Kuwait Energy
EL-12-211107
61
KE. In general, GCA accepted KE’s petrophysical inputs to these estimates, but adjusted
areas to reflect the risk that structures may not be full to spill.
Prospect status is assigned to 20 locations that are further testing the established play
fairways, or where KE has expressed a firm commitment to drill in less well-known areas.
What “firm” plans are there to drill over what time frame ? Lead status is assigned to the
remaining 18 locations where there are additional unresolved issues of risk surrounding
hydrocarbon charge, or where deep, unproven plays are proposed.
Almost the entire license area is covered by 3D seismic data. The seismic dataset and its
interpretation is sufficiently robust to define the Prospects and Leads presented, with
some uncertainty surrounding the definition of small structural closures and the linkage
between shallow and deep faults. Volumes have been estimated from the results of the
mapping and estimates of rock and fluid parameters from wells within Abu Sennan or in
nearby analogues. Uncertainty over hydrocarbon charge and its timing means that there
is a risk that some structures may not be full-to-spill and this is reflected in the volumes of
hydrocarbons estimated. There may also be concerns over the adequacy of fault seals
and this is reflected in the assignment of geological risk.
The license area is divided by two approximately E-W to NE-SW trending faults into three
discrete structural zones. Superimposed on this is a later trend of NW-SE faults and the
combination of these two trends produces the array of structural traps that form the
Prospects and Leads. In general, deeper (Jurassic) structures are larger and controlled
by the dominant E-W trend, whereas shallower (Cretaceous) traps show the influence of
both fault systems and are smaller and more dissected.
The northern E-W fault trend controls the series of fields which extend from GPT in the
west to the El Salmiya discovery in the east and this forms a productive fairway within the
Upper Cretaceous play. There is increasing late structural movement to the south which
has the potential to disrupt the petroleum system and three recently drilled wells
(Salwa-1X, Hawalli-1X and ASB-1X) have been dry. In general, risk within the plays
increases southwards.
Hydrocarbon charge for the basin is mixed, with contributions from both oil-prone Upper
Cretaceous source rocks and oil- and gas-prone Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic source
rocks. Precise controls on source rock distribution and quality are not known, and this
plays a role in determining prospectivity away from the proven productive trends.
Because of the uncertainty in the fluid type, alternative oil and gas/condensate cases are
presented.
The structure of the basin allowed the Prospects and Leads to be divided into 8 clusters
or zones (Figure 6.1):
Zone I has potential in sandstones and limestones of the Abu Roash and Bahariya
Formations in three Prospects adjacent to the main productive trend between the
recent (2012) El Salmiya and ASA-1 discoveries. Although these recent wells
enhance the prospectivity of the area, the principal risk is in the structural
definition of complex fault blocks and in details of the hydrocarbon migration route.
Deeper potential in the unproven Alam El Bueib (AEB) Formation is attributed
Lead status only except in Prospect PR-1/Z1-B, where it will be tested by the
ASA-2 well to be spudded in August, 2014.
Zone II lies to the south of the main productive trend. At its western end is a
former Prospect that was drilled by the ASC-1X well in 2013, which penetrated to
the Kharita Formation but was dry. Although no full dry hole analysis has been
