas (C1+ nC10);5(7):0.0209.
[129] Lager A, Webb KJ, Collins IR, Richmond DM. LoSal enhanced oil recovery: evi- [160] Sohrabi M, Tehrani D, Danesh A, Henderson G. Visualisation of oil recovery by
dence of enhanced oil recovery at the reservoir scale. SPE symposium on improved water alternating gas (WAG) injection using high pressure micromodels-oil-wet &
oil recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2008. mixed-wet systems. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of
[130] Al-Shalabi EW, Sepehrnoori K, Pope GA. Modeling the combined effect of injecting Petroleum Engineers; 2001.
low salinity water and carbon dioxide on oil recovery from carbonate cores. [161] Suicmez VS, Piri M, Blunt MJ. Pore-scale modeling of three-phase WAG injection:
International petroleum technology conference; 2014. prediction of relative permeabilities and trapping for different displacement cy-
[131] Ramanathan R, Shehata A, Nasr-El-Din H. Water alternating CO2 injection pro- cles. SPE/DOE symposium on improved oil recovery. Society of Petroleum
cess-does modifying the salinity of injected brine improve oil recovery? OTC Engineers; 2006.
Brasil. Offshore Technology Conference; 2015. [162] Van Dijke M, Sorbie K, Sohrabi M, Tehrani D, Danesh A. Three-phase flow in WAG
[132] Yip PM, Alta'ee AF. Simulation study of the effect of smart water on relative processes in mixed-wet porous media: pore-scale network simulations and com-
permeability during WAG-CO2 injection for light oil reservoir. ICIPEG 2014. parison with micromodel experiments. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery sympo-
Springer; 2015. p. 109–20. sium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2002.
[133] Dang CT, Nghiem LX, Chen Z, Nguyen NT, Nguyen QP. CO2 Low salinity water [163] Al-dhahli A, Geiger S, van Dijke MI. Three-phase pore-network modelling for
alternating gas: a new promising approach for enhanced oil recovery. SPE im- mixed-wet carbonate reservoirs. SPE reservoir characterisation and simulation
proved oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014. conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2011.
244
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
[164] Spence A, Ostrander J. Comparison of WAG and continuous enriched-gas injection Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2011.
as miscible processes in sadlerochit core. SPE annual technical conference and [192] Manrique E, Calderon G, Mayo L, Stirpe M. Water-alternating-gas flooding in
exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1983. Venezuela: selection of candidates based on screening criteria of international
[165] Zekri A, Natuh A. Laboratory study of the effects of miscible WAG process on field experiences. European petroleum conference. Society of Petroleum
tertiary oil recovery. Abu Dhabi petroleum conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1998.
Engineers; 1992. [193] Agada S, Geiger S, Elsheikh A, Oladyshkin S. Data-driven surrogates for rapid si-
[166] Nguyen T, Ali S. Effect of nitrogen on the solubility and diffusivity of carbon di- mulation and optimization of WAG injection in fractured carbonate reservoirs. Pet
oxide into oil and oil recovery by the immiscible WAG process. J Canad Petrol Geosci 2017;23(2):270–83.
Technol 1998;37(02). [194] Bequette BW. Nonlinear control of chemical processes: a review. Ind Eng Chem
[167] Zhang Y, Sayegh S, Huang S. Enhanced heavy oil recovery by immiscible WAG Res 1991;30(7):1391–413.
injection. Canadian international petroleum conference. Petroleum Society of [195] Chen B, Reynolds AC. Ensemble-based optimization of the wag injection process.
Canada; 2006. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2015.
[168] Al-Mamari F, Al-Shuraiqi H, Al-Wahaibi YM. Numerical simulation and experi- [196] Duchenne S, de Loubens R, Petitfrere M, Joubert T. Modeling and simultaneous
mental studies of oil recovery via first-contact miscible water alternating gas in- history-matching of multiple WAG coreflood experiments at reservoir conditions.
jection within shaley porous media. SPE/EAGE reservoir characterization and si- Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition and conference. Society of
mulation conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2007. Petroleum Engineers; 2015.
[169] Fatemi SM, Sohrabi M, Jamiolahmady M, Ireland S, Robertson G. Experimental [197] Haajizadeh M, Narayanan R, Waldren D. Modeling miscible WAG injection EOR in
investigation of near-miscible water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection performance the magnus field. SPE reservoir simulation symposium. Society of Petroleum
in water-wet and mixed-wet systems. Offshore Europe. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2001.
Engineers; 2011. [198] Heeremans JC, Esmaiel TE, Van Kruijsdijk CP. Feasibility study of WAG injection
[170] Jiang H, Nuryaningsih L, Adidharma H. The influence of O2 contamination on in naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE/DOE symposium on improved oil recovery.
MMP and core flood performance in miscible and immiscible CO2 WAG. SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
improved oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012. [199] Larsen JA, Skauge A. Simulation of the immiscible WAG process using cycle-de-
[171] Torabi F, Jamaloei BY, Zarivnyy O, Paquin B, Rumpel N. The evaluation of vari- pendent three-phase relative permeabilities. SPE annual technical conference and
able-injection rate waterflooding, immiscible CO2 flooding, and water-alternating- exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1999.
CO2 injection for heavy oil recovery. Pet Sci Technol 2012;30(16):1656–69. [200] Rahmawati SD, Whitson CH, Foss B. A mixed-integer non-linear problem for-
[172] Zolfaghari H, Zebarjadi A, Shahrokhi O, Ghazanfari MH. An experimental study of mulation for miscible WAG injection. J Petrol Sci Eng 2013;109:164–76.
CO2-low salinity water alternating gas injection in sandstone heavy oil reservoirs. [201] Sherafati M, Jessen K. Modeling and simulation of WAG injection processes-the
Iran J Oil Gas Sci Technol 2013;2(3):37–47. role of counter-current flow. SPE western regional meeting. Society of Petroleum
[173] Jafari M. Laboratory study for water, gas and WAG injection in lab scale and core Engineers; 2015.
condition. Pet Coal 2014;56(2):175–81. [202] Agada S, Geiger S. Wettability, trapping and fracture-matrix interaction during
[174] Erbas D, Dunning M, Nash TM, Cox D, Stripe JA, Duncan E. Magnus WAG pattern WAG injection in fractured carbonate reservoirs. SPE improved oil recovery
optimization through data integration. SPE improved oil recovery symposium. symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014.
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014. [203] Kløv T, Øren P, Stensen J, Lerdahl T, Berge L, Bakke S, et al. Pore-to-field scale
[175] Berge LI, Stensen JÅ, Crapez B, Quale EA. SWAG injectivity behavior based on siri modeling of WAG. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of
field data. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum Petroleum Engineers; 2003.
Engineers; 2002. [204] Hustad OSB, Browning DJ. A fully coupled three-phase model for capillary pres-
[176] Nadeson G, Anua NAB, Singhal A, Ibrahim RB. Water-alternating-gas (WAG) pilot sure and relative permeability for implicit compositional reservoir simulation. SPE
implementation, a first EOR development project in Dulang field, offshore J 2010;15:1003–19.
Peninsular Malaysia. SPE Asia pacific oil and gas conference and exhibition. [205] Jerauld G. General three-phase relative permeability model for Prudhoe Bay. SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2004. Reservoir Eng 1997;12(04):255–63.
[177] Novosel D. Initial results of WAG CO2 IOR pilot project implementation in Croatia. [206] Shahverdi H, Sohrabi M. An improved three-phase relative permeability and
SPE international improved oil recovery conference in Asia Pacific. Society of hysteresis model for the simulation of a water-alternating-gas injection. SPE J
Petroleum Engineers; 2005. 2013;18(05):841–50.
[178] Novosel D. Thermodynamic criteria and final results of WAG CO2 injection in a [207] Skauge A, Dale EI. Progress in immiscible WAG modelling. SPE/EAGE reservoir
Pilot Project in Croatia. SPE Middle East oil and gas show and conference. Society characterization and simulation conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2007.
of Petroleum Engineers; 2009. [208] Marchesin D, Plohr BJ. Wave structure in WAG recovery. SPE annual technical
[179] Kong X, Delshad M, Wheeler MF. A Numerical study of benefits of adding polymer conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1999.
to WAG processes for a pilot case. SPE reservoir simulation symposium. Society of [209] Mollaei A, Delshad M. A novel forecasting tool for water alternating gas (WAG)
Petroleum Engineers; 2015. floods. SPE eastern regional meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2011.
[180] Choudhary MK, Parekh B, Dezabala E, Solis HA, Pujiyono P, De Narvaez Z, et al. [210] Haajizadeh M, Hafez HH, Chaliha PR, Al-Katheeri AB. Sub-miscible gas-WAG in-
Design, Implementation and Performance of a Down-Dip WAG Pilot. In: jection piloting and compositional modeling in a carbonate reservoir.
International petroleum technology conference; 2011. International petroleum technology conference; 2007.
[181] Alvarez C, Manrique E, Alvarado V, Saman A, Surguchev L, Eilertsen T. WAG pilot [211] Ruan F, Carhart S, Giordano R, Grinestaff G, Bratvedt F, Olufsen R. An overview of
at VLE field and IOR opportunities for mature fields at Maracaibo Lake. SPE Asia streamline tracer modeling of miscible/immiscible WAG injection IOR. SPE/DOE
Pacific improved oil recovery conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2001. improved oil recovery symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2002.
[182] Al Shamsi HA, Al-Katheeri AB, Al Ameri AF, Abdulrahman AS, Sajeel K, Al [212] Beygi MR, Delshad M, Pudugramam VS, Pope GA, Wheeler MF. Novel three-phase
Yaaqoobi A. Immiscible WAG injection pilots performance and lessons learnt in compositional relative permeability and three-phase hysteresis models. SPE J
carbonate reservoir. Abu Dhabi international petroleum conference and exhibi- 2015;20(01):21–34.
tion. Onshore Abu Dhabi Oil Field, United Arab Emirates. Society of Petroleum [213] Khanifar A, Demiral B, Darman NB. Modelling of asphaltene precipitation and
Engineers; 2012. deposition during WAG application. International Petroleum Technology
[183] Hinderaker L, Njaa S. Utilization of associated petroleum gas (APG)-The Conference; 2011.
Norwegian experience. SPE Russian oil and gas conference and exhibition. Society [214] Van Dijke M, Sorbie K. Pore-scale network model for three-phase flow in mixed-
of Petroleum Engineers; 2010. wet porous media. Phys Rev E 2002;66(4):046302.
[184] Kang P-S, Lim J-S, Huh C. Screening criteria for application of EOR processes in [215] van Dijke MI, Lorentzen M, Sohrabi M, Sorbie KS. Pore-scale simulation of wag
offshore fields. The twenty-fourth international ocean and polar engineering floods in mixed-wet micromodels. SPE J 2010;15(01):238–47.
conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers; 2014. [216] Juanes R, Patzek TW. Analytical solution to the Riemann problem of three-phase
[185] Taber J, Martin F, Seright R. EOR screening criteria revisited—part 2: applications flow in porous media. Transp Porous Media 2004;55(1):47–70.
and impact of oil prices. SPE Reservoir Eng 1997;12(03):199–206. [217] Stone H. Probability model for estimating three-phase relative permeability. J
[186] Taber JJ, Martin F, Seright R. EOR screening criteria revisited-Part 1: Introduction Petrol Technol 1970;22(02):214–8.
to screening criteria and enhanced recovery field projects. SPE Reservoir Eng [218] Patacchini L, Sebastien D, Bourgeois M, Moncorge A, Pallotta Q. Simulation of
1997;12(03):189–98. residual oil saturation in near-miscible gasflooding through saturation-dependent
[187] Alvarado V, Thyne G, Murrell G. Screening strategy for chemical enhanced oil tuning of the equilibrium constants. SPE Reservoir Eval Eng 2015;18(03):28–302.
recovery in wyoming basins. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. [219] Alizadeh A, Piri M. Three-phase flow in porous media: a review of experimental
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2008. studies on relative permeability. Rev Geophys 2014;52(3):468–521.
[188] Alvarado V, Ranson A, Hernandez K, Manrique E, Matheus J, Liscano T. Selection [220] Fayers F, Foakes A, Lin C, Puckett D. An improved three phase flow model in-
of EOR/IOR opportunities based on machine learning. European petroleum con- corporating compositional variance. SPE/DOE improved oil recovery symposium.
ference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2000.
[189] Alvarado V, Manrique EJ. Engineering design challenges and opportunities be- [221] Baker L. Three-phase relative permeability correlations. SPE enhanced oil recovery
yond Waterflooding in Offshore Reservoirs. Offshore Technology Conference; symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1988.
2013. [222] Todd M, Longstaff W. The development, testing, and application of a numerical
[190] Al-Adasani A, Bai B. Recent developments and updated screening criteria of en- simulator for predicting miscible flood performance. J Petrol Technol
hanced oil recovery techniques. International oil and gas conference and exhibi- 1972;24(07):874–82.
tion in China. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2010. [223] Lie K-A, Juanes R. A front-tracking method for the simulation of three-phase flow
[191] Zerafat MM, Ayatollahi S, Mehranbod N, Barzegari D. Bayesian network analysis in porous media. Comput Geosci 2005;9(1):29–59.
as a tool for efficient EOR screening. SPE enhanced oil recovery conference. [224] Venkatesan R, Östlund J-A, Chawla H, Wattana P, Nydén M, Fogler HS. The effect
245
S. Afzali et al. Fuel 227 (2018) 218–246
246