IPTC 11234
Review of and Outlook for Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques in Kuwait Oil
Reservoirs
Saad F. Alkafeef, SPE, and Alforgi M. Zaid, SPE, College of Technological Studies
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and
are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this paper, we carried out an updated investigation of
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) applications in Kuwait. The
investigation employs EOR screening analysis to determine the
suitability of EOR processes to mature oil reservoirs.
Following the determination of the suitable EOR process, we
performed incremental recovery (IR) calculations. We also
performed a preliminary economic analysis to determine the
economic feasibility of the EOR processes in question.
The screening analysis revealed that CO2 and other miscible
processes would have wide applications in these mature oil
reservoirs. Polymer, surfactant/polymer, and alkaline flooding
processes would also be widely applicable. In some cases, the
polymer and surfactant/polymer processes were not suitable
due to high reservoir temperature. Some of the important oil
reservoirs have shown to be suitable for the application of
thermal recovery processes, particularly steam injection.
A relatively new injection method known as steam assisted
gravity drainage (SAGD) appears to be viable for enhancing
heavy oil recovery from the oil reservoirs containing heavy oil.
These reservoirs are thick fractured layers, which can be good
candidates for drilling horizontal wells where injected steam
chambers can contact large volumes of oil. The presence of
fractures may present a conduit for steam to cover a large
volume pore space.
The incremental recovery calculations indicated that the
additional recovery is 10–12% for miscible, 4–5% for polymer,
20–22% for surfactant/polymer, all of which refer to
percentage of original oil in place (OOIP) in addition to water
flooding. The fractional recovery due to the application of
steam injection (SAGD) could be as high as 50% of the OOIP
for the reservoirs containing the heavy oil. The economic
analysis revealed that the oil market environment is favorable
for the application of EOR processes in Kuwait where
reservoirs are thick and contain huge oil volumes.
Introduction
Kuwait has one of the largest recoverable oil reserves in the
world and most, if not all, of its production is still due to
primary forces. The primary and secondary forces are expected
to recover approximately 45% of the oil in place.1,2 The huge
volume of unrecoverable oil will be the target of enhanced oil
recovery techniques that have become attractive because of the
higher oil prices. If the heavy oil sands of Alberta can become
economically attractive, then the much lighter oil in Kuwait oil
reservoirs will certainly present a more attractive target for
enhanced oil recovery processes.
Due to the large current production capacity of Kuwait oil
fields, no published study has been undertaken previously to
investigate the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) potential in
Kuwait, as the capacity due to primary and secondary
techniques is more than enough to meet the daily production
requirements.
In this paper we investigate the applicability of EOR
processes in Kuwait. The potential of applying EOR in the
various oil reservoirs is done by applying the screening criteria
of the different EOR processes.3-5
Once a reservoir was found to be suitable for one or more
enhanced oil recovery processes, the incremental recovery over
primary and secondary was calculated for each process. Using
the incremental recovery figures and the costs for the specific
process, we conducted a preliminary economic analysis.
The incremental recovery calculations and the economic
comparisons were based on the simple models developed by
U.S Department of Energy.6
The fluid and reservoir data were gathered from the
literature; assumptions were made for unavailable data when
required.7-17
Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods
Oil reservoirs, following discovery, undergo production of oil
by primary recovery. In primary recovery, the energy and
pressures inherent in the reservoir are used to force the oil
through the complex pore network toward the producing wells.
The primary recovery mechanism can differ from one
reservoir to another, depending on the type of reservoir and the
properties of the rock and the hydrocarbons present. Following
the primary stage, the reservoir energy is supplemented by the
injection of water and/or gas in a “secondary recovery” stage.
The ultimate oil recovery by primary and secondary
recovery usually ranges from 25–45% of OOIP.1 As the
secondary recovery approaches its economic limit of operation,
the “tertiary recovery” process begins.
2 IPTC 11234
There are three general methods commonly used in applying
EOR techniques: gas injection methods, chemical flooding
methods, and thermal flooding methods. There are varieties of
sub-methods that fall under each category.1,3,4
Enhanced Oil Recovery Screening Criteria
Before applying enhanced oil recovery to any reservoir, a
screening study is the first thing to be considered. The study
normally consists of a complete study of oil properties and
reservoir characteristics. There were three comprehensive
studies conducted in the 1970s on enhanced oil recovery.
These were the 1976 studies by the National Petroleum
Council (NPC)18 and Lewin and Associates,19 prepared for the
U.S. Federal Energy Administration, and the 1978 study for the
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).20
In addition, most of the oil companies have their own
technical screening for enhanced oil recovery. After technical
screening criteria have been met, other items that will be taken
into consideration are cost of the project, laboratory work, and
a computer simulation to predict the amount of oil recovery.
When a field has more than one reservoir, each reservoir
should be evaluated individually by a screening guide, and a
complete study of the reservoir should be performed. A
geological study should be considered, since geological factors
may cause the EOR process to fail because of unexpected
reservoir problems.
Enhanced oil recovery mechanisms are divided into three
basic mechanisms: reduction or elimination of the interfacial
tension between oil and displacing fluid(s), oil viscosity
reduction, and macroscopic sweep efficiency improvement.
The purpose of the screening criteria analysis is to investigate
the applicability of one or more such mechanisms to the
reservoir in question. Table (1) shows screening criteria used to
select the appropriate enhanced oil recovery methods.3-5 The
EOR methods considered are gas injection, chemical flooding,
and thermal recovery.
The main factor to be considered in miscible flood is the
average pressure necessary to achieve miscibility in the
system, which is depth dependent.21,22 A minimum depth of
2000 ft for LPG and 5000 ft for high pressure gas drive is
suggested. The API gravity should be more than 35o and oil
viscosity less than 3 cp. The nitrogen and flue gas flooding has
more advantages than CO2 flood. From an economic
viewpoint, nitrogen costs less.23-25 Also, nitrogen occupies
more space in the reservoir than CO2, at the reservoir pressure.
Nitrogen has lower viscosity and solubility in oil than CO2;
therefore, it requires a higher pressure to achieve miscibility.
The advantages of carbon dioxide flooding are that CO2 is very
soluble in oils at reservoir pressure, it reduces the oil viscosity
before the miscibility is achieved between the CO2 and crude
oil, and the CO2 will stay dissolved in the crude oil.26 The
minimum API gravity required is 22o API and a maximum
viscosity of 10 cp for a CO2 miscible process to be applicable.
Chemical flooding methods require low to moderate oil
viscosities and moderate to high permeability; the latter is for
favourable water injection. As the screening criteria table
shows, chemical floods can be used for oils that are more
viscous than oils recovered by gas injection methods. Required
reservoir permeability for chemical floods is higher than those
required for the gas injection methods, but lower than reservoir
permeability required for thermal methods.26-28
A reservoir that has an active water drive is not a good
candidate for chemical flooding methods because of the low
remaining oil saturation following water flooding. A reservoir
that has a gas cap should be carefully monitored to prevent the
mobilized oil from resaturating the gas cap. The type of
formation should also be considered. If the reservoir has high
clay content, then it is considered unfavourable because clay
will adsorb the chemicals.
The chemical processes are divided into polymer, alkaline,
and surfactant/polymer methods. The viscosity should be less
than 150 cp to use polymer processes. For higher viscosities, a
higher polymer concentration is needed to achieve the
desirable mobility control. Moveable oil saturation higher than
40% PV is recommended to use polymer flood. A sandstone
reservoir is preferred for polymer flood application. The
average permeability of the reservoir can be low as 10 md to
minimize the degradation. Reservoir temperature should be
less than 200o F., which limits the depth to 9000 ft-29-34
Alkaline flooding consists of injecting solutions of sodium
hydroxide, sodium carbonate and sodium silicate or potassium
hydroxide into the reservoir.29,35 The alkaline reacts with
reservoir rock surfaces to alter wettability (oil-wet to water-
wet) and reacts with acids present in the crude oil to generate a
surfactant in situ that will serve to reduce interfacial tension
between oil and water.35 The slug size of alkaline solutions is
normally 10–15% PV and solutions concentration normally
0.2–5%. The API range is 20–35o API, oil viscosity less than
35 cp, and the average permeability is >20 md. Sandstone
reservoirs are preferred.
Thermal methods are divided into in-situ combustion and
steam flooding.36,37 In-situ combustion has been extensively
field-tested. Heat is generated in the reservoir by injection of
air and burning part of the crude oil. This reduces the viscosity,
partially vaporizes the oil in place, and drives it forward by a
combination of steam, hot water, and gas drive. The screening
criteria for the process is that oil viscosity should be less than
5000 cp and API gravity should 10–20o API. For reservoir
characteristics table (1), oil saturation should be greater than
50% PV, porosity should be greater than 20% and average
reservoir permeability should be greater than 50 md. Sandstone
formation type is also preferred.
Steam flooding is usually used in reservoirs containing high
viscosity crude oils that are difficult to mobilize by methods
other than thermal recovery. The screening criteria for steam
flooding requires that the oil API gravity should be in the range
of 10–20o API; oil viscosity, which is the main criteria for this
process, should be greater than 5000 cp. High oil saturation is
also required. For reservoir characteristics, the porosity should
be greater than 10%, the permeability greater than 200 md.
Sandstone formations are preferred for steam flooding
applications.
Advancement in the application of steam injection has
made it possible to apply the new technology in reservoirs that
were thought to be not suitable previously. The introduction of
steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) has transformed the
huge quantities of tar sand oil in Alberta to proven oil reserves,
moving Canada to second place behind only Saudi Arabia in
terms of oil reserves.38 Some reservoirs in Kuwait contain
IPTC 11234
billions of barrels of heavy oil. Some of these reservoirs
consist of fractured carbonates and are prime targets for steam
flooding applications. Proper management of steam flooding in
these reservoirs requires careful planning and detailed studies
in order to choose the appropriate steam injection scheme.
Certainly the technical advances realized in drilling horizontal
wells, the multilaterals, and the variations thereof have made
the recovery of these heavy oil resources feasible. Various
applications of SAGD have been reported in the literature39-42
and this technique certainly deserves attention for possible
application in Kuwait heavy oil reservoirs. Another method
that could have wide applications in fractured carbonate
reservoirs is combining horizontal and multilateral wells with
steam stimulation. Adding light hydrocarbons to the injected
steam can also increase oil recovery by steam injection.
Current oil price levels and the anticipated long-term price
outlook all point to improving EOR economics of heavy oil.
The accumulating experience in the Alberta tar sands will
almost certainly make recovering heavy oil easier in other
places including Kuwait. Because of the usual lag between
study initiation and the actual application and production, it is
important that an active strategy must be initiated to apply one
or more of technological schemes to recover the heavy oil
resources.
Screening Criteria as Applied to Kuwait Oil
Reservoirs
The screening criteria are important factors that should be
considered first when evaluating reservoirs for enhanced oil
recovery. Table (1) shows the fluid and reservoir properties
that should be considered when planning an EOR project.3-5 In
Table (1) a distinction is made between the criteria that are
related to the oil properties and those that are related to
reservoir characteristics. The table also shows the general
spectrum of enhanced oil recovery methods available for all
oils, from the very lightest to the heaviest one.
In this study, eight Kuwait oil fields with a total of 36
reservoirs were selected for analysis. The approach is to apply
the technical screening criteria outlined in Table (1) to each
reservoir with the purpose of selecting the most applicable
EOR method to each.5
The screening criteria table shown is by no means
exclusive; there are other factors that ought to be considered
before the final selection of an enhanced oil recovery
application. For example, a highly faulted reservoir with
extensive fractures and thief zones should be avoided.
In this study Kuwait oil reservoirs were taken through the
screening criteria process to determine the appropriate process
for each reservoir. Oil fields were screened on a reservoir-by-
reservoir basis; Table (2) summarizes the results of the
screening analysis. The table indicates that all of Kuwait oil
fields that were studied in this work are suitable for CO2
miscible; and the majority are suitable for polymer,
surfactant/polymer, and alkaline flooding.
Only lower Zubair and Ratawi reservoirs in Raudhatain and
Sabriya fields and the Minagish Oolite reservoir in Minagish
field were found to be the exception; that is, these reservoirs
were found to be applicable only to CO2 miscible flooding.
Due to depth limitations, these reservoirs were found to be
3
unsuitable for chemical flooding. It is possible that for any
reservoir, more than one process would be technically feasible.
Incremental Recovery Calculations
The incremental recovery equations used in this paper were
taken from the National Petroleum Council (NPC).18,43 The
general mathematical model for calculating the incremental
recovery is as follows:
OOIP (S orw − S ore )Boi Ev
IR = (1)
Bo (1.0 − S wi )
Ideally, Sorw and Sore should be determined using core analysis,
but for preliminary studies such as this, Sorw can be estimated
from known correlations such as that of Guthrie and
Greenberger.44 The residual oil saturation after water flood
(Sorw) can be estimated using the following equation for
sandstone reservoirs:
R = 0.114 + 0.272 log K + 0.256SW − 0.136 log µ O
− 0.538Φ − 0.00035 h (2)
then by definition
S orw = (1.0 − R )S oi (3)
Calculations were made using reservoir and fluid properties
data for Kuwait oil fields to evaluate the residual oil saturation
after water flood. Since the correlation is empirical in nature,
we used an average value for Sorw of 40% in all IR calculations.
Residual oil saturation for all recovery schemes was assumed
to be 10% of OOIP.
Incremental Recovery for Miscible Displacement
It should be pointed out that due to the proprietary nature of the
data, it was not possible to conduct the analysis with entirely
factual data. Much of the data was either compiled from the
literature or assumed. It is felt that the assumed data would be
useful in qualitative terms and it is typical for Middle East oil
reservoirs.
Equation (1) was reduced to a form that can be used to
calculate IR for miscible displacement. A value of 0.1 was
assumed for Sore (theoretically this should be zero for a
miscible process). A volumetric sweep efficiency of 0.45 was
also assumed, which is an average value for sandstone and
limestone reservoirs. The ratio Boi/Bo was taken to be 0.7 since
oil swelling would normally occur as a result of the gas
dissolving in the oil; this is assumed to be equivalent to 30%
swelling. Using these values for Sorw, EV, and Boi/Bo, equation
(1) would reduce to:
0.0945OOIP
IR = (4)
1 − S wi
4 IPTC 11234
Incremental Recovery for Polymer Flooding
For polymer flooding, the term (Sorw - Sore) is nearly zero since
the final residual oil after polymer flooding is nearly equal to
that observed for water flooding. Therefore, equation (1)
cannot be used to estimate the IR for polymer flooding. An
expression for IR of polymer flooding was derived using the
Lewin and Associates empirical model.18,43 For polymer
flooding, a 40% volumetric sweep efficiency and a ratio of
Boi/Bo of 1.0 were used. The 40% volumetric sweep efficiency
includes the incremental recovery due to polymer flooding and
oil that could have been recovered due to water flooding. This
is confirmed by the fact that the incremental recovery obtained
from field application of polymer flooding is considerably
higher than the IR calculated from the mathematical model.
Therefore, in deriving an equation for polymer flooding
calculations, the continued water flooding has to be accounted
for. Using the above assumptions and the Lewin and
Associates model, the incremental recovery resulting from
polymer flooding application in Kuwait after modification35 is
given by:
OOIP (0.046 − 0.06 S wi )
IR = (5)
(1.0 − S wi )
Incremental Recovery for Surfactant/Polymer
Flooding
Equation (1) was again modified to calculate the IR for
surfactant/polymer flooding. The volumetric sweep efficiency
(Ev) is generally higher than that of polymer flooding;
therefore, a value of 60% was used. In addition, Sorw and Sore
are assumed to be 40% and 10% respectively. The final
equation is given by:
0.18OOIP
IR = (6)
(1.0 − S wi )
Thermal Recovery
Viscous and low gravity crude oils are prime candidates for
thermal recovery methods because of the effectiveness of heat
in lowering oil viscosity, and because of the general
inefficiency of other EOR methods in recovering heavy oil.
Recent studies and applications of thermal methods point to
promising results and recoveries of 50% of OOIP.39,40 This has
been observed in the application of SAGD, consisting of
drilling two parallel horizontal wells about 20 ft apart, the
upper one is used for steam injection to develop the steam
chamber, and the lower is to produce the mobilized oil. Light
hydrocarbons and solvents have been added to augment the
steam. Applications of this method were reported in fractured
carbonate reservoirs and the results again indicate recoveries of
40–50%.41
Heavy oil deposits present in Kuwait are expected to have a
big play in the future and should boost the overall production
capacity. It would be safe to assume an overall 30% recovery
for the heavy oil deposits. At oil prices of $30/bbl or more, this
is entirely possible.
Results and Discussion of Incremental Recovery
Calculations
Incremental recovery calculations were made for each EOR
scheme, and the results are shown in Table (3).5 It should be
pointed out that the equations used in the calculations are
empirical and do not take into consideration the variations in
reservoir and fluid properties throughout the EOR scheme
performance.
There are uncertainties in estimating OOIP, Sorw, Sore, Boi,
Bo, and even Swi. Therefore the results presented herein are for
preliminary considerations only and should be supplemented
with more accurate recovery models such as compositional and
black oil models. Pilot field testing is critical to the success of
actual EOR applications and therefore ought to be considered.
The incremental recovery calculations indicate that the
additional oil that can be recovered from Kuwait oil reservoirs
using the CO2 miscible process ranges from 10–12% of OOIP.
This range of incremental recovery is close to what was
previously reported. For Kuwait, this additional recovery is
significant when considering the large OOIP in Kuwait oil
reservoirs. A 10–12% incremental recovery represents a
significant addition to the already high recoverable reserves.
Polymer flooding is expected to recover an additional 4%
of OOIP, which is compatible with results reported by Taber.3,4
The application of polymer flooding in the early life of the
reservoir could recover considerably more than 4% commonly
reported. Polymer flooding is more effective when applied in
the early life of the reservoir, particularly to improve water
flood performance. Incremental recovery of 4–5% due to
polymer flooding translates into a significant addition to
Kuwait oil reserves.
The combination of surfactant/polymer appears to give the
largest incremental recovery among all EOR processes
examined here. This is due to the combined effect of interfacial
tension reduction and mobility improvement.
Surfactant/polymer flooding is expected to recover an
additional 20–22% of OOIP. This recovery implies that the
recoverable reserves of the State of Kuwait would increase
significantly. The Lewin and Associates study18,43 showed that
the surfactant/polymer process is the most expensive EOR
scheme because oil is part of the injected material; therefore
high oil prices are not necessarily beneficial to the economics
of surfactant/polymer flooding.
The incremental recovery equation for alkaline flooding is
the same as that used for surfactant/polymer and therefore the
incremental recovery expected from alkaline flooding is
similar to that calculated for surfactant/polymer. Alkaline
flooding is still poorly understood and is not well investigated
and tested in the field. In theory it should work well, but field
applications have been disappointing. Like polymer flooding,
alkaline injection is best suited for application in the early life
of the reservoir.
Economic Analysis of Enhanced Oil Recovery
Processes
Current and foreseeable oil prices are favourable for the
application of most EOR processes. The transformation of the
Alberta tar sands from neglected resource to recoverable
resource is a clear attestation to the favourable economic
conditions for EOR applications.
IPTC 11234
A brief economic analysis for EOR applications in Kuwait
conducted here is to investigate the feasibility of applying
some or all of the processes to Kuwait reservoirs. The
economic analysis conducted here is modelled after the study
conducted by Lewin and Associates, Inc. for the U.S.
Department of Energy.18 It should be noted that the cost
component in Kuwait would be different from that seen in the
United States; for example, royalty and severance, state and
federal taxes, and windfall profit taxes are not a factor in cost
considerations. Cost of equipment and materials would
probably be higher in Kuwait than in the United States, since
Kuwait has to import most of the equipment and material. It is
believed that the higher prices of equipment and material will
be offset by the discount resulting from the absence of taxes;
therefore, the cost per barrel for all EOR processes will be
assumed to equal those seen in the United States.
Generally the enhanced oil recovery costs are divided into
three types: general production costs, financial costs, and
technique-specific costs. As mentioned earlier, the financial
costs will not be a factor in Kuwait and therefore will not be
discussed. The specific costs are associated with each specific
process, for example: steam generating and injection
equipment for steam flooding, CO2 sequestering, compression,
injection of CO2, and equipment modifications. For polymer
floods, the costs are those required for polymer and polymer
mixing and injection equipment.
Carbon Dioxide Flooding Economics
The cost of CO2 is dependent on whether the CO2 is natural,
manufactured, or recycled. Recycled CO2 tends to be the least
expensive after accounting for the initial cost. Recycling costs
normally include hydrocarbon separation costs, H2S separation
costs, and re-pressuring costs. Transportation and compression
costs depend on the length of the CO2 pipeline to injection
locations. Field development costs are composed of costs
required to convert exiting injection wells to corrosion resistant
injection wells or even drilling new wells.
CO2 injection in Kuwait will require a major investment to
modify production and injection facilities for CO2 handling. As
of the time of writing this paper, there is no known natural
source of CO2 in Kuwait. Therefore, although CO2 is
technically feasible for most of Kuwait oil reservoirs, it is not
possible to determine whether it is economically justifiable
with certainty.
Current oil prices justify capturing CO2 from flue gases.
Reported total costs of capturing CO2 from such gases are $3 to
$4/mcf5. Considering that 6 mcf are needed per barrel
recovered, the cost per barrel would be $18 to $25. At current
oil prices, this would still offer a reasonable profit.45
Surfactant/Polymer Flooding Economics
The specific costs of surfactant/polymer flooding consist of
surfactant slug cost and polymer slug cost. The surfactant slug
cost is composed of the cost of crude, alcohol, and sulfonates.
A typical composition of a surfactant slug is 17.5 pounds of
petroleum sulfonate (100% active), 3.5 pounds of alcohol, and
70 pounds of crude oil, all mixed with approximately 30
gallons of water. The polymer slug is composed of 0.243
pounds of polymer at 700 ppm concentration and the balance is
water. A typical project life for a surfactant/polymer injection
5
is seven years with incremental recovery appearing in the third
year.
The surfactant/polymer cost represents 50–60% of the total
cost, whereas investment and operating costs represent 15–
20% and 25–30%, respectively, of the total cost per barrel of
produced oil. High oil prices therefore make this process more
expensive.
Polymer Flooding Economics
The general costs of implementing a polymer flood are similar
to those incurred when implementing other EOR processes.
The technique-specific costs of polymer flooding are
composed of only the cost of the polymer. The cost of polymer
is a function of the concentration, normally around 400 ppm
(0.14 lb per barrel). Lower API gravity crudes require higher
polymer concentrations.
The volume of polymer injected is 50% of the swept pore
volume at a rate of 0.10 pore volume for each of the first five
years. Production response is normally seen in the second year
and it increases for the first two years and then declines to the
economic limit after nine years. Polymer is also used in the
secondary recovery projects. When used in the secondary
recovery mode, the cost per barrel of oil produced is normally
lower than that encountered in the EOR mode.
The cost components distribution for polymer flooding
projects when undertaken in EOR and secondary modes is as
follows: for EOR mode, investment, operating, and polymer
costs range from 13.6–20.6%, 40.2–45%, 38.2–40.9%,
respectively; whereas in secondary mode, the costs range from
0%, 18.2–18.8%, 81.2–81.8%, respectively—all as a
percentage of the total cost per barrel of produced oil. Clearly,
in both cases most of the cost is due to polymer costs. In the
secondary mode, no investment costs are incurred. It is likely
that the investment costs, operating costs, and polymer costs
will be higher in Kuwait than in the United States since most of
the items will probably be imported.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1- The screening criteria analysis that was conducted reveals
that the majority of Kuwait oil fields are suitable to the
CO2 miscible, polymer surfactant/polymer, and alkaline.
Incremental recovery calculations show that CO2 miscible
applications in Kuwait can recover an additional 10–12%
of OOIP.
2- Polymer flooding applications in Kuwait oil fields could
recover 4–5% of additional oil after water flooding. Other
studies have shown that this figure can increase if
polymer flooding is applied in the early life of the field.
3- The surfactant/polymer applications appear to have the
highest incremental recovery. The additional oil that can
be recovered due to surfactant/polymer injection is as
high as 20–22% of OOIP. The surfactant/polymer process
appears to be the most expensive, however, due to high
oil prices.
4- Current and foreseeable oil prices are very favourable for
EOR implementation, particularly in the reservoirs that
contain heavy oil that was not tapped in the past. All
processes screened in this study would currently offer
acceptable return.
6 IPTC 11234

5- Pilot field testing for EOR processes should be done. 6. Lewin and Associates, Economics of Enhanced Oil
Pilot testing is essential to the success of future EOR Recovery, Department of Energy, Document No.
applications. DOE/ET/12072-2, May 1981.
6- It is recommended that considerations should be given to 7. Adasani, M., “The Greater Buran Field,” in 5th Arab
the possibility of applying polymer and alkaline flooding Petroleum Cong., Cairo, 1965, pp. 6–27.
in the early life of the fields to increase the probability of 8. Adasani, M., “The North Kuwait Oil Fields,” in 6th Arab
success. Petroleum Cong., Baghdad (March 1967), pp. 7–39.
9. May, L. G., “A Discussion of Petroleum Engineering
Nomenclature Problems in Burgan Field,” Kuwait, 3rd World Petroleum
A Area Cong., The Hague, Proc, sec. 2 (1951), pp. 697–700.
Bo Final oil formation volume factor 10. Milton, D. I., and Davies, C.C.S., “Exploration and
Boi Initial oil formation volume factor Development of the Raudhatain Field,” J. Ins. Pet., (Jan.
Cp Centipoise 1965) V.51, No. 493, pp. 17–28.
EOR Enhanced oil recovery 11. Al-Rawi, M. M., “Geological Interpretation of Oil
Ev Volumetric sweep efficiency Entrapment in the Zubair Formation, Raudhatain Field,”
GOR Gas oil ratio presented in the Middle East Technical Conference of the
H Reservoir thickness Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 9591 (1981), pp.
IR Incremental recovery 149–159.
K Reservoir permeability 12. Gharib, I. M., “Geometry and Depositional Environment
lb pound of the Zubair Formation, Rauhdhatain and Sabriya Oil
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas Fields, Northern Kuwait,” Unpublished M.Sc. thesis,
MARR Minimum acceptable internal rate of return Kuwait University, p. 59.
Md Millidarcy 13. Fox, A. F., “Oil Occurrence in Kuwait,” in symposium
MMP Minimum miscibility pressure sobre Yacimientos de Petroteo y Gas: 20th Internat. Geol.
N.C. Not critical Cong. Mexico, 1956, v. 2, pp. 131–160.
OOIP Original oil in place 14. Milton, D. I., “Geology of the Arabian Peninsula,
PPM part per million Kuwait,” U.S. Geol Surv. Prof. paper no. 560-F (1967),
PV pore volume pp. 12.
Soi Initial oil saturation 15. Halibouty, M. T., “Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the
Sore residual oil saturation for EOR scheme in swept Decade,” paper presented at a symposium, 64th Annual
zone Meeting AAPG, Houston, Texas, April 1979.
Sorw residual oil saturation after water flood in swept 16. “Big Kuwait Gas Injection Plant Will Boost Oil
zone Recovery,” Oil and Gas Int. V. 7 No. 10, (Otc. 1967 pp.
Swi Initial water saturation 72–73).
17. Personal communications, “Minagish Oil Field, Data and
Greek Letters General Information”, Oil Ministry, State of Kuwait
µo Reservoir oil viscosity (1986).
φ Porosity 18. National Petroleum Council, Enhanced Oil Recovery –
Analysis of the Potential for Enhanced Oil Recovery from
References Known Fields in the United States, 1976–2000, Dec.
1. Donaldson, E.C., Chilingarian, G.V., and Yen T.F.: 1976.
Enhanced Oil Recovery I: Fundamental and Analyses 19. Lewin and Associates, Inc., The Potential and Economics
(Developments in Petroleum Science), Elsevier science of Enhanced Oil Recovery, prepared for the Federal
Ltd. (1985). Energy Administration (April 1976).
2. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, SPE, Richardson, Texas 20. Office of Technology Assessment, Enhanced Oil
(1986). Recovery Potential in the United States (Jan. 1978).
3. Taber, J.J., and Martin, F.D., “Technical Screening 21. Moritis, G.: “EOR Dips in U.S. but Remains a Significant
Guides for the Enhanced Recovery of Oil,” presented at Factor”, Oil & Gas J. (26 September 1994).51.
SPE 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22. Taber, J.J.: “The use of Flue Gas for the Enhanced
San Francisco, Calif., Oct, 5–8, 1983, SPE 12069. Recovery of Oil”, Presented at the Symposium “EOR by
4. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S., “EOR Gas Injection”, 1988 Intl. Energy Agency Collaborative
Screening Criteria Revisited, Part 2: Applications and Research Program on EOR, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14
Impact of Oil Prices,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, September.
August 1997. 23. Walker, J.W., and Turner, J.L., “Performance of
5. Alkafeef, S.F.: Screening of Kuwait Oil Reservoirs for Seeligson Zone 20 B-07 Enriched Gas Drive Project,” J.
Application of Different Enhanced Oil Recovery Pet. Tech (April 1968), p. 369.
Techniques, M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming (May 24. Bleakley, W.B., “Miscible Flood Hikes Block 31’s Oil
1989). Output,” Oil and Gas J., (Oct 27, 1969), p.67.
IPTC 11234 7

25. Rushing, M.D., Thomason, B.C., Reynolds, B., and 42. Bagci, A.S., “Experimental and Simulation Studies of
Crawford, P.B., “Miscible Displacement with Nitrogen,” SAGD Process in Fractured Reservoirs,” SPE/DOE
Pet. Engr. (Nov. 1977) p. 26. Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 22–26 April
26. Martin, F.D. and Taber, J.J.: “Carbon Dioxide Flooding”, 2006, Tulsa, Okla., USA.
JPT (April 1992) 396. 43. National Petroleum Council, Enhanced Oil Recovery,
27. Baviere, M. et al.: “Improved EOR by Use of Chemicals DOE, Washington, D.C. (1984).
in Combination”, SPERE (August 1995), 187. 44. Gutherie, R.K., and Greenberger, M. K., “The Use of
28. Maerker, J.M. and Gale, W.W.: “Surfactant Flood Multiple Correlation Analysis for Interpreting Petroleum
Process Design for Loudon”, paper SPE 20218 presented Engineering Data,” Drilling and Production Practice, API
at the 1990 SPE/DOE Joint Symposium for EOR, Tulsa, (1955), pp. 135–137.
Oklahoma, 22-25 April. 45. Zekri, A.Y., Jarbi, K. K., and El-Honi, M., “Economic
29. Shutang, G., Huabin, L., and Hongfu, L.:“Laboratory Evaluation of Enhanced Oil Recovery,” presented at the
Investigation of Combination of SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
Alkali/Surfactant/Polymer Technology for Daqing EOR”, in China held in Beijing, China, 7–10 November 2000.
SPERE (August 1995) 187.
30. Szabo, M.T., “A Comparative Evaluation of Polymers for
Oil Recovery Flow and Retention in Porous Media,”
paper SPE 6601-B presented at the SPE–AIME
International Symposium on Oil Field and Geothermal
Chemistry, Univ. of California–San Diego, June 27–29,
1977.
31. Maerker, J.M., “Dependence of Polymer Retention on
Flow Rate,” J. Tech (Nov. 1973), 1307-1308.
32. Willhite, G.P., and Dominguez, J. G., “Mechanisms of
Polymer Retention in Porous Media,” paper presented at
the AICHE Symposium on improving oil recovery by
surfactant and polymer flooding, Kansas City, Kan. (April
1976).
33. Chang, H.L., “Polymer Flooding Technology Yesterday,
Today and Tomorrow,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1978), pp.
1113–1127.
34. Gogarty, W. B., “Micellar/Polymer Flooding—An
Overview,” J. Pet. Tech (Aug. 1978), pp. 1089–1101.
35. Mayer, E.H., Berg, R.L., Carmichael, J.D., and
Weinbrandt, R.M., “Alkaline Injection for Enhanced Oil
Recovery: A Status Report,” J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1983), pp.
209–221.
36. Prats, M., Thermal Recovery, Monograph series, SPE
Dallas (1982), 7, 161, 14.
37. White, D. and Moss, J.T.: Thermal Recovery Methods,
Pennwell Publishing, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1983).
38. Shin, H. and Polikar, M.: “Optimizing the SAGD Process
in Three Canadian Oil-Tar Sands Area”, paper SPE
95754 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, TX, 9-12 October 2005.
39. Mendoza, H.A., Finol, J.J., and Butler, R.M.: “SAGD,
Pilot Test in Venezuela” paper SPE 53687 presented at
the SPE Latin American and Caribbean held in Caracas,
Venezuela, 21-23 April 1999.
40. Mendoza, H. and Herrera, L.: “Controllability and
Observability Issues for SAGD Intelligent Control in
Venezuela”, paper SPE 69699 presented at the SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium held in Porlamar, Margarita Island,
Venezuela, 12-14 March 2001.
41. Sedaee Sola, B. and Rashidi, F.: “Application of the
SAGD to an Iranian Carbonate Heavy-Oil Reservoir”
paper 100533 presented at the SPE Western
Regional/AAPG Pacific Section held in Anchorage,
Alaska, 8-10 May 2006.
8 IPTC 11234

Table 1 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods

OIL PROPERTIES
EOR METHODS Gravity Viscosity
Composition
(APIo) (cp)
Gas Inj. Methods:

Hydrocarbon > 23 <3 High % of C2-C7

Nitrogen & Flue
> 35 < 0.5 High % of C1-C7
Gas
Carbon Dioxide > 22 < 10 High % of C2-C7
Chemical Methods

Surfactant/Polymer > 25 < 35 High intermediates desired

Polymer > 15 < 150 NC
Alkaline > 20 < 35 some organic acid
Thermal Methods:

Combustion 10 – 20 < 5000 some asphaltic components

Steam flooding < 20 > 5000 NC

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS
Net
EOR METHODS Porosity Perm. Oil Depth Temp. Rock
thickness
(%) (md) saturation (ft) (oF) Type
(ft)
Gas Inj. Methods: >
2000
(LPG)
>
Thin 5000 Sandstone
unless (HP or
Hydrocarbon NC > 10 > 30% PV dipping gas) NC Carbonate
Thin Sandstone
Nitrogen & Flue >
NC > 10 > 30% PV unless NC or
Gas 10000
dipping Carbonate
Thin Sandstone
>
Carbon Dioxide NC > 10 > 30% PV unless NC or
2000
dipping Carbonate
Chemical
Methods:
< Sandstone
Surfactant/Polymer NC > 20 > 30% PV > 10 8000 < 175 preferred
< Sandstone
Polymer NC > 10 > 40% PV NC < 200
9000 preferred
Above
< Sandstone
Alkaline NC > 20 waterflood NC < 200
9000 Preferred
residual
Thermal Methods:

Combustion ≥ 20 > 50 > 50% PV > 10 > 500 > 150 Sandstone
SS preferred,
> 40-50% 300- carbonate possible
Steam flooding ≥ 30 > 200 > 20 NC
PV 5000
IPTC 11234 9

Table – 2 Summary of Screening Criteria Analysis for Kuwait Reservoirs

Field Reservoir Suitable EOR Process

Burgan Wara CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline
Burgan Third Sand CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline
Burgan Fourth Sand CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Magwa Wara CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Burgan Third Sand CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline
Burgan Fourth Sand CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Ahmadi Wara CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Burgan Third Sand CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline
Burgan Fourth Sand CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Raudhatain Mauddud Limestone CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Burgan Sands CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline
Zubair Sands CO2 miscible, polymer, alkaline
Ratawi (Sandstone) CO2 miscible
Ratawi (Limestone) CO2 miscible

Sabriya Mauddud Limestone CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline

Burgan Sands CO2 miscible, polymer, surfactant/polymer, alkaline
Zubair Sands CO2 miscible, polymer, alkaline
Ratawi (Sandstone) CO2 miscible
Ratawi (Limestone) CO2 miscible

Bahra Upper Burgan Sands CO2 miscible, polymer, alkaline

Minagish Minagish Oolite CO2 miscible

S. Umm Gudair Ratawi Oolite CO2 miscible, polymer, alkaline

10 IPTC 11234

Table – 3 Incremental Recovery for Kuwait Oil Fields

Additional Recovery Percentage (per Pattern Area)

Southeast Kuwait Fields

(Burgan Complex)
Burgan Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Wara 12.04 4.22 22.93
Burgan 3rd Sand:
Upper 3rd Sand 13.50 4.00 25.71
Middle 3rd Sand 9.84 4.54 18.75
Lower 3rd Sand 12.60 4.13 24.00
Burgan 4th Sand 9.84 4.54 18.75
Avg. (%) 11.57 4.29 22.03

Magwa Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Wara 11.81 4.25 22.50
Burgan 3rd Sand:
Upper 3rd Sand 13.50 4.00 25.71
Middle 3rd Sand 9.84 4.54 18.75
Lower 3rd Sand 12.60 4.13 24.00
Burgan 4th Sand 9.84 4.54 18.75
Avg. (%) 11.52 4.29 21.94

Ahmadi Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Wara 12.04 4.22 22.93
Burgan 3rd Sand:
Upper 3rd Sand 13.50 4.00 25.71
Middle 3rd Sand 9.84 4.54 18.75
Lower 3rd Sand 12.60 4.13 24.00
Burgan 4th Sand 9.84 4.54 18.75
Avg. (%) 11.57 4.29 22.03
IPTC 11234 11

Cont. Table – 3 Incremental Recovery for Kuwait Oil Fields

Additional Recovery Percentage (per Pattern Area)

North Kuwait Fields

Raudhatain Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Mauddud
Upper Mauddud 11.72 4.26 22.33
Middle Mauddud 12.47 4.15 23.75
Burgan Sand:
Upper Burgan Sand 12.74 4.11 24.26
Lower Burgan Sand 11.70 4.27 22.28
Zubair Shale (sand
zone) 13.39 4.02 25.50

Zubair Sands
Upper Zubair Sand 11.61 4.28 22.11
Middle Zubair Sand 12.30 4.18 23.44
Lower Zubair Sand 13.11 4.06 24.97
Ratawi
Ratawi Shale (sand
zone) 12.12 4.20 23.08
Ratawi Limestone 11.81 4.25 22.50
Avg. (%) 12.30 4.18 23.42

Sabriya Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Mauddud
Upper Mauddud 11.87 4.24 22.61
Middle Mauddud 11.95 4.23 22.76
Burgan Sand:
Upper Burgan Sand 11.51 4.29 21.92
Lower Burgan Sand 11.39 4.31 21.69
Zubair Shale (sand
zone) 13.13 4.06 25.00

Zubair Sands
Lower Zubair Sand 13.13 4.06 25.00
Ratawi
Ratawi Shale 13.50 4.00 25.72
Ratawi Limestone 12.60 4.13 24.00
Avg. (%) 12.38 4.17 23.59

Bahra Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Burgan
Upper Burgan Sand 11.72 4.26 22.33
12 IPTC 11234

Cont. Table – 3 Incremental Recovery for Kuwait Oil Fields

Additional Recovery Percentage (per Pattern Area)

West Kuwait Fields

Minagish Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Minagish Oolites 11.80 4.25 22.47

S. Umm Gudair Field

Miscible Polymer Surfactant/Polymer

Reservoir
Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%) Flood Recovery (%)
Ratawi Oolites 12.60 4.13 24.00