EE055-3-3-EOR

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY.

NAME & TP. THIIK THIIK AGOTH CITHIIK – TP058512

SALEH MOHSEN NASSER ALMUTAHHIRI - TP052667
Mohamed Wagih Mohamed Mahmoud Ahmed - TP058443
INTAKE APU3F2111PE

LECTURER MUHAMMAD SYAHMI AFIF

DATE 19/9/2022

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS.

1.0 INTRODUCTION. .............................................................................................................. 4

1.2 EKOFISK OIL FIELD. .................................................................................................... 6
1.3 EORGUI ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS. ....................................................................................... 10
2.1 THIIK THIIK AGOTH - CHEMICAL RECOVERY. .................................................. 10
2.1.1 SCENARIOS .................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 COST ANALYSIS. ..................................................................................................... 13
2.2.0 MOHAMAD WAHIH MOHAMAD - THERMAL EOR RECOVERY .................... 14
2.2.1 OIL RESERVOIR DATA ........................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW (EOR METHODS) ............................................................ 15
2.2.3 THERMAL EOR RECOVERY .................................................................................. 16
EORgui analysis....................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 SIMULATION OF THERMAL EOR......................................................................... 22
2.2.5 Steam flooding ............................................................................................................ 23
2.2.6 Hot water flooding ...................................................................................................... 24
2.2.7 SAGD steam flooding ................................................................................................. 25
2.2.8 Economic analysis ....................................................................................................... 26
2.2.9 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.0 SALEH MOHSEN NASSER ALMUTAHHIRI ........................................................ 29
2.3.1 Field reservoir data ...................................................................................................... 29
2.3.2 EOR gas flooding ........................................................................................................ 30
2.3.3 EOR screening criteria (Using screening criteria table).............................................. 31
2.3.4 Thermal methods ......................................................................................................... 32
2.3.5 Gas injection method ................................................................................................... 32
2.3.6 Chemical injection method.......................................................................................... 33
2.3.8 Simulation of Gas flooding EOR ................................................................................ 34
2.3.9 N2-CO immiscible flooding ........................................................................................ 36
3.0. DISCUSSION (WAGIH).................................................................................................. 40
4.0 CONCLUSION (SALEH) ................................................................................................. 41
5.0 REFERENCES. ................................................................................................................. 42

2
LIST OF FIGURES.
Figure 1: Phases of oil recovery................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Ekofisk field location ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: EORGUI Ekofisk field ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Detailed results. ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 5: 3D view .................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Result graph. ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 7: 3D well view. ........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Result graph. ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 9:Steam flooding. ......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10:EOR screening criteria chart ................................................................................... 21
Figure 11: Summary of screening criteria for EOR methods .................................................. 34
Figure 12: Oil recovery obtained using CO2 immiscible ........................................................ 36
Figure 13: Reservoir profile obtained using CO2 immiscible ................................................. 36
Figure 14: Oil recovery obtained using N2-CO immiscible .................................................... 37
Figure 15: Reservoir profile obtained using N2-CO immiscible ............................................. 37

LIST OF TABLES.
Table 1: Field data. .................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Reservoir initial conditions. ......................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Permeability. ................................................................................................................ 8
Table 4: .................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 5: Static data inserted to CMG ....................................................................................... 23
Table 6: Oil recovery and cumulative of oil using steam flooding.......................................... 24
Table 7: 3D oil saturation profile using steam flooding .......................................................... 24
Table 8: Continuous steam flooding cost analysis ................................................................... 27
Table 9: Hot water flooding cost analysis................................................................................ 28
Table 10: Table 5: SAGD flooding cost analysis .................................................................... 28
Table 11: Field reservoir data .................................................................................................. 30
Table 12: Static model data...................................................................................................... 35
Table 13: Oil recovery at different bottom hole pressure ........................................................ 38
Table 14: Cost analysis using CO2 immiscible ....................................................................... 39
Table 15: Cost analysis using N2-CO immiscible ................................................................... 39
Table 16: Cost analysis using CO2 miscible ........................................................................... 40

3
 1.0 INTRODUCTION. ( THIIK)
The demand for petroleum products has been highly increasing in the recent years due to the
advance technology that requires most of these petroleum products to operate. Petroleum
firms have therefore tried to the best of their ability to explore and produce oil and gas
products to meet these rising demands of the new digital world. These companies have
developed numerous software that aid the discover and maximize the production in the
industry. In doing so, better living standards can be achieved through employability and the
firms generate huge sums of profits.
The procedure for extracting oil from a reservoir is broken up into three stages: primary,
secondary, and tertiary recovery. During the main recovery phase, oil is generated as a result
of the inherent energy of the reservoir (compaction drive, solution gas drive, water drive, gas
cap drive, and gravity drive), with recovery percentages ranging from 10 to 30 percent.
Secondary recovery techniques include the injection of water or gas into the reservoir in order
to keep the pressure there stable or to boost output. The implementation of these strategies
results in an additional 10–20 percentage points of recovery. The average recovery factor of
oil reservoirs throughout the globe that are now producing oil is between 35 and 40 percent.
(Bonder, 2010) After primary and secondary techniques have been used, or immediately after
the main production period, tertiary methods, also known as "Enhanced Oil Recovery methods"
(EOR), are often implemented in mature oil fields that are seeing a downward trend in output.
Because of the presence of powerful viscous and capillary forces, as well as a high value of
interfacial between the fluid and the rock, these "Enhanced Oil Recovery" methods (EOR)
require the injection of gases or fluids in order to mobilize the residual oil that has been trapped
in the reservoir rock. It is possible for these strategies to accelerate recovery by 15–25%%.

4
 Figure 1: Phases of oil recovery

There has been substantial development of new technology engaged in the deployment of EOR
processes throughout the last decade. The rising price of oil and the development of cutting-
edge technologies have piqued the interest of a greater number of businesses in EOR initiatives.
In order of size, the biggest are British Petroleum (BP), Canadian Natural Resources Limited
(CNRL), Cenovus Energy Inc., Chevron Corporation, and China National Petroleum
Corporation (CNPC) (www.visiongain.com). Currently, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
('SAGD') is the most "common" technology for extracting oil from heavy oil reservoirs using
thermal methods of stem injection. Advances in combustion control, the biggest obstacle to
expanding the use of the thermal process of oil recovery by in situ burning, have been made.
In addition, reservoirs containing lighter oil are now suitable candidates for in situ combustion.
Surfactants that are thermally stable and surfactants created to be active at extremely low
concentration for surfactant flooding, as well as alkaline-polymer (AP) injection and alkaline-
surfactant-polymer (ASP) injection, are examples of recent developments in the area of EOR
chemical approaches. In recent years, CO2 injection process has almost replaced steam
injection as the most common EOR technology worldwide. In the United States and Europe,
CO2 injection is the most "popular" enhanced oil recovery technique. Carbon capture and
sequestration, made possible by this process, also represents a potential technology for cutting
down on greenhouse gas emissions (CSS). It has been shown that injecting carbon dioxide from
power plants that run on fossil fuels into an oil reservoir improves the efficiency of oil recovery.
By sequestering carbon dioxide (CO2) in massive underground reservoirs, EOR has a major
positive effect on the environment.

5
 1.2 EKOFISK OIL FIELD. (THIIK)

Ekofisk field discovered in 1969 by the Phillips Petroleum Company is an oil field located in
the northeast sea in block 2/4 in the Norwegian Republic. After its discovery, the field
production began in the early 1970s in several. When the production of this field kicked off,
it witnessed about 17% of the country’s recoverable hydrocarbons of nearly 6.4 billion bbl
STOOIP. The field is made up of limestone and fine grains. Ekofish oil field initial pressure
was 7251 psi however, with the fact that pressure drops during production, the pressure
declined to nearly 5946.

Figure 2: Ekofisk field location

6
Table 1: Field data.

7
Table 2: Reservoir initial conditions.

Table 3: Permeability.

8
 1.3 EORGUI (THIIK)

The EORGUI is a software that enables quick screening of an oil field. This is done to
determine the best possible recovery method for that particular field provided. The
comparison between Ekofisk field data and the criteria of the different recovery methods was
carried out to aid this process as seen in the figure below. The field data in table one are
inserted into the software to generate a response that helps us describe which EOR method is
most suitable for this field. After having entered the data into EORGUI software, the
corresponding output is as seen in the figure below.

Figure 3: EORGUI Ekofisk field

The observation from the EORGUI results in the figure above can conclude that the best
EOR methods that can be used in this field are thermal and gas injection methods with gas
injection method as the most appropriate method more precisely polymer flooding. The
results generated above are then justified with the software to find out the most suitable EOR
methods to be used. These methods include carbon dioxide, immiscible, combustion and
steam enhanced methods among others as seen in the figure below.

9
 Figure 4: Detailed results.

2.0 INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS.

2.1 THIIK THIIK AGOTH - CHEMICAL RECOVERY.

Chemical enhanced oil recovery is an oil recovery technique used to aid the recovery of
remaining oil that is trapped within confined spaces of the reservoir. The method is also
suitable for oil recovery of bypass oil. The chemical enhanced oil recovery method is carried
out by injecting several chemicals into the reservoir to augment the oil recovery. This is
achieved by injecting ionic chemicals and use of novel alkaline-cosolvent-polymer
techniques which leads to high potential oil recovery in the reservoir. The type of chemical
enhance recovery used in this situation is conventional chemical recovery, a technique that
significantly uses chemicals such as.

• Polymers.
• Alkaline.
• Surfactants.

When either one or more of these chemicals are injected into the reservoir, a significant boost
in the amount of recoverable oil is observed. This is because the infusion of chemicals such
as polymers with waterfloods improves the contingency of the fluid phase and subsequently
the portability while they move from the injection well to the producer wells.

10
 2.1.1 SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1

In this scenarios, four injection wells placed at the four ending sides of the reservoir inject the
chemicals into the reservoir thus improving the portability of the hydrocarbons away towards
the production well. Injection well 1 is scheduled to start on 1st July 2022 and rescheduled for
1st July 2025 the same time injection well 2 is scheduled to start injecting the chemicals.

Injection well 3 and 4 are scheduled on the 1st of July 2022 as seen in the 3D diagram below
generated from the prosper software.

Figure 5: 3D view

11
 Figure 6: Result graph.

In this scenario, the four injection wells inject polymer into the reservoir thus improving the
drive mechanism of the oil thus increasing the productivity index as seen in the figure above,
the four-spot pattern scenario oil recovery was 41% producing about 205.3 MSTB
cumulative oil.

SCENARIO 2.
The second scenario was also a four-spot pattern however the injected chemical was a
surfactant. In this scenario, injection well 1 and 2 were scheduled for 1st July 2022 for the first
5 years while injection well 3 and 4 are scheduled to inject the surfactant for the last five
years scheduled to start injection on 1st July 2027. The 3D view of the injected wells is as
seen in the figure below.

12
 Figure 7: 3D well view.

Figure 8: Result graph.

This scenario saw about a 2% increase in the recovery rate to about 43% as seen in the figure
above.
2.1.2 COST ANALYSIS.
Having achieved an increment in the total recoverable oil, the need to determine if the cost of
the methods used to obtain the increase in oil production is executed. This is done to aid
estimation of the potential returns of each scenario. To do this, the recoverable of oil is

13
calculate with the current market price after which the cost of the enhanced oil recovery
method operations are subtracted to achieve the potential return amount.
Estimated cost of well = USD 45,000/day
Estimated time for drilling = 65 days
Equipment, material and labour = USD 70,000,000
Current oil price = USD 94 per barrel

Scenario 1
Cost of wells = (45,000) (5) (65), = USD 14,625,000
Cumulative oil = (20,503,000 barrels) (94), = USD 18,165,000,000
Returns = (USD 18,165,000,000) – (70,000,000 + 14,625,000), = USD 15,5110,000

Scenario 1
Cumulative oil = (20,503,230 barrels) (94), = USD 18,1425,000,000
Returns = (USD 18,1425,000,000) – (70,000,000 + 14,625,000), = USD 24,5110,000

2.2.0 MOHAMAD WAHIH MOHAMAD - THERMAL EOR RECOVERY

2.2.1 OIL RESERVOIR DATA

To the southwest of Iran, along a major NW-SE trend, is the Kuh-e-Mond heavy oil field. With
a length of 90 km and a width of 16 km, this field is home to a minimum heavy oil resource
base of 10 109 barrels OOIP. The heavy oil occurs in three distinct strata between 400 and
1200 meters deep, with oil viscosities between 550 and 1120 cP. Due to the relatively consistent
thickness of the lower Miocene succession, we may infer that the trap structure evolved during
the major phase of Zagros folding, which occurred in the late Miocene and Pliocene. The
Sarvak Formation, which dates back to the Cenomanian era, is made up mostly of severely
fragmented marly limestone with occasional shale interbeds. There are three primary sections
to the formation in the research area: the top, middle, and bottom sections. Limestone with
trace amounts of argillaceous impurities make up the top unit. Among the most common rocks
in the central part of Sarvak are shale and marl. As a conclusion, marly limestone with shale
predominates in the lower Sarvak. Heavy mud losses were observed due to the very fragmented

14
character of the Sarvak formation. An estimated 3.6 109 barrels of heavy oil may be found in
the Sarvak reservoir (OOIP).

Figure 2: Reservoir data

Figure 3: Field location

2.2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW (EOR METHODS)

In this section of the homework, you'll talk about the various EOR techniques now in use.
Chemical flooding, gas injection, and thermal recovery are the three primary forms of EOR.
Producers do not employ EOR on all wells and reservoirs since it increases the expense of
development along with the hydrocarbons delivered to the surface. It's crucial that the
numbers add up in the development equation. Because of this, careful evaluation of each field
is required to establish which EOR method is optimal for the reservoir. Some methods used

15
for this purpose include reservoir modeling and simulation, reservoir screening, and reservoir
scoping.

2.2.3 THERMAL EOR RECOVERY

During thermal recovery, heat is introduced to the reservoir in order to lower the oil's
viscosity. Steam is often used to thin the oil in the reservoir, making it easier to pump. More
than half of all EOR used in the United States is thermal recovery, which was first used in
Venezuela in the 1960s. For thermal EOR, steam flooding and in-situ combustion are the two
most common techniques.
In steam flooding, the wells used for injection and production are distinct. The injection wells
are used to infuse steam, which is then directed toward the oil in order to heat it and lower its
viscosity. In order for oil to be pushed toward the production well by steam, the formation must
be continuous. Compared to cyclic steaming, steam flooding is more expensive due to the
higher amount of steam used. However, a greater amount of oil is often recovered using this
procedure. The combination of cyclic stimulation and steam flooding may be used in sectors
where connection is advantageous.

Figure 9:Steam flooding.

16
The steam injection methods used to extract heavy oil from the Kern River Oil Field in
California were improved upon to create the SAGD process of heavy oil or bitumen. The goal
of any steam flooding operation is to increase the temperature of the producing formation,
hence decreasing the viscosity of the heavy oil and facilitating its flow toward the well. During
SAGD, two horizontal oil wells are drilled in tandem, with the upper well being raised by 4 to
6 meters above the lower well. Steam is injected into the upper well, and the condensed water
from the injected steam is collected with the heated crude oil or bitumen that flows down the
lower well under gravity. Injecting steam into a reservoir creates a "steam chamber" because
of the reservoir's temperature difference with the steam's injection point. The heavy crude oil
or bitumen is able to flow into the lower wellbore because the heat from the steam decreases
its viscosity. Because steam and accompanying gas have a lower density than the heavy crude
oil below, they naturally ascend in the steam chamber and displace the oil, preventing steam
from being created at the lower production well. The surrounding blanket of associated gas
insulates the steam to some degree from the heat source below. The oil and water pour down
the well bore against the stream, using gravity. Progressive cavity pumps, which are useful for
transporting high-viscosity fluids with suspended particles, are used to bring the condensed
water and crude oil or bitumen to the surface.

The process of injecting steam and then extracting oil using condensed steam in cycles is
known as cyclic steam injection or cyclic steam stimulation. Steam cyclically stimulates the
body in two distinct ways: First, steam is injected for a few weeks, and then, in the production
phase, the well's flow is reversed to extract heavy oil from the same wellbore. When the

17
reservoir cools to a certain point, oil output drops below a key threshold, at which point steam
is reinjected to start a new cycle. This method relies heavily on vertical wells, with steam being
injected and steam condensate being extracted in alternating cycles. In actuality, fracture
pressure is exceeded by injecting steam into the formation. After a brief resting time,
manufacturing might begin. The viscosity of the heavy oil is decreased when it is heated by the
injected heat. When the heavy oil is heated, a heated zone is formed so that the oil may return
to the well.

Some of the initial oil is burned in place to create heat for the thermal recovery process known
as in situ combustion (ISC), during which the free front is propagated under continuous air
injection. The locally produced heat reduces the viscosity of the oil, making the unburned oil
easier to move about. The processes of ISC are highly dependent on the chemical makeup of
the oil and the minerals present in the rock. The amount of heat produced in-situ and the type
of the chemical interactions between the crude oil and injected air are both affected by the oil
matrix system. Preliminary field operations planning necessitates laboratory experiments
utilizing crude and matrix from a planned ISC project.

EOR screening criteria

This section will further analyze the obtained field data using the screening criteria chart. All
the methods will be analyzed according to the field reservoir data. The analysis will be followed
with further evaluations using the EORgui software to confirm the final outcomes using the
screening criteria chart. The EOR screening criteria is as shown in figure The analysis per each
EOR method is illustrated as shown in Table.

Type of EOR Analysis Decision of

flooding selection

18
Nitrogen and According to the viscosity of oil, this method will be Not
flue gas applicable for a maximum oil viscosity of 0.4cp. recommended
However, the oil viscosity was classified to be 570cp.
Furthermore, the depth of the well should reach
minimum 6000ft. However, the reservoir is only limited
to a depth of 1200ft. According to this, Nitrogen is not
applicable.
Hydrocarbon Similar to the previous EOR method, this method will Not
be applicable for a maximum oil viscosity of 3cp. recommended
However, the oil viscosity was classified to be 570cp.
Furthermore, the depth of the well should reach
minimum 4000ft. However, the reservoir is only limited
to a depth of 1200ft. According to this, Hydrocarbon is
not applicable.
CO2 According to the viscosity of oil, this method will be Not
applicable for a maximum oil viscosity of 10cp. recommended
However, the oil viscosity was classified to be 570cp.
Furthermore, the depth of the well should reach
minimum 2500ft. However, the reservoir is only limited
to a depth of 1200ft. According to this, CO2 is not
applicable.
Immiscible Although it was mentioned that this type of EOR can Not
gasses deal with oil viscosity reaching 600cp. Which is higher recommended
than the oil viscosity. However, this method can be
implemented for a minimum depth of 1800ft, while the
reservoir depth was classified to be 1200ft
Surfactant, According to the viscosity of oil, this method will be Not
alkaline and applicable for a maximum oil viscosity of 35cp. recommended
ASP However, the oil viscosity was classified to be 570cp.
However, this method can be implemented for a
minimum depth of 3250ft, while the reservoir depth was
classified to be 1200ft.

19
 Polymer According to the viscosity of oil, this method will be Not
applicable for a maximum oil viscosity of 35cp. recommended
However, the oil viscosity was classified to be 570cp.
Furthermore, the oil saturation PV of the reservoir
should be minimum 50%. However, remaining oil
saturation was mentioned to be 46%.
Combustion According to the depth of the well, the well should Recommended
reach a minimum of 3500ft. However, the reservoir is
only limited to a depth of 1200ft. However, all other
properties are matching and under the applicable range
of using this method.
Steam According to the depth of the well, the well should Highly
reach a minimum of 1500ft. In the other hand, the recommended
reservoir is only limited to a depth of 1200ft. However,
this method is the only method that includes a depth
near to the reservoir depth. All the other properties are
matching and under the applicable range of using this
method.

Table 4:

20
 Figure 10:EOR screening criteria chart

EORgui analysis
This section will further achieve similar analysis on the field selected. However, the
analysis will be achieved with the help of EORgui. This software will help in recommending
the most preferable methods that can generate higher oil recovery according to the reservoir
data. The data inserted to the EORgui is as shown in the following figure.

21
 Figure 11: EORgui results

Figure 11: EORgui results detailed

According to the results obtained, the most preferable method suggested by EORgui
was the steam flooding. This was achieved since all the other EOR methods were not suitable
in terms of oil API and in terms of viscosity. Furthermore, other methods faced a limitation
due to the depth of the reservoir. Polymer and combustion were unsuitable according to the oil
saturation. Therefore, according to the analysis made using the screening criteria chart and the
EORgui, the most recommended EOR method is the steam flooding.

2.2.4 SIMULATION OF THERMAL EOR

This section will include discussing the application EOR simulation according to the selected
field data. The analysis will initially include the construction of the static model using the CMG
software and it will be followed with testing different thermal EOR method in order to propose
the most efficient design. Furthermore, this section will further include an economic analysis

22
according to each design proposed. The selected reservoir data to be analyzed is as shown
below

Reservoir properties Values

Initial reservoir pressure 5300psi
Bubble point pressure 500psi
Porosity 0.33
Temperature 266
Oil viscosity 2.3
Oil gravity 37API
Reservoir depth 10150ft
Pay-thickness 150ft
Water phase density 63Ib/ft3
Formation volume factor 1.02
Water compressibility
Reservoir dimensions 3000ft 3000ft 150ft
Number of grids in (x, y, z) (50, 50, 4)

Table 5: Static data inserted to CMG

2.2.5 Steam flooding

Steam flooding will be initially implemented using a normal 5-spot pattern, including 4
injection wells and 1 production well. The injection of steam will help in melting the oil and
losing its viscosity to be further swept to the production wells. The production duration was set
to be 10 years. The rate of production and injection after several trails was set to be
20,000bbl/day production rate and 5000bbl/day injection rate per each well. The rate of oil
production and injection were considered to equalized in order to maintain the pressure in the
reservoir. The simulation started with 0.1 steam quality and at a temperature of 600 .
The outcomes of implementing steam flooding using vertical well, achieved an oil recovery of
72.13%, while the total cumulative of oil was mentioned to be 43MMbbl. When compared to
water flooding, this method achieved an increase of 4.62%. The decision will be made
according to the economic analysis

23
 Table 6: Oil recovery and cumulative of oil using steam flooding.

Table 7: 3D oil saturation profile using steam flooding

2.2.6 Hot water flooding

The hot water will be initially implemented using a normal 5-spot pattern, including 4 injection
wells and 1 production well. The injection of hot water will help in melting the oil and losing
its viscosity to be further swept to the production wells. The production duration was set to be
10 years. The rate of production and injection after several trails was set to be 20,000bbl/day
production rate and 5000bbl/day injection rate per each well. The rate of oil production and
injection were considered to equalized in order to maintain the pressure in the reservoir. The
simulation started with 0 steam quality and at a temperature of 350 .
The outcomes of implementing hot water flooding using vertical well, achieved an oil recovery
of 71.9%, while the total cumulative of oil was mentioned to be 42.9MMbbl. When compared

24
to steam flooding, steam flooding achieved 0.23% increase in recovery compared to this
method. However, the increase in oil recovery was very significant.

Figure 10: Oil recovery and cumulative of oil using hot water flooding

Figure 11: 3D oil saturation profile using hot water flooding

2.2.7 SAGD steam flooding

The implementation of SAGD required the use of horizontal wells which are directly parallel
to each other. One injection well and one production well was designed to be drilled
horizontally. The injection well was placed in the second layer, while the production well was
placed in the third layer. The was achieved in order for the steam to lower the viscosity of the
oil and by gravity the oil moves to the production well downwards. The production duration
was set to be 10 years. The rate of production and injection after several trails was set to be
20,000bbl/day production rate and 2000bbl/day injection rate per each well. The rate of oil
production and injection were considered to be equalized in order to maintain the pressure in
the reservoir. The simulation started with 0.1 steam quality and at a temperature of 600 .

25
The outcomes of implementing SAGD using 2 horizontal wells, achieved an oil recovery of
23%, while the total cumulative of oil was mentioned to be 13MMbbl. When compared to
steam flooding, steam flooding achieved 49.13% increase in recovery compared to this method.
However, the increase in oil recovery was very significant.

Figure 12: Oil recovery and cumulative of oil using SAGD flooding

Figure 13: 3D oil saturation profile using SAGD flooding

2.2.8 Economic analysis

This section will discuss the cost analysis of each method tested using CMG simulation. The
analysis will include the cost of vertical drilling wells, horizontal drilling wells (for SAGD),
the well completion cost of each type of well, the water cost, boiler cost, separator cost and
power consumed to boil the water. The vertical well was mentioned to cost 75USD/ft, while
the horizontal well can cost around 150USD/ft. Accordingly, the completion cost was
considered to be 25% of drilling cost. Furthermore, the cost of injected water was mentioned
to be 0.35USD/bbl. Therefore, the total injected fluid is 20,000bbl/day for a duration of 10
years. Therefore, the total water cost is 25.2 million USD. The steam boiler selected for this
mission was named as 2t/H Ce Approved Intelligent Gas Fired Steam Boiler (WNS2-1.0-Y/Q),
this boiler consists of a capacity of 2 ton/hour which is equalled to 301.9 bbl/day. Since our
production is 20 × 103 bbl/day. This field will consist of 67 systems, each system will have

26
only one type of this boiler, while the price of the steam boiler per one is 30,000$ (Anon.,
2019). Therefore, the total price for 67 steam boilers equal to 2.02 million USD. The water
pumping cost was mentioned to be 0.4USD/bbl. After some researches the power of the fuel
needed to evaporate 1 barrel of water is 0.01$. Therefore, the total power consumed to
evaporate 20,000bbl/day for 10 years is 0.72 million USD. Brent oil price in the date of 16
August 2022 was 98USD/bbl.

Continuous steam flooding cost

Name of cost Cost per one Total cost
Drilling vertical injection well cost 750 × 103 $ 3 × 106 $
Drilling production well cost 750 × 103 $ 750 × 103 $
Equipping injection well 650 × 103 $ 2.6 × 106 $
Equipping production well 187.5 × 106 $ 187.5 × 106 $
Steam boiler price 2.02 × 106 $ 2.02 × 106 $
Water pumping cost 14.4 × 106 $ 14.4 × 106 $
Water treatment 0.05$/bbl 18 × 106 $
Power cost 720 × 103 $ 720 × 103 $
Injected water cost 25.2 × 106 $ 25.2 × 106 $
Total losses cost 66.88 × 106 $
Total revenue 43 × 106 × 98 = 4.214 MMMUSD
Total profit 4214-66.88= 4147 MMUSD

Table 8: Continuous steam flooding cost analysis

Hot water flooding cost

Name of cost Cost per one Total cost
Drilling vertical injection well cost 750 × 103 $ 3 × 106 $
Drilling production well cost 750 × 103 $ 750 × 103 $
Equipping injection well 650 × 103 $ 2.6 × 106 $
Equipping production well 187.5 × 106 $ 187.5 × 106 $
Water boiler price 2.02 × 106 $ 2.02 × 106 $
Water pumping cost 14.4 × 106 $ 14.4 × 106 $

27
 Water treatment 0.05$/bbl 18 × 106 $
Injected water cost 25.2 × 106 $ 25.2 × 106 $
Total losses cost 66.16 × 106 $
Total revenue 42.9 × 106 × 98 = 4.2 MMMUSD
Total profit 4200-66.88= 4134 MMUSD

Table 9: Hot water flooding cost analysis

SAGD flooding cost

Name of cost Cost per one Total cost
Drilling Horizontal injection well 1.65 × 106 $ 6.6 × 106 $
cost
Drilling Horizontal production well 1.65 × 106 $ 1.65 × 106 $
cost
Equipping injection well 650 × 103 $ 2.6 × 106 $
Equipping production well 187.5 × 106 $ 187.5 × 106 $
Steam boiler price 2.02 × 106 $ 2.02 × 106 $
Water pumping cost 14.4 × 106 $ 14.4 × 106 $
Water treatment 0.05$/bbl 18 × 106 $
Power cost 720 × 103 $ 720 × 103 $
Injected water cost 25.2 × 106 $ 25.2 × 106 $
Total losses cost 71.38 × 106 $
Total revenue 43 × 106 × 98 = 4.214 MMMUSD
Total profit 4214-66.88= 4147 MMUSD

Table 10: Table 5: SAGD flooding cost analysis

2.2.9 Discussion

This section achieved successfully testing three types of thermal recovery mentioned as
continues steam flooding, hot water flooding and SAGD. The production and injection were
further analysed to reach an optimum production and injection rate. The production for a

28
duration of 10 years was stated to be 20,000STB/day. Accordingly, the rate of injection was
further the same in other to maintain the reservoir pressure. The analysis conducted to test
continues steam flooding achieved the highest oil recovery and cumulative of oil. However,
the maximum oil recovery achieved was only 72.3%. The implementation of hot water
achieved the second highest oil recovery, while in the other hand, the lowest recovery was
achieved by using SAGD. SAGD achieved lower oil recovery since the oil was not classified
as a heavy oil while such method is only applicable for heavy oil. Furthermore, due to the
very small distance between the injection and production wells, the injected fluid reaches the
production well and the breakthrough occurs sooner, leading the production to be entirely
water.
In terms of economic analysis, the costs relevant to each method was included briefly to build
an economic analysis according to the outcome of the simulation results. The analysis
included the costs to generate the steam along with the equipment’s needed. According to the
analysis made, SAGD included the highest cost since it consisted of the construction of a
horizontal well reaching 3000ft. All the three models were sufficient in obtaining a profit
income to the company. However, the implementation of other methods such as water
flooding or chemical flooding would obtain higher profits to the company as it includes lower
capital and operational costs when compared to steam flooding. At the end, steam flooding is
not really recommended to be implemented for light oil and it is highly recommended to be
implemented for heavy oil.

2.3.0 SALEH MOHSEN NASSER ALMUTAHHIRI

2.3.1 Field reservoir data
The Middle East is the region that will be the focus of the investigation that has been chosen.
The reservoir made of sandstone that was found in 1973. 1989 marked the beginning of water
flood efforts. The water flood is getting close to its economic limitations, which means that the
reservoir, as it is right now, is a possible candidate for an improved oil recovery method. If it
weren't for this, the reservoir would be scheduled for abandonment. The reservoir is made up
of light oil sandstone and has a 31-degree API rating; in other words, it is an average Middle
Eastern reservoir. The reservoir is largely a structural trap in the shape of a dome, and it
produces from a formation that is located at a depth of approximately of 3,800 feet. A
northwestern dipping monocline of Carboniferous age sandstone creates the reservoir from a
structural point of view. This monocline forms the reservoir. The thickness of the reservoir

29
fluctuates from a low of 75 feet to a high of 375 feet on average. The core porosities of the
sands units in the reservoir rock range from 15 to 22%, while the permeabilities of the rock
range from 250 to 550md. The reservoir rock possesses good to exceptional petrophysical
qualities. The sandstone reservoir had a relatively low proportion of clays, ranging from 1% to
8%, and was mostly made up of kaolinite. Additionally, the formation water had a relatively
low chloride content.

Table 11: Field reservoir data

2.3.2 EOR gas flooding

For the purpose of immiscible gas displacement, a wide range of gases may and have been
used; nevertheless, to this day, lean hydrocarbon gas has been utilized for the majority of
applications. Throughout the course of history, the first use of immiscible gas injection was for
the purpose of reservoir pressure maintenance. In the 1930s, the first initiatives of this kind
were started, and they made use of lean hydrocarbon gas (e.g., Oklahoma City field and
Cunningham pool in the US and Bahrain field in Bahrain). Over the course of many decades,
a substantial number of immiscible gas injection operations have been carried out, some of
which have produced outstanding outcomes, while others have produced subpar ones.
The choice to use an immiscible gas injection method is arrived at by weighing a number of
different economic and technical considerations. If there is already an outlet for the immediate
sale of gas, delaying the gas sales may be a substantial economic barrier for many of the
possible gas injection projects that are being considered. Despite this, there are many different
options still available. First, there are certain reservoirs that have features and circumstances

30
that are especially favorable to gas/oil gravity drainage, as well as those reservoirs that have
the potential for significant oil recoveries concurrently. The second type of reservoir is one in
which a decreased depletion time, which is caused by a lower reservoir oil viscosity and gas
saturation in the vicinity of producing wells, is more attractive economically than alternative
recovery methods, which have a higher ultimate recovery potential but come with higher costs.
And finally, there are reservoirs where recovery concerns are supplemented by gas storage
considerations; as a result, gas sales may be postponed for a number of years in these reservoirs.
It is possible to employ nonhydrocarbon gases like carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and people
have done so in the past. [4] In general, the calculation methods that were established for the
injection and displacement of hydrocarbon-gas may be applied for the design and
implementation of projects involving immiscible gas that does not include hydrocarbons. When
determining the value of the use of such gases, it is necessary to take into account any additional
costs that are associated with their utilization. Some examples of such costs include corrosion
control, the separation of nonhydrocarbon components in order to satisfy gas marketing
specifications, and the utilization of produced gas as fuel in field operations.
More oil can be extracted in theory with miscible gas flooding than with other EOR techniques.
The use of a miscible gas flood, however, is not applicable to all reservoirs. Injection depths
are often rather high for miscible flooding processes. Formation fracture occurs without
reaching miscibility pressure at shallow depths. Additionally, the effectiveness of miscible
flooding may be assessed using a number of different screening criteria. If these conditions are
satisfied, a simple performance assessment may show how effective a miscible procedure could
be. Miscible flooding is more likely to be effective in reservoirs with an API gravity of 30 or
above, for example. This is due to the lower viscosity of high API crude oils, and the fact that
a higher concentration of intermediate components is needed to achieve miscibility via either
the VGD or CGD process. A lower viscosity makes for a better mobility ratio. CO2
breakthrough may be postponed if the reservoir has a low level of heterogeneity, a viscosity of
less than 12 cP, and a residual oil saturation of more than 300 STB/acre-ft.
2.3.3 EOR screening criteria (Using screening criteria table)

In this part, we'll go further into the reservoir's characteristics to help you choose the EOR
technique that will provide the most return on investment. Table 2 displays the criteria used for
first evaluation. Light crude oil (3.7cp) and 31API were used in the presented data. After
primary and secondary recoveries are applied, the remaining oil saturation is over 35%. Since

31
this is the case, EOR must be used to maximize the extraction of the residual oil saturation.
Using the EOR screening criteria and EORgui, the optimal EOR strategy can be chosen.
2.3.4 Thermal methods

➢ According to the screening criteria described in Table 2, steam injection is a technique

that is largely appropriate for heavy oil reservoirs that are shallow. The highest depth
that may be reached by steam flooding is somewhere between 1500 and 4500 feet.
Nevertheless, the greatest depth of this field is 7000 feet. Due to the fact that the oil
density was outside of this method's acceptable range, neither the oil density nor the oil
viscosity may be used. Therefore, it is not selected selected.
➢ The greatest depth that can be reached by in-situ combustion ranges anywhere from
3,500 to 11,500 feet. This satisfies the criterion even further since it was determined
that the depth of the reservoir was 3,675 feet. Nevertheless, the oil density and oil
viscosity do not fall within the range because the oil gravity is more than 31 API and
the oil viscosity is low. Therefore, they do not apply and do not fall within the range.
Based on the findings of the researchers who came before them, in-situ combustion
may result in severe corrosion, the formation of poisonous gases, and gravity override,
and it can be difficult to manage inside the reservoir. Therefore, it is not selected.

2.3.5 Gas injection method

• • CO2 and NO2 immiscible gas flooding, based on the screening criteria listed in Table
2, this method is extremely relevant in terms of immiscible gas flooding as it is strongly
regarded for light crude oil. In other words, this method is highly applicable for flooding
light crude oil with immiscible gases. Because it satisfies all of the screening
requirements and matches all of the reservoir qualities that are offered by the field, it
comes strongly suggested that this strategy be put into practice. Beginning with the
gravity and viscosity of the oil. This approach may be used for oils that have a gravity
that is greater than 12 API and a viscosity that is lower than 600cp, both of which
directly match the data that was gathered. Other characteristics, such as the depth of the
reservoir, the permeability of the rock, the net pay thickness, and the oil saturation. This
method is selected.

32
 2.3.6 Chemical injection method

• Polymer flooding is a technique that is highly suggested for use with oil that is just
somewhat heavy. On the other hand, it was discovered that the minimum oil viscosity
that was relevant was 10cp, however the oil that was found in the reservoir had an oil
viscosity of 3.7cp. This method is selected.
• • Alkaline Surfactant Polymer (ASP) flooding is a technique that is incorporated for
reservoirs. This method includes higher oil wettability as the surfactant and alkaline
enhance in reducing the IFT between the oil in interaction with the rock. Additionally,
this method floods the reservoir with an alkaline solution. On the other hand, since the
reservoir was found to be saturated with water, there won't be any need to use alkaline
or surfactant in the cleanup process. In this particular scenario, polymer is the material
of choice due to its cheaper price. This method is not selected.

33
 Figure 11: Summary of screening criteria for EOR methods

2.3.8 Simulation of Gas flooding EOR

In this part, we will talk about how the implementation EOR simulation should be run
based on the field data that was chosen. The study will start with the building of the static
model through using CMG program, and then it will go on to the testing of several thermal
EOR methods in order to suggest the design that will be the most effective. In addition to that,
an economic evaluation of each of the designs that were offered will also be included in this
part. The table below presents the data from the chosen reservoirs that will be studied.
Reservoir properties Values
Initial reservoir pressure 5300psi
Bubble point pressure 500psi

34
 Porosity 0.33
Temperature 266
Oil viscosity 2.3
Oil gravity 37API
Reservoir depth 10150ft
Pay-thickness 150ft
Water phase density 63Ib/ft3
Formation volume factor 1.02
Water compressibility
Reservoir dimensions 3000ft 3000ft 150ft
Number of grids in (x, y, z) (50, 50, 4)

Table 12: Static model data

CO2 IMMISCIBLE FLOODING

CO2 immiscible flooding will be implemented to enhance the reservoir oil production. The rate
of oil production and gas injection were aimed to be remained as equalized. Therefore, the
production of oil was set to be 20,000bbl/day. Accordingly, the CO2 gas injection was
considered to be 28075ft3/day. The implementation of this project resulted an oil recovery of
only 13%. Therefore, this project included investigating the recovery of oil with the injection
rate is increased to reach 35000ft3. However, the oil recovery obtained was further low as it
only achieved 16% of oil recovery. Therefore, this method can be classified as unsuitable since
the application of CO2 resulted lower than 40% of oil recovery when compared to the water
flooding that resulted 71.7%.
This might occur since the viscosity of oil was way higher than the CO2 immiscible flooding,
resulting the occurrence of viscous fingering. This will serve in leading the CO2 to create
straight channel from the injection to the production well resulting very poor sweep efficiency.
Therefore, it might be highly recommended to implement the usage of miscible flooding as
CO2 can mix with oil and moves along each other to the production well.

35
 Figure 12: Oil recovery obtained using CO2 immiscible

Figure 13: Reservoir profile obtained using CO2 immiscible

2.3.9 N2-CO immiscible flooding

N2-CO immiscible flooding will be implemented to enhance the reservoir oil production. The
rate of oil production and gas injection were aimed to be remained as equalized. Therefore, the
production of oil was set to be 20,000bbl/day. Similar to the CO2 gas flooding, the N2-CO was
set as 28075ft3/day. The implementation of such gas injection rate resulted an oil recovery of
only 11.6%. Therefore, this project included investigating the recovery of oil when the injection
rate is increased to reach 35000ft3. However, the oil recovery obtained was further low as it
only achieved 16% of oil recovery. Therefore, this method can be classified as unsuitable since
the application of CO2 resulted lower than 40% of oil recovery when compared to the water
flooding that resulted 71.7%.
This might occur since the viscosity of oil was way higher than the CO2 immiscible flooding,
resulting the occurrence of viscous fingering. This will serve in leading the CO2 to create

36
straight channel from the injection to the production well resulting very poor sweep efficiency.
Therefore, it might be highly recommended to implement the usage of miscible flooding as
CO2 can mix with oil and moves along each other to the production well.

Figure 14: Oil recovery obtained using N2-CO immiscible

Figure 15: Reservoir profile obtained using N2-CO immiscible

CO2 MISCIBLE FLOODING

In this part, CO2 will be investigated if it was miscible with oil. This will be further achieved
by increasing the bottom hole pressure of the four injection wells. Initially, the bottom hole
pressure was set to be as 600psi. However, the construction of MMP curve will help in
identifying the most optimum bottom hole pressure to achieve the miscibility between the oil
and the gas. The other four sets of bottom hole pressures were mentioned as, 1500psi, 2500psi,
3500psi and 4500psi. According to the four set of bottom hole pressure, the results obtained
were as following,

Bottom hole pressure (psi) Oil recovery (%)

37
 1000 13.09
1500 16.7
2500 26.4
3500 33.5
4500 35.2

Table 13: Oil recovery at different bottom hole pressure

According to the chart made, the MMP will be achieved at a bottom hole pressure of 2500psi,
since the increase in bottom hole pressure further caused no major influence towards the oil
and gas miscibility. However, the maximum oil recovery can be obtained is still below the oil
recovery obtained using the water flooding. In the other hand, when comparing the miscible
and immiscible flooding, miscible flooding achieved almost 50% higher when compared to the
immiscible flooding.
COST ANALYSIS
The presence of 1.4 billion barrels of oil has the potential to generate massive revenue.
However, the expense of the procedure will rise due to the large amount of flooded gas and
water. Therefore, firstly, we should estimate the capital and operational expenses. The capital
and operational expenses will later assist the prediction of obtaining the company profit. The
expenses, revenue and the total profit of each method is as shown in the following Tables. The
oil price was determined to be 98USD/bbl.

38
 • The expense of injected carbon dioxide is approximately estimated (5.42 $/
Mscf).
• The carbon dioxide operation cost is assumed to be $2.3.

CO2 immiscible flooding

Price description Price per unit Number of Total cost (USD)
units
Drilling vertical well 893000 5 4,465,000
Equipping injection 669000 1 669,000
well
CO2 price 5.42USD/Mscf 72000Mscf 390,000
Operational cost 2.3 USD/bbl 8.1mmbbl 18,630,000
Transportation cost 1.102 USD/Mscf 72000Mscf 79,344
Total cost 24,947,440
Revenue 98USD/bbl 8.1mmbbl 793,000,000
Profit return Revenue – Total cost 768,853,000

Table 14: Cost analysis using CO2 immiscible

N2-CO flooding
Price description Price per unit Number of Total cost (USD)
units
Drilling vertical well 893000 5 4,465,000
Equipping injection 669000 1 669,000
well
N2 price 6.33USD/Mscf 72000Mscf 455,000
Operational cost 2.3 USD/bbl 7.9mmbbl 18,170,000
Transportation cost 1.102 USD/Mscf 72000Mscf 79,344
Total cost 24,552,400
Revenue 98USD/bbl 7.9mmbbl 774,200,000
Profit return Revenue – Total cost 749,648

Table 15: Cost analysis using N2-CO immiscible

39
 CO2 immiscible flooding
Price description Price per unit Number of Total cost (USD)
units
Drilling vertical well 893000 5 4,465,000
Equipping injection 669000 1 669,000
well
CO2 price 5.42USD/Mscf 72000Mscf 390,000
Operational cost 2.3 USD/bbl 19.8mmbbl 45,540,000
Transportation cost 1.102 USD/Mscf 72000Mscf 79,344
Total cost 51,059,350
Revenue 98USD/bbl 19.8mmbbl 1,940,000,000
Profit return Revenue – Total cost 1,888,940,000

Table 16: Cost analysis using CO2 miscible

The economic analysis was achieved to evaluate the profit return to the company if each
method was implemented. According to the findings, all the methods were unable to cross the
limit of 35% oil recovery. This presents highest residual oil in the reservoir. However,
according to the economic analysis, all the methods were able to achieve a high profit return.
The highest profit was achieved with application of the CO2 miscible flooding. The amount of
profit obtained was 1.889 trillion USD. The profit obtained by the miscible flooding was 100%
higher compared to the two immiscible flooding. However, since the implementation of water
flooding resulted higher oil recovery and it includes the lowest capital and operational costs, it
would be more preferable to be implemented.

3.0. DISCUSSION (WAGIH)

This section here will discuss the outcome of the three proposed EOR methods implemented
by the three team members. Initially, the application of chemical EOR was achieved. The
analysis was conducted to examine two different types of chemical flooding mentioned as
polymer flooding and surfactant flooding. The application of polymer flooding enhanced the
oil recovery to reach upto maximum 41%, while the implementation of surfactant achieved an
increase in oil recovery reaching 43%. The difference between both methods was mentioned
to be only 2%. However, the total oil recovery using the chemical was not very high.
Furthermore, the application of gas flooding achieved the lowest oil recovery when compared

40
to the two other methods. The gas flooding was implemented by three types of floodings
mentioned as CO2 miscible flooding, CO2 immiscible flooding and N2 immiscible flooding.
The application of the two immiscible methods achieved an increase in oil recovery reaching
maximum 16%. This was not matchibg the outcome obtained using the EORgui. The
application of EORgui recommended immiscible gas flooding including the highest oil
recovery. However, the obtained oil recovery was the lowest. This can be described due to the
faster breakthrough that occurred since the gas being injected was able to reach the production
well faster leading to a poor sweep effeciency. The miscible gas flooding further enhanced the
oil recovery, achievibg maximum oil recovery of 39%. The bottom hole observed to achieve
the oil and gas miscibility was 2500psi. The method with the highest oil recovery was the
thermal EOR, since with the application of steam injection and normal 5-spot using the thermal
flooding. This method included the highest profit income when compared to the other methods.
In terms of thermal EOR, there were other two methods implemented and evaluated mentioned
as hot water flooding and SAGD. The application of hot water resulted somehow similar
outcome with the steam flooding. However SAGD was 3 time lower when compared to the
steam flooding. The reason behind the drop in SAGD is due to the very close distance between
the injection and the production wells, leading the steam to be injected to be directly produced
by the well and decreasing the rate of oil production. Furthermore, the SAGD was implemented
to only one production and one injection well. At the end, steam flooding was observed to be
the one with the highest oil recovery and the immiscible gas flooding to be the lowest.
Although, EORgui suggested that immiscible gas flooding should achieve the highest oil
recovery and the steam to be the second least oil recovery.

4.0 CONCLUSION (SALEH)

In conclusion, this project was completed successfully achieving the evaluation of the three
main EOR method mentioned as chemical, gas and thermal. The outcomes for the
implementation of EORgui recommended the application of immiscible gas as it can result
the highest oil recovery. However, the simulation results observed that thermal would achieve
the highest oil recovery. The application of chemical resulted the second-best method to be
implemented using polymer while the least oil recovery was the N2 immiscible flooding. At
the end, this project can be further improved by implementing other EOR methods such as
foam and dual floodings such as ASP and surfactant-polymer flooding.

41
 5.0 REFERENCES.
Shafiei, Ali & Dusseault, Maurice & Elkamel, A. & Zendehboudi, Sohrab & Chatzis, Ioannis.
(2018). Data Analytics Techniques for Performance Prediction of Steamflooding in Naturally
Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs. Energies. 11. 10.3390/en11020292.

Ling, Kegang & Shen, Zheng & Han, Guoqing & He, Jun. (2014). A Review of Enhanced Oil
Recovery Methods Applied in Williston Basin. 10.15530/urtec-2014-1891560.
Behzadi, Seyed & Towler, Brian. (2009). A new EOR method. Proceedings - SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. 1. 10.2118/123866-MS.

Gharbi, Ridha & Alajmi, Abdullah & Algharaib, Meshal. (2012). The Potential of a
Surfactant/Polymer Flood in a Middle Eastern Reservoir. Energies. 5. 10.3390/en5010058.

Gbadamosi, A., Junin, R., Manan, M., Agi, A., & Yusuff, A. (2019). An overview of chemical
enhanced oil recovery: recent advances and prospects. International Nano Letters, 9(3), 171-
202. doi: 10.1007/s40089-019-0272-8

42