International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Comparison of Water Injection, Gas Injection, and Water Alternating

Gas Injection Scenarios Performance in Sudanese Oil Field
Fatima Musa Edris1, Liu Yue Tian2

1 Student, College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Chang ping, Beijing 102249, China
2Professor, College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Chang ping, Beijing 102249, China
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Enhancing the recovery of an oil reservoir is one injection is improving oil recovery by taking advantage of
of the major roles of any oil company. This is achieved by the increased microscopic displacement of gas injection with
the improved macroscopic sweep efficiency of water
development of the oilfields by employing different techniques
injection. Compositional exchanges between the oil and gas
such as Water injection, gas injection, water alternate gas during WAG process can also lead to additional recovery [6].
(WAG) injection and even thermal methods. In this work a Moreover, distinction should be drawn between miscible
simulation study was performed in KEYI oil field models to and immiscible WAG injection. Immiscible wag injection,
determine the optimal production strategy. Water injection, water and gas can be injected simultaneously rather than
Gas injection and Water Alternate Gas injection Scenarios intermittently [1]. Reservoir simulation provides a
prediction of reservoir performance. There are several
were compared for a Sudanese oil field. Results indicated that
methods of simulation from simple to complex ones. The
WAG injection technique better recoveries than water or gas choice of each of these methods depends on the available
injection. data and the level of desirable accuracy [2].

Key Words: Water injection, Gas injection, WAG 1.1 Objective of the Study
injection, Reservoir Simulation, KEYI oil field, Eclipse
software.
The main scope of the present work is to make a simulation
1. INTRODUCTION study in to KEYI oil field in order to optimize oil recovery.
Simulation study used to determine the suitable method for
Hydrocarbon is produced from the subsurface through increase and enhanced recovery. In order to a accomplish
primary, secondary, and tertiary (Enhanced Oil Recovery, the aim of this study, the simulation model was developed
EOR) methods. The primary stage is the period in the oil using three – phase, 3D, and black oil option in Eclipse
recovery process when oil flows naturally to the wells due to software.
natural energy such as depletion drive, initial pressure
gravity, and water drive. Secondary recovery are recovery
2. MATERIALS & METHODS
techniques used to augment the natural recovery of the
reservoir by injection fluid (gas or water) in the reservoir
the oil to flow in to the wellbore the surface [5]. Water and 2.1 Materials
gas injection are the most common methods of secondary
recovery. In this process, water is injected into the reservoir 2.1.1. Reservoir Description
to maintain the pressure and also to sweep the residual oil.
In order to select the most economical scenarios of water A three – dimensional reservoir model was established as a
injection, a tool to forecast performance is essential [3] and base model for the simulation study studied in Sudanese oil
gas injection is the act of injection gas in to an oil reservoir field.
for the purpose of effectively sweeping the reservoir for Reservoir simulation studies for KEYI oil field, Muglad basin,
residual oil as well as maintenance of pressure. Substantial Sudan. The synthetic reservoir description is based on an
quantities of oil normally remain in the reservoir after actual producing field. The geological model is a synthetic oil
primary and secondary recovery, which can be economically zone sector of a Sudanese oil field. Reservoir pressure at
recovered through water alternating gas injection [4]. Water datum depth is 1754.957 Psia. The datum depth of reservoir
alternate gas (WAG) injection was originally intended to is about 4429.134ft. KEYI oil field is a fault nose; the internal
improve sweep efficiency during gas flooding. Intermittent structure id simple with no obvious fault. Reservoir is highly
slugs of water and gas are designed to follow the same route heterogeneous, characterized by medium porosity and
through the reservoir. Either gas is injected as a supplement medium – high permeability according to the stratigraphy
to water or water is injected as a supplement to gas, and development of sand bodies, in Zaqa, Chazal layers,
primarily to reach other parts of the reservoir [1]. WAG more than dozen individual sand bodies are classified

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 131
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Table – 1: PVT Properties

delayed, but there are six main oil bearing sand layers. The
average horizontal permeability is 966.75 md and average PVT for Water
porosity is 0.22. The average vertical to horizontal W- Phase W- FVF W- W-viscosity
permeability is 0.1. The base model contains Pressure compressibility
1885.49 1.03 4.63 10-6 0.0.65
grid block of which [37044] blocks are active. The X and Y
Equilibrium Condition
dimension of each grid block are164 ft and the vertical Datum Depth(ft) Pressure at Datum WOC(ft) GOC(ft)
direction: 13 – 210 ft. The model is divided into 12 layers Depth(Psia)
vertically, there are 6 main oil bearing sand layers 4450 1800 4420 3280.84

respectively. GA4, GA5, GB1, ZD2, AND ZD3, different layers

PVT for the Dead oil
have different oil water contacts. Oil Phase Oil FVF(bbl/stb) Oil
Pressure(Psia) Viscosity(cp)
127.5 1.1045 17/8
2.1.2 Well specification
201.0 1.1002 18
423.0 1.0945 19
22 wells (13 wells as production wells and 9 wells as 715.5 1.0919 20.1
1000.5 1.0897 21.15
injection wells) are specified in the area under study. The 1515.0 1.0866 23.05
production is initially 2000 (STB/DAY) when gas oil ratio 2162.0 1.9831 25.60
3015.0 1.0792 28.57
(GOR) at the production well reaches 15 (MSCF/STB) the
4015.0 1.0749 32.1
production well will be shut. The bottom - hole pressure 5015.0 1.0708 35.6
lower limit is 1700 Psia. Consider some constrains which Water – Oil Saturation Table
Sw Kro Krw
is classified bellow: 0.30 1.0000 -
0.39 0.4508 0.0025
Water oil ratio should not exceed the value 20:1. In other 0.46 0.2275 0.0160
0.51 0.1312 0.0361
word the fraction of water must less than 0.99. 0.56 0.0724 0.0618
Producing gas oil ratio (GOR) should be less than 15 0/58 0.0475 0.0778
MSCF/STB. 0.60 0.0383 0.0861
 0.62 0.0278 0.0968
0.63 0.0214 0.1057
Well Bottom Hole Pressure must be greater than 1500 0.65 0.0141 0.1151
Psia. 0.67 0.0094 0.1256
The injection rate is set to value of 2000 STB/DAY.
Pressure of injection wells should not exceed the 7000 Model for the KEYI area is developed using two-phase, 3D
Psia. and black oil options in Eclipse. The grid dimension is
Well bore radius of both injection and production wells is (49x63) with (3087) grid blocks in the horizontal direction
0.124 ft.
and (12) grid blocks in the vertical direction. A total number
of (37044) grid blocks were used to simulate the area. The
2.1.3 PVT Analysis of the Reservoir Fluid
twelve main zones were modeled with six intervening shale
The reservoir contains oil, water, gas, and dissolved gas. layers. It was assumed that there was no vertical
The initial reservoir pressure is 1800 Psia. The relative communicating in the matrix between the twelve different
permeability and capillary pressure data and the other sand zones, by setting the transmissibility of matrix in the
PVT are shown in Table 1. intervening shale to be zero. This assumption agrees with
recent horizontal core analysis. Figure (1) shows 3D of KEYI
2.2 Methods oil field.
2.2.1 Reservoir Simulation
KEYI oil field KEYI was proven productive in September
2010, production started from 6 intervals namely, GA4, GA5,
GB, ZD1, ZD2, and ZD3. All of these layers distributed in the
formations named, the Ghazal Formation, and e Zarqa
formation. Core analysis and well logging showed that the
reservoir rock is characterized by both medium to high
porosity and medium to high permeability. The average
matrix permeability is on the order of 20 to 2300 md
approximately, with average porosities ranging from 1 to 30
%.Based on geological model, up-scaling was done based on
six zones (GA4, GA5, GB, ZD1, ZD2, and ZD3) divided to 12
single layers. Based on that information the reservoir Fig -1: 3D of KEYI Oil Field

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 132
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

2.2.1 Injection Scenarios:

Gas Injection Method: After running the model for water
Our base run has Grids. This base run has injection and seeing the result. We run the Base Run
been used for each three EOR process. First, Water injection for the Gas Injection Project and seeing the
and then Gas injection and finally Water Alternating Gas result. We injected the Gas with Rate 2000 MSCF/DAY and
(WAG) process has been investigated. After that the effect of the pressure of injection well should not exceed the 7000
different parameters (WAG cycle time and WAG injection psia. Also the producing GOR should not exceed the 15
rate) for the Water Alternating Gas injection have been MSCF/STB. Figure (4) shows 3-D cross section around the
analyzed. injection well after gas injection.

Water injection Method: First we start with water By looking at the result graphs for the field Figure (5) we can
injection. We use BASE RUN or grids. We use see that the ultimate oil recovery for the gas injection is
many time steps allow water to reach producing wells and 23.78 % which results in the production of 7.9 106STB of
fractional flow of water reach the value of 0.99. We test two crude oil. As we know the Gas Injection is mostly used as
cases of water injection and run the Data file for the water pressure maintenance method in gas cap rather than EOR
injection with ECLIPSE software and obtained the results methods. If we compare the Water Injection with Gas
which shown as graphs. Figure (2) shows 3-D graphs of final Injection, we can conclude that Ultimate Recovery of Water
state of the KEYI oil field during water injection in cross Injection is higher than Gas Injection. Also the reservoir
sectional view around injection well. pressure of Water Injection at the end of the project is much
higher than the final reservoir pressure of Gas Injection
method.

Fig 2: Final state of the model after Water Injection

The results of the water injection project were shown by Fig 4: Final state of the model after Gas Injection
Figure (3). By looking at the oil recovery curve (FOE). We
see that the maximum oil recovery with water injection is
26.37 %, which is equivalent to the 8.8 106STB of the
cumulative oil production (FOPT).

Fig 5: Field result of base case for Water Injection

Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection method: We

Fig 3: Field result of base case for Water Injection use the Base Run for Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 13 3
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

in KEYI oil field. The period for injection wells (Water and Table 3: Field Oil Production Total ( 106STB)
Gas injection) is 7426 days. It means that water injected for
EOR method Field Oil Production
one year and in this period the gas injector wells are shut,
Total( 106STB)
and during the injection of gas for one year, the water
Water Injection(days) 8.8
injector wells are shut. Figure (6) shows 3-D cross section
Gas Injection(days) 7.9
around the injection wells after WAG injection.
Water Alternate 8.83
By analyzing the result of WAG technique, Figure (7) we can
Gas(WAG)(days)
find the ultimate recovery of this EOR method for typical
26.46 %. The total oil production of WAG method is 8.83 From Figures (8 to 11) it has been concluded that the water
106STB of crude oil. injection is the best choice for our model, because water
injection has the greatest recovery factor. If one want to have
the overall view to these three EOR methods, it can be said
that the water alternate gas injection is the best.

Following results analyze different parameters (FOPT, FOE,

FPR, and FWCT) of the 3 methods (Water Injection, Gas
Injection, and Water Alternating Gas Injection). By looking at
the water cut curve for these three methods, Water flooding
has the earlier breakthrough of water due to water injection.
And gas injection has the lowest fractional flow of water.

Fig 6: Final state of the model after WAG Injection

Fig 8: Compare the field result of FOPT for WI, GI, and
Fig 7: Field result of base case for WAG Injection WAG injection methods

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The overall result for water injection, Gas Injection and

Water Alternate Gas (WAG) in term of oil recovery
efficiency (FOE), Oil Production Total (FOPT). Have been
compared in tables (2 and 3) in the following:

Table 2: Field Oil Efficiency (Recovery Factor)

EOR method Ultimate Recovery

Factor (%)
Water Injection(days) 26.37
Gas Injection(days) 23.78
Water Alternate 26.46 Fig 9: Compare the field result of FOE for WI, GI, and WAG
Gas(WAG)(days)
injection methods

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 13 4
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

ACKNOWLGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my special appreciation
and great gratitude to my advisor Professor Liu Yue Tian for
accepting me into his group, providing a wonderful
combination of advice support and friendship. Professor Liu
Yue Tian is always available to answer my questions, or to
help me in finding the right path to answers. When I felt
depressed because of some unsuccessful struggling,
Professor Liu Yue Tian kept her belief in my ability of
solving problems and encouraged me to overcome the
difficulties eventually. He has provided positive
Fig 10: Compare the field result of FPR for WI, GI, and encouragement and a warm spirit to finish this thesis. It has
WAG injection methods been great pleasure and honor to have him as my supervisor.
I will forever be thankful and recognition are due to
Professor Zhang Laibin, the president of China University
of petroleum, who encouraged me to come to China by give
me this chance to study PhD, and believed I had the
conditions to undertake and to succeed in the adventure of
PhD.

I would also like to thank China University of Petroleum,

the foreign student office, Sudan University of science and
technology, The College of Petroleum Engineering &
Technology, and Sudanese Ministry of Higher Education
for their financial support.

Fig 11: Compare the field result of FWCT for WI, GI, and My deepest gratitude goes to my entire family member. It
WAG injection methods would not be possible to write this paper without the
support from them.
4. CONCLUSION
I would like to thank my husband Montasir Yosif
By analyzing the obtained results in the previous section Mohammed Salih for his love, patience and unwavering
the following remarks are concluded: support.
1. The best method to choose as EOR for KEYI oil Also I will forever be thankful to my lover Nahid and Noun
field is WAG Injection. for them love and help.
2. WAG Injection has the largest Total Field
Recovery. Lastly I wish to express my heartiest gratitude to my
3. WAG Injection has the highest Reservoir Pressure colleagues for helps.
at the end of the project.
4. The main disadvantage of the Water Flooding is N0MENCLATURES
its high fractional flow of water.
5. Also the Water Flooding method has the lowest EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery
value of Producing GOR. WAG: Water Alternating Gas
6. After Water Flooding, the method of Water FOPT: Field Oil Production Total
Alternate Gas (WAG) has the largest Oil Recovery. FOE: Field Oil recovery Efficiency
7. Gas Injection has the lowest Field Oil Recovery. As FPR: Field average pressure
we mentioned before, Gas Injection is almost use FWCT: Field Water Cut
as Pressure Maintenance Method rather than EOR WI: Water Injection
method. GI: Gas Injection

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 13 5
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | Aug 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

REFFRENCES

[1] Caudle, B.H. and A.B. Dayes, 1958. Improving miscible

Displacement by Gas-water Injection, Trans, AIME, 213:
281-84

[2] Ertekin, T., J.H. Abou-Kassem, and G.R. King, 2001.

Basic applied reservoir simulation. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Tex.

[3] Fanchi, J.R., 2001. Principles of Applied Reservoir

Simulation, Second Edition. Gulf Professional
Publishing, Burlington.

[4] Fatemi, M. S., Sohrabi, M., Jamiolahmady, M., Ireland, S.,

& Robertson, G. (2011). Experimental Investigation of
Near-Miscible Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) Injection
Performance in Water-wet and mixed-wet Systems. SPE
Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
(pp. 1-16). Aberdeen

[5] Speight, J. G. (2009). Enhanced recovery methods for

heavy oil and tar sands. Houston: Gulf Pub. Co.

[6] Stenby, E., Skauge, A., & Christensen, J. (2001). Review of

WAG Field Experience. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, 1-10

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 13 6