Universal Journal of Petroleum Sciences 1 (2013), 39-67

www.papersciences.com

A View for Prospective EOR Projects in Iraqi Oil Fields

Salam Al Rbeawi
Misan University
Misan - Iraq
[email protected]

Abstract
Exploitation of the enormous untapped energy source is the greatest challenge ever faced by the oil
industry. Over the past four decades, the petroleum industry has been engaged in the research and
development of various enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes needed to produce the oil left
behind (may reach more than 50% of OOIP) by conventional methods. Several techniques have
been used all over the world for different types of formations. The main goal of the EOR process is
to mobilize the "residual" oil throughout the entire reservoir. This is achieved by enhancing
microscopic oil displacement and volumetric sweep efficiencies. There is no a single technique that
can be considered a "cure all" for recovering additional oil from every reservoir. Each process has
its specific application. Before initiating an EOR process, reservoir rock and fluid properties and
past production history should be analyzed. It is also important to review the preceding secondary
recovery process in order to determine the principal reasons why the residual oil was left in that
reservoir. EOR techniques including process descriptions, production mechanisms, limitations,
problems, and technical screening guides will be presented in this paper. It shows that gas injection
process comes in the first rank of applications while thermal recovery process takes the second
position. Chemical flooding is third EOR techniques that has been used for both sandstone and
carbonate reservoirs. It shows also that more than 40% of gas injection processes have been used in
carbonate reservoirs while 10% of thermal recovery techniques have been used in carbonate
reservoirs. The current paper focuses on Iraqi oil fields that are previously or currently in stream. It
shows a classification for these oil field based on zone, structure, surface area, reservoir, geological
age, reservoir lithology, depth, net pay thickness, porosity, permeability, API gravity. This
classification is used for the screening criteria for the prospective EOR projects in Iraq. The paper
emphasize the fact that the great percentage of Iraqi oil fields is produced either naturally or by
improved oil recovery, however, reasonable attentions have to be considered in the prospective
future for serious need to use EOR techniques in several Iraqi oil fields to increase the ultimate
recovery and extend reservoirs life.

Key Word and Phrases

Reservoir Engineering, Improved Oil & Gas Recovery, Secondary Oil & Gas Recovery, Enhanced
Oil & Gas Recovery.

1. Introduction
Typically, the use of the natural stored reservoir energy may not produce more than 40% of the
original oil in place by the primary mechanisms. As these energies are exhausted, programs of
waterflooding or gas injection may then be applied to the reservoirs during the secondary recovery
phase in order to maintain the energy of the reservoirs.
Fundamentally, waterflood involves pumping water through a well (injector) into the reservoir.
The water is forced through the pore spaces to sweep the oil towards the producing wells
(producers). The percentage of water in the produced fluids steadily increases until the cost of
removing and disposing of water exceeds the income from oil production. After this point, it
becomes uneconomical to continue the operation and the waterflooding is stopped. Some wells
remain economically feasible at a watercut of up to 99%2. Other secondary recovery methods
include CO2 flooding and hydrocarbon gas injection, which requires a nearby source of
inexpensive gas in sufficient volume. As the secondary recovery techniques come to the point of
uneconomical operation, the tertiary recovery or what has been called enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
becomes the next strategy techniques for oil and gas reserve production.

39
 S. Al Rbeawi

EOR implementation depends on the characteristics of the oil. For light oils, EOR refers to the
techniques after primary and secondary recovery that include surfactant flood, polymer flood,
miscible drive and even thermal methods. For heavy oils, EOR implies techniques after primary
recovery which include steam injection and in-situ combustion. The application of enhanced oil
recovery techniques allows the economic value of existing hydrocarbon resources fields to be
maximized, through increasing oil recovery and field life extension. Identifying appropriate
projects in any field can be a difficult task because of the large number of EOR techniques and
reservoir combinations that need to be considered.
Since the production of oil by EOR process is rather difficult, risky, and need huge capital cost,
the proper selection of the EOR method for a certain reservoir is important to attaining a successful
and profitable project. The most difficult problem that faces reservoir engineers and experts is how
to select the most appropriate method to enhance the oil production based on technical and
economical factors. To achieve this mission, many reservoir factors must be studied carefully such
as reservoir depth, reservoir area, reservoir temperature, porosity, permeability, oil gravity and oil
viscosity, and also how these factors may affect each other.
Different EOR techniques have been used in the last two decades. Gas injection (CO2, N2, and
Hydrocarbon gases) is the most widely used all over the world with more than 51% of EOR
projects. Thermal recovery comes in the second place with more than 41% of the EOR projects.
Chemical flooding ranks as the third technique with more than 8% of EOR projects due to the high
investment required by this process . Fig. 1 shows the percentage of EOR projects.

Fig. 1 EOR projects percentages (Alvarado and Manrique 2010)

2. Enhanced Oil Recovery in Sandstone Reservoirs

The great percentage of EOR projects (78%) have been applied in sandstone reservoirs in the
last couple decades. Fig..2 shows the distribution of EOR projects all over the world based on
lithology. It can be seen that thermal recovery and chemical flooding techniques are the most
frequently used in sandstone reservoirs. Gas injection techniques have the same opportunities in
both carbonate and sandstone reservoirs. Manrique et al [5] stated that sandstone reservoirs show
the highest potential for the enhanced oil recovery process. Most EOR technologies have been
experienced in this type of lithology either in pilot scale or in the field or industrial scale.
Moreover, several oil fields have been subjected to EOR techniques in pilot plant scale and showed
successful results. Two examples for the successful applications of the EOR techniques are the
Carmopolis heavy oil (22 API) field in Brazil and the Karazhanbas heavy oil (19 API) field in
Kazakhstan. These two sandstone reservoirs have undergone different types of EOR processes such
as in-situ combustion, steam flooding, polymer injection and microbial flooding.

40
 S. Al Rbeawi

3. Enhanced Oil Recovery in Carbonate Reservoirs:

A considerable portion of the world’s hydrocarbon exists in carbonate reservoirs. Carbonate
reservoirs may exhibit low porosity and may be fractured. When enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
strategies are pursued, the injected fluids will likely flow through the fracture network, bypassing
oil in the rock matrix (Manrique et al [5]). Early breakthrough of the injected fluid is certainly
predicted for type-1 naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs where the fracture network provides all
the reservoir storage capacity and permeability and the matrix exhibits low equivalent porous
volume. Therefore, several option have been used to mitigate the early breakthrough and increase
oil recovery. One of them is the infill drilling programs and well conformance strategies. In the
case of porous carbonate rocks, type-2 naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs such as Iraqi oil
fields in Kirkuk and type-3 naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs, fracture networks can still
cause uneven sweeping of the reservoir leading to early breakthrough of injected fluids in the
producing wells, resulting in low recovery factors.

Fig. 2 Lithology distribution for EOR projects (Alvarado and Manrique 2010)

Due to the abundance of carbonate reservoirs, numerous studies have been focused on attempts
to characterize the heterogeneities of carbonate reservoirs, classify the different types or classes of
fractured reservoirs and determine how rock and fluid properties of carbonate reservoirs impact
ultimate recovery. In addition, large number of EOR field projects in carbonate reservoirs have
been reported in the literature since the early 70’s. These field projects showed the technological
capability to increase oil recovery. This increase in oil recovery would directly result in additional
reserves extending the productive life of the different formations. However, the technical results
were not matched by their economic viability. In some cases high upfront investments created
insurmountable barriers for the technology’s application. In other cases, the high marginal costs
eliminated all benefits from the increased recovery. The latter is especially true for EOR processes
based on chemical and thermal methods. Over the last three decades, many improvements have
reduced the cost per incremental barrel (Alvarado and Manrique et al [2]).
Recently, CO2 flooding is the most common recovery process in carbonate reservoirs while air
injection, nitrogen injection, steam injection and surfactant stimulation are the remaining active
EOR projects in carbonate reservoirs. This fact is resulted from the cheap CO2 sources and the
ability to transport and store CO2.

4. EOR Concepts

The overall flooding recovery efficiency is given:

41
 S. Al Rbeawi

(1)

where:
overall recovery efficiency, fraction or percent.
displacement efficiency within the volume swept by injected fluid, fraction, or percent.
volumetric swept efficiency, fraction or percent of the reservoir volume actually swept by
injected fluid.

Displacement efficiency is influenced by rock and fluid properties and throughput (pore
volumes injected). It can be determined by:
(1) Laboratory core floods:
Laboratory core floods, ideally using representative formation cores and actual reservoir fluids,
are the preferred method for obtaining of and :

(2)

(2) Frontal advance theory, (assuming ):

Fractional flow theory can be used to estimate Sor and ED, but it requires measured water-oil
relative permeability curves.

(3)

(3) Empirical correlations.

EV Volumetric swept efficiency is defined by:

(4)

where:
EA = areal swept efficiency-fraction of the pattern area or intended flood area that is swept by the
displacing fluid.
EI = vertical or invasion swept efficiency-fraction of the pattern thickness or intended thickness that
is swept by the displacing fluid.

There are basically three physical factors that lead to high residual oil saturation after primary
and secondary recovery:
1. High oil viscosity.
2. Interfacial forces.
3. Reservoir heterogeneity.
The goal of EOR processes is to mobilize the "residual" oil throughout the entire reservoir. This
is achieved by enhancing microscopic oil displacement and volumetric swept efficiencies. Oil
displacement efficiency is increased by decreasing oil viscosity (e.g., thermal floods) or by reducing
capillary forces or interfacial tension (e.g., chemical floods). Volumetric swept efficiency is
improved by decreasing the drive water mobility (e.g., polymer floods).
If mobility (permeability/viscosity) of the displacing phase is greater than the phase being
displaced, the mobility ratio is unfavorable (i.e. M>1).

42
 S. Al Rbeawi

(5)

M can be made smaller by lowering the viscosity of oil, increasing the viscosity of the displacing
phase, increasing the oil permeability, or decreasing the displacing phase permeability. Another
parameter that plays a very important role in EOR is the “capillary number” which is a
dimensionless group expressing the ratio of viscous to interfacial forces:

(6)

Abrams [1], included the effect of a water-wet core by modifying this group to:

(7)

As Nc is increased, the residual oil saturation decreases. An increase in Nc is obtained by in-

creasing pressure gradient, lowering oil viscosity, or decreasing interfacial tension. For miscible
displacement, the interfacial tension approaches zero, and the oil displacement efficiency on the
microscopic scale is very good.

5. EOR Techniques
There is no a single technique that can be considered a "cure all" for recovering additional oil
from every reservoir. Each process has its specific application. Before initiating an EOR process,
reservoir rock and fluid properties and past production history should be analyzed. It is also
important to review the preceding secondary recovery process in order to determine the principal
reasons why the residual oil was left in that reservoir. Factors that strongly affect the success of a
waterflood will usually also affect the success of a subsequent tertiary project.
The following methods are discussed including process description, production mechanisms,
limitations, problems, and technical screening guides:

5.1 Thermal Recovery

Many reservoirs contain highly viscous crude oil refers to us as "heavy oil reservoirs". Attempts
to produce such oil by primary recovery or with waterflooding will yield very poor recoveries. Often
this oil is too viscous to flow, or it requires pressures high enough to fracture the reservoir. Even if
the oil is movable by waterflooding, the resultant fingering caused by the unfavorable viscosity ratio
provides poor recovery. Application of heat is often the only feasible solution to such reservoirs.
Thermal methods are primarily used for heavy viscous oil (10-20 API) and tar sands. About 60% of
all EOR oil production was due to thermal recovery. Two types of thermal recovery are used to
produce heavy oil formations: steam injection and in-situ combustion. Steam injection is a process
where the heat is given to the formation using steam stream. This process has three different
techniques: 1) Steam stimulation 2) Steam flooding, and 3) Steam assisted gravity drainage
(SAGD). The three techniques have been used all over the world to recover heavy to extra heavy oil
from sandstone reservoirs. Canada and Russia are the two places where thermal recovery is
concentrated.
In-situ combustion (ISC) is the oldest thermal recovery method. It has been used since 1920’s
with many successes and failures. Although several projects have been reported economically
attractive, this recovery method is considered as a high-risk process. Air injection in heavy and
light crude oil reservoirs is known as ISC but is also termed as high pressure air injection (HPAI)

43
 S. Al Rbeawi

when is used in deep light crude oil reservoirs. Air injection has proven to be an effective recovery
method in a variety of reservoir types and conditions and recently has received considerable
attention for onshore and offshore applications based several successful projects in light crude oil
reservoirs (Manrique et al [5]).

5.1.1 Steam Stimulation

Steam stimulation, also known as "steam soak," "cyclic steam injection," or "huff-and-puff' is the
most successful thermal recovery process. It involves a single well, until communication between
wells develops. Steam is injected into the well at a high rate for a short period of time (a few weeks);
next the steam is allowed to soak in for a few days, then the well is allowed to flow back and
pumped. Fig. 3 shows the steam stimulation process.

Fig. 3 Steam stimulation process.

The oil rate increases initially, then drops off. When the rate becomes low, the entire process is
repeated. This process is repeated many times until the well becomes uneconomic; or in some cases,
it is converted from steam stimulation to steam flooding. In the stimulation process, the steam
fingers through the oil around the well bore and heats the oil. The soak period permits the oil to be
heated even further. During the production cycle, the mobilized oil flows into the wellbore, as a
result of pressure drop, gravity, and other mechanisms. This process is most effective in highly
viscous oils with a good reservoir permeability. The performance of this method drops as more and
more cycles are carried out. Oil recovery is generally very small in this process because only a
fraction of the formation is affected.

5.1.2 Steam Flooding

In the steam flooding process shown in Fig. 4, steam is continuously introduced into injection
wells to reduce the oil viscosity and to mobilize oil towards the producing wells.
The injected steam forms a steam zone that advances slowly. The injected steam at the surface
may contain about 80% steam and 20% water (i.e., 80% steam quality). When steam is injected into
the reservoir, heat is transferred to the oil-bearing formation, the reservoir fluids, and some of the
adjacent cap and base rock. Due to this heat loss, some of the steam condenses to yield a mixture of
steam and hot water. Ahead of the steam zone, an oil bank forms and moves towards the producing
well. In many cases, the injected steam overrides the oil due to gravity. This behavior can render this
process less efficient. When steam breakthrough occurs, the steam injection rate is reduced by
recompletion of wells or shutting off steam producing intervals. Steam reduces the oil saturation in

44
 S. Al Rbeawi

the steam zone to very low values (about 10±%). Some oil is transported by steam distillation.
Normal steam flooding practice is to precede and accompany the steam drive by a cyclic steam
stimulation of the producing wells.
For both steam stimulation and steam flooding, steam recovers crude oil by heating the crude oil
and reducing its viscosity and supplying pressure to drive oil to the producing well. However, the
process has several limitations:

Fig. 4 Steam Flooding process.

• Oil saturations must be quite high, and the pay zones should be more than 20 feet thick to
minimize heat losses to adjacent formations.
• Lighter, less viscous crude oils can be steam flooded, but normally they will not be if the
reservoir will respond to an ordinary waterflood.
• Steam flooding is primarily applicable to viscous oils in massive, high permeability
sandstones or unconsolidated sands.
• Because of excessive heat losses in the wellbore, steam flooded reservoirs should be as
shallow as possible as long as pressure for sufficient injection rates can be maintained.
• Steam flooding is not normally used in carbonate reservoirs.
• Since about one-third of the additional oil recovered is consumed to generate the required
steam, the cost per incremental barrel of oil is high.
• A low percentage of water-sensitive clays is desired for good injectivity.

The technical screening guides for steam flooding are as follows:

Crude Oil
Gravity < 25o API (normal range is 10-25o API)
Viscosity > 20 cp (normal range is 100-5,000 cp)
Composition Not critical but some light ends will help steam distillation
Reservoir
Oil Saturation > 500 bbl/acre-ft (or> 40-50% PV)
Type of Formation Sand or sandstone with high porosity and permeability preferred
Net Thickness > 20 feet
Average Permeability > 200 md
Transmissibility > 100 md ft/ cp

45
 S. Al Rbeawi

Depth 300-5,000 ft
Temperature Not critical

5.1.3 In-Situ Combustion

In-situ combustion or fire-flooding involves starting a fire in the reservoir and injecting air to
sustain the burning of some of the crude oil. The most common technique is forward combustion
shown in Fig. 5. One of the variations of this technique is a combination of forward combustion and
waterflooding (COFCAW), and a second technique is reverse combustion. In this process, which
uses air and water, which are the world's cheapest and most plentiful fluids for injection, a
significant amount of crude oil is burned (about 10% of the OOIP) to generate heat. The lighter ends
of the oil are carried forward ahead of the burned zone upgrading the crude oil, whereas the heavy
ends of the crude oil are burned. Heat is generated within a combustion zone at a very high
temperature, about 6000 oC. As a result of burning the crude oil, large volumes of flue gas are
produced. Thus corrosion is a major problem in this process. Over 100 firefloods have been
conducted in the world; however, there have not been many successes.

Fig. 5 In-situ combustion.

In-Situ combustion or fire flooding involves starting a fire in the reservoir and injecting air to
sustain the burning of some of the crude oil. The most common technique is forward combustion in
which the reservoir is ignited in an injection well, and air is injected to propagate the combustion
front away from the well. One of the variations of this technique is combination of forward
combustion and waterflooding (COFCAW). A second technique is reverse combustion in which a
fire is started in a well that will eventua1ly become a producing well, and air injection is then
switched to adjacent wells. However, no successful field trials have been completed for reverse
combustion.
In-situ combustion recovers crude oil by different mechanisms: 1) The application of heat that is
transferred downstream by conduction and convection, thus lowering the viscosity of the crude, 2)
The products of steam distillation and thermal cracking that are carried forward to mix with and
upgrade the crude, 3) Burning coke that is produced from the heavy ends of the crude oil, and 4) The
pressure supplied to the reservoir by the injected air.
The technical screening guides for the in-situ combustion are shown in Table 1. The limitation of
this process are:
• If sufficient coke is not deposited from the oil being burned, the combustion process will not
be sustained.

46
 S. Al Rbeawi

• If excessive coke is deposited, the rate of advance of the combustion zone will be slow, and
the quantity of air required to sustain combustion will be high.
• Oil saturation and porosity must be high to minimize heat loss to rock.
• Process tends to sweep through upper part of reservoir so that sweep efficiency is poor in
thick formations.
Crude Oil
Gravity < 40° API (Normally 10-25°)
Viscosity < 1000 cp
Composition Some asphaltic components to aid coke deposition
Reservoir
Oil Saturation > 500 bbl/acre-ft (or < 40-50% pv)
Type of Formation Sand or sandstone with high porosity
Net Thickness > 10 ft
Average Permeability > 100 md
Transmissibility > 20 md ft/ cp
Depth > 500 ft
Temperature > 150°F preferred

5.2 Gas Injection

Gas injection process is used for enhanced recovery from light, condensate, and volatile
reservoirs. Gas flooding either miscible or immiscible involves injecting a gas to the formations . As
a result, the interfacial tension between the two fluids (oil and gas) is very low, and a very efficient
microscopic displacement efficiency takes place. The displacing fluid may be hydrocarbon gas that
mixes with oil at first contact. For LPG slug or solvent flooding, enriched (condensing) gas drive
and high pressure (vaporizing) gas drive, miscibility is achieved at different pressures. Displacement
of oil by propane or LPG is miscible at first contact in all proportions. With a high pressure gas
(e.g., CO2 or nitrogen), displacement of oil usually takes place by multiple contacts. In recent years
the emphasis has been shifting to less valuable non-hydrocarbon gases such as CO2, nitrogen, and
flue gases. Although nitrogen and flue gases do not recover oil as well as the hydrocarbon gases (or
liquids), the overall economics may be somewhat more favorable. After thermal recovery, miscible
flooding contributes the most among various EOR methods. About 40% of the total EOR production
is by gas miscible/immiscible flooding.

5.2.1 Hydrocarbon Gas Flooding

As one of the oldest EOR methods, hydrocarbon injection was practiced for years before the
(Multiple Miscible Contact) MMP concept was well understood. When a surplus of a low-
molecular-weight hydrocarbon existed in some fields, they were often injected to improve oil
recovery. In terms of the pressure required for efficient miscible displacement, the hydrocarbon
gases were ranked between the very high pressures required for nitrogen and the more modest
range of pressures for CO2. This ranking is correct for methane. However, if a shallower reservoir
depth requires a lower pressure, it can be achieved by adding more enriching hydrocarbons (usually
C2-C4 if the economics permits).
Hydrocarbon miscible flooding consists of injecting light hydrocarbons through the reservoir to
form a miscible flood. Three different methods are used :
1- Sometimes in the first LPG Slug Method, water is injected with the chase gas in a WAG
(alternating water and gas) mode to improve mobility ratio between the solvent slug and the
chase gas.
2- In the second Enriched (Condensing) Gas Drive method, the enriching components are
transferred from the gas to the oil. A miscible zone is formed between the injected gas and the
reservoir oil, and this zone displaces the oil ahead.
3- In the third High Pressure (Vaporizing) Gas Drive method, components from the crude oil being
displaced result in multiple contact miscibility.
Hydrocarbon miscible flooding consists of injecting light hydrocarbons through the reservoir to
form a miscible flood. Three different methods are used. One method uses about 5% PV slug of

47
 S. Al Rbeawi

liquified petroleum gas (LPG) such as propane, followed by natural gas or gas and water. A second
method, called Enriched (Condensing) Gas Drive, consists of injecting a 10-20% PV slug of natural
gas that is enriched with ethane through hexane (C2 to C6), followed by lean gas (dry, mostly
methane) and possibly water. The enriching components are transferred from the gas to the oil. The
third method, called High Pressure (Vaporizing) Gas Drive, consists of injecting lean gas at high
pressure to vaporize C2 - C6 components from the crude oil being displaced.
The mechanisms for the hydrocarbon gas flooding are represented by Generating miscibility (in
the condensing and vaporizing gas drive), Increasing the oil volume (swelling), and Decreasing the
viscosity of the oil. The limitations of this process are:
• The minimum depth is set by the pressure needed to maintain the generated miscibility. The
required pressure ranges from about 1,200 psi for the LPG process to 3,000-5,000 psi for the High
Pressure Gas Drive, depending on the oil.
• A steeply dipping formation is very desirable to permit some gravity stabilization of the
displacement that normally has an unfavorable mobility ratio.

The technical screening guides for the hydrocarbon gases injection are as follows:
Crude Oil
Gravity > 35° API
Viscosity < 10 cp
Composition High percentage of light hydrocarbons (C2- C7)
Reservoir
Oil Saturation > 30% PV
Type of Formation Sandstone or carbonate with a minimum of fractures and high
permeability streaks
Net Thickness Relatively thin unless formation is steeply dipping
Permeability Not critical if uniform
Depth > 2,000 ft (LPG) to
> 5,000 ft (High Pressure Gas)
Temperature Not critical

5.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Flooding

In the CO2 miscible flooding process, a volume of a relatively pure CO2 is injected to mobilize
and displace residual oil. Through multiple contacts between the CO2 and the oil phase,
intermediate and higher molecular weight hydrocarbons are extracted into the CO2 rich phase.
Under proper conditions, this CO2 – rich phase will reach a composition that is miscible with the
original reservoir oil. From that point, miscible or near miscible conditions exist at the displacing
front interface. Under ideal conditions, this miscibility conditions will be reached very quickly in
the reservoir and the distance required to establish the multiple-contact miscibility initially is
negligible compared with the distance between wells.
Carbon dioxide flooding is carried out by injecting large quantities of CO2 (15% or more of the
hydrocarbon PV) into the reservoir as shown in Fig. 6. Miscible displacement by carbon dioxide is
similar to vaporizing gas drive. The only difference is a wider range of components; C2 to C30 are
extracted. As a result, CO2 flood process is applicable to a wider range of reservoirs at lower
miscibility pressures than those for the vaporizing gas drive. CO2 is generally soluble in crude oils
at reservoir pressures and temperatures. It swells the net volume of oil and reduces its viscosity even
before miscibility is achieved by vaporizing gas drive mechanism. As miscibility is approached as a
result of multiple contacts, both the oil phase and the CO2 phase (containing intermediate oil
components) can flow together because of the low interfacial tension. One of the requirements of the
development of miscibility between the oil and CO2 is the reservoir pressure.
CO2 flooding should be used in moderately light-oil reservoirs (API gravity> 25), and the
reservoir should be deep enough to have high enough pressure to achieve miscibility. CO2 can
dissolve in water; thus, it can lower the interfacial tension between oil and water. However, this
process can also lead to more corrosion problems. In this process, about 20-50% of the CO2 slug is
followed by chase water. Water is generally injected with CO2 in a WAG mode to improve mobility

48
 S. Al Rbeawi

ratio between the displacing phase and the oil. CO2 flooding is the fastest growing EOR method in
the United States, and field projects continue to show good incremental oil recovery in response to
CO2 injection. The CO2 flooding method works well as either a secondary or tertiary operation, but
most large CO2 floods are tertiary projects in mature reservoirs that have been waterflooded for
many years.
Although CO2 is not truly miscible with the crude oil, the CO2 extracts the light-to-intermediate
components from the oil, and, if the pressure is high enough, develops miscibility to displace the
crude oil from the reservoir. The mechanisms for oil recovery by CO2 are performed by generation
of miscibility, swelling the crude oil, lowering the viscosity of the oil, and Lowering the interfacial
tension between oil and the CO2- oil phase in the near-miscible regions. The limitation for this
process are:

Fig. 6 CO2 Flooding

• Very low viscosity of CO2 results in poor mobility control.

• Availability of CO2.
• Early breakthrough of CO2 causes several problems.
• Corrosion in the producing wells.
• The necessity of separating CO2 from saleable hydrocarbons.

The screening criteria foe the CO2 injection are as follows:

Crude Oil
Gravity > 26° API (preferably> 30)
Viscosity 15 cp (preferably < 10 cp)
Composition High % of intermediate hydrocarbons (C5 - C20), especially C5-C12
Reservoir
Oil Saturation > 30% PV
Type of Formation Sandstone or carbonate with a minimum of fractures and high
permeability streaks
Net Thickness Relatively thin unless formation is steeply dipping
Permeability Not critical if sufficient injection rates can be maintained
Depth Deep enough to allow high enough pressure (>about 2,000 ft.), pressure
required for optimum production (sometimes called minimum miscibility
pressure) ranges from about 1,200 psi for a high gravity (> 30oAPI) crude

49
 S. Al Rbeawi

at low temperatures to over 4,500 psi for heavy crudes at higher

temperatures.
Temperature Not critical but pressure required increases with temperature

5.2.3 Nitrogen and Flue Gas Flooding

Nitrogen and flue gas flooding are oil recovery methods that may be either miscible or
immiscible depending on the pressure and oil composition. Both nitrogen or flue gas are inferior to
hydrocarbon gases (and much inferior to CO2) from an oil recovery point of view. Nitrogen has a
lower viscosity, has poor solubility in oil, and requires a much higher pressure to generate or
develop miscibility. The increase in the required pressure is significant compared to methane and
very large (4-5 times) when compared to CO2. Therefore, nitrogen will not reduce the displacement
efficiency too much when used as a chase gas for methane, But it can cause a significant drop in the
effectiveness of a CO2 flood if the reservoir pressures are geared to the miscibility requirements for
CO2 displacements. Indeed, even methane counts as a desirable "light end" or "intermediate" in
nitrogen flooding, but methane is not favorable to the achievement of miscibility in CO2 flooding at
low pressures. Fig. 7 shows the N2 flooding.

Nitrogen and flue gas flooding recover oil by vaporizing the lighter components of the crude oil
and generating miscibility if the pressure is high enough and providing a gas drive where a
significant portion of the reservoir volume is filled with low-cost gases. The limitation for this
process are:
• Developed miscibility can only be achieved with light oils and at high pressures; therefore,
deep reservoirs are needed .
• A steeply dipping reservoir is desired to permit gravity stabilization ofthe displacement,
which has a very unfavorable mobility ratio.
• Viscous fingering results in poor vertical and horizontal sweep efficiency.
• Corrosion can cause problems in the flue gas method.
• The non-hydrocarbon gases must be separated from the saleable produced gas.

The screening guides for the nitrogen and flue gas injection are as follows:

Crude Oil
Gravity > 240 API (> 35 for nitrogen)
Viscosity < 10 cp
Composition High % of light hydrocarbons (C1 - C7)
Reservoir
Oil Saturation Type > 30% PV
Type of Formation Sandstone or carbonate with few fractures and high permeability streaks
Net Thickness Relatively thin unless formation is dipping
Average Permeability Not critical
Depth. > 4,500 ft
Temperature Not critical

50
 S. Al Rbeawi

Fig. 7 N2 injection process

5.3 Chemical Flooding

Chemical flooding processes comes in the second rank of all EOR projects all over the world. It
has been used for both carbonate and sandstone formations. The 1980s was considered as the best
time (peak) for the oil recovery by chemical flooding. These processes require conditions favorable
to water injection because they are modifications of waterflooding. Chemical flooding is applicable
to oils that are more viscous than oils suitable for gas injection, but less viscous than oils that can
be recovered by thermal methods. Reservoirs with moderate permeability are desirable. The
presence of a gas cap is not desirable, since there is the potential of re-saturating the cap.
Formations with high clay contents are undesirable, since the clays increase the adsorption of the
injected chemicals.
Three type of chemicals have been used in the chemical flooding. Polymers group is the mostly
used type for different formation where there is serous need to improve the swept efficiency.
Surfactants group is the second type of chemical that has been used in the formations where there is
serous need to reduce the interfacial tension between oil and water. Mixed polymer and surfactant
(SP) solutions, also known as micellar flooding or micro-emulsion flooding, are commonly used.
Caustic solutions group, also known as alkaline solutions group, is the third type of chemical
flooding. A combination of polymer-surfactant-alkaline (ASP) may be used.

5.3.1 Polymer Flooding

The objective of polymer flooding is to provide better displacement and volumetric sweep
efficiencies during a waterflood. The mechanisms for oil recovery improvement by polymer are
increasing the viscosity of water, decreasing the mobility of water, contacting a larger volume of
the reservoir, and reducing the injected fluid mobility to improve areal and vertical sweep
efficiencies.
It should be noted that polymer does not lower the residual oil saturation. Because polymer
flooding inhibits fingering, the oil displacement is more efficient in the early stages as compared to
a conventional waterflood. As a result, more oil will be produced in the early life of the flood. This
is the primary economic advantage because it is generally accepted that ultimate recovery will be
the same for polymer flooding as for waterflooding.
Many factors affect polymer flooding. These include polymer degradation due to salinity,
temperatures, time, shear rates, and the presence of divalent ions. Some polymers, like
polysaccharides, are more resistant; however, they suffer from bacterial degradation problems and
cause wellbore plugging. Also, polymers may be lost in the formation due to adsorption. Polymers

51
 S. Al Rbeawi

may be ineffective in a mature waterflood because of low mobile oil saturation. They show some
promise in a reservoir with high vertical heterogeneity where the oil saturation may still be high
and the vertical conformance poor.
Some operators have been successful in treating injection wells (near-well treatment) with
polymers to modify vertical profiles.
Polymer augmented waterflooding consists of adding water soluble polymers to the water
before it is injected into the reservoir. Low concentrations (often 250-2,000 mg/L) of certain
synthetic or biopolymers are used; properly sized treatments may require 15 - 25% reservoir PV.
Fig. 8 shows polymer flooding.
The limitations of the polymer flooding process are:
• If oil viscosities are high, a higher polymer concentration is needed to achieve the desired
mobility control.
• Results are normally better if the polymer flood is started before the water-oil ratio becomes
excessively high.
• Clays increase polymer adsorption.
• Some heterogeneity is acceptable but for conventional polymer flooding, reservoirs with
extensive fractures should be avoided. If fractures are present, the cross-linked or gelled
polymer techniques may be applicable.
• Lower injectivity than with water can adversely affect oil production rate in the early stages
of the polymer flood.
• Acrylamide-type polymers lose viscosity due to sheer degradation, or it increases in salinity
and divalent ions.
• Xanthan gum polymers cost more, are subject to microbial degradation, and have a greater
potential for wellbore plugging.

Fig. 8 Polymer Flooding.

The technical guides for the screening process of the polymer flooding are as follows:
Crude oil
Gravity > 25° API
Viscosity < 150 cp (preferably < 100)
Composition Not critical
Reservoir
Oil Saturation > 10% PV mobile oil

52
 S. Al Rbeawi

Type of Formation Sandstone preferred but can be used in carbonate

Net Thickness Not critical
Permeability >10 md (as low as 3 md in some cases)
Depth < about 9000 ft (see Temperature)
Temperature < 200°F to minimize degradation

5.3.2 Surfactant Flooding

Surfactant/polymer flooding, also called "micellar/polymer" or "micro-emulsion flooding"
consists of injecting a slug that contains water, surfactant, electrolyte (salt), usually a cosolvent
(alcohol), and possibly a hydrocarbon (oil) . Fig.(9) shows surfactant flooding.
The size of the slug is often 5-15% PV for a high surfactant concentration system and 15-50%
PV for low concentrations. The surfactant slug is followed by polymer-thickened water.
Concentrations of the polymer often ranges from 500-2,000 sg/L. The volume of polymer solution
injected may be 50% PV, more or less, depending on the process design. The mechanisms for oil
recover by surfactant/polymer flooding are lowering the interfacial tension between oil and water,
solubilization of oil, emulsification of oil and water, and mobility enhancement. The limitations for
this process are:
• An areal sweep of more than 50% on waterflood is desired.
• Relatively homogeneous formation is preferred.
• High amounts of anhydrite, gypsum, or clays are undesirable.
• Available systems provide optimum behavior over a very narrow set of conditions.
• With commercially available surfactants, formation water chlorides should be < 20,000
ppm and divalent ions (Ca++ and Mg++) < 500 ppm.

Fig. 9 Surfactant flooding

The screening criteria for the surfactant flooding are as follows:

Crude Oil
Gravity > 25° API
Viscosity < 30 cp
Composition Light to intermediates are desirable
Reservoir
Oil Saturation > 30% PV
Type of Formation Sandstone preferred
Net Thickness > 10 ft

53
 S. Al Rbeawi

Average Permeability > 20 md

Depth < about 8,000 ft
Temperature < 175°F

5.3.3 Caustic Flooding

Caustic or alkaline flooding involves the injection of chemicals such as sodium hydroxide,
sodium silicate, or sodium carbonate. Oils in the API gravity range of 13 – 35o are normally the
target for alkaline flooding. One of the desirable properties for the oils is to have enough organic
acids so that they can react with the alkaline solution. Another desirable property is moderate oil
gravity so that mobility control is not a problem.
Sandstone reservoirs are generally preferred for this process, since carbonate formations often
contain anhydride or gypsum which consume a large amount of alkaline chemicals. The alkali is
also consumed by clays, minerals, or silica. In addition, the consumption is high at elevated
temperatures. Another problem with caustic flooding is the scale formation in the producing wells.
Alkaline solutions react With organic petroleum acids in certain crudes to create surfactants in
situ. They also react With reservoir rocks to change wettability. The concentration of the alkaline
agent is normally 0.2 to 5%; slug size is often 10 to 50% PV, although one successful flood only
used 2% PV, (but this project also included polymers for mobility control). Polymers may be added
to the alkaline mixture, and polymer-thickened water can be used following the caustic slug. Oil is
recovered by alkaline solution throughout different mechanisms. These mechanisms are a reduction
of interfacial tension resulting from the produced surfactants, changing wettability from oil-wet to
water-wet, changing wettability from water-wet to oil-wet, emulsification and entrainment of oil,
emulsification and entrapment of oil to aid in mobility control, and solubilization of rigid oil films
at oil-water interfaces. However, not all mechanisms are operative in each reservoir.
The limitations for alkaline flooding process are:
• Best results are obtained if the alkaline material reacts With the crude oil; the oil should have
an acid number of more than 0.2 mg KOH/g of oil.
• The interfacial tension between the alkaline solution and the crude oil should be less than
0.01 dyne/cm.
• At high temperatures and in some chemical environments, excessive amounts of alkaline
chemicals may be consumed by reaction With clays, minerals, or silica in the sandstone
reservoir.
• Carbonates are usually avoided because they often contain anhydrite or gypsum, which
interact adversely With the caustic chemical.
The screening guides for the chemical flooding techniques are as follows:
Crude Oil
Gravity 13° to 35° API
Viscosity < 200 cp
Composition Some organic acids required
Reservoir
Oil Saturation Above waterflood residual
Type of Formation Sandstones preferred
Net Thickness Not critical
Average Permeability > 20 md
Depth . < about 9,000 ft (see Temperature)
Temperature < 200°F preferred

5.4 Special EOR techniques

5.4.1 Water-Alternative-Gas Injection (WAG)
WAG is one of the most important techniques used in low dip reservoirs. This process involves
injecting alternating cycles of gas and water. The underlying principle is based on the experimental
fact that the total mobility of a two-phase system is less than single-phase mobility by proper
choice of ratio of the volumes injected. An ideal situation can be created where the displacing

54
 S. Al Rbeawi

mixture of gas and water has the lowest mobility, which works better than even water injection. In
practical, gravity segregation and reservoir heterogeneity tend to limit the development of such
uniform displacements. The WAG technique may result in high oil recovery in horizontal
reservoirs. One of the advantages of the WAG technique is that it allows maximizing the contacted
volume for a given volume of gas available. This could be important in situations where we have
limited supply of gas, where the only gas available is the gas produced from the field with no
external supply.
Important factors affecting water-alternating gas injection are reservoir and fluid properties,
miscibility conditions, injection technique and WAG parameters, screening of WAG injection is
based on accounting of specific reservoir conditions, particular reservoir and fluid properties. Oil
recovery by the injection of water alternately with gas (WAG flooding) is often limited by gravity
segregation, which causes the injected gas to rise to the top of the formation and water to migrate to
the bottom. This segregation results in a miscible flood in only a thin layer at the top of the
formation, whereas the remainder is waterflooded. However, vertical conformance in a WAG flood
can be greatly improved by use of injection rates that are high relative to well spacing. The degree
of improvement and, hence, the resultant oil recovery is primarily a function of a single
dimensionless parameters, which is one form of the viscous-gravity ratio.
Optimum conditions of oil displacement by WAG would be achieved if the gas and water travel
in the reservoir at equal velocity. The effect may occur for a short time in the water-gas mixture
zone but has a limited extent in the reservoir because of difference in viscous and gravity forces.
Therefore portioning of water/gas banks and cycling are required to tune the injection scheme for
particular reservoir conditions. The decrease of gas bank volume injected in altered cycles with
water into high permeability layer increases the trapped volume of gas in the layer. This limits the
amount of segregated gas that can be injected to the upper layer, thus the increase of WAG ratio
and of WAG cycles give improved oil recovery from the low permeability layer at the expend of
recovery from the low permeability top layer. Fig. 10 shows the water-alternative-gas injection
process (WAG).

Fig. 10 WAG Flooding process

5.4.2 Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)

Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is an effective method of producing heavy oil and
bitumen. In a typical SAGD approach, steam is injected into a horizontal well located directly
above a horizontal producer. A steam chamber grows around the injection well and helps displace
heated oil toward the production well, as shown in Fig. 11. SAGD maximize the role of gravity

55
 S. Al Rbeawi

forces during steam flooding of heavy oils. Heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and
latent heat of the steam. By injecting steam, a steam chamber forms directly above the production
well. At the steam chamber boundary, steam condenses to water as heat is transferred to the oil.
Condensed water and hot oil flow along the steam chamber to the production well.

Fig. 11 Steam Assisted Gravity drainage (SAGD) process

5.4.3 Microbial Flooding (MEOR)

Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) is one of the EOR techniques where bacteria and
their by-products are utilized for oil mobilization in a reservoir (Marshal [6]). In principle, MEOR
is a process that increases oil recovery through inoculation of microorganisms in a reservoir,
aiming that bacteria and their by-products cause some beneficial effects such as the formation of
stable oil-water emulsions, mobilization of residual oil as a result of reduced interfacial tension,
and diverting of injection fluids through upswept areas of the reservoir by clogging high permeable
zones. Microbial technologies are becoming accepted worldwide as cost- effective and
environmentally friendly approaches to improve oil production.
In this method, nutrients and suitable bacteria, which can grow under the anaerobic reservoir
conditions, are injected into the reservoir. The microbial metabolic products that include
biosurfactants, biopolymers, acids, solvents, gases, and also enzymes modify the properties of the
oil and the interactions between oil, water, and the porous media, which increase the mobility of
the oil and consequently the recovery of oil especially from depleted and marginal reservoirs; thus
extending the producing life of the wells. In MEOR process, different kinds of nutrients are
injected to the reservoirs. In some processes, a fermentable carbohydrate including molasses is
utilized as nutrient.
Some other reservoirs require inorganic nutrients as substrates for cellular growth or as
alternative electron acceptors instead of oxygen. In another method, water containing a source of
vitamins, phosphates, and electron acceptors such as nitrate, is injected into the reservoir, so that
anaerobic bacteria can grow by using oil as the main carbon source. The microorganisms used in
MEOR methods are mostly anaerobic extremophiles, including halophiles, barophiles, and
thermophiles for their better adaptation to the oil reservoir conditions. These bacteria are usually
hydrocarbon-utilizing, non-pathogenic, and are naturally occurring in petroleum reservoirs (Rashidi
et al 2012). Fig. 12 shows the microbial flooding.

56
 S. Al Rbeawi

Fig. 12 Microbial flooding pocess

Several publications state that oil recovery through microbial action takes place due to several
mechanisms as follows (Jackson et al [3] and Nielson et al [7]):
1- Reduction of oil/water interfacial tension and modification of porous media wettability
by surfactant production and bacterial action.
2- Selective plugging of porous media by microorganisms and their metabolites.
3- Oil viscosity reduction caused by gas solution in the oil due to bacterial gas production
or degradation of long-chain saturated hydrocarbons.
4- Production of acids that dissolve rock improving porous media permeability.

5.4.4 Nanofluid injection

New type of fluids usually called “smart fluids” has become more accessible for the oil and gas
industry. The nanofluids are created by the addition of nanoparticles to fluids for intensification
and improvement of some properties at low volume concentrations of the dispersing medium. Then
the main feature of nanofluids is that their properties greatly depend on the dimensions of
nanoparticles. Suspensions of nanodimensional particles have the following advantages; increase in
sedimentation stability because surface forces easily counterbalance the force of gravity; thermal,
optical, stress–strain, electrical, rheological and magnetic properties that strongly depend on size
and shape of the nanoparticles can be created during production. It is for this reason that nanofluid
properties often exceed the properties of conventional fluids. The researches have shown how
dispersed nanoparticles in an aqueous phase can modify the interfacial properties of the
liquid/liquid systems if their surface is modified by the presence of an ionic surfactant. Mixed
particle/surfactant interfacial layers have been characterized through measurements of the effective
interfacial tension and wettability (Onyekonwu et al [9]).
Presence of nanoparticles changes rheological properties and increase effect of surfactant
solution on oil recovery processes. First of all it changes interfacial tension value of surfactant/oil
interface more effectively. Observed reduction of interfacial tension is the result of nanoparticles
presence at the interfacial layers. In lower concentration of nanoparticle, they are attached to the
liquid surface and due to absorption process decrease surface tension. However in concentration
larger than 0.4 wt.%, the nanoparticles nearly completely remove the surfactant from the bulk
aqueous phase and there is no free surfactant available in the bulk. Thus, for nanoparticles
concentrations below 0.4 wt.%, the interfacial tension of the dispersion is determined by a mixed
layer composed by attached nanoparticles and surfactant adsorbed at the liquid interface (Ogolo et
al [8]).

57
 S. Al Rbeawi

Haroun et al [4] explained that the nanotechnology EOR has the following advantages over the
other techniques:
• Low viscosity oil
• High salinity
• Large well spacing
• High clay content
• Extensive thermal fracture

6. Iraqi oil Fields

It is well known that the majority of Iraqi oil fields are having carbonate lithology. However,
sandstone formations are existed also in several Iraqi oil fields. Iraqi oil is considered as moderate
to light oil in which the API gravity covers the range (20-35). Very few Iraqi oils are classified as
heavy oil like the oil produced from Qaiyarah structure (Jeribe reservoir 15.3 API, Euphrates
reservoir 15.3 API, and Hartha reservoir 17.3 API). At the same time, very few oils are considered
light oil with API gravity around 40 such as the oils from Ajeel structure (Fatha reservoir 41 API,
Gotnia 37 API, and Sargelu 38 API).
Based on the lithology type, both gas injection techniques and chemical flooding processes are
good candidates for the enhanced oil recovery treatment in Iraqi oil fields. The consideration
should be taken for the permeability rang and the viscosity of the oil. The permeability of most
Iraqi oil fields is in the range of several milidarcies to almost one Darcy. Naturally fractured
carbonate reservoirs is the second consideration for the screening criteria of the enhanced oil
recovery process in the Iraqi oil fields. Appendix-A shows classification for Iraqi oil fields based
on structure, length, width, reservoir, lithology, depth, net pay thickness, porosity, permeability,
API, sulfur content, and the produced fluid. This classification might be used for screening criteria
of the prospective EOR projects. Three technical selection criteria have to be considered. Lithology
is the first selection criterion for the EOR projects where thermal flooding is the dominant
technique for sandstone reservoirs while gas injection is the best candidate for the carbonate
reservoirs. The second criterion is the reservoir fluid properties in which the API gravity and the
viscosity are the two parameters that typical taken into account. The third one is the formation
properties in which the porosity and permeability ranges are the main factors for the selection of
the EOR projects. Reservoir depth also has some impacts on the selection criteria as the pressure
and temperature gradient depend on the depth.

Nomenclatures

58
 S. Al Rbeawi

References

1. Abrams A., ‘The Influence of Fluid Viscosity, Interfacial Tension, and Flow Velocity on Residual Oil
Saturation Left by Waterflood’, SPE Journal, (1975), 437-447.
2. Alvarado, V. and Manrique, E:, ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Update Review’, Energies, 3 (2010), 1529-
1575.
3. Jackson S.C. et al , ‘Consideration for Field Implementation of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery’, SPE
144483 paper presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
USA, 30 Oct.-2 Nov, 2011.
4. Haroun M. et al , ‘Smart Nano-EOR Process for Abu Dhabi Carbonate Reservoirs’. SPE 162386 paper
prsented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE,
11-14 Nov, 2012.
5. Manrique E. et al, ‘EOR: Current Status and Opportunities’ , SPE 130113 paper presented at the 2010
SPE Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 24-28 April,2010.
6. Marshal S.L.,‘Fundamental Aspect of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery: A National Research Flagship:
wealth from ocean’, CSIRO, Australia, March, 2008.
7. Nielsen S.M. et al, ‘Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery: 3D Simulation with gravity effect’, SPE-131048
paper presented at the SPE EURPOEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Barcelona,
Spain, 14-17, June, 2010.
8. Ogolo N.A., Olafuyi O.A. and Onyekonwu M.O., ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Nanoparticles, SPE
160847 paper presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exihibition held in
Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8-11 April, 2012.
9. Onyekonwu M.O. and Ogolo N.A., ‘Investigating the Use of Nanoparticles in Enhanced Oil Recovery’ ,
SPE 140744 paper presented at the 34th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa,
Calabar, Nigeria , 31 Jul.- 7 Aug, 2010.
10. Rashedi H., Yazdian F., and Naghizadeh S., ‘Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery, Introduction to
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites, InTech’,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/ introduction-to enhanced-oil-recovery-processes-
and-bioremediationof-oil contaminated -sites/microbial-enhanced-oil-recovery, 2010.

Appendix

59
 S. Al Rbeawi

Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md completed or EOR
m on stream Technique
Abtakh 2 Fatha Miocene Carb. 956 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- OIl & 1978
Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1407 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Gas
Shir./hartha Camp_Maast Carb. 2401 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mushorah Turonian Carb. 2656 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mus Liassic Carb. 3298 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Butmah Liassic Carb. 3509 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Kurra chine U Triassic Carb. 3574 --- --- ---- ---- ---
Abu 8 2 Kirkuk Group Oligocene Carb. 3014 __ 18 400 24 3.93 Polymer
Ghirab N Mishrif Cen-Tru Carb. 3797 __ 12 93 24.9 3.6 flooding
Mauddud Albian Carb. 4258 __ 13 5.6 26

Abu 19 4 Jer.\Eu ph. Miocene Carb. 2887 __ 20 500 21 3.23 1971 on CO2 injection
Ghirab S stream
Adaiyah Shiranish Camp-Maast Marl 326 __ __ __ 15 __ Heavy 1938
Butamah L Triassic Carb. 1226 __ __ __ 31 __
Kurra chine U Triassic Carb. __ __ __ __ __

Ain 14 4 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1084 __ __ __ __ __ Oil 1983

Ghazal Euphrat Miocene Carb. 1386 __ __ __ __ __ &Gas

Ain zalah 15 4 Shiranish Camp-maast Carb. 1607 90 3 Fr.re 31.5 2.6 1951 on Polymer
Mushorah Senonian Carb. 2231 ------ 18 __ 31.4 2.7 stream flooding
Mauddud Albian Carb. 3438 223 18 31.4 2.7
Ajeel 20 6 Fatha Miocene Carb. 644 __ __ __ 41 __ Oil 1998 on
Jer/dhiban Miocene Carb. 944 __ __ __ 34 __ &Gas stream
Euphrates Miocene Carb. 989 __ __ __ 30 __
Chia gara Tithonian Carb. 2924 __ __ __ 27 __
Gotnia U Jurassic Carb. 3175 __ __ __ 38 __
Sargelu M Jurassic Carb. 3243 __ __ __ 42 __

AIan 28 4 Sargelu M Jurassic Carb. 1247 17.4 __ __ 13.3 2.5 Heavy 1937&1955
Kurra chine U triassic Carb. 2320 50.3 __ __ 34.1 1
Kurra chine U triassic Carb. __ __ __ __ 29.1 1.57

Ashtan 30 3 Sargelu M Jurassic Carb 951 ---- ---- ---- 34.2 1.8 Heavy 1954
Mus/Adaiyah Liassic Carb 1273 ---- ---- ---- 34 1.9

60
 S. Al Rbeawi
Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md Completed or EOR
m on Stream TEchnique
Butmah Liassic Carb. 1381 __ __ __ 34 1.5
Kurra chine U Triassic Carb. 1991 __ __ __ __ __
Geli khana M triassic Carb. 2539 __ __ __ __ __
Avanah_ 27 -- Kirkuk Group Oligocene Carb. 666 472 25 200 36.1 1.95 1933 on Chemical
kirkuk Shiranish Camp-maast Marl 1448 __ __ __ 33 __ stream flooding+ Gas
Kometan turonian Marl 1670 __ __ __ 33 __ injection

Baba-Kirkuk 50 3 Kirkuk Group Oligocene Carb. 363 747 25 +250 36.7 2.05 1934 on Chemical
Shiranish Camp-maast Carb. 925 __ __ __ 33 __ stream flooding+Gas
Kometan Turonlan Marl 1150 __ __ __ 33 __ Injection
Mauddud Albian Carb. 1275 __ __ __ 38 __
Shuaiba Aptian Carb. 1571 __ __ __ 29 __
Bai hassn 22 3 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 788 -- -- -- -- -- 1930 on
Kirkuk Group Oligocene Carb. 801 378 20 30- 34 2.6 stream Gas injection+
Jaddala Eocene Chalk 1036 -- -- 200 28 -- Chemical
Aaliji Pal-Eoc Marl 1152 -- -- -- 28 -- flooding
Shiranish Camp-maast Marl 1188 -- -- -- 31.5 --
L kometan Turonlan Marl 1480 -- -- -- 11 -- Thermal Reco.
Mauddud Albian Carb. 1549 -- -- -- 22 --
shuaiba Aptian Carb. 1822 -- -- -- 26.5 3.7
--
Bohaira - 5 Kurra chine U Triassic Carb. -- -- -- -- -- -- 1998

Butmah East 8 1.6 Shiranish Camp-maast Carb. 1277 152 3 Fr.re 29.3 2.6 1954 Polymer
Kurra chine U Triassic Carb. 2981 -- -- 36.2 1.08 1954 flooding
Butmah west 8 3 Kurra chine U Triassic Carb. 2790 -- -- -- 35 1.2 1986 on Chemical
Geli khana M triassic Carb. 3775 -- -- -- 34 0.04 stream flooding
Chemechemal 74 Pila spi Eocene Carb. 508.4 -- -- -- 43 0.14 1930&1960
Shiranish Camp-maast Marl 1825 -- -- -- 63.1 0.14
Sadi Senonian Carb. -- -- -- -- Gas --
kometan Turonlan Marl -- -- -- -- Gas --
Chia surkh 6.5 Fatha Miocene Carb. 1010 -- 20 -- 41 0.58 1954 Gas Injection
Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1720 -- 18 -- 43 0.67
Demir dagh 10 Gercus M Eocene Carb. 1017 -- -- -- 14.9 4.9 1980 Thermal
Shiranish Camp-maast Carb. 1567 -- -- -- 22 3.9 recovery
Pilsener/Har. Senonian Carb. ? -- -- -- 14.9 --
61
 S. Al Rbeawi

Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md Completed or EOR
m on Stream TEchnique
Jumber 15 5 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1554 102 20 4 40.5 1.2 1995 on Gas Injection
Euph/serik Miocene Carb. 1586 64 30 40 40.6 1.3 stream
Shiranish Camp-masat Marl 2082 __ __ __ __ __
Jaria pika 15 5 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1457 __ __ __ 48 2.2 Gas 1976 Gas injection
Dhiban Miocene Carb. 1509 __ __ __ 52 0.1
Euphrates Miocene Carb. 1626 __ __ __ 52 0.1
serikagni Miocene Carb. 1651 __ __ __ 52 0.1
Jawan 16 5 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 175 150 __ __ 15 7 1936 Thermal
Euphrates Miocene Carb. 254 50 __ __ 19 6.8 recovery
Hartha Camp-masat Carb. 693 200 __ __ 20 5.8

Judaida 5 1 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 2236 __ 17.4 0.29 26 2.9 Oil Gas injection
Dhiban Miocene Carb. 2286 __ 16.9 21.1 25 __ &Gas
Euphrates Miocene Carb. 2385 __ 18.5 7.8 24.9 __
Kirkuk Oligocene Carb. 2445 __ 17.8 36.5 25 4.18
groub turonian marl 3247 __ 8.9 0.04 18 __
kometan
Kand 33 5 nd -- Carb. -- -- -- -- -- -- 1983
khabaz 15 4 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 2063 -- 20 146 37 2.08 1994 on Gas injection
Kirkuk Oligocene Carb. 2111 -- 15 740 37 1.5 stream
groub Albian Carb. 2753 -- 12 25 29 2.05
Mauddud Aptian Carb. 3045 -- 8 83 39 2
shuaiba
khanuaqah 33 3 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 265 -- -- -- -- -- Gas 1929
Khashim 11 3 Fatha Miocene Carb. 955 -- 15 -- -- -- Gas 1928&1980
Ahmar Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1338 -- 21 -- -- --
Dhiban Miocene Carb. 1393 -- 15 -- -- 1.17
khurmala 24 5 E h groub
Kirkuk t Mi
Oligocene C b
Carb. 1543
815 300 19
-- 150 38
34 1 05
1.95 Chemical
Mauddud Albian Carb. 1771 -- -- -- 38 -- flooding
shuaiba Aptian Carb. 2031 -- -- -- 29 --

62
 S. Al Rbeawi

Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md Completed or EOR
m on Stream TEchnique
East Anah 215 8 Hartha Camp‐maast Carb. 2338 __ __ __ __ __ Heavy 1939
Mushorah Turonian Carb. 2412 __ __ __ __ __ 1959
Alan Liassic Carb. 2698 __ __ __ __ __
Adaiyah/Mus Liassic Carb. 2732 __ __ __ __ __
Butamah Liassic Carb. 2885 __ __ __ __ __

Khleisia 20 20 Khabour Ordovician Clast 2544 __ __ __ __ __ Oil &Gas 1959

West Anah 215 8 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Afaq 4 2 Aaliji Pal‐Eoc Marl 1195 __ __ __ __ __ Oil &Gas 1961

2 5 Hartha Camp‐Maast Carb. 1690 __ __ __ __ __
Ahmadi Cenomanian Carb. 2457 __ __ __ __ __
Mauddud Albian Carb. 2519 __ __ __ __ __
Zubair L Cretaceous Carb. 2873 __ __ __ __ __

Ahdab North 10 2 Tanuma Senonian Carb. 2542 __ 23 __ 25 __ Oil &Gas 1982 Polymer
Khasib Turonian Carb. 2595 __ 22.5 80 25 __ flooding
Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 2700 __ 14.8 63 25 __
Rumaila Cenomanian Carb. 2806 __ 19.2 63 24 __
Mauddud Albian Carb. 3080 __ 16.7 0.7 22 __
Nahr Umr Albian Carb. 3385 __ __ __ 22 __
Shuaiba Aptian Carb. 3482 __ __ __ 22 __

Ahdab Suuth 7 3 Hartha Camp‐maast Carb. 2263 __ 22.5 __ 25 __ Oil &Gas 1982

Amara Khasib Turonian Carb. 2801 __ __ __ 21 __ Oil &Gas 1985

Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 2880 __ __ __ 23 __
Mauddud Albian Carb. 3308 __ __ __ 12 __
Nahr Umr Albian Carb. 3673 30

63
 S. Al Rbeawi

Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Completed Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md or on Stream EOR
m TEchniq
Buzurgan 18 7 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 2850 __ 20 15 31 __ Oil &gas 1976 on stream Chemical
Buzurgan south 27 5 Kirkuk groub Oligocene Carb. 2864 __ 24 20 25 __ Oil &gas 1980 Polymer
mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 3733 __ 16 47 23 3.9
Dhufriya S. 10 3 zubair L cretaceous Clast. 4107 __ 15 __ 23.6 __ Oil &gas 1984
Dibdiba 8 3 Mauddud Albian Carb. 2810 __ __ __ __ __ Oil &gas 1984
Nahr umr Albian Clast. 2917 __ __ __ __ __
Yamama L cretaceous Carb. 4051 __ __ __ __ __
sulaiy Tith‐Berr Carb. 4282 __ __ __ __ __
Dujaila 9 3 Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 2839 __ __ __ 14 __ Oil &gas
East Baghdad 100 6 Hartha Camp‐maast Carb. 1874 _ 24 _ 19 5.18 Oil &gas 1989 on stream
(EB)
EB Diyala 30 7 khasib Turonian Carb. 2432 __ 30 __ 21 3.81 Oil &gas Chemical
Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 2590 __ 15 __ 19 3.76 flooding
Nahr umr Albian Clast. 3213 __ 20 __ 32 1.3
zubair L cretaceous Clast. 3408 __ 20 __ 27 1.5
EB NE 40 7 Sadi senionian Carb. 2192 __ 15 __ 20 33.95 Oil &gas
EB Rashidiya 30 5 tanuma senoinan Carb. 2316 __ 20 __ 22 3.6 Oil &gas
Ekhaidher 12 7 Hartha Camp‐maast Carb. 563 __ __ __ __ __ Oil &gas
Nahr umr Albian Clast. 1387 __ __ __ __ __
zubair L Cretaceous Clast. 1533 __ __ __ __ __
Ekhaidher 1 8 3 Hartha Camp‐masa Carb. 468 __ __ __ __ __ Oil &gas
Nahr umr Albian Clast. 1264 __ __ __ __ __
zubair L Cretaceous Clast. 1417 __ __ __ __ __

64
 S. Al Rbeawi

Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md Completed or EOR
m on Stream TEchnique
Halfaya 25 7 Jeribe Miocene Carb. 1902 __ 18 __ 22 __ Oil& 1978 Chemical
10 2 Euphrates Miocene Carb. -- __ 20 __ 22 __ Gas flooding
Kirkuk Group Oligocene Carb. 1913 __ 24 __ 22 __
Sadi Senonian Carb. 2608 __ 18 __ 26 __
Tanuma Senonian Carb. 2733 __ 16 __ 26 __
Khasib Turonian Carb. 2748 __ 16 __ 21 __
Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 2833 __ 17 __ 20 4.7
Nahar Umr Albian Carb. 3505 __ 18 __ 31 2.12
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb. 4369* __ 9 __ 27 __

Huwaiza 15 5 Hartha Camp-maast Carb. 2912 __ __ __ 26 __ Oil& Polymer flooding

Sadi Senonian Carb. 2966 __ __ __ 26 __ Gas
Khasib Turonian Carb. 3078 __ __ __ 20 __
Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 3145 __ __ __ 20 __
Nahr Umr Albian Clast. 3721 __ __ __ 20 __
Zubair L Cretaceous Clast. 4095 __ __ __ __ __
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb. __ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Jabel Sanam 5 5 Shiranish Cenomanian Carb. 2552 __ __ __ __ __ Oil& 1978

Mushorah Cenomanian Carb. 2771 __ __ __ __ __ Gas
Mauddud Albian Clast. 3041 __ __ __ __ __
L cretaceous Clast. 3412 __ __ __ __ __

Jraishan 8 5 Khasib Turonian Carb. __ __ __ __ __ __ Oil& 1976

Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. __ __ __ __ __ __ Gas
Mauddud Albian Carb. __ __ __ __ __ __
Shuaiba Aptian Carb. __ __ __ __ __ __
Nahar Umr Aptian Clast.
Ratawi /Yam. L Cretaceous Carb. 2750 __ 18 532 30 ____
Sulaiy Tith - berr Carb. ____ ___ ___ ____ 32.7 1.73

65
 S. Al Rbeawi

Khidr Nahr Umr Albian Clast 2582 __ __ __ __ __ Heavy 1983

10 2.5 Zubair L Cretaceous Clast 2948 __ __ __ __ __
Ratawi L Cretaceous Carb. 2526 __ __ __ __ __
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb. 3703 __ __ __ __ __
Najmah U Jurassic Carb. 4783 __ 30 __ __ __
kifl 13 7 Didibba Miocene Clast 65 __ __ __ __ __ Oil & Gas 1960
Fatha Miocene Carb. 84 __ __ __ __ __
Aaliji Pal‐Eoc Marl. 507 __ __ __ __ __
Hartha Camp‐maast Carb. 845 __ __ __ __ __
Nahr Umr Albian Clast 1787 __ 20 __ 26 __
Zubair L Cretaceous Clast 2001 __ 23 __ 20 __
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb. 2488 __ __ __ 14 __
__ __ __ __ __
Gotnia U Jurassic Carb. 2951
__ __ __ __ __
Najmah U Jurassic Carb. 3026
__ __ __ __ __
Sargelu M Jurassic Carb. 3177

Kumait 15 3 Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 3049 __ 11.3 __ 23 3.92 Oil & Gas 1983 Chemical
Nahr Umr Albian Carb. 3645 __ 18.5 __ 30 2.9 flooding

Luhais 24 10 Nahr Umr Albian Carb. 2482 __ 20 __ 32 __ Oil & Gas 1978 On Chemical
Zubair L Cretaceous Clast 2776 __ 20 __ 33 __ stream flooding

Majnoon 48 10 Fatha Miocene Carb. 962 __ 20 __ ‐‐‐‐‐ __ Oil & Gas 1977 Chemical
Ghar Miocene Carb. 1255 35 20 200 24 3.45 flooding+ Gas
Shiranisb Camp‐Maast Carb. 1992 40 15 143.5 20.4 __ injection
Hartha Camp‐Maast Carb. 2109 __ 21 76 30 3.08
Sadi Senonian Carb. 2210 __ 18 10 19.5 4.64
Khasib Turonian Carb. 2343 __ 15 4 25 __
Mishrif Cenomanian Carb. 2385 140 13 330 21 3.9
Ahmadi Cenomanian Carb. 2622 70 25 268 21 4.21
Nahr Umr Albian Clast 2955 25 16 515 30 2.29
Shuaiba Aptian Carb. 3129 50 15 150 30 __
Zubair L Cretaceou Clast 3279 25 20 254 27.5 2.18
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb. 3818 150 10 180 35 0.98

66
 S. Al Rbeawi

Structure Length Width Reservoir Age Reservoir Depth Net Por Perm API S% Shows Date Expected
Km Km lithology m Pay (%) Md Completed or EOR
M on Stream TEchnique
Nasiriya 26 10 Mishrif Cenomanian Carb 1943 ----- 22 500 24 3.62 Oil & 1979 Gas injection +
Nahr Umr Albian Clast 2321 ----- 22 ----- 35 ----- Gas Chemical
Ratawi L Cretaceous Carb 3101 ----- 10 ----- 37 ------- flooding
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb 3178 ----- 9.2 ---- 37 2.2

Noor 20 8 Mishrif Cenomanian Carb 3308 ----- 14 ----- 23 ----- Oil & 1978 Chemical flloding
Nahr Umr Albian Clast 3947 ----- 22 120 25 ----- Gas

Rachl 16 5 Nahr Umr Albian Clast 2614 ----- ----- ----- 28 ------ Oil & 1957
Zubair L Cretaceous Clast 2938 ----- ----- ----- 32 ------ Gas
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb 3855 ----- 14 1 39 ------

Rafidin 28 4 Mishrif Cenomanian Carb 2432 ----- 15 ----- 26 ----- OIl & 1981
Nahr Umr Albian Clast 3045 ----- 23 ----- 25 ----- Gas
Zubair L Cretaceous Clast 3294 ----- 24 ----- 39 -----
Ratawi L Cretaceous Carb 3703 ----- 20 ----- 37 -----
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb 3836 ----- 10 ----- 34 -----

Rafidin E ----- 12 Mishrif Cenomanian Crab 2677 ----- ---- ----- 24 Oil 1979
Ratawi L Cretaceous Crab 3923 ----- ---- ----- 30
Yamama L Cretaceous Carb 4073 ----- ---- ----- 30

Ratawi 25 13 Mishrif Cenomanian Carb 2094 ----- 18 44 26 ----- Oil & 1950 Chemical
Ahmadi Cenomanian Carb 2324 ----- 23 9.2 15 ----- Gas Thermal
Mauddud Albian Carb 2458 ----- 18 10.2 15 ----- Thermal
Nahr Umr Albian Carb 2574 ----- 20 152 25 ----- Chemical
Yamama L cretaceous Carb 2533 ----- 13 17.2 42 1.24 Chemical
Rumaila S 34 7 Fatha Mipcene Carb 152 ----- ---- ----- ----- ------ OIl & 1954 on Chemical +
Mishrif Cenomanian Carb 2228 ----- ---- ----- 25 ------ Gas stream Gas injection
Nahr Umr Albian Clast 2685 ----- ---- ----- 30 -----
Zubair L Cretaceous Clast 3025 29 20 2500 35.4 2

67