Review of WAG Field Experience
J.R. Christensen,* SPE, and E.H. Stenby, SPE, IVC-SEP,DTU, and A. Skauge, SPE, Norsk Hydro A/S
Summary
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in water-
alternating-gas (WAG) processes, both miscible and immiscible.
WAG injection is an oil recovery method initially aimed to
improve sweep efficiency during gas injection. In some recent
applications produced hydrocarbon gas has been reinjected in
water-injection wells with the aim of improving oil recovery and
pressure maintenance. Oil recovery by WAG injection has been
attributed to contact of unswept zones, especially recovery of
attic or cellar oil by exploiting the segregation of gas to the top or
the accumulating of water toward the bottom. Because the resid-
ual oil after gasflooding is normally lower than the residual oil
after waterflooding, and three-phase zones may obtain lower
remaining oil saturation, WAG injection has the potential for
increased microscopic displacement efficiency. Thus, WAG
injection can lead to improved oil recovery by combining better
mobility control and contacting unswept zones, and by leading to
improved microscopic displacement.
This study is a review of the WAG field experience as it is
found in the literature today,1–108 from the first reported WAG
injection in 1957 in Canada to the new experience from the North
Sea. About 60 fields have been reviewed. Both onshore and off-
shore projects have been included, as well as WAG injections with
hydrocarbon or nonhydrocarbon gases. Well spacing is very differ-
ent from onshore projects, where fine patterns often are applied, to
offshore projects, where well spacing is in the order of 1000 m.
For the fields reviewed, a common trend for the successful
injections is an increased oil recovery in the range of 5 to 10% of
the oil initially in place (OIIP). Very few field trials have been
reported as unsuccessful, but operational problems are often noted.
Though the injectivity and production problems are generally not
detrimental for the WAG process, special attention has been given
to breakthrough of injected phases (water or gas). Improved oil
recovery by WAG injection is discussed as influenced by rock
type, injection strategy, miscible/immiscible gas, and well spacing.
Introduction
The WAG injection was originally proposed as a method to
improve sweep of gas injection, mainly by using the water to con-
trol the mobility of the displacement and to stabilize the front.
Because the microscopic displacement of the oil by gas is nor-
mally better than by water, the WAG injection combines the
improved displacement efficiency of the gas flooding with an
improved macroscopic sweep by water injection. This has resulted
in improved recovery (compared to a pure water injection) for almost
all of the field cases reviewed in this work. Although mobility con-
trol is an important issue, other advantages of the WAG injection
should be noticed as well. Compositional exchanges may give
some additional recovery and may influence the fluid densities and
viscosities. Reinjection of gas is favorable owing to environmental
concerns, enforced restrictions on flaring, and—in some areas—
CO2 taxes.
The WAG injection results in a complex saturation pattern
because two saturations (gas and water) will increase and decrease
alternately. This gives special demands for the relative permeability
description for the three phases (oil, gas, and water). There are sev-
*Now with TotalFinaElf.
Copyright © 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 71203) was revised for publication from paper SPE 39883, first presented
at the 1998 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico,
Villahermosa, Mexico, 3–5 March. Original manuscript received for review 18 March 1998.
Revised manuscript received 19 December 2000. Paper peer approved 22 January 2001.
April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
eral correlations for calculating three-phase relative permeability in
the literature,95 but only recently has an approach been designed for
WAG injection using cycle-dependent relative permeability.95
WAG injection has been applied with success in most field trials.
The majority of the fields are located in Canada and the U.S., but
there are also some fields in the former USSR. WAG injection has
been applied since the early 1960’s. Both miscible and immiscible
injections have been applied, and many different types of gas have
been used. This work gives a review of the WAG injection as it is
found in the open literature today. Unfortunately, not all field trials
are adequately described, and this overview is limited to the pub-
licly accessible data. We have chosen to use an inclusive definition
of WAG injection that covers all cases where both gas and water
are injected in the same well. A process where one gas slug is fol-
lowed by a water slug is, by definition, considered a WAG process.
In the literature, WAG injection processes are also referred to as
combined water/gas injection (CGW).100
Classification of the WAG Process. WAG processes can be
grouped in many ways. The most common is to distinguish between
miscible and immiscible displacements as a first classification.
Miscible WAG Injection. It is difficult to distinguish between
miscible and immiscible WAG injections. In many cases a multi-
contact gas/oil miscibility may have been obtained, but much
uncertainty remains about the actual displacement process. In this
paper, we have used only the information from the literature and
find that most cases have been defined as miscible. It has not
been possible to isolate the degree of compositional effect on oil
recovery by WAG injection. Miscible projects are mostly found
onshore, and the early cases used expensive solvents like
propane, which seem to be a less economically favorable process
at present. Most of the miscible projects reviewed are repressur-
ized in order to bring the reservoir pressure above the minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP) of the fluids. Because of failure to
maintain sufficient pressure, meaning loss of miscibility, real
field cases may oscillate between miscible and immiscible gas
during the life of the oil production. Most miscible WAG injec-
tions have been performed on a close well spacing, but recently
miscible processes have also been attempted even at offshore-
type well spacing.86–90
Immiscible WAG Injection. This type of WAG process has
been applied with the aim of improving frontal stability or con-
tacting unswept zones. Applications have been in reservoirs where
gravity-stable gas injection cannot be applied because of limited
gas resources or reservoir properties like low dip or strong hetero-
geneity. In addition to sweep, the microscopic displacement effi-
ciency may be improved. Residual oil saturations are generally
lower for WAG injection than for a waterflood and sometimes even
lower than a gasflood, owing to the effect of three-phase and cycle-
dependent relative permeability.96,97
Sometimes the first gas slug dissolves to some degree into the
oil. This can cause mass exchange (swelling and stripping) and a
favorable change in the fluid viscosity/density relations at the dis-
placement front. The displacement can then become near-miscible.
Hybrid WAG Injection. When a large slug of gas is injected,
followed by a number of small slugs of water and gas, the process
is referred to as hybrid WAG injection.38–42
Others. A process where water and gas are injected simultane-
ously (SWAG injection) has been tested in a few reser-
voirs.37,106–108 Although this process is not the main scope of the
paper, a few comments are given at the end.
A final version of the cyclic injection is in the literature pre-
sented as Water Alternating Steam Process (WASP).102 Reviews of
field cases will not be included in this paper.
97
General Description Related to WAG Injection
It is not the scope of this paper to present a detailed theory of WAG
displacement. However, some simple relations are helpful in
understanding the advantages of WAG injection. The oil recovery,
Rf, can be described by three contributions;
Rf = Ev×Eh×Em , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where EV=vertical sweep, EH=horizontal sweep, and Em=
microscopic displacement efficiency. The recovery can be opti-
mized by maximizing any or all of the three factors. In this work
the contribution of EV and EH will be called the macroscopic
displacement efficiency.
When performing a miscible displacement, the residual oil sat-
uration will go toward zero in the flooded areas. However, even
with an immiscible displacement, the remaining oil saturation
after gas flooding is normally lower than after waterflooding,
meaning that gas has a better microscopic displacement efficiency
than water. Recent simulation studies have shown that the inclu-
sion of gas trapping, reduced phase mobility, and lower residual-
oil saturation in three-phase zones may influence the extent of the
WAG zone (three-phase zone) in the reservoir and lead to higher
oil recovery.99
Horizontal Displacement Efficiency. The horizontal displace-
ment efficiency (EH) will be strongly influenced by the stability of
the front that is defined by the mobility of the fluids. The mobility
ratio (M) can be described as
krg
g
M= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
kro
o
where krg and kro are the relative permeabilities and mg and mo are
the viscosities for gas and oil, respectively. If an unfavorable
mobility ratio is obtained, the gas will finger (or channel), causing
early gas breakthrough and decreasing the sweep efficiency.
Reports of these problems are given from several of the field cases.
Adena,9 Granny’s Creek,20 and Lick Creek19 all reported this as a
problem of concern, but many other fields have seen premature
breakthrough of one of the phases. Usually, gas is found to give
early breakthrough; this is caused not only by mobility ratio but
also by the reservoir heterogeneity and especially high permeable
layers (Rangely Weber, Garber, Joffre Viking, Brage, Gullfaks,
Kaybob North, Mitsue), as well as premature breakthrough of the
water phase (Caroline).55,56
Vertical Displacement Efficiency. The vertical sweep efficiency
(EV) is influenced by the relation between viscous and gravitational
forces (Eq. 3). The viscous/gravity ratio can be expressed by
æ
o ö æ L ö
Rv / g = ç ÷ç ÷ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
è kg ∆ ø è h ø
where n=Darcy velocity, mo=oil viscosity, L=distance between
the wells, k=permeability to oil, g=gravity force, Dr=density dif-
ference between fluids, and h=height of the displacement zone.5
The reservoir properties affecting the vertical sweep mostly
include reservoir dip angle and variation in permeability and
porosity. Normally, porosity and permeability increasing down-
ward will be advantageous for the WAG injection because this
combination increases the stability of the front.
In General. The WAG displacement will be optimized if the
mobility ratio is favorable (<1). Reduction of the mobility ratio
can be obtained by increasing the gas viscosity or reducing the rel-
ative permeability of the fluids. Reduced mobility of the gas phase
can be achieved by injecting water and gas alternately.
Furthermore, the mobility is expected to be reduced when com-
pared to gas injection.
It is important to adjust the amount of water and gas so that the
best possible displacement efficiency will be achieved. Too much
water will result in poor microscopic displacement, and too much
gas will result in poor vertical, and possibly horizontal, sweep.
98
History of WAG Injection. The first field application found in this
literature study is a pilot in the North Pembina field in Alberta,
Canada. It is reported to have started in 1957 and was operated by
Mobil.1 A total of 59 WAG field applications have been found in
the literature. Table 1 summarizes all the field cases in chronolog-
ical order, includes comments on rock type and gas injection, and
refers to the main source of information for each field.
Geographically, WAG applications have been reported mainly
from U.S. oil fields (37 applications), but the method has been used
worldwide (Table 2).
Another important early work is a 1958 article about WAG
injection by Caudle and Dyes.98 From a laboratory study, they pro-
posed to inject water and gas simultaneously to improve the mobil-
ity of the displacement. A simultaneous injection on field scale was
initiated in Seelington (1962) and operated by Humble Oil.106
However, the reviews of the fields show that water and gas are nor-
mally injected separately. A main reason is that the injectivity for
most fields is better when only one phase is injected at a time.
Fig. 1 shows the initiation time of the reported WAG field cases
(both pilots and large-field applications). Only applications where
gas and water are injected separately were considered. The slope of
the line gives information about how many WAG injection projects
have been started at a given time. Approximately 50% of the field
applications reported have been initiated in the 1980’s.
Obviously, the price of oil has a direct influence on the success
or failure of a project. The drop in oil prices around 1985 led in
some cases to problems and/or premature closure of some WAG
projects. This fits well with Fig. 1, which shows a large number of
projects beginning early in the 1980’s, but rather few after 1985.
Table 1 shows the field application with some basic information
for classification. The first field case included in this work was
started in 1957 (Pembina), and the last was reported in the litera-
ture in 1996 (Ekofisk). Some of the first applications used propane
as an injection fluid. This is not economical today; when hydro-
carbon gases are used in modern applications, a dry or enriched gas
phase is injected.
Today, the WAG process (both miscible and immiscible) is con-
sidered for a number of new fields in the North Sea. However, this
paper only considers the field trials reported in the literature.
Discussion
Approximately 60 field cases have been reviewed; of these, very
few have been unsuccessful—most successes were among the first
field applications of WAG injection. Recovery by the WAG
process is mostly reported to be increased by about 5%, but recov-
ery increases of up to 20% are reported from several fields, includ-
ing Dollarhide, Rangely Weber, and Slaughter Estate. The WAG
process was almost always applied as a tertiary recovery method.
Only in newer applications in the North Sea has the WAG injection
been initiated early in the field life. Among the reviewed projects,
47 were planned to be miscible and 10 were planned to be immis-
cible, whereas 2 have not been classified (Table 1 and Fig. 2).
If field applications are classified by main rock type, the results
will be that the high-permeability reservoirs are in the majority.
However, it should be noticed that the WAG process has been applied
to rocks from very low-permeability chalk (Daqing83) up to high-
permeability sandstone (Snorre88). Thirty-three projects have been
applied in reservoirs where sandstone is the main rock type. Twelve
fields have been characterized as mainly dolomite, five fields were
mainly limestone, and six applications have been in carbonate rock
(Fig. 3). Except for Juravlevsko-Stepanovskoye2–4 and Ekofisk,94 all
projects in carbonate, limestone, and dolomite have been miscible
displacements until now. Dolomite reservoirs mainly have been
flooded with CO2 (except for Fenn Big Valley45 and Jay Little
Escambia31). Sandstone, carbonate, and limestone reservoirs have
used both hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gases as injection fluids.
Only six projects have until now been reported from the offshore
environment (Fig. 4), all of them using hydrocarbon as injection gas
in the North Sea. Three are miscible (Snorre, Brae South, and
Statfjord), and three are immiscible (Brage, Gullfaks, Ekofisk).
The WAG ratio used is initially 1 in most cases, but varies up to
3 (Kelly Snyder) and 4 (Jay Little Escambia). The slug sizes of the
April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 TABLE 1—WAG INJECTION INCLUDED IN STUDY: DATA AND REFERENCES
WAG Startup Name Location Injectant Drive/Displ. Formation Reference
1 1957 North Pembina Alberta, Canada HC Misc. Sandstone 1
2 1959 Romashkinskoye Minnebaevsky Unit, Russia 2–4
3 1960 University Block 9 Texas LPG Misc. Limestone 5,6
4 1960 Midlands Farm Texas propane Misc. Limestone 7
5 1960 Juravlevsko-Stepanovskoye Orenburg, Russia Immisc. Carbonate 2–4
6 1961 South Ward Texas propane Misc. Sandstone 8
7 1962 Adena Colorado propane Misc. Sand 9
8 1964 Hassi-Messaoud Algeria HC Misc. 5,10
9 1964 Mead Strawn Texas CO2 Sand 1
10 1966 Fairway Texas HC Misc. Limestone 5,11
11 1968 Ozek-Suat Chichen-Inguish, Russia HC Misc. Sandstone 2–4
12 1970 Goyt-kort Chichen-Inguish, Russia HC Misc. Sandstone 2–4
13 1972 Kelly Snyder Texas CO2 Misc. Carbonate 12,13
14 1972 Levelland Texas ENG/CO2 Misc. Limestone 1,5,14,15
15 1972 Willard (Wasson) Texas CO2 Misc. Dolomite 1
16 1973 South Swan Alberta, Canada NGL Misc. Carbonate, calcarenite 16
17 1976 Rock Cr eek West Virginia CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 17
18 1976 Lick Creek Arkansas CO 2 Immisc. Sandstone 18,19
19 1976 Granny's Creek West Virginia CO2 Misc. Sandstone 20
20 1976 Slaughter Estate (SEU) Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 21–23
21 1977 Willesden Green Alberta, Canada HC/N 2 Misc. Sandstone 24
22 1980 Garber Oklahoma CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 25
23 1980 Purdy Springer NE Oklahoma CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 26–28
24 1981 Maljamar New Mexico CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 29
25 1981 Jay Little Escambia N2 Misc. Dolomite,carbonate 30–32
26 1981 Little Knife North Dakota CO 2 Misc. Carbonate 33
27 1981 Quarantine Bay Louisiana CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 34
28 1981 Twofreds (Delaware) Texas Exhaust gas Sandstone 35
29 1982 Wilmington California CO2N2 Immisc. Sands 36
30 1983 Joffre Viking Alberta CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 37
31 1983 San Andres SESSAU,Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 38–42
32 1983 Wasson Denver Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 1,43,44
33 1983 Fenn Big Valley Alberta HC Misc. Dolomite 45
34 1982–83 Prudhoe Bay Alaska Enriched Misc. Sandstone 46–54
35 1984 Samotlor Siberia, Russia Immisc. Sandstone 2–4
36 1984 Caroline Alberta, Canada Misc. Sandstone 55,56
37 1985 Kuparuk River Alaska HC Immisc. Sandstone 57–60
38 1985 Kuparuk River Alaska HC Misc. Sandstone 61
39 1985 Judy Creek Alberta HC Misc. Limestone 62–64
40 1985 Mitsue Alberta HC Misc. Sandstone 65
41 1985 East Vacuum New Mexico CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 66
42 1985 Dollarhide Texas CO 2 Misc. 67–69
43 1986 Rangely Weber Colorado CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 70–74
44 1986 Hanford Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 75
45 1986 S. Wasson Clearfork Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 76
46 1986 Wertz Tensleep CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 77
47 1988 Kaybob North Alberta HC Misc. Carbonate 78
48 1989 N. Ward Estes Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite, sandstone 79,80
49 1989 Lost Soldier Field Wyoming CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 81
50 1989 Gullfaks North Sea HC Immisc. Sandstone 82
51 1989 Daqing China HC Immisc. Sandstone 83,84
52 1993 Neches Texas CO 2 Misc. Sandstone 85
53 1994 Snorre North Sea HC Misc. Sandstone 86–88
54 1994 Brage North Sea HC Immisc. Sandstone 89,90
55 1994 Slaughter Sundown (SSU) Texas CO 2 Misc. Dolomite 91
56 1994 Brae South U.K. HC Misc. Sandstone 24
57 1994 Statfjord North Sea HC Misc. Sandstone 92
58 1995 Mattoon Illinois CO 2 Immisc. Sandstone 93
59 1996 Ekofisk North Sea HC Immisc. Carbonate 94

gas volume are mostly in the range of 0.1 to 3 pore volume (PV). TABLE 2—GEOGRAPHIC PLACEMENT OF REVIEWED
Half of the fields giving data for slug sizes (15 cases) are in this WAG FIELD APPLICATIONS
range. When hybrid WAG injection is used, the initial slug can be
up to 40% hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) (San Andres38–42). U.S.A. Canada Russia Norway China U.K. Algiers
WAG 37 9 5 5 1 1 1
Improved Oil Recovery by WAG Injection. Table 3 shows the
SWAG 4 — — — — — —
estimated improved oil recovery usually compared to waterflood-

April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 99

 S ta r tu p o f W A G P r o je c ts
Cumulative Number of WAG Projects Since 1957
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1970
Year
Fig. 1—Cumulative number of WAG applications started since
1957 (SWAG injection not included).
ing. Most of the field cases are tertiary WAG processes and have
been compared to extension of the waterflood period. The data
generated have been extracted from publications and contain a dif-
ferent approach in the calculated recovery estimates.
The average improved recovery from Table 3 is calculated to be
9.7% for miscible WAG injection and, as expected, somewhat lower
for immiscible gas (6.4%). The highest improved oil recovery is,
surprisingly, obtained in carbonate formations, and dolomites have
higher predicted recoveries than the average for sandstones.
The type of injection gas also has been compared. CO2 shows
an average improved oil recovery of 10%, while hydrocarbon gas
and nitrogen have an improved oil recovery of 8%. The higher
recovery by CO2 may be coupled to the fact that most CO2 WAG
injections are miscible, while the hydrocarbon gas WAG field tests
in a large fraction are immiscible.
Design of the WAG Project. The WAG injection is normally
applied as an enhanced oil recovery method, meaning that the oil
field has been in production for some time and has experienced
both primary depletion and waterflooding. The main objective is
to achieve additional recovery compared to other possible injec-
tion operations. The fields reviewed have in most cases reported
increased recovery (Table 3), and in almost all cases the WAG
injection has been considered a success. As mentioned previous-
ly, one of the first issues to decide is whether a miscible or
immiscible drive should be applied. This decision is based on
availability, but it is mainly reported to be an economic consider-
ation. Several of the reviewed fields have been under repressur-
ization to achieve miscibility before WAG injection has been ini-
WAG Field Applications
Not Classified
3%
Immiscible
18%
Fig. 2—Miscible/immiscible WAG applications (total of 59 projects).
100
tiated. Examples are University Block 9, Lost Soldier, Rock
Creek, and Garber.
Injection Gas. The injection gases used in WAG projects today
can be classified into roughly three groups: CO2, hydrocarbons,
and nonhydrocarbons (CO2 excluded). CO2 is an expensive gas and
is generally used when miscible drive should be achieved, or if
special options for deliverance exist. It is worth noticing that cor-
rosion problems are often mentioned and seem impossible to avoid
when using CO2. Several reviews of CO2 gas injection application
are given in the literature.103–105 Among the 60 reviewed projects,
28 used CO2 as injection gas (Fig. 5).
Hydrocarbon gas is available directly from the production. For
1980 1990 2000 this reason all offshore WAG injections today use hydrocarbon
gases, although the possibility of injecting CO2 offshore is currently
being investigated for environmental reasons. Twenty-four of the
reviewed field cases used hydrocarbon gas either injected as dry gas
or enriched before injection.
Only two fields have used nitrogen (Jay Little Escambia30–32) or
flue gas/exhaust gas (Twofreds35), mainly because special supplies
were available nearby. Wilmington36 injected 85% CO2 and 15% N2.
Fig. 6 shows the effect of the cumulative gas injected into six
fields.24,91 Except for the Slaughter fields (Estate and Sundown) the
curves seem to have the same shape, shown by the solid lines. We
believe that there is an optimal amount of gas to be injected during
a WAG flood. When this value is exceeded, gas recycling occurs
and very little additional recovery is gained from further WAG
injection without major well changes. A plot of cumulative injected
gas volume vs. increased oil recovery (shown in Fig. 6) may be
helpful for estimating the optimal amount of gas to be injected.
Injection Pattern. The five-spot injection pattern seems to be
the most popular onshore with a fairly close well spacing (Table 3).
Because many of the field applications (especially in Texas) are
miscible operations, many wells will give a good control of the
field pressure and thus of the WAG-injection performance. Judy
Creek increased the number of wells, thereby reducing the injec-
tion pattern. Higher recovery was achieved.63 Neches reported less
recovery owing to a lack of pattern development.85
Whereas regular patterns are normally applied onshore, they are
seldom used offshore. This is because of the increased price of
drilling and data collection. Although most of the field cases off-
shore are pilots, large WAG injections are expected in the near
future in the North Sea. In these projects, wells are more likely to
be placed from geological considerations.
Tapering. Tapering occurs when the water/gas ratio in the WAG
process is increasing or decreasing throughout the flood. Tapering
has generally been used, even in the very first WAG-injection field
trials in the early 1960’s. In many cases, tapering was not planned
WAG Field Applications—Rock Types
Not Classified
Carbonate 5%
10%
Dolomite
20%
Sand
57%
Limestone
Miscible 8%
79%
Fig. 3—Reservoir types where WAG injection has been applied
(total of 59 projects).
April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 WAG Field Applications
Offshore
12%
Onshore
88%
Fig. 4—WAG injections on- and offshore (total of 59 projects).
but has been a consequence of increased recycling. The injection
volume of water relative to gas has been increased at a later stage
of the WAG injection to control channeling and breakthrough of
gas. Tapering is especially important when an expensive gas source
is used. An example of extensive use of tapering can be seen on the
Rangely field.70–74
Operational Problems. In the production life of an oil field, some
operational problems cannot be avoided. The WAG injection is
more demanding than a pure gas or water injection because the
injection fluid must be changed frequently. Although only a small
number of operational problems are reported, they are basically the
same issues from the different fields. Table 4 gives an overview of
problems reported from the fields; some of the problems believed
to have been most severe are discussed in this section.
Early Breakthrough in Production Wells. Poor understanding
of the reservoir or an inadequate reservoir description can lead to
unexpected events such as early gas breakthrough. Several field
cases report of early gas breakthrough caused by channeling or
override, as previously mentioned. These problems are difficult to
solve, and the wells are in some cases shut in long before sched-
uled. For offshore fields, override can be very critical because the
number of wells in the projects is generally very limited. Among
the miscible projects, loss of pressure is a serious problem; loss of
miscibility will result in significantly lower recovery.6,9 The
University Block 96 experienced this problem; however, an incre-
mental recovery was still achieved because of the phase behavior
(near-miscible effects). Table 4 gives an overview of the field cases
where override or channeling was experienced.
Reduced Injectivity. Reduced injectivity means less gas or
water injected in the reservoir. This will lead to a more rapid pres-
sure drop in the reservoir, which again will affect displacement and
production. The cause for reduced injectivity could be a change in
relative permeability owing to three-phase flow, wellbore heating,
and thereby reduced effects of thermal fractures during gas injec-
tion or precipitates (hydrates and asphaltenes) formed in the near-
well zone. It is a common trend that while reduced injectivity of
water is observed after a gas slug, the injectivity of the gas after a
water slug generally is not a major problem (Table 4). Sometimes
injectivity is even increased. An example of better gas injectivity
than water is shown in the Brage field.90 A more unusual injectivity
increase was found in Kelly Snyder (a carbonate reservoir), where
injectivity was increased owing to dissolved reservoir rock.
Corrosion. Corrosion is a problem that must be solved in
almost all WAG injection projects. This is mainly owing to the fact
that the WAG injection normally is applied as a secondary or terti-
ary recovery method. The project will then have to take over old
injection and production facilities originally not designed for this
April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
kind of injection. Six fields have reported corrosion problems.
These problems seem to occur mainly on the injection side, and in
two cases (Wertz Tensleep and Purdy Springer) the submersible
pumps were affected. These problems have been solved, in most
cases, by usage of high quality steel (different kinds of stainless
steels34,85 or ferric steel28,77), coating of pipes, and treatment of
equipment.26 Lick Creek experienced corrosion problems after gas
breakthrough (CO2). Only applications using CO2 as injection fluid
have reported severe corrosion problems. The Neches field gives a
suggestion for design of injection facilities when using this gas.85
Other kinds of problems related to CO2 are given in Refs. 103–105.
Scale Formation. The occurrence of scales in WAG field trials is
usually and quite logically found when CO2 is the injected gas
source. The scale formation may stress the pipelines and can lead to
failure. East Vacuum reports of this problem.66 In CO2 floods, cas-
ings often have been coated with an extra layer for corrosion protec-
tion; this layer can be damaged by scale, and corrosion (pitting28,34)
can occur. In worst cases, production stops have been needed either
for chemical squeeze treatments or while repairing the damage.
Asphaltene and Hydrate Formation. Asphaltenes and hydrates
may lead to problems and disturbances in production. Although the
problems connected with the precipitations are the same, the factors
influencing the formation are better known for hydrates than for
asphaltenes. Thus, hydrate formation normally can be controlled
with methanol solvent treatment.
Asphaltenes. Several fields have experienced problems because
of asphaltenes (East Vacuum, Wertz Tensleep, Mitsue). In many
cases, the problem could be solved with solvent treatment at proper
intervals. In a few cases wells have been shut in, but in a majority
of the cases reported production has not been drastically influ-
enced. In Rangely Weber, the asphaltenes were mainly a problem
shortly after the CO2 breakthrough and disappeared again after
some time.74 The Snorre field88 has discovered asphaltenes in Well
P-18 , but this has not caused any production stoppage. In Mitsue,65
the asphaltenes have been a problem mainly when they have
caused submersible pumps to fail. The presence of asphaltenes
may lead to production-delays/stops and can thereby affect the
economy of a project.
Hydrates. Recently, a WAG pilot was delayed on Ekofisk94
owing to plugging of the injector. This was caused by hydrate for-
mation owing to low temperature in the injector. Another problem
related to hydrates was reported by Wasson Denver.43 Here,
hydrate formation in wells caused freezing of the wellhead during
the nights and periods of cold weather. When trawing occurred,
extremely high gas/oil ratios (GOR’s) were seen because of the
buildup near wellbore gas.
Different Temperatures of Injected Phases. It is normal that
the temperatures of the water and gas phases are different under
injection. Temperature differences because of the WAG process
have resulted in stress-related tubing failures at both Rangely
Weber71 and Brage.89 In the Brage case, further adjustment of the
possibility for tubing expansion eliminated this problem in other
WAG injectors. Quarantine Bay34 (CO2 injection) is another
example of adjusting the injection design to successfully prevent
these problems.
Simultaneous Water/Gas Injection
The simultaneous injection of gas and water was first tried in 1962
(Seelington Field), as reported by Humble Oil. Rangely Weber,
Kuparuk, and Joffre Viking have since tested this process.
Whereas the injection in Seelington106 was unsuccessful owing
to loss of injectivity, the reports from Kuparuk, Rangely Weber,
and Joffre Viking are optimistic. These projects (all pilots) were
started for different reasons. Joffre Viking37 compared two proj-
ects, a standard WAG injection and a SWAG injection. They con-
cluded that the SWAG injection gave the best recovery. The pilot
was done with dual-injection strings (one for gas and one for
water). In Rangely Weber107 the objective was to optimize the
injection because the wells were switched manually. The recovery
was slightly higher (0.5%) and the GOR in producers was more
stable compared with a normal WAG injection. The disadvantage
was increased monitoring of the injection system because of its
101
 TABLE 3—PREDICTED AND INCREMENTAL RECOVERIES, INJECTION PATTERN, OIL VISCOSITIES,
WAG RATIO CHANNELING, AND INJECTIVITY DATA*
Increased Recovery (Over Waterflood)

Increased Increased
Total Recovery Recovery (%) Oil Slug
Injection Recovery (%) Observed Viscosity Size, HCPV WAG Override/ Injectivity
WAG Name Pattern Predicted Predicted (Paper) (cp) (%) Ratio Channeling (Reduced)

1 North Pembina Inv. 5 spot 72 9.4 1.38 Yes

2 Romashkinskoye
3 University Block 9 Ring 60–89 + 0.25
4 Midlands Farm + + 2
5 Juravlevsko-Step.
6 South Ward 5 spot 37 3–4
7 Adena Line drive + + 0.42 Yes
8 Hassi-Messaoud 0.21 3 0.87 Yes (g)
9 Mead Strawn 1.3
10 Fairway 50 13 + 5 Yes
11 Ozek-Suat
12 Goyt-kort
13 Kelly Snyder Inv. 9 spot 55 10 6 0.35 1.5 3 No No (increased)
14 Levelland 5 spot 1.93 Yes (w)
15 Wasson Willard 0.97 20 1 No
16 South Swan 9 spot 65 20 0.38 +10 >1 to 1.25
17 Rock Creek 5 spot 3.2
18 Lick Creek 11.1 3.1 160 1 Yes
19 Granny’s Creek 5 spot 37.11 + 1.94
20 Slaughter Estate 5 spot 70 19.6 14.9 2 25 2:1 Init. Yes (w+g)
21 Willesden Green
22 Garber 5 spot 10 2.1 35 1 Yes No
23 Purdy Springer NE 5 spot 7.5 2.4 1.41 7.5 2
24 Maljamar 14 0.8 Yes (w)
25 Jay Little Escambia Line 58.93 6.5 0.18 <1 4 Yes Yes (w 40%)
26 Little Knife 18 1
27 Quarantine Bay 20.1 2 0.94 18.9 1 No No
28 Twofreds Modified line 4.8 1.467 54.7 1–5
29 Wilmington Line 12.5 1 180–410
30 Joffre Viking Inv. 5 spot + 1 10 1 Yes
31 San Andres Means Inv. 9 spot 7.1 6 Hybrid (40) 2 No No
32 Wasson Denver Inv. 9 spot + Yes (w)
33 Fenn Big Valley 15 5 1.41 15 1.3
34 Prudhoe Bay 5.2 1.3 1 2 Yes
35 Samotlor
36 Caroline 33 4 2 Yes Yes
37 Kuparuk R. 52 1 No No
(Immiscible)
38 Kuparuk R. 52 .5 1 No No
(Miscible)
39 Judy Creek Inv. 5 spot 6.5 2.8 15 1 Yes
40 Mitsue 65 12.5 0.6 15,25 1 Yes No
41 East Vacuum Inv. 9 spot 47 3.8 10 2
42 Dollarhide 5 spot 62 19 0.7 0.4 30 No No
43 Rangely Weber 49 19 1.7 1.5 1–3 No Yes (w)
44 Hanford 5 spot 14.2 1.38 3 1 No
45 S. Wasson Clearf. 5 spot 10 1 3 2 No
46 Wertz Tensleep 3.8 1.28 2.5 1 No
47 Kaybob North 50.9 12.3 0.19 1.2 1 Yes
48 N. Ward Estes 5 spot+line 8 4.3 1.4 1.5 1 No
49 Lost Soldier Field Line 54.2 9.9 5.7 1.38 1 Yes (w)
50 Gullfaks Line/pattern 5 1.19 5 1 Yes
51 Daqing 8.6 0.5 1 Yes (w)
52 Neches
53 Snorre Line/pattern 52 0.8 <1 1 Yes
54 Brage Inj. from rim 34 9–12 4 0.56 1 Yes Yes
* No data are given for the latest field applications. For the blank cells, no data were available.

instability. Increased corrosion control and prevention of backflow bonate acid. The injectivity was not drastically decreased in the
(injectors) were very important, as the mixing of CO2 gives car- SWAG injection. In Kuparuk108 the objective of the pilot was to

102 April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

WAG Field Applications—Gas Injected L= distance between wells, m
M= mobility ratio
Rv/g = viscous to gravity force ratio
Not Classified Rf = recovery factor, %
8% m= viscosity, kg/(m2·s)
n= Darcy velocity, m/s
r= density, kg/m3

Hydrocarbon Subscripts
42% g = gas
H = horizontal
m = microscopic
o = oil
CO2 r = relative
47% V = vertical

N2 /Exhaust
3%
Fig. 5—Types of injection gas used in WAG applications (total of
59 projects).
have only one injection system, instead of having separate injec-
tion systems for both gas and water. Thus, the mixing of the gas
and water phases was done before injection, and the mixture was
pumped to the injection site. This gives challenges to the tubing
because a branch acts as a separation device. The injectivity was
reduced when increasing the gas fraction of the injection mixture.
Conclusion
An extensive review of the WAG injection process has been pre-
sented. Fifty-nine field cases are included as presented in the open
literature. The majority of these projects have resulted in a signifi-
cant incremental oil recovery, generally about 5 to 10%.
It is important to have a good understanding of the phase
behavior of reservoir oil, injected gas mixtures, and reservoir het-
erogeneities to avoid early breakthrough of injection gas.
Tapering has proved to be efficient tool to optimize the recovery
from WAG processes.
The main problems connected with the operation of a WAG
injection process seem to be corrosion, mainly of injection facili-
ties but also of production equipment after gas breakthrough when
using CO2 as a gas phase; and loss of water injectivity. Negative
effects of WAG injection are rarely seen, and most operational
problems are handled successfully.
Recent application of the WAG process has shown that the
option of disposing produced gas may lead to considerable
improved oil recovery. This is of special interest in offshore envi-
ronments with limited gas-handling, storage, and export capacities.
Nomenclature
E = sweep/displacement efficiency, fraction
g = gravitational acceleration, m/s2
h = height of the displacement zone, m
k = permeability, m2
Cumulative Gas Injected
Increased recovery, %OIIP
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper wish to thank L. Surguchev, RF-
Rogaland Research, for valuable input on the application of the
WAG process in Russian fields.
References
1. van Poollen, H.K.: “Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil Recovery,”
PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1980).
2. Surguchev, M.: “Methods of Secondary and Tertiary Oil Recovery,”
Nedra, Moscow, (1985; in Russian) 308.
3. Surguchev, L.: “WAG injection,” Report 197/90, RF-Rogaland
Research, Stavanger (1990).
4. Kurbanov, A.K. et al: “Efficiency of Water-Gas displacement of Oil
in the Reservoir,” VNII-75, Moscow (1981; in Russian) 55.
5. Stalkup, F.I.: Miscible Displacement, Monograph Series, SPE,
Richardson, Texas (1980) 8.
6. Holloway, H.D. and Fitch, R.A.: “Performance of a Miscible Flood
with Alternate Gas-Water Displacement,” JPT (April 1964) 372.
7. Cone C.: “Case History of the University Block 9 (Woldcamp)
Field—A Gas-Water Injection Secondary Recovery Project,” JPT
(December 1970) 1485.
8. Blanton, J.R., McCaskill, N., and Herbeck, E.F.: “Performance of a
Propane Slug Pilot in a Watered-Out Sand—South Ward Field,” JPT
(October 1970) 1209.
9. Holm, L.W.: “Propane-Gas-Water Miscible Floods In Watered-Out
Areas of the Adena Field,” JPT (October 1972) 1264.
10. Dyes, A.B. et al.: “Alternate Injection of HPG and Water—A Two
Well Pilot,” paper SPE 4082 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual
Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 October.
11. Lackland, S.D. and Hurford, G.T.: “Advanced Technology Improves
Recovery at Fairway,” JPT (March 1973) 354.
12. Kane, A.V.: “Performance Review of a Large-Scale CO2-WAG
Enhanced Recovery Project, SACROC Unit—Kelly Snyder,” JPT
(February 1979) 217; Trans., AIME, 267.
13. Langston, M.V., Hoadley, S.F., and Young, D.N.: “Definitive CO2
Flooding Response in the SACROC Unit,” paper SPE 17321 pre-
sented at the 1988 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17–20 April.
14. Graham, B.D. and Bowen, J.F.: “Design and Implementation of a
Levelland Unit CO2 Tertiary Pilot,” paper SPE 8831 presented at the
1980 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 20–23 April.
15. Brannan, G. and Whitington, H.M. Jr.: “Enriched Gas Miscible

12
10 Flooding: A Case History of the Levelland Unit Secondary Miscible
Kelly Snyder Project,” JPT (August 1977) 919.
8
Rangely Weber 16. Griffith, J.D. and Cyca, L.G.: “Performance of South Swan Hills
6
Mitsue
Miscible Flood,” JPT (July 1981) 1319; Trans., AIME, 271.
4
Jay Little Escambia 17. Brummert, A.C. et al.: “Rock Creek Oil Field CO2, Pilot Tests, Roane
2
Slaughter Sundown
County, West Virginia,” JPT (March 1988) 339.
0 18. Reid, T.B. and Robinson, H.J.: “Lick Creek Meakin Sand Unit
0 10 20 30 40 50 Slaughter Estate
Cumulative gas injected, PV
Immiscible CO2/Waterflood Project,” JPT (September 1981) 1723.
19. Moffitt, P.D. and Zornes, D.R.: “Postmortem Analysis: Lick Creek
Fig. 6—Increased recovery vs. cumulative gas injected. Meakin Sand Unit Immiscible CO2 Waterflood Project,” paper SPE

April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 103

 TABLE 4—REPORTED OPERATION PROBLEMS/DIFFICULTIES FROM THE WAG INJECTION

Field Operation Problems/Limitations Reported

Juravlevsko-Stepanovskoye Premature closedown owing to channeling
Interval of few days between injection of gas and water
Hassi-Messaoud for pressure reduction at wellhead
Kelly Snyder CO2 deliverance, compressors CO2
Rock Creek Shortage of CO2, labor problems
Lick Creek Oil prices dropped, channeling; valve problems on compressor
Foaming problems in oil; severe corrosion in producers
Granny’s Creek Casing leak, wellhead repair, CO2 delivery problems, channeling
Slaughter Estate Deliverance of CO2
Purdy Springer Submersial pumps corroded
Maljaha Corrosion
Jay Little Escambia Injectivity reduction (but voidage replacement still achieved)
Quarantine Bay Downhole corrosion
San Andres Reinjection of produced gas owing to economic considerations
Wasson Denver Hydrate formation froze wellhead
Fenn Big Valley Problems with downhole pumps at high GOR’s
Caroline Early breakthrough, drop in oil prices
Mitsue Asphaltenes causing submersial pumps to fail
Asphaltene deposition; xylene and toluene washes necessary
East Vacuum Asphaltenes participation in wells after CO2 breakthrough
Corrosion, occurrence of CaSO4+scale formation
Dollarhide Scales, asphaltenes
Rangely Weber Corrosion, asphaltenes
Injection problems owing to temperature changes at different phases
Gas recompression limits
South Wasson High wellhead pressures with tubing full of CO2
Tensleep Minor problems with corrosion of submersial pumps, asphaltenes
Lost Soldier Mechanical problems with pumps owing to sour gas injection
Gullfaks Compressor specification would not allow enriched gas injection
Snorre Gas production limited oil production—well with high GOR shut in
Brage One well was shut in
Tubing malfunction owing to heating and expansion from injected gas
Ekofisk Hydrate formation gave injectivity problems

24933 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
20. Watts, R.J. et al.: “CO2 Injection for Tertiary Oil Recovery, Granny’s
Creek Field, Clay County, West Virginia,” paper SPE 10693 pre-
sented at the 1982 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 4–7 April.
21. Rowe, H.G., York, S.D., and Ader, J.C.: “Slaughter Estate Unit
Tertiary Pilot Performance,” JPT (March 1982) 613.
22. Stein, M.H. et al.: “Slaughter Estate Unit CO2 Flood Pilot and Field-
Scale Performance,” JPT (September 1992) 1026.
23. Merchant, D.H. and Thakur, S.C.: “Reservoir Management in Tertiary
CO2 Floods,” paper SPE 26624 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
24. Fayers, F.J., Taggert, J.P., and Sargent, N.: “Study of WAG displace-
ment and its application to new projects—phase 1,” Improved Oil
Recovery, DTI Conference Center, London (1996).
25. Kumar, R. and Eibeck, J.N.: “CO2 Flooding a Waterflooded Shallow
Pennsylvanian Sand in Oklahoma: A Case History,” paper SPE 12668
presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 15–18 April.
26. Brinlee, L.D.: “Planning and Development of the Northeast Purdy
Springer CO2 Miscible Project,” paper SPE 11163 presented at the
1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 26–29 September.
27. Fox, M.J., Simlote, V.N., and Beaty, W.G.: “Evaluation of CO2 Flood
Performance, Springer ‘A’ Sand, NE Purdy Unit, Garvin County,
Oklahoma,” paper SPE 12665 presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 15–16 April.
28. Fox, M.J. et al.: “Review of CO2 Flood Springer ‘A’ Sand, NE Purdy
Unit, Garvin County, Oklahoma,” paper SPE 14938 presented at the
1986 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 20–23 April.
29. Pittaway, K.R. et al.: “The Maljamar Carbon Dioxide Pilot: Review
and Results,” JPT (October 1987) 1256.
30. Christian, L.D. et al.: “Planning a Tertiary Oil-Recovery Project for
Jay/LEC Fields Unit,” JPT (August 1981) 1535.
31. Greenwalt, W.A. et al.: “A Field Test of Nitrogen WAG Injectivity,”
JPT (February 1982) 266.
32. Langston, E.P. and Shirer, J.A.: “Performance of Jay/LEC Fields Unit
Under Mature Waterflood and Early Tertiary Operations,” JPT
(February 1985) 261.
33. Desch, J.B. et al.: “Enhanced Oil Recovery by CO2 Miscible
Displacement in the Little Knife Field, Billings County, North
Dakota,” JPT (September 1984) 1592.
34. Hsie, J.C. and Moore, J.S.: “The Quarantine Bay 4RC CO2-WAG
Pilot Project: A Post-Flood Evaluation,” paper SPE 15498 presented
at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 5–8 October.
35. Kirkpatrick, R.K., Flanders, W.A., and DePauw, R.M.: “Performance
of the Twofreds CO2 Injection Project,” paper SPE 14439 presented
at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 22–25 September.

104 April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 36. Spivak, A., Garrison, W.H., and Nguyen, J.P.: “Review of an
Immiscible CO2 Project, Tar Zone, Fault Block V, Wilmington Field,
California,” SPERE (May 1990) 155.
37. Stephenson, D.J., Graham, A.G., and Luhning R.W.: “Mobility
Control Experience in the Joffre Viking Miscible CO2 Flood,” SPERE
(August 1993) 183.
38. Magruder, J.B., Stiles, L.H., and Yelverton, T.D.: “A Review of the
Means San Andres Unit Full-Scale CO2 Tertiary Project,” JPT (May
1990) 638.
39. Prieditis, J., Wolle, C.R., and Notz, P.K.: “A Laboratory and Field
Injectivity Study CO2 WAG In the San Andres Formation of West
Texas,” paper SPE 22653 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6–9 October.
40. Roper, M.K. et al.: “Interpretation of a CO2 WAG Injectivity Test in
the San Andres Formation Using a Compositional Simulator,” paper
SPE 24163 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–24 April.
41. Claridge, E.L.: “CO2 Flooding Strategy in a Communicating Layered
Reservoir,” JPT (December 1982) 2746; Trans., AIME, 273.
42. Chase C.A. Jr. and Todd, M.: “Numerical Simulation of CO2 Flood
Performance,” JPT (December 1984) 597.
43. Tanner, C.S. et al.: “Production Performance of the Wasson Denver
Unit CO2 Flood,” paper SPE 24156 presented at the 1992
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
22–24 April.
44. Hsu, C-F., Morell, J.I., and Falls, A.H.: “Field-Scale CO2-Flood
Simulations and Their Impact on the Performance of the Wasson
Denver Unit,” SPERE (February 1997) 4.
45. Asgarpour, S.S. and Todd, M.R.: “Evaluation of Volumetric
Conformance for Fenn-Big Valley Horizontal Hydrocarbon Miscible
Flood,” paper SPE 18079 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2–5 October.
46. Rupp, K.A. et al.: “Design and Implementation of a Miscible Water-
Alternating-Gas Flood at Prudhoe Bay,” paper SPE 13272 presented
at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 16–19 September.
47. Genrich, J.F., Choi, G.N., and Haldorsen, H.H.: “Profile Control of
Prudhoe Bay WAG Miscible Floods,” paper presented at the 1986
Reservoir Engineering Technology Exchange Conference, Scottsdale,
Arizona, 9–13 March.
48. Willamson, A.S. et al.: “The Planning of a Large-Scale Miscible
Flood at Prudhoe Bay,” JPT (October 1986)1103; Trans., AIME, 281.
49. McGuire, P.L. and Moritz, A.L. Jr.: “Compositional Simulation and
Performance Analysis of the Prudhoe Bay Miscible Gas Projects,”
SPERE (August 1992) 329.
50. Spence, A.P., and Ostrander, J.F.: “Comparison of WAG and
Continuous Enriched-Gas Injection as Miscible Processes in
Sadlerochit Core,” paper SPE 11962 presented at the 1983 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,
5–8 October.
51. Kwan, G.W.L.: “Correlating Waterflood Ultimate Recovery With
Controllable Field Operating Variables in Prudhoe Bay,” paper SPE
24647 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
52. McGuire, P.L. and Stalkup, F.I.: “Performance Analysis and
Optimization of the Prudhoe Bay Miscible-Gas Project,” SPERE
(May 1995) 88; Trans., AIME, 299.
53. Dawson, A.G., Jackson, D.D., and Buskirk, D.L.: “Impact of Solvent
Injection Strategy and Reservoir Description on Hydrocarbon
Miscible EOR for the Prudhoe Bay Unit, Alaska,” paper SPE 19657
presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 October.
54. Cockin, A.P.: “New Methodology for Prudhoe Bay Miscible Gas
Distribution,” paper SPE 24159 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–24 April.
55. Cuesta, J.F. and Merrit, G.C.: “Caroline W.A.G. Project Injectivity and
Interference Test, A Field Example,” 1982 Annual Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary.
April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
56. Birarda, G.S., Dilger, C.W., and McIntosh, I.: “Re-Evaluation of the
Miscible WAG Flood in the Caroline Field, Alberta,” SPERE
(November 1990) 453.
57. Champion, J.H. and Sheldon, J.B.: “An Immiscible WAG Injection
Project in the Kuparuk River Unit,” JPT (May 1989) 533.
58. Champion, J.H. and Sheldon, J.B.: “An Immiscible WAG Injection
Project in the Kuparuk River Unit,” paper SPE 16719 presented at the
1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
27–30 September.
59. Ma, T.D. and Youngren, G.K.: “Performance of Immiscible Water-
Alternating-Gas (IWAG) Injection at Kuparuk River Unit, North
Slope, Alaska,” paper SPE 28602 presented at the 1994 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
25–28 September.
60. Hoolahan, S.P. et al.: “Kuparuk Large-Scale Enhanced Oil Recovery
Project,” SPERE (May 1997) 82.
61. Reinbold, E.W. et al.: “Early Performance and Evaluation of the
Kuparuk River Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood,” paper SPE 24930 pre-
sented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
62. Lloyd, C.J.: “Managing Hydrocarbon Injection at Judy Creek,” J.
Cdn. Pet. Tech. (February 1995).
63. Pritchard, D.W.L et al.: “Reservoir Surveillance Impacts
Management of the Judy Creek Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood,” paper
SPE 20228 presented at the 1990 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–25 April.
64. Pritchard, D.W.L. and Nieman, R.E.: “Improving Oil Recovery
Through WAG Cycle Optimization in a Gravity-Override-
Dominated Miscible Flood,” paper SPE 24181 presented at the 1992
SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
22–24 April.
65. Omoregie, Z.S. and Jackson, G.R.: “Early Performance of a Large
Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood at the Mitsue Field, Alberta,” paper SPE
16718 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 27–30 September.
66. Brownlee, M.H. and Sugg, L.A.: “East Vacuum Grayburg-San Andres
Unit CO2 Injection Project: Development and Results to Date,” paper
SPE 16721 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 27–30 September.
67. Poole, E.S.: “Evaluation and Implementation of CO2 Injection at the
Dollarhide Devonian Unit,” paper SPE 17277 presented at the 1988
SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
Texas, 10–11 March.
68. Lin, E.C. and Poole, E.S.: “Numerical Evaluation of the Effectiveness
of Single-Slug, WAG, and Hybrid CO2 Injection Processes,
Dollarhide Devonian Unit, Andrews County, Texas,” SPERE
(November 1991) 415.
69. Bellavance, J.F.R.: “Dollarhide Devonian CO2 Flood: Project
Performance Review 10 Years Later,” paper SPE 35190 presented at
the 1996 Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
Texas, 27–29 March.
70. Masoner, L.O., Abidi, H.R., and Hild, G.P.: “Diagnosing CO2 Flood
Performance Using Actual Performance Data,” paper SPE 35363 pre-
sented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 21–24 April.
71. Masoner, L.O. and Wackowski, R.K.: “Rangely Weber Sand Unit
CO2 Project Update,” SPERE (August 1995) 203; Trans., AIME, 299.
72. Fullbright, G.D. et al.: “Evolution of Conformance Improvement
Efforts in a Major CO2 WAG Injection Project,” paper SPE 35361
presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 21–24 April.
73. Attanucci, V., Aslesen, K.S., and Wright, C.A.: “WAG Process
Optimization in the Rangely CO2 Miscible Flood,” paper SPE 26622
presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
74. Hervey, J.R. and Iakovakis, A.C.: “Performance Review of a Miscible
CO2 Tertiary Project: Rangely Weber Sand Unit, Colorado,” SPERE
(May 1991) 163.
105
 75. Merritt, M.B. and Groce, J.F.: “A Case History of the Hanford San
Andres Miscible CO2 Project,” JPT (August 1992) 924.
76. Burbank, D.E.: “Early CO2 Flood Experience at the South Wasson
Clearfork Unit,” paper SPE 24160 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–24 April.
77. Kleinsteiber, S.W.: “The Wertz Tensleep CO2 Flood: Design and
Initial Performance,” JPT (May 1990) 630; Trans., AIME, 289.
78. MacLean, D.A.: “Design of a Field-Wide Hydrocarbon Miscible
Flood for the Kaybob Beaverhill Lake ‘A’ Pool,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
(May-June 1989).
79. Winzinger, R. et al.: “Design of a Major CO2 Flood, North Ward
Estes Field, Ward County, Texas,” SPERE (February 1991) 11.
80. Ring, J.M. and Smith, D.J.: “An Overview of the North Ward Estes
CO2 Flood,” paper SPE 30729 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
81. Brokmeyer, R.J., Borling, D.C., and Pierson, W.T.: “Lost Soldier
Tensleep CO2 Tertiary Project, Performance Case History; Bairoil,
Wyoming,” paper SPE 35191 presented at the 1996 SPE Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Conference, Midland, Texas, 27–29 March.
82. Dalen, V., Instefjord, R., and Kristensen, R.: “A WAG formation Pilot
in the Lower Brent Formation at the Gullfaks Field,” paper presented
at the 1993 European IOR Symposium, Moscow.
83. Baojun, F., Xingjia, D., and Cai, Y.: “Pilot Test of Water Alternating
Gas Injection in Heterogeneous Thick Reservoir of Positive Rhythm
Sedimentation of Daqing Oil Field,” SPE Advanced Technology
Series (May 1997) 41.
84. Jingcun, Z. et al.: “Field Test of Immiscible CO2 Drive in Daqing Oil
Field,” SPE Advanced Technology Series (May 1997) 49.
85. Bou-Mikael, S.: “A New Analytical Method to Evaluate, Predict, and
Improve CO2 Flood Performance in Sandstone Reservoirs,” paper
SPE 35362 presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 21–24 April.
86. Nybraaten, G., Svorstoel, I., and Andfossen, P.O.: “WAG Pilot
Evaluation for the Snorre Field,” paper presented at the 1993
European IOR Symposium, Moscow.
87. Stenmark, H. and Andfossen, P.O.: “Snorre WAG Pilot—A Case
Study,” paper presented at the 1995 European IOR Symposium,
Vienna, Austria, 15–17 May.
88. Slotte, P.A., Stenmark, H., and Aurdal, T.: “Snorre WAG pilot,” RUTH
1992-1995, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger (1996).
89. Jensen, J., Nesteby, H., and Slotte, P.A.: “Brage WAG Pilot,” RUTH
1992-1995, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger (1996).
90. Skauge, A., and Berg, E.: “Immiscible WAG Injection in the
Fensfjord Formation of the Brage Oil Field,” paper number 014 pre-
sented at the 1997 European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
The Hague, 20–22 October.
91. Folger, L.K. and Guillot, S.N.: “A Case Study of the Development of
the Sundown Slaughter Unit CO2 Flood Hockley County, Texas,”
paper SPE 35189 presented at the 1996 SPE Permian Basin Oil and
Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 27–29 March.
92. Hinderaker, L. et al.: “RUTH—A Comprehensive Norwegian R&D
Program on IOR,” paper SPE 36844 presented at the 1996 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, 22–24 October.
93. Sim, S.S.K. et al.: “Laboratory Experiments and Reservoir
Simulation Studies in Support of CO2 Injection Project in Mattoon
Field, Illinois, USA,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (1996) 35, No. 2.
94. Hermansen, H. et al.: “Twenty-Five Years of Ekofisk Reservoir
Management,” paper SPE 38927 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October.
95. Larsen, J.A. and Skauge, A.: “Methodology for Numerical Simulation
with Cycle-Dependent Relative Permeabilities,” SPEJ (June 1998) 163.
96. Skauge, A. and Aarra, M.: “Effect of Wettability on the Oil recovery
by WAG,” Proc., 7th European Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Moscow (1993) 2, 452–459.
106
97. Skauge, A. and Larsen, J.A.: “New Approach to Model the WAG
process,” Proc., 15th Intl. Energy Agency Collaborative Project on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Workshop and Symposium, Bergen, Norway
(September 1994).
98. Caudle, B.H. and Dyes, A.B.: “Improving Miscible Displacement by
Gas-Water Injection,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 281.
99. Skauge, A.: “Simulation studies of WAG using three-phase relative
permeability hysteresis models,” paper number 015 presented at the
1997 European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, The Hague,
20–22 October.
100. Henriquez, A. and Jourdan, C.A.: “Management of Sweep-
Efficiency By Gas-Based IOR Methods,” paper SPE 36843 pre-
sented at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan,
Italy, 22–24 October.
101. Olsen, G., Skauge, A., and Stensen, J.Å.: “Evaluation of the potential
application of the WAG process in a north sea reservoir,” paper pre-
sented at the 1991 European Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium,
Stavanger, 21–23 May.
102. Hong, K.C. and Stevens, C.E.: “Water-Alternating-Steam Process
Improves Project Economics at West Coalinga Field,” SPERE
(November 1992) 407; Trans., AIME, 293.
103. Goodrich, J.H.: “Review and Analysis of Past and Ongoing Carbon
Dioxide Injection Field Tests,” paper SPE 8832 presented at the 1980
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
20–23 April.
104. Hadlow, R.E.: “Update of Industry Experience With CO2 Injection,”
paper SPE 24928 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
105. Grigg, R.B. and Schechter, D.S.: “State of Industry in CO2 Floods,”
paper SPE 38849 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October.
106. Walker, J.W. and Turner, J.L.: “Performance of Seeligson Zone
20B-07 Enriched-Gas-Drive Project,” JPT (April 1968) 369.
107. Robie, D.R. Jr., Roedell, J.W., and Wackowski, R.K.: “Field Trial
of Simultaneous Injection of CO2 and Water, Rangely Weber Sand
Unit, Colorado,” paper SPE 29521 presented at the 1995 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
2–4 April.
108. Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., and Stoisits, R.F.: “Simultaneous Water and
Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field, Reservoir Impact,”
paper SPE 30726 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl ´ 1.589 873 E - 01 = m3
ft ´ 3.048 E - 01 = m
SPEREE
Jes R. Christensen is a reservoir research engineer at
TotalFinaElf Exploration UK in London. e-mail: Jes.Christensen@
tfeeuk.co.uk. He holds MS and PhD degrees in chemical
engineering from the Technical U. of Denmark. Erling H.
Stenby is Professor of Applied Thermodynamics at the
Technical U. of Denmark. e-mail: ehs@popeye.kt.dtu.dk. He is
also Director of the Center for Phase Equilibria and
Separation Processes (IVC-SEP), which has a wide range of
research activities relevant to the petroleum and chemical
industry. He holds MS and PhD degrees in chemical engi-
neering from the Technical U. of Denmark. Arne Skauge is
a department manager with Norsk Hydro in Bergen, Norway.
e-mail: Arne.Skauge@hydro.com. He also has served as an
adjunct professor in reservoir physics at the U. of Bergen.
Skauge is a member of the Editorial Review Committee and
has served on the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium
Program Committee.
April 2001 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering