Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Water/Gas Relative Permeability Hysteresis: Applicable to Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection and Gas Storage Processes

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Mobeen Fatemi ◽  
Mehran Sohrabi
Keyword(s):  
Relative Permeability ◽  
Theoretical Investigation ◽  
Gas Storage ◽  
Water Alternating Gas ◽  
Water Gas ◽  
Wag Injection ◽  
Storage Processes

An Improved Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Hysteresis Model for the Simulation of a Water-Alternating-Gas Injection

SPE Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (05) ◽  
pp. 841-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.. Shahverdi ◽  
M.. Sohrabi
Keyword(s):  
Relative Permeability ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Gas Injection ◽  
Phase Flow ◽  
Relative Permeabilities ◽  
Water Alternating Gas ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Three Phase Flow ◽  
Oil Water ◽  
Wag Injection

Summary Water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection in waterflooded reservoirs can increase oil recovery and extend the life of these reservoirs. Reliable reservoir simulations are needed to predict the performance of WAG injection before field implementation. This requires accurate sets of relative permeability (kr) and capillary pressure (Pc) functions for each fluid phase, in a three-phase-flow regime. The WAG process also involves another major complication, hysteresis, which is caused by flow reversal happening during WAG injection. Hysteresis is one of the most important phenomena manipulating the performance of WAG injection, and hence, it has to be carefully accounted for. In this study, we have benefited from the results of a series of coreflood experiments that we have been performing since 1997 as a part of the Characterization of Three-Phase Flow and WAG Injection JIP (joint industry project) at Heriot-Watt University. In particular, we focus on a WAG experiment carried out on a water-wet core to obtain three-phase relative permeability values for oil, water, and gas. The relative permeabilities exhibit significant and irreversible hysteresis for oil, water, and gas. The observed hysteresis, which is a result of the cyclic injection of water and gas during WAG injection, is not predicted by the existing hysteresis models. We present a new three-phase relative permeability model coupled with hysteresis effects for the modeling of the observed cycle-dependent relative permeabilities taking place during WAG injection. The approach has been successfully tested and verified with measured three-phase relative permeability values obtained from a WAG experiment. In line with our laboratory observations, the new model predicts the reduction of the gas relative permeability during consecutive water-and-gas-injection cycles as well as the increase in oil relative permeability happening in consecutive water-injection cycles.

Relative Permeability Characterization for Water-Alternating-Gas Injection in Oil Reservoirs

SPE Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 0799-0808 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.. Shahverdi ◽  
M.. Sohrabi
Keyword(s):  
Relative Permeability ◽  
Gas Injection ◽  
Hysteresis Effect ◽  
Oil Reservoirs ◽  
Unsteady State ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Water Alternating Gas ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Phase Water ◽  
Wag Injection

Summary Large quantities of oil usually remain in oil reservoirs after conventional waterfloods. A significant part of this remaining oil can still be economically recovered by water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection. WAG injection involves drainage and imbibition processes taking place sequentially; therefore, the numerical simulation of the WAG process requires reliable knowledge of three-phase relative permeability (kr) accounting for cyclic-hysteresis effects. In this study, the results of a series of unsteady-state two-phase displacements and WAG coreflood experiments were used to investigate the behavior of three-phase kr and hysteresis effects in the WAG process. The experiments were performed on two different cores with different characteristics and wettability conditions. An in-house coreflood simulator was developed to obtain three-phase relative permeability values directly from unsteady-state WAG experiments by history matching the measured recovery and differential-pressure profiles. The results show that three-phase gas relative permeability is reduced in consecutive gas-injection cycles and consequently the gas mobility and injectivity drop significantly with successive gas injections during the WAG process, under different rock conditions. The trend of hysteresis in the relative permeabilty of gas (krg) partly contradicts the existing hysteresis models available in the literature. The three-phase water relative permeability (krw) of the water-wet (WW) core does not exhibit considerable hysteresis effect during different water injections, whereas the mixed-wet (MW) core shows slight cyclic hysteresis. This may indicate a slight increase of the water injectivity in the subsequent water injections in the WAG process under MW conditions. Insignificant hysteresis is observed in the oil relative permeability (kro) during different gas-injection cycles for both WW and MW rocks. However, a considerable cyclic-hysteresis effect in kro is observed during water-injection cycles of WAG, which is attributed to the reduction of the residual oil saturation (ROS) during successive water injections. The kro of the WW core exhibits much-more cyclic-hysteresis effect than that of the MW core. No models currently exist in reservoir simulators that can capture the observed cyclic-hysteresis effect in oil relative permeability for the WAG process. Investigation of relative permeability data obtained from these displacement tests at different rock conditions revealed that there is a significant discrepancy between two-phase and three-phase relative permeability of all fluids. This highlights that not only the three-phase relative permeability of the intermediate phase (oil), but also the three-phase kr of the wetting phase (water) and nonwetting phase (gas) are functions of two independent saturations.

scholarly journals The implementation of Water Alternating (WAG) injection to obtain optimum recovery in Cornea Field, Australia

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 1475-1485
Author(s):  
Nurafiqah Abdullah ◽  
Nurul Hasan
Keyword(s):  
Relative Permeability ◽  
High Mobility ◽  
Cyclic Process ◽  
Hysteresis Model ◽  
Oil Viscosity ◽  
Sweep Efficiency ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Permeability Model ◽  
Water Alternating Gas ◽  
Wag Injection

AbstractThe Water Alternating Gas (WAG) process is a cyclic process of injecting alternating water followed by gas. The main purpose of WAG injection is to improve both macroscopic and microscopic sweep efficiency, maintaining nearly initial high pressure, slow down the gas breakthrough and reduced oil viscosity. WAG injection also decreases the residual oil saturation resulted from the flow of three phases and effects associated with relative permeability hysteresis. The study area is in the Cornea Field located in Browse Basin, Western Australia. This study is conducted because there is no investigation on WAG injection feasibility in this field. In this study, two-phase bounding imbibition and drainage relative permeability model (Stone 1 and Stone 2) along with two-phase hysteresis model (Land, Carlson or Killough) were used. From the result, Carlson two-phase hysteresis model with Stone 1 correlation shows more oil was recovered. Therefore, it is a feasible model to be used compared with other models. From sensitivity analysis, it shows that highest oil was recovered at WAG ratio 1:1. Since it is a miscible reservoir, 1:1 ratio is more efficient and it is insensitive to trapping. Also, oil production increased with the shortest WAG cycle time at 180 days due to minimum miscibility pressure reached. In addition, it is best to inject water as the first phase to be injected into the reservoir compared to CO$$_{2}$$ 2 because water has high mobility ratio while CO$$_{2}$$ 2 can result in early breakthrough in the reservoir.

scholarly journals Investigation of flue gas water-alternating gas (flue gas–WAG) injection for enhanced oil recovery and multicomponent flue gas storage in the post-waterflooding reservoir

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhou-Hua Wang ◽  
Bo-Wen Sun ◽  
Ping Guo ◽  
Shuo-Shi Wang ◽  
Huang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enhanced Oil Recovery ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Flue Gas ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Material Balance ◽  
Gas Storage ◽  
Balance Model ◽  
Free Gas ◽  
Water Alternating Gas ◽  
Wag Injection

AbstractFlue gas flooding is one of the important technologies to improve oil recovery and achieve greenhouse gas storage. In order to study multicomponent flue gas storage capacity and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) performance of flue gas water-alternating gas (flue gas–WAG) injection after continuous waterflooding in an oil reservoir, a long core flooding system was built. The experimental results showed that the oil recovery factor of flue gas–WAG flooding was increased by 21.25% after continuous waterflooding and flue gas–WAG flooding could further enhance oil recovery and reduce water cut significantly. A novel material balance model based on storage mechanism was developed to estimate the multicomponent flue gas storage capacity and storage capacity of each component of flue gas in reservoir oil, water and as free gas in the post-waterflooding reservoir. The ultimate storage ratio of flue gas is 16% in the flue gas–WAG flooding process. The calculation results of flue gas storage capacity showed that the injection gas storage capacity mainly consists of N2 and CO2, only N2 exists as free gas phase in cores, and other components of injection gas are dissolved in oil and water. Finally, injection strategies from three perspectives for flue gas storage, EOR, and combination of flue gas storage and EOR were proposed, respectively.

Experimental Investigation of Near-Miscible Water-Alternating-Gas Injection Performance in Water-Wet and Mixed-Wet Systems

SPE Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 114-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Mobeen Fatemi ◽  
Mehran Sohrabi
Keyword(s):  
Relative Permeability ◽  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Gas Injection ◽  
Water Injection ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Co2 Injection ◽  
Water Alternating Gas ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Wag Injection

Summary Laboratory data on water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection for non-water-wet systems are very limited, especially for near-miscible (very low IFT) gas/oil systems, which represent injection scenarios involving high-pressure hydrocarbon gas or CO2 injection. Simulation of these processes requires three-phase relative permeability (kr) data. Most of the existing three-phase relative permeability correlations have been developed for water-wet conditions. However, a majority of oil reservoirs are believed to be mixed-wet and, hence, prediction of the performance of WAG injection in these reservoirs is associated with significant uncertainties. Reliable simulation of WAG injection, therefore, requires improved relative permeability and hysteresis models validated by reliable measured data. In this paper, we report the results of a comprehensive series of coreflood experiments carried out in a core under natural water-wet conditions. These included water injection, gas injection, and also WAG injection. Then, to investigate the impact of wettability on the performance of these injection strategies, the wettability of the same core was changed to mixed-wet (by aging the core in an appropriate crude oil) and a similar set of experiments were performed in the mixed-wet core. WAG experiments under both wettability conditions started with water injection (I) followed by gas injection (D), and this cyclic injection of water and gas was repeated (IDIDID). The results show that in both the water-wet and mixed-wet cores, WAG injection performs better than water injection or gas injection alone. Changing the rock wettability from water-wet to mixed-wet significantly improves the performance of water injection. Under both wettability conditions (water-wet and mixed-wet), the breakthrough (BT) of the gas during gas injection happens sooner than the BT of water in water injection. Ultimate oil recovery by gas injection is considerably higher than that obtained by water injection in the water-wet system, while in the mixed-wet system, gas injection recovers considerably less oil.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document