SPE 120089

Experimental Evaluation of Heavy Oil Recovery by Hot Water Injection

in a Middle Eastern Reservoir
Abdullah F. Alajmi, SPE, Meshal Algharaib, SPE, and Ridha Gharbi, SPE, Kuwait University

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in the Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 15–18 March
2009.

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
With the increase of oil demand worldwide and current oil price, the recovery of heavy oil deposits became a major
issue in the oil industry. Overcoming the challenges and complexity associated with the production of these deposits
has been the target and focus in recent years. Large quantity of hydrocarbon deposits remains unrecovered due to the
high viscosity of oil. Thermal recovery processes are techniques used to reduce the oil viscosity and enhance the oil
recovery by introducing heat to the underlying reservoirs. Hot water injection is a thermal recovery technique in which
water is injected into hydrocarbon strata. The hot water injection reduces the viscosity of the heavy oil and provides a
driving mechanism to sweep the heavy oil toward production wells. In this work, the application of hot water injection
in a Middle Eastern reservoir with large heavy oil deposits was investigated. The reservoir’s heavy oil had a viscosity
of 500 cp and an initial oil saturation of 75%. Two-phase fluid flow displacement experiments were conducted. The
objective was to find the optimum design parameters in terms of injection temperature and hot water slug size that
would yield to the best performance. The results obtained from several design configurations are presented. These
configurations include hot water floods with different slug sizes and sequences. These results can be used as a tool for
the successful design of hot water injection to recover heavy oil in these types of reservoirs. In addition, they provide
the condition under which a given design may yield better recovery performance.

Introduction
The primary oil recovery mechanisms when exhausted leave enormous amount of hydrocarbons unrecovered. The
main objective of enhanced oil recovery methods (EOR) is to increase the recovery of hydrocarbons from depleted
reservoirs. EOR mechanisms are divided into three main categories: thermal, chemical, and miscible methods. Each
method tries to improve certain aspects of hydrocarbon displacement process. Thermal recovery methods and
techniques have been the focus of several literatures in the Oil industry (Prats 2004; Stone et al. 2002; Osterloh and
Jones 2003; Ramlal 2004; Sasaki et al. 2001). Thermal recovery refers to processes for recovering oil from
underground formation by use of heat. Thermal recovery processes are the most widely used method to enhance the
recovery from heavy oil reservoirs. The heat may be supplied externally by injecting a hot fluid such as steam or hot
water into the formations, or it may be generated internally by combustion, where the fuel is supplied by the oil in place
and the oxidant is injected into the formations in the form of air or other oxygen-containing fluids. In-situ combustion
is not as common as heat injection processes. There are four variations of heat injection processes: steam stimulation,
steam displacement, hot gas injection, and hot water. Hot water injection perhaps the simplest of all heat injection
processes and is the closest to the conventional waterflood in its ease of operation. Hot water injection theory is simple;
heated water is generated on the surface and introduced into the formation through injection wells. The heat serves to
lower the oil viscosity in the formation, allowing it to flow more easily to the producers in conjunction with the
displacement mechanism provided by the hot water. As temperature increases, oil mobility improves relative to that for
water because viscosity decreases more rapidly with increasing temperature for heavy oil than for water (Hong 1994).
Ultimate recovery of oil by hot-water injection will exceed recovery by a cold-water flood. For a given throughput of
injected water, improved mobility means that oil recovery will be greater for hot water than for cold water injection. A
major disadvantage of hot-water injection, compared to steam injection, is that maximum energy injection rates are
usually lower because saturated steam vapor has an energy content three times more than of hot water below 423 ˚F. In
2 SPE 120089

laboratory experiments, Shen (1989) found that a steamflood following a hot water flood recovered more oil than a
steamflood alone. Instead of ascending to the upper region of the formation, steam follows the channels that are
established by the hot water flooding. Therefore, the injected steam moved along the lower region of the formation and
contacted additional oil. In contrast, converting a steam flood project into hot water flooding produces little additional
oil. In this case, the hot water front moves the oil that was bypassed by the steamflood. Further details of converting
steamflood to hot water flood were presented by Hong (1987). This practice reduces fuel consumption and resaturates
the steam zone with liquid water, which might reduce the possibility of subsidence occurrence in case of sand
production. Moreover in steam flood project, steam tends to travel across the top of the reservoir; therefore, the injected
water becomes heated as it passes through the swept zone and then moves down word due to gravity, thereby delivering
heat to the unaffected zone. In addition, Hong gave recommended guidelines regarding the optimum time to convert
steamflood projects to waterflood.
In a field application, Dornan (1990) discussed the conversion of 275 steam displacement patterns to hot water pilots in
the Kern River field in California. The performance of the hot water flood was inefficient in improving the recovery
after steamflood due to several reasons. Firstly, the reservoir rock and fluid properties of the Kern River field prevent
the formation of an effective immiscible displacement bank. Secondly, the oil resaturation occurs in areas where the
injected water filled the steam swept zone. Finally, the hot water injection was ineffective at transferring heat to the
lower portions of the reservoir as indicated by temperature data from observation wells. In another application to the
same field, Messner and Stelling (1990) showed a practice of a dual injection of hot water and steam. Hot water was
injected down the tubing into a previously steamflooded formation, while high quality steam was injected down the
tubing-casing annulus into an overlying active steamflood zone. Due to the heat transfer from the annulus steam to the
tubing hot water, the project was considered as a low to mid-quality (10-40%) steamflood in which the benefits of
introducing hot waterflooding after steamflood cannot be criticized. Later on, Bousaid (1991) conducted a series of lab
experiments to investigate the effect of injection rate on hot water and steamflooding the Kern River oil in a five foot
linear cell. The results of hot waterflooding experiments show that the hot water floods can mobilize the oil effectively
above a specific temperature and higher injection rates moved the heat further away and improved oil mobility.
Moreover, the final oil saturation after hot water flooding is controlled mainly by the oil to water viscosity ratio. On the
other hand, the steamflood experiments show a formation of a fast moving steam front at high injection rate that banks
and produces oil rapidly until steam breakthrough. Goodyear et al. (1996) conducted several reservoir simulation
studies to investigate the potential for hot water flooding to improve the recovery of a 400 cp oil reservoir with
underlying water. Their results show that hot waterflooding can recover significant quantities of incremental oil, up to
18% of OIIP, compared to the cold waterflooding. They concluded also that the thermal expansion of water plays an
important role in the incremental recovery mechanism.
Pederson and Jayadi (2001) introduced a novel approach to reduce the cost associated with hot water flooding projects.
They proposed the use of water from geothermal sources to eliminate the need to heat water. Their approach composes
of injecting water from high temperature geothermal reservoir into oil reservoir and injecting the produced water from
oil reservoir into the high temperature geothermal reservoir for inventory purposes. They also conducted a field
simulation study, for one of the reservoir in Indonesia, using this approach and found that they can increase the
incremental recovery up to 7.5% over using a cold waterflooding approach. Hot water flooding may alter the
permeability and the porosity of hydrocarbon reservoirs. In diatomite reservoirs, permeability modification occurs as a
result silica dissolution in hot water, whereas, permeability reduction occurs as a result of silica redistribution on the
rock surface as hot water cools. Bhat and Kovscek (1998) modeled the permeability alteration during hot water
flooding by a simple network representation of diatomite. They found a relationship that describes the changes in
permeability as a function of the changes in porosity which can be incorporated into reservoir simulators. In another
experimental work, Kovscek and Diabira (2000) show that diatomite reservoirs undergo a reduction in porosity and
permeability due to flow-induced compaction for some conditions of water injection. Moreover, they noticed that the
dissolution of the rock matrix is a slow process relative to compression and cannot compensate for reduction in
permeability. Therefore, they suggested considering the role of rock compression whenever hot fluid is injected into
diatomite reservoirs. Hot water injection may be used to alter wettability of oil-wet reservoirs to improve hydrocarbon
recovery. Al-Hadhrami and Blunt (2001) proposed the use of hot-water injection in an oil-wet fractured carbonate
reservoir in Oman to alter the wettability. They stated that the water will heat the rock, which then undergoes a
thermally induced wettability reversal, and then the hot water can spontaneously imbibe into the water wet rock matrix,
resulting in favorable oil recoveries. They developed an analytical solution which shows a 30% oil recovery over 700
days of hot water injection compared to the current 2% of oil recovery achieved after 20 years of production. Tang and
Kovscek (2004) experimentally studied the effect of temperature on rock wettability. They conducted a number of lab
experiments on diatomite cores to highlight the effect of temperature on oil recovery in hot water flooding operations.
The experimental results indicate that improvement in recovery with temperature occurs through both a more favorable
mobility ratio and wettability alteration.
Cassinat et al. (2002) presented planning, testing and modeling of hot water flooding pilot in the Senex field of northern
Alberta. They proposed the injection of hot water to overcome the viscous effect and permeability reduction due to
SPE 120089 3

paraffin deposition. Their simulation study shows an increase in oil recovery up to 25%. Recovery from hot water
flooding operations may be assisted by the simultaneous injecting chemical additives. Karkas et al. (1986) developed a
mathematical model to describe the combined injection of chemical additives and hot water in a reservoir. Their results
show that in the combined injection of chemical and hot water enhances the oil recovery considerably. They study the
sensitivities of the recovery performance to the process parameters. Their results show a more efficient displacement
when the injected chemicals reside entirely in the heated zone compared to the case when the injected chemicals travel
ahead of the heated zone. Heiemann et al. (1986) proposed the use of chemicals which precipitate at the hot water
front, by conversion from the vaporized or liquid state into the solid crystalline form, as the temperature declines
resulting in mobility reduction. Their lab displacement tests on linear cores show an average increase in oil recovery of
9%. Zeigler (1988) conducted a number of laboratory experiments to evaluate the use of surfactants in steamflood
operations to improve the oil recovery from the hot-water zone. He used criteria to screen surfactants according to
thermal stability, interfacial activity, and surfactant flood performance. The results show an incremental oil recovery of
up to 14%. The Middle Eastern reservoir investigated in this study is shallow sandstone at depth of 600 ft with
thickness of 100 ft. The average permeability is 800 md. And the porosity ranges from 22-28 %. The reservoir consists
of viscous low API Gravity Crude (13 °API), with viscosity of 500 cp at reservoir temperature of 100 °F.
The application of hot water injection in Middle East reservoirs is yet to be explored. Therefore, the objective of this
paper is to evaluate the performance of hot water injection in aboved described Middle Eastern reservoir. In this study,
experimental investigations are performed in order to determine the conditions under which hot water injection may
yield better performance. Several laboratory experiments were conducted in order to find the optimum design
parameters in terms of injection temperature and hot water slug size that would yield the best performance.

1. Methodology
1. Preparation
The physical properties of heavy oil samples from the reservoir under study were measured. Core samples were
prepared and porosity and permeability values were measured.

- Fluid preparation
As mentioned previously, the reservoir fluid is heavy oil with viscosity values around 500 cp. The physical properties
of oil sample were obtained in the lab.
At room temperature (77 ºF), reservoir oil viscosity is around 730.59 cp while at reservoir temperature it is around 500
cp. Table 1 shows the oil viscosity and density as functions of temperature.

Table 1: Fluid Properties

Temperature (°F) Viscosity (cp)

77 730.59
120 238.57
180 117.17
200 47.75

- Experimental setup and data collection

The experimental setup consists of core flooding system. It includes fluid injection pumps, core holder, core sleeve
(viton), confining pressure system, heater, and fraction collector.
Figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of the experimental apparatus and Figure 2 presents the core holder (sleeve and end
caps) before assembling.
4 SPE 120089

Oil
Pump

∆P

Core Holder

Core

Water
Pump
Collection
Heater
Reservoir
Temperature Temperature
Monitor Monitor

Figure 1: A schematic drawing of the experimental apparatus

Figure 2: Picture of the core holder assembly

- Core Preparation
The core was first cleaned by toluene and air then was placed in oven to dry out for 24 hours. Then the core
was assembled inside the core holder, and put under confining pressure of 500 psi to prevent any fluid bypass in the
edges of the core. Vacuum was applied for another 24 hours to extract any air bubble inside the core that might be
presented. This procedure was done for the accuracy of the fluid recovery and saturation measurements.

- Water saturation
After vacuum, the core was saturated with water by vacuum forces. The volume of water entered the core was
measured. Subtracting the dead volume (piping volume), the pore volume was calculated and the porosity was
determined. Next, water was being injected into the core sample at a specified flow rate, and the differential pressure
along the core ends was recorded. After stabilization, the injection rate was changes and a new differential pressure was
recorded. From these data (the flow rates and differential pressures) the core absolute permeability was calculated.
Figure 3 shows the absolute permeability stabilization over time.
SPE 120089 5

1600

1400

Abs. Permeability (md) 1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
TIME (min)

Figure 3: Absolute permeability of core sample over time

Table 2 shows the calculated porosity and measured permeability of the core sample that is used for the unheated water
flooding experiment.

Table 2: Rock Properties

Bulk Volume (cc) 617.5
Pore Volume (cc) 157
Porosity (%) 25.4
Abs.Perm (md) 810

- Establishment of Reservoir Initial Conditions

After permeability and porosity values were obtained; the core was flooded with heavy oil. The core sample was
flooded with oil at a rate of 1 cc/min. Fractional flow of both water and oil at the outlet (production side) was recorded
and monitored. The oil was injected until irreducible water saturation is established (Swirr). The purpose of this step
was to mimic the initial distribution of water and oil saturation in the reservoir. It is worth to mention that, each fluid
displacement experiments started from the established initial saturation distribution conditions as explained in this
section.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1 Core Flooding Experiments

This section describes the fluid displacement experiments. To align with the objectives set for this work, the effect of
injected water temperature on oil recovery was quantified. In order to do so, the performance of the heated water
experiments was compared against a base case in which unheated water was being injected. Therefore, two
experiments were performed initially to evaluate the effect of water temperature on the oil recovery.

2.2.1 Base Case Experiment (Unheated Water Injection)

The core was flooded with water (at room temperature) at a rate of 1 cc/min at the initial fluid distribution status. The
differential and injection pressures were recorded. Moreover, the amount of oil and water recovered were also
recorded, and fluid saturations are calculated and monitored during the entire flood versus time. These data were used
6 SPE 120089

to obtain oil-water relative permeability curves. Figure 4 shows the relative permeability curves obtained in the
unheated water flooding experiment. As shown, the curves are typical of water-wet system.

0.5

0.4

Relative Permeability
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw

Figure 4: Relative permeability data – unheated water flood.

The recovered volumes of oil and water were also used to construct the relationship between oil recovery versus Pore
Volume of water injected (PVI). Figure 5 shows the oil recovery history under unheated water injection. As shown,
water breakthrough occurred at around 0.38 PVI with a recovery of 38%. The ultimate oil recovery was 50%.

2.2.2 Hot Water Flooding Experiment (Continuous Mode)

The experimental work was repeated with the same fluids and core sample. When the core is at irreducible water
saturation conditions, the core was flooded with hot water at a temperature of 200 ºF. Similarly, the differential and
injection pressures were measured and recorded and the amount of fluid recovered at the outlet was noted. Figure 6
shows the water and oil relative permeability curves for the hot water experiment. Similarly to the unheated water
experiment, the recovered volumes of oil and water were used to construct the relationship between oil recovery versus
Pore Volumes of water injected (PVI).
Figure 7 shows the fractional oil recovery history that resulted from this hot water flooding experiment. As shown,
water breakthrough occurred at around 0.53 PVI with a recovery of 53%. The ultimate oil recovery was 63%.

0.8
Heavy Oil Recovery

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 5 : Heavy oil recovery versus PVI – unheated water flood

SPE 120089 7

0.5

0.4

Relative Permeability
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw

Figure 6 : Relative permeability data – hot water

0.8
Heavy Oil Recovery

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 7 : Oil recovery versus PVI – hot water

2.2.3 Comparison between Unheated and Hot Water flooding experiments

In order to evaluate the added value of recovery, a comparison is made between the unheated and hot water core
flooding experiments as follows.

1- The effect of Heat on Relative Permeability

Figure 8 shows the relative permeability curves for both the unheated and hot water experiments. As shown, the added
heat shifted the oil relative permeability curve to the right resulting in favorable mobility of oil. The added heat has
more effect on the oil viscosity than on the water viscosity, and hence better mobility for the oil phase.

2- The effect of Heat on Oil Recovery

Figure 9 shows the recovery curves for the unheated and hot water flooding experiments. As shown, the added heat
improves the oil recovery of the hot water experiment. During the early time of injection, both unheated and hot water
flooding experiments have similar production output. The breakthrough for the hot water case occurred at a later time
compared to the unheated water case. At later injection times, the hot water experiment outperforms the cold water case
yielding an improvement in oil recovery by more than 10%. Table 3 compares the performance of unheated water and
hot water cases in terms of breakthrough and ultimate oil recoveries.
8 SPE 120089

0.5

0.4

Relative Permeability
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw

Figure 8: Comparison of relative permeability of unheated water injection (Blue) and hot water injection (Red)

Unheated
0.8 HOT
Heavy Oil Recovery

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 9: Recovery curves comparison

Table 3: Comparison between hot water flood and unheated water flood

Flood Type Breakthrough (PVI) Ultimate Oil Recovery

Room Temperature Water 0.38 0. 50
Hot Water (200 F) 0.53 0.63

Figure 10 shows the effect ofoextra heat on o

the heavy oil recovery. It compares the fractional oil recovery for water
injection temperatures of 200 F and 300 F. As shown, the added heat has resulted in an increase in oil recovery of
about 5%. Figure 11 shows the heavy oil recovery as a function of fluid injection temperature. It compares the
breakthrough oil recovery (blue) and ultimate oil recovery (Red) for both experiments. As indicated, the fractional oil
recovery is proportional to the injection temperature.
SPE 120089 9

0.8 T=200F
T=300F

0.6

Oil Recovery
0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 10: Heavy oil recovery as function of injection temperature

1.0
0.9
BT Rec.
0.8
RF
0.7
BT (PVI) , R

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Tem p. F

Figure 11: Recovery curves comparison at two injection temperatures

2.3 Hot Water Slug Size

The next set of experiments was performed to study the effect of the hot water slug size on the fractional oil recovery.
In these experiments, a combination of unheated/hot water slug sizes was designed to evaluate the heavy oil recovery.
Different design scenarios were performed as illustrated below:

2.3.1 Case 1
In this case, a slug of unheated water was injected followed by a slug of hot water as shown in the schematic below:

Flow

Hot Unheated water

Case 1: Unheated water followed by hot water

The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the heat influence on recovery after the unheated water had broken
through. A 1.5 PVI of unheated water was first injected followed by a slug of hot water until the ultimate recovery is
achieved. Figure 12 represents the fractional oil recovery obtained for this case. An extra 10% in the fractional oil
recovery was obtained by the hot water slug.
10 SPE 120089

0.8

0.6

Heavy Oil Recovery

0.4

0.2

Unheated Hot water

water flood
0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 12: Recovery curves in case 1

2.3.2 Case 2
This case represents a reverse sequence of floods of case 1. A 1.5 PVI slug size of hot water was first injected
followed by unheated water. The recovery curve in Figure 13 shows no significant oil recovery improvement during
the unheated water flood.

Unheated Hot

Case 2: Hot water followed by unheated water

0.8

0.6
Oil Recovery

0.4

0.2
Hot water Unheated
flood water flood

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 13: Recovery of heavy oil in case 2

Figure 14 represents a comparison of the two experimental cases (hot water followed by unheated water and unheated
water followed by hot water in a new core sample). As shown, case 2 obviously outperformed case 1 during the early
time of injection. However, the situation is reversed at later injection times, resulting in higher ultimate oil recovery for
case 1. Therefore, switching to unheated water after hot water injection had minimum improvement on the oil recovery.
SPE 120089 11

0.8

Unheated-HOT
Hot-Unheated
0.6

Oil Recovery 0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 14: Comparison of heavy oil recovery in case 1 and case 2

2.3.3 Cases 3 and 4

The injection scenarios used in case 3 is shown below. In this case, hot water is injected first followed by
unheated water then again hot water. Case 4 had a reverse design in which unheated water is injected between two
slugs of hot water. The amount of PVI used in each slug is shown in the corresponding box.

Hot Unheated water Hot

Case 3: Hot followed by unheated water then hot

Unheated water Hot Unheated water

Case 4: Unheated water followed by hot then unheated water

Figure 15 shows the oil recovery performance of cases 3 and 4. As indicated, increasing the number of slug sizes does
not necessarily improve the oil recovery.
12 SPE 120089

0.8

Unheated-HOT-Unheated
HOT-Unheated-HOT

0.6

Heavy Oil Recovery

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 15: Comparison of heavy oil recovery in case 3 and case 4

2.3.4 Case 5

Case 5 studied the effect of hot slug growth on the fractional oil recovery. Several core flood experiments
were performed, each with different hot water slug size (five different slug sizes). The hot water slug size was varied
from 0 to 4 PVI. A zero hot water slug size represents the unheated water flood case. A slug size of 4 PVI represents
an experiment in which only hot water is injected. Prior to each sequence, the core was cleaned and resaturated with the
fluids.

Unheated water – 4.0 PVI A

Hot
Unheated water – 3.5 PVI B
0.5 PVI

Hot
Unheated water – 3.0 PVI C
1.0 PVI

Unheated water Hot

2.5 PVI 1.5 PVI D

Hot
4.0 PVI E

Case 5: Experimental scenarios with different hot water slug size (SL)
A) SL=0, B) SL=0.5, C) SL=1.0, D) SL=1.5, and E) Only hot water
SPE 120089 13

Figure 16 compares the oil recovery histories as function of hot water slug size. As shown, the unheated water case
yielded the lowest oil recovery for the entire injection period. As the hot water slug size increases, more heavy oil is
produced. However, experiment with a hot water slug size of 1.5 PVI has yielded almost the same recovery as the case
in which only hot water is injected. This suggests that there is a critical slug size above which the oil recovery remains
constant. Figure 17 compares the percentage increase in the fractional oil recovery at 4.0 PVI over the unheated water
flood case. As shown, no further improvement in the oil recovery was achieved after a slug size of 1.5 PVI.
Figure 18 represents the incremental improvement difference of each slug size flood sequence. As shown, the optimum
hot water slug size occurred at 1.0 PVI. Around this slug size, the incremental improvement in oil recovery is reduced.

0.8

0.6
Heavy Oil Recovery

0.4 Unheated
0.5 Slug
1.0 Slug
1.5 Slug
HOT
0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
PVI

Figure 16: Oil recovery of case 5

12

10
Percentage change,%

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Hot Water Slug Size PV

Figure 17: Oil recovery at different hot water slug sizes

14 SPE 120089

Incremental Oil recovery increase

4

0
0 1 2 3 4
Hot Water Slug Size (PV)

Figure 18: Oil recovery at different hot water slug size

CONCLUSIONS
The study investigated experimentally the performance of hot water injection to displace heavy oil in a Middle Eastern
sandstone reservoir. Numerous experiments with different injection scenarios were conducted. The conditions under
which hot water injection may yield better performance are presented for each of the studied cases. Among the various
investigated scenarios, the case with unheated water injection followed by hot water injection yielded the best recovery
performance. This is due to the higher heat conduction when hot water flows after fluid displacement mechanism has
been established. Results also indicated that increasing the alternation of unheated water and hot water slug sizes does
not necessary improve the oil production. Hot water slug size needs to be higher that 0.5 PVI in order to improve the
oil recovery. The optimum hot water slug size was at 1.0 PVI. This work has contributed significantly toward our
understanding of the mechanisms of hot water injection in this Middle Eastern heavy oil reservoir. This is critical in the
decision on the applicability of this oil recovery method and its field application success.

Acknowledgment
This study was supported by Kuwait University Research Administration, Grant no.EP03/05. The authors are grateful
for this support.

References
Al-Hadhrami H. S., and Blune J. M., “Thermally Induced Wettability Alteration to Improve Oil recovery in Fractured
reservoir”, SPEREE, (June 2001), 179-186.
Bhat S. K. and Kovscek A. R., “Permeability Modification of Diatomite during Hot Fluid Injection”, paper SPE 46210,
SPE Western region Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 10-13 May 1998.
Bousaid, I. S., “Hot-Water and Steamflood Studies Using Kern River Oil”, paper SPE 21543, SPE International
Thermal Operations Symposium, Bakersfield, California, 7-8 February 1991.
Cassinat J. C., Payette M. C., and Taylor, D. B., “Optimizing Water Flood Performance by Utilizing Hot water Injection
In a High Paraffin Content Reservoir”, paper SPE 75141, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Okalahoma, 13-17 April 2002.
Dornan R. G., “Hot Water Flood in a Post-Steam Reservoir: A case History in the Kern field, California”, paper SPE
20050, SPE California Regional meeting, Ventura California, 4-6 April 1990.
Goodyear, S.G., Reynolds, C.B., Townsley, P.H., and Woods, C. L., “Hot water flooding for high permeability viscous
oil fields”, paper SPE 35373, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa Okalahoma, 21-24 April 1996.
Heiemann Z., Krratzer D., and Steiner P., “Mobility Control Steam drive MCSD by the application of additives suitable
in hot water”, paper SPE 14903, Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa Okalahoma, 20-23 April 1986.
Hong, K.C. “Steamflood reservoir management”. PennWell Books, 1994.
Hong, K. C., “Guidelines for Converting Steam Flood to Water Flood”, SPERE, (February 1987), 67-76.
Karkas M, and Saneie S., “Displacement of a Viscous Oil by the Combined Injection of Hot Water and Chemical
Additives”, SPERE, (July 1986), 391-402.
SPE 120089 15

Kovscek, A. R., and Diabira I., “An Experimental Investigation of Permeability and Porosity Alteration in Diatomite
during Hot Fluid Injection”, paper SPE 62558, SPE/AAGP Western region meeting, Long Beach, California, 19-22
June 2000.
Messner G. L., and Stelling D. R., “Dual Injection with Steam and hot Water in the Kern River Field-Case History”,
paper SPE 21580, CIM/SPE international Technical meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 10-13 June 1990.
Osterloh, W. T., and Jones, J., “Novel Thermal Process for Recovery of Extremely Shallow Heavy Oil”, SPEREE,
(April 2003), 127-134.
Pederson J. M., and Sitorus J. H., “Geothermal Hot- Water Flood- Balam South Telisa Sand, Sumatra, Indonesia”, paper
SPE 68724, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19 April 2001.
Prats, M., “The Effect of Heat Transfer Between Nearby Layers on the Volume of Steam Zone”, SPE Journal, (June
2004), 221-230.
Ramlal, V., “Cruse Steamflood Expansion Case History”, SPEREE, (December 2004), 449-459.
Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S., Yazawa, N., Doan, Q. T., and Farouq Ali, S.M., “Experimental Modeling of the SAGD
Process - Enhancing SAGD Performance with Periodic Stimulation of the Horizontal Producer”, SPE Journal,
(March 2001), 89-97.
Shen, C. W., “Laboratory Hot Water Floods prior to following steam floods”, paper SPE 18754, SPE California
Regional meeting, Bakersfield, California, 5-7 April 1989.
Stone, T. W., Bennett, J., Law, D. H. –S., and Holmes. J. A., “Thermal Simulation with MultiSegment Wells”, SPEREE,
(June 2002), 206-218.
Tang G. Q., and Kovscek A. R., “An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Temperature on Recovery of Heavy
Oil from Diatomite”, SPEJ Journal, (June 2004), 163-179.
Zeigler V. M., “Laboratory Investigation of High Temperature Surfactant Flooding”, SPERE, (May 1988), 586-596.