SPE-172364-MS

Feasibility Study of Improved Gas Recovery by Water Influx Control in

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Water Drive Gas Reservoirs
N. A. Ogolo, J. O. Isebor, SPE Member and M. O Onyekonwu, Institute of Petroleum Studies, University of Port
Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 05– 07 August 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Gas recovery factor from water drive gas reservoirs is very low compared to recovery made from
depletion drive gas reservoirs. Other problems associated with gas recovery from water drive mechanism
include high residual gas saturation in the water invaded zone of the reservoir, high volume of produced
water, abandonment at high reservoir pressures and high possibility of hydrate formation in pipe lines. The
use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in displacing natural gas from volumetric gas reservoirs has been studied,
practised and is successful. In this paper, it is proposed that extending this practice to gas reservoirs under
strong water drive mechanism can improve recovery and control water influx.
CO2 is denser than natural gas and water is denser than CO2. The different densities of these fluids can
be taken advantage of to boost natural gas recovery from water drive gas reservoirs. The continuous CO2
injection process at the gas water (g/w) contact can partially prevent water encroachment into the system.
The technique can change the water drive mechanism to full or partial depletion drive where CO2 will
separate the natural gas zone from direct contact with the water zone. Any eventual water invasion into
the reservoir affects the CO2 zone, not the upward moving natural gas zone.
This technique was studied by simulation using data from a lean gas reservoir under strong water drive.
Two cases were considered. In the first case, which is the reference case, gas production under water drive
was allowed for 30years. In the second case, CO2 was injected at the initial gas water contact for the same
number of years. Simulation results showed that water production from the reservoir was drastically
reduced to about 60% in the second case because the rate of water influx into the reservoir was controlled.
Gas recovery from two producer wells out of three that were considered improved above 10% and gas
condensate recovery was improved to about 4% over the period of production that CO2 was injected.

Introduction
The drive mechanism of any reservoir plays a major role in hydrocarbon recovery. For gas reservoirs, two
major drive mechanisms that control depletion are depletion (or volumetric) drive mechanism and water
drive mechanism. Studies have shown that gas recovery from depletion drive mechanism is about 80 –
90%. The recovery factor for partial water drive mechanism is about 70 – 80% while that for a strong or
active water drive mechanism is about 50 – 60%. In fact some studies put the value between 35 – 65%.
2 SPE-172364-MS

(Charles et al, 1999 Givens, 1968 and Firoozabadi et al, 1987). It is evident from these figures that gas
recovery from strong water drive gas reservoirs are very low compared to recovery made from volumetric
drive mechanism. The stronger the aquifer, the larger the residual gas saturation which gives rise to lower
recovery factor. Akindele et al (1982) pointed out that total prevention of water encroachment would be
preferred in most cases but unfortunately, no practical approach has been found to this. This paper is
therefore proposing a practical approach through which the water drive mechanism can be reverted to a
full or partial depletion drive mechanism by preventing water invasion into the gas zone of the reservoirs.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

More than half of gas reservoirs in the world are associated with sizeable underlying aquifers. As
pressure drops in these reservoirs due to production, water from underlying aquifers invade the gas zone.
Water encroachment into hydrocarbon reservoirs serves to maintain reservoir pressure which is a desired
benefit. But for a gas reservoir, the benefit is short lived as problems soon start setting in. It is expected
intuitively that since water drive improves oil recovery, the same would apply for gas recovery but
unfortunately, the opposite is the case. When water encroaches into a gas reservoir, wellhead pressure and
producing rates are maintained for a time period. This may result in lower operating cost since
compression equipment will not be needed. But after a short while, production becomes challenging.
Several factors make water encroachment into gas reservoirs undesirable. First, wells start producing
water at an early stage through water coning. Later, too much water is produced compared to the volume
of gas due to rise in the gas-water contact above the bottom of wells. Sometimes water is produced at an
uneconomical level that the wells and reservoirs will have to be abandoned at high pressures. The rate of
rise in the gas-water contact is directly related to pressure change, capillarity and rock wettability.
Secondly, many large pockets of gas are bypassed and left behind the encroaching water front, thus
increasing the value of residual gas saturation in reservoirs. This high value of residual gas saturation
substantially reduces the recovery factor of gas from such reservoirs. Thirdly, formation water disposal is
expensive especially where re-injection into the formation is mandatory. Additionally, the close associ-
ation of gas and water from gas wells initiates gas hydrate formation in pipelines. This is because gas
hydrates mostly form in the presence of water. It is therefore preferable if the encroaching water can be
prevented from being produced while exploiting gas from water drive gas reservoirs.
The primary goal of this paper is to prevent water encroachment into gas reservoirs that are under water
drive. This goal can be achieved by separating the gas zone from direct contact until the gas has migrated
away upward due to production. Considering the challenges posed by the presence of water in gas
reservoirs also emphasizes the need to reverse a water drive gas reservoir to a partial or full depletion drive
gas reservoir. An effective technique proposed in this paper to control water invasion into gas reservoirs
is by introduction of CO2 at the gas water contacts.

How the Problem has been handled over the Years

Over the years, three main methods have been proposed and adopted to enhance gas recovery from water
drive gas reservoirs. One of these methods is depressurization and residual gas remobilization by water
production and blow down. This involves depressurizing the water invaded reservoirs by withdrawing
large volumes of water and then conducting a gas remobilization process (Mathew et al, 1998, Cagle,
1990, Hower et al, 1992 and Ancell et al, 1990). Remobilizing some of the residual gas involves reservoir
blow down performance to reconnect and recover the initially trapped gas after water withdrawal
operations. The disadvantages associated with this method involves disposal of the produced water,
increased cost of production due to pumping out of large volumes of water, conducting a blow down
operation and producing the trapped gas at a very low pressure with the aid of compression pumps. The
second method is co-production of gas and water at the same time. In this method, gas is produced from
up-dip wells while water is produced from down-dip wells (Rogers, 1984 and Arco et al, 1987). This
method has been proposed for moderate to active water drive gas reservoirs but has the greatest economic
SPE-172364-MS 3

potential for reservoirs that are not yet watered out. Co-production is also recommended by Bassiouni,
(1990) but he pointed out that water production can be uneconomical for strong water drive gas reservoirs.
The third method that has been suggested is the production of gas at an accelerated rate, faster than the
rate of water influx in order to outrun the aquifer. The aim is to produce as much gas as possible very
quickly so that by the time water finally invades the reservoirs, much of the natural gas will have been
produced. This method is only inefficient when a direct market for the gas is available and if gas storage
facilities are not lacking. However, Rezaee et al (2013) from his study showed that increasing gas

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

production flow rate does not always increase recovery factor from water drive gas reservoirs.
One current successful technique in enhanced gas recovery (EGR) for depletion drive gas reservoirs
is injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the formation. Based on the favourable results of numerous
simulation studies, the CO2 sequestration with enhanced gas recovery (CSEGR) has been proposed and
conducted in some gas reservoirs under volumetric drive mechanism. At the onset of CSEGR, one main
criterion for the site selection required a “non-existent water drive”. But now CO2 sequestration requires
an aquifer in some cases so that some of the CO2 can get absorbed or be diffused in the water as a safe
means of eliminating the captured excess CO2 from the atmosphere to fight the current global climate
change issue. (Manumehe et al, 2009). Several studies have revealed that additional methane can be
recovered from depleted gas reservoirs under volumetric drive mechanism by CO2 injection (Mamora et
al, 2002, Oldenburg et al, 2002 and Turta et al, 2008). In coalbed methane recovery (though a different
kind of formation), it has been found that CO2 can effectively be used to recover about 90% of methane.
It was reported that the strong adsorption of CO2 to coal than methane to coal displaces the initially
adsorbed methane and impedes premature breakthrough of the adsorbed CO2 (Tang et al, 2005 and
Stevens et al, 1995).

The Proposed Solution

The proposed method is to prevent water from underlying aquifers from encroaching into gas zones in gas
reservoirs, thus indirectly changing the water drive reservoir to a depletion drive reservoir. To achieve
this, CO2 will be injected into the formation at the g/w contact to separate the gas zone from direct contact
with the water zone. The injected CO2 will expand, prevent the encroaching water from rising, increase
and maintain the reservoir pressure and at the same time create a gap between the water zone and the
natural gas zone and will occupy the created gap. CO2 is denser than natural gas but lighter than water
especially formation water which has a slightly higher density than distilled water due to its salinity.
Under reservoir conditions, CO2 is two to six times denser than methane (the major gas composition of
natural gas). Therefore if CO2 is injected into a water drive gas reservoir at the g/w contact, CO2 being
lighter than formation water and heavier than natural gas will occupy the space between the water zone
and the natural gas zone which will be stabilized by gravity. The low mobility ratio of CO2 (because it
is more viscous) relative to methane will have a relatively stable displacement process (Al-Hashami et al,
2005). In fact injecting CO2 at the glw contact to a large extent will control water flooding because it will
maintain pressure as the natural gas is depleted, creating no room for water invasion just as an expanding
gas cap in an oil reservoir can prevent water influx into the oil zone. Even if eventually water invades the
reservoir, the invaded zone will be the CO2 zone, not the natural gas zone.
In a certain study of a gas condensate reservoir, it was discovered that injecting CO2 close to the water
front improved condensate and gas recovery. CO2 prevented water entry into wells by receding the level
of the current water; returning the water to the aquifer (Lopez, 2000). It has been reported that in gas
reservoirs, water influx into reservoirs after CO2 injection occurs at a decreasing rate. Water inflow
reversed direction (outflow) from the reservoir only after the CO2 pressure in the reservoir equals the
pressure in the aquifer and continues to build up. To expel all the aquifer water and recover the initial
reservoir volume, the pressure due to CO2 injection had to increase significantly above the initial pressure.
In the case of a reservoir with a weak aquifer support, the invading water recedes following the original
4 SPE-172364-MS

pressure and aquifer influx paths with almost no

hysteric behavior. It is expected that all invading
water will be expelled by the time the reservoir
pressure builds back to the initial pressure.
The density of formation waters, CO2 and natu-
ral gas are different. Under standard temperature
and pressure (STP defined as air @ 0°C and 14.7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Psia), CO2 has a density of 1.977Kg/m3 (0.1234Ibm/
Ft3) while CH4 has a density of 0.717Kg/m3
(0.0447Ibm/Ft3). But because natural gas comprises
Figure 1—Diagraam of the Reservoir Surrounded by Water
mainly of about 70 - 90% of methane (CH4) alone
and about 0 – 20% of other light hydrocarbon frac-
tions, its density ranges between 0.7 – 0.9Kg/m3
(0.044 - 0.056Ibm/Ft3). The density of pure water @
4°C is 1000Kg/m3 (0.0624Ibm/Ft3) but the density
of formation waters is slightly higher because of the
dissolved salt content. When CO2 is injected at the
glw contact, the plume spreads laterally, displacing
natural gas upwards and will most likely reside in
that zone because it is the ideal position for CO2 to
occupy in relation to the densities of already exist-
Figure 2—Perspective View of the Reservoir and Wells ing reservoir fluids. This in effect will minimize the
mixing tendency of CO2 and natural gas.
The solubility of CO2 in water increases with
increasing pressure but decreases with increasing temperature and water salinity (Solomon, 2006). Since
reservoirs are under high pressures, solubility of CO2 into formation water is a possibility that might be
countered by reservoir temperature and water salinity. In any case, the solubility of CO2 in formation
waters in reservoirs does not pose a problem (provided the density of the CO2 does not get higher than
the density of water) because CO2 is more soluble in water than methane and its solubility in water delays
its breakthrough. The rate of CO2 injection and time of injection can also affect recovery and contaminate
the natural gas (Al-Hashami et al, 2005). From his study, it was reported that CO2 injection after four
years of production yielded a better recovery than CO2 injection from the onset of production. For a water
drive gas reservoir, the timing of CO2 injection and its effect on gas recovery and miscibility need to be
investigated.

The Simulation Study

A simulation study was conducted to find out the feasibility of improving gas recovery and controlling
water encroachment into gas reservoirs. The data of a lean gas reservoir under strong water drive was used
for the study. In the reference case, natural water flooding was allowed during gas production for 30years.
In the second case, CO2 was injected into the reservoir at the g/w contact for 30years as natural gas was
produced. CO2 was injected into the formation using the peripheral flooding pattern from seven wells
while gas was produced from three wells arbitrarily places in the middle of the injection wells. Figure 1
shows the reservoir surrounded by water from three sides. Gas recovery from the three production wells
(PROD01, PROD04 and PROD07) during the 30years of production under water drive and under CO2
injection was determined. The gas condensate recovery and water influx at the end of 30years for the
whole reservoir were also obtained. Figure 2 presents a perspective view of the reservoir.
SPE-172364-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 3—Natural Gas Recovery from the First Producer Well (PROD01)

Figure 4 —Natural Gas Recovery from the Second Producer Well (PROD04)

Figure 5—Natural Gas Recovery from the Third Producer Well (PROD07)

Results and Discussions

Results of the conducted simulation study are presented in Figures 3 to 7. Figure 3 shows the natural gas
recovery from one of the production wells labelled PROD01. From the results of this well, gas recovery
was improved by about 17% by CO2 injection over the water influx case after 30years of production.
Figure 4 shows the natural gas recovery from another production well (labelled PROD04) and the
recovery from this well improved by about 11% from CO2 injection after 30years. Figure 5 shows the
natural gas recovery from the third production well (labelled PROD07). In this result, gas recovery from
6 SPE-172364-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 6 —Gas Condensate Recovery from the Reservoir

Figure 7—Water Influx into the Reservoir

the well reduced by about 12% from the CO2 injection case after 30years. The reason for this drop in
recovery over the water flooding case is not known yet, but certainly there could have been a problem with
PROD07.
Presented in Figures 6 and 7 are the results of gas condensate recovery and water influx results
respectively. From Figure 6, the gas condensate production from the whole field increased by about 4%
for the CO2 injected case. Figure 7 shows the water influx from the aquifer into the gas reservoir for both
the CO2 injected case and for the water influx case. Results indicate that water influx was reduced in the
whole field by about 60%. PROD 07 produced a large amount of water despite CO2 injection which is not
the case with the other two production wells. If the problem with PROD07 can be figured out and solved,
then there will be a tendency for this value to increase (further reduction in water influx). Figure 8 shows
that the reservoir pressure was maintained and slightly increased above the initial reservoir pressure with
CO2 injection.
The presented results show that CO2 injection at the gas water contact in gas reservoirs under water
drive has some benefits. The primary benefit is the drastic reduction in water production which in turn
SPE-172364-MS 7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Figure 8 —Pressure Profile of the Reservoir

reduces cost of water disposal. It also has the potential to improve recovery. From obtained results,
reservoir pressure was maintained, there was increase in gas condensate production and gas recovery was
improved from two wells (out of three) for the CO2 cases over the water flooded cases during the period
of production. However, it must be pointed out that injecting CO2 into gas reservoirs with a large number
of wells (compared to the producers) will increase cost of production especially if this is done from the
start of production. This work therefore requires further research to investigate the most economic
flooding pattern (probably the inverted flood patterns) that will yield better gas recovery factor from gas
fields that are under water drive. It is also necessary to study CO2 and natural gas miscibility since the
presence of CO2 can contaminate natural gas in reservoirs though this method has been practised with
success in gas reservoirs under depletion drive mechanism. There is need to also find out if already
producing gas reservoirs under water drive and watered out reservoirs can benefit from this technique.
CO2 injection at the gas water contact in water drive gas reservoirs throughout the production life of
a reservoir is expensive and uneconomical. Since the primary objective is to separate the gas zone from
direct contact with the water zone, CO2 can be injected for some years and then water flooding can be
allowed for the rest period of production. Any water invasion during this period will affect the CO2 zone,
not the natural gas zone however, the impact of this adjustment on recovery, water production and other
factors need to be investigated. It is also essential to find out the volume of CO2 that will be adequate in
the formation to keep the rising bottom water away from the upward migrating natural gas (due to
production) considering the fact that water will absorb some of the injected CO2 (although this process
will slow down the rising rate of bottom water).
The presented results show that injecting CO2 into water drive gas reservoirs has several advantages.
First, it will impact positively on the environment because it will reduce the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere by putting it to good use, not just storing it away, thus contributing in the fight against global
warming in which CO2 plays a major role. Secondly, water will not be produced thereby eliminating the
problem of formation water disposal. Thirdly, by boosting natural gas recovery from water drive
reservoirs, a cleaner source of energy is provided. Additionally, the absence of water in gas wells prevents
hydrate formation in pipelines thereby enhancing flow assurance.

Summary
Water encroachment into water drive gas reservoirs gives rise to several problems. It is suggested that to
alleviate these problems, water encroachment into gas reservoirs needs to be controlled and so this paper
8 SPE-172364-MS

proposes CO2 injection into gas reservoirs at the initial gas water contact. A simulation study involving
two cases in a gas reservoir under strong water drive was conducted to investigate this possibility. In the
first case, water was allowed to flood the reservoir for 30years while in the second case, CO2 was injected
at the g/w contact for 30years as natural gas was produced in both cases. Gas recovery, condensate
recovery and water influx into the reservoir during this period was determined. Simulation results indicate
that water influx into the gas reservoir was reduced by about 60% in the CO2 injected case. Natural gas
production from two out of three producer wells considered improved by more than 10% over the water

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

flooded cases. Gas condensate recovery improved by about 4% over the period of production for the CO2
injected case. One producer well however did not give good results. It is speculated that if certain factors
such as the CO2 flood pattern is adjusted, natural gas production will improve further and production will
be more economical.

Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from this work include the following:
1. Injecting CO2 at the gas water contact in gas reservoirs under water drive drastically reduces
water production from the reservoir thereby reducing cost of water disposal.
2. It maintains reservoir pressure, improves natural gas recovery and improves gas condensate
recovery.
3. The flood pattern used in this work and the duration of CO2 injection can uneconomically increase
cost and so better flood patterns and duration of CO2 injection time needs to be investigated
further.
Recommendation
Injecting CO2 at the gas water contact in water drive gas reservoirs can prevent water encroachment into
gas reservoirs and it has the potential to improve gas recovery and gas condensate recovery.

References
Akindele, F. and Tiab, D; (1982), ‘Enhanced Gas Recovery from Water-Drive Reservoirs – Methods
and Economics’, University of Oklahoma, S P 11104, 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition of Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29, 1982, Dallas, Texas, USA, Pp.
1–6.
Al-Hashami, A; Ren, S. R. and Tohidi, B; (2005), ‘CO2 Injection for Enhanced Gas Recovery and
Geo-Storage Reservoir Simulation and Economics’, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Herriot-Watt
University, S PE 94129, SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Madrid, Spain,
13-16 June, 2005, Pp. 1–7.
Ancell, K. L. and Trousil P. M; (1990), ‘Remobilization of Natural Gas Trapped by Encroaching
Water’, SPE 20753, 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of Society of Petroleum Engineers
held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Sept. 23-26, 1990, Pp. 1–7 (375-381).
Arco, D. P. and Bassiouni, Z.; (1987), ‘The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Enhanced Gas
Recovery in the Eugene Island Field by Use of Coproduction Technique’, Louisiana State University,
Journal of Petroleum Technology’, May 1987, USA, Pp. 58 –590.
Bassiouni Zaki; (1990), ‘Enhanced Recovery from Water-Drive Gas Reservoirs’, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, L A 70803-6417, USA, Pp. 151, 153-158.
Batycky, J. P; Irwin, D. D. and Fish, R. M; (1995), ‘Trapped Gas Saturation in Leduc-age Reservoirs’,
Imperial Oil Resources, Petroleum Society of CIM, 46th Annual Technical Meeting of Petroleum Society
of CIM in Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 14-17, 1995, Pp. 1–8.
Calgle, T. O; (1990), ‘Performance of Secondary Gas Recovery Operations: North Alazan H-21
SPE-172364-MS 9

Reservoir’, SPE 20771, 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26, 1990, USA, Pp. 2–7 (508-513).
Charles, S. R; Tracy, S. W. and Farrar, R. L; (1999), “Applied Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 1, OGCI
Publications, Oil and Gas Consultants International, Inc. U.S.A. Pp. 5 – 77 to 5 – 22.
Chesney, P. T., Lewis R. C. and Trice, M. V., (1982), “Secondary Gas Recovery from a Moderately
Strong water Drive Reservoir: A Case Study” JPT, Pp. 2149 –2157.
Clemens, T. and Wit, K; (2002), “CO2 Enhanced Gas Recovery Studied for an Example Gas

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

Reservoir”, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29 Sept. – 2 Oct. 2002, San Antonio,
Texas, Pp. 1–8.
Cruz, Lopez, Alejandro Jose; (2000), ‘Gas Injection as a Method for Improved Recovery in Gas-
Condensate Reservoirs with Active Support’, SPE 58981, SPE International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 1-3 Feb. 2000, Pp. 1–4.
Dake L. P., (1988), “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”, Seventh Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam-
London-New York-Tokyo, Pp. 25–33.
Firoozabadi, A.; Olsen, G. and Golf-Racht, V. T, (1987), ‘Residual Gas Saturation in Water-Drive Gas
Reservoir’, SPE California Regional Meeting held in Ventura, California, April 8-10, 1987, USA, Pp. 1–4
(319-322).
Givens, J. W; (1968), ‘A Pratical Two-Dimensional Model for Simulating Dry Gas Reservoirs with
Bottom Water Drive’, Continental Oil Co., Houston, Texas, SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation of
Reservoir Performance held in Dallas, Texas, April 22-23, 1968, Pp. 1229 –1232.
Gregory, A. R; Lin, Z. S.; Reed R. S.; Morton, R. A. and Ewing, T. E. (1984), ‘Enhanced Gas
Recovery from Watered-Out Reservoir: Port Arthur Field, Jefferson Country, Texas’, Bureau of Eco-
nomic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, USA, Pp. 55.
Hower, T. L; Bergeson, I. E; Lewis D. R. and Owens, R. W; (1992), ‘Recovery Optimization in a
Multi-Reservoir Offshore Gas Field with Water Influx’, SPE 24865, 67th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington, D. C., Oct. 4-7, 1992, Pp. 9 –15.
Mamora, D. D. and Seo J. G; (2002), “Enhanced Gas Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in
Depleted Gas Reservoirs ”, SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29 Sept. – 2 Oct. 2002, San
Antonio, Texas, Pp. 1–9.
Manumehe, U. R.; Iyagba, E. T. and Ajienka J. A; (2009), “CO2 Sequestration: The way forward”
Advances in Petroleum Engineering, Chi Ikokwu Petroleum Engineering Series, University of Port
Harcourt. Pp. 1–9.
Matthew, J. D., Hawes, R. I. and Lock, T. P,: (1988) “ Feasibility Studies of water flooding Gas
Condensate Reservoir”, JPT, Pp. 1049 –1056.
Mills, T. and Ross D; “Reductive Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide”, Menlo Park, California, Pp. 1–7.
Oldenburg, C. M. and Benson S. M; (2002), “CO2 Injection for Enhanced Gas Production and Carbon
Sequestration”, SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Mexico, 10 –12 Feb. 2002,
Villahermosa, Mexico. Pp. 1–10.
Oldenburg, C. M; Law, D. H; Gallo, Y. L. and White, S. P., “Mixing of CO2 and CH4 in Gas
Reservoirs: Code Comparison Studies” USA, Canada and New Zealand. Pp. 1–5.
Pooladi-Darvish M; Honh, H; Theys, S; Stocker, R; Bachu, S. and Dashtgard, S. (2008),”CO2
Injection for Enhanced Gas Recovery and Geological Storage CO2 in the Long Coulee Glauconite F pool
Alberta”, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21 – 24 Sept. 2008, Denver, Colorado, USA,
Pp. 1–11.
Rezaee, M; Rostami, B; Zadeh, M. S. and Mojarad, M; (2013), ‘Experimental Determination of
Optimized Production Rate and its Upscaling Analysis in Strong Water Drive Gas Reservoirs’, IPTC
16938, International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26-28 March, 2013, Pp.
1–11.
10 SPE-172364-MS

Rogers, L. A.; (1984), ‘Test of Secondary Gas Recovery by Coproduction of Gas and Water from Mt.
Selman Field, Texas’, SPE/DOE/GRI 12865, Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium held in Pitts-
burgh, P. A., May 13-15, 1984, Pp. 331–335.
Shtepani, E. (2006), “CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24 – 27 Sept. 2006, San Antonio, Texas, USA. Pp. 1–7.
Sim, S. S. K; Turtata A. T; Singhai A. K. and Hawkins B. F; (2008), “Enhanced Gas Recovery: Factors
Affecting Gas – Gas Displacement Efficiency”, Canada International petroleum Conference, June 17 – 19,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/14NAIC/All-14NAIC/SPE-172364-MS/1524952/spe-172364-ms.pdf by Kuwait University user on 13 November 2023

2008, Calgari, Alberta, Canada. Pp. 1–14.
Sim, S. S. K; Turtata A. T; Singhai A. K. and Hawkins B. F; (2009), “Enhanced Gas Recovery: Factors
Affecting Gas – Gas Displacement Efficiency”, Journal of Canada Petroleum Technology, Volume 48,
Number 8, Alberta, Canada. Pp. 1–7.
Sober, L. E., Frailey S. M. and Lawal, A. S. (2004), “Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in
Depleted Gas Reservoirs”, SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery”, 17 – 21 April 2004, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, Pp. 1–12.
Stevens, S. H; Spector D. and Riemer, P; ‘Enhanced Coal bed Methane Recovery Using CO2
Injection: Worldwide Resources and CO2 Sequestration Potential’, SPE 48881, SPE International Con-
ference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 2-6 Nov. 1996, Pp. 1–13 (489-501).
Tang, G. Q; Jessen, K. and Kovscek, A. R; (2005), ‘Laboratory and Simulation Investigation of
Enhanced Coal bed Methane Recovery by Gas Injection’, SPE 95947, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 Oct. 2005, Pp. 1–7.
Turtata A. T; Sim, S. S. K; Singhai A. K. and Hawkins B. F; (2008), “Basic Investigations on
Enhanced Recovery by Gas – Gas Displacement”, Journal of Canada Petroleum Technology, Volume 47,
Number 10, Alberta, Canada, Pp. 1–6.
Varghese, O. K., Paulose, M., Tempa, T. J.L. and Grimes, C. A. (2009), “High Rate Solar Photo-
catalytic Conversion of CO2 and Water Vapor to Hydrocarbon Fuels”, Department of Electrical, Materials
Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, Pp. 731–737.