SPE-175306-MS

Thermal EOR Field Development and Well and Reservoir Management

Marcel Zwaan, Jorge Lopez, and Anke-Jannie Landman

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Mishref, Kuwait, 11–14 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
At the early phases of EOR developments, small scale pilots are commonly used to obtain information of
the EOR field development mechanisms. The lessons learnt from these early pilots are subsequently used
to de-risk and improve the full field developments.
In initial phases, well and reservoir surveillance plays an important role to increase the understanding
of the effectiveness of the EOR processes in the various reservoirs. Well-planned and executed reservoir
surveillance has proven in the past to de-risk and optimise production and ultimate recovery from
reservoirs significantly.
This paper discusses the important field development decisions in Thermal Injection projects, which
have been based on well and reservoir surveillance results. A clear methodology is presented to select
surveillance strategies dependent on the field development decisions that need to be taken.

Introduction
The Shell EOR history has its beginnings in the early 1930’s with steam trials, subsequent miscible gas
injection pilots, developing to the current full scale Thermal, Miscible Gas and Chemical portfolio, in
several countries.
The focus of this paper will be on Thermal projects.

Selection of Surveillance methods for several EOR methods

Well-planned and executed reservoir surveillance has proven in the past to add significantly to the
production and ultimate recovery from reservoirs [1]. Because of progress in technology in areas of data
acquisition, processing and modeling techniques, well and reservoir surveillance data are increasingly
used to optimize EOR processes [2,3,4].
The ultimate position of well and reservoir surveillance in mature EOR projects is to have surveillance
technologies that add maximum value, which are sustainable, non-intrusive and deliver all of this at lowest
cost. In all cases the value of these technologies is realized by optimising the field management decisions
and increase hydrocarbon recovery.
In the EOR projects discussed in this paper, the selection of deployable technologies is based on the
field development uncertainties, which are temperature (steam) distribution, cap rock integrity, flood front
conformance and fracture growth.
2 SPE-175306-MS

Figure 1—Shell EOR history

Novel time lapse cross-well and 3D VSP seismic have been acquired in the clastic thermal pattern
development in a field in the South of Oman. Such in-well seismic monitoring is part of a suite of
technologies that are applied in this thermal field development next to temperature, saturation and PLT
logging.
In a North Oman fractured carbonate field with a thermally assisted Gas Oil Gravity drainage process,
surface deformation, microseismic and permanent temperature monitoring techniques are applied to
monitor the temperature distribution as well as cap rock integrity.

Thermal Phase I Fractured Carbonate Field Development

The main objective of the project is to demonstrate the viability of Steam Assisted Gas Oil Gravity
Drainage (SAGOGD) as a development concept for the fractured carbonate reservoir.
One of the key success factors of the first phase of this project is to achieve a total steam injection
volume of at least 1500 t/d in the 4 steam injectors, at 75% steam quality (the steam quality percentage
represents the mass ratio between the injected vapor and liquid phases). The cold production phase
achieved a recovery factor of approximately 20% over forty years of production.
Steam is being injected through four vertical injectors up-dip of a number of producers. Two of the
injectors are positioned with an injector-producer spacing of 800m and the other two only 300m from the
down-dip producers.
The goal of the Phase I steam project is to assess the recovery increase of the thermally assisted
recovery mechanism. The key uncertainties are incremental oil recovery (due to the steam injection),
temperature distribution and cap rock integrity.
The following technologies are being applied to address these uncertainties: monitoring of the oil rim,
temperatures, pressures and rates plus microseismic and surface deformation monitoring (see Figures 3
and 4).

Figure 2—Surveillance technology screening

SPE-175306-MS 3

Figure 3—Four vertical injectors injecting into horizontal producers. Permanent Surveillance in microseismic, pressure observation
wells, oil rim monitoring wells and DTS observation wells. Logging jobs in the wireline observation wells

Figure 4 —Microseismic events – interpreted as faults extending into the cap rock

The specific objective of the latter two techniques is to monitor cap-rock integrity, well integrity, fault
reactivation, and temperature distribution. The interpretation of the microseismic activity is supported by
geomechanical forward modeling work and the interpretation of surface deformation data is supported by
geomechanical inversion.
DTS permanent temperature monitoring is performed in six vertical wells and one horizontal well. A
microseismic array comprising sensors in six monitoring wells has been deployed in the neighborhood of
the two injectors most distant from the producers. Steam injection after start-up of all injectors achieved
a maximum steam injection rate of around 1000 t/d. For three of the injectors the rate was limited
according to geomechanical model estimates of the pressure at which fracturing of the cap-rock becomes
a risk. The injection rate of the fourth injector well (Figure 3) was limited by its known direct connection
via a fracture to a horizontal producer. DTS temperature measurements in the producer showed the in-well
temperatures increasing to 140°C, getting close to the well design temperatures limits of 170°C down-
hole. Shutting in production from this well reduced the well’s temperature below 140 °C; its production
was picked up by the surrounding wells.
It would be necessary to double injection rates in the two injectors furthest from the producers to
achieve the total target injection volume of 1500 t/d. Short-term operational tests at elevated injection
4 SPE-175306-MS

pressures showed this to be unachievable, even at the higher pressures at which geomechanical modeling
indicates that the onset of cap-rock fracturing is expected.
In addition, micro-seismic events were observed in the cap rock (Figure 4), indicating cap-rock
integrity risks. The interpretation of all these combined data supported the business decisions to
re-complete one of the injectors with a larger casing size and re-perforating and acidizing all injectors.
This achieved the target injection rates of 1500 t/d of steam at lowered injection pressures (cf [8]).
Thermal field development in the South of Oman
A clastic heavy oil field in the South of Oman started steam injection in 2008 in one 10-acre inverted
7-spot pattern. The plan was to develop this field by extension to 17 patterns, and later on to 50 patterns
(all 10-acres). The reservoir is 200 m thick, and the first 100 m is targeted by steam injection. A dedicated
surveillance effort supported the decision to switch to a 3.3 acre development, with a change in completion
strategy.
The key decisions to be taken for the full field development in 2009, were the completion and
expansion strategy: inject steam shallow and expand areally, or inject deeper and expand from top to
bottom. The uncertainty related to this decision was steam front conformance. In order to increase the
impact to the further field development, a decision was made to invest into monitoring of the steam front
conformance. The vertical conformance was monitored by three temperature observation wells, with on
average 1 temperature log per month and a first deployment of time-lapse cross well seismic. The areal
conformance was monitored through pressure interference tests, a first deployment of time-lapse vertical
3D seismic profiling (VSP), and time-lapse surface seismic. Three 3D VSP surveys were acquired, one
at the start of the steam injection, and subsequent ones in 2010 and 2012. In addition, two cross well
seismic surveys were acquired, but the vertical resolution of the inverted result was too low to contribute
to a vertical steam conformance assessment. Therefore only the temperature logs were used for vertical
seismic resolution

Figure 5—Top right frames: time lapse seismic VSP data indicating preferential steam propagation to the North and East, with less
steam going South. This is confirmed by pressure interference tests and temperature logs. The temperature log shows a vertical triple
temperature peak. 3 geological concepts were built with subsequent dynamic modelling. It turned out that a ⴖlayeredⴖ channel system
with low vertical permeability can fully explain this behavior (bottom right frame). The Thermal field development is illustrated in the
left frame.

The integrated interpretation of the temperature, seismic and pressure interference data showed a
preferential steam propagation to the North and East parts of the pattern. The temperature log showed a
triple peak illustrating that temperature propagated inside the layers. Logging of the injector showed a
very small and 10 m thin steam chamber, with injection in the top part of the reservoir, In the later stage
SPE-175306-MS 5

of the pilot, the injector was completed deeper and the subsequent seismic image (not displayed) showed
that temperature propagation occurred only in the deeper part of the reservoir and no steam chamber was
generated.
The subsequent analysis revealed that a layered channel system with low vertical permeability could
explain this behavior. A low vertical permeability implies the necessity to expand the patterns in the field
faster, as steam does not rise to the top of the reservoir. In order to achieve connectivity of the pattern
rapidly, steam is now injected at the top of the reservoir, because no steam chamber was generated in the
deeper part of the reservoir.

Figure 6 —Overview of the 1st pattern learnings

The major decision was to develop the field in 3.3 acre patterns, in order to lower the reservoir pressure
and to generate a large steam chamber for the full field development. These early 3.3 acre patterns have
8 temperature observation wells all with distributed temperature sensing (DTS) and with distributed
acoustic sensing (DAS) both for continuous temperature and on demand time-lapse seismic VSPs to
monitor steam front conformance over the early phases of the full field development.
Thermal field management
Schoonebeek is a medium heavy-oil field in NE Netherlands (160 cP at 40°C, 25 API, 19% wax).
It was discovered in 1943, on primary production supplemented with several EOR pilots until 1996,
when it was abandoned due to economical reasons. A re-development based on Gravity Assisted Steam
Flooding was brought on-stream in 2011, with more efficient pumps and 69 horizontal wells in 27
patterns. There are in total 4 observation wells with permanent distributed temperature sensing (DTS) and
permanent pressure monitoring, installed in two patterns.

Figure 7—Schoonebeek redevelopment

6 SPE-175306-MS

One of these patterns had a permanent seismic monitoring system installed that delivered continuous
seismic images of the propagating steam front. This seismovie system provided by CGG consisted of 3
rows of ~12 buried seismic sources and 5 rows of ~134 permanently buried seismic receivers, able to
generate a narrow swath of data (0.1 km2) on an automated and unmanned basis.
One 4D seismic image per week of the steam front motion was obtained and a movie will be shown
during the presentation. A larger scale on-demand seismic monitoring system has subsequently been
deployed over the full Carmon Creek Pad 31.
Steam in this Schoonebeek pattern is injected in injector SCH-1451 (blue) in the center of the pattern,
and is intended to support two producers (red) SCH-1402 (left) and SCH-1401 (right). There are 2 (green)
observation wells SCH-1391 (left) and SCH-1392 (right) with Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS)
and a pressure-gauge (See figure 8).

Figure 8 —Left: acquisition design. Right: Steam front imaging.

The steam dominantly moves to the left-most producer, as visualized by the seismovie images and
consistent with observation well data and the observed temperature and oil production increase in
SCH-1402 A history matched sector model shows that oil recovery for the pattern as a wholemay be
increased by 17% by choking back the left-most producer. This would enable a more symmetric steam
front that sweeps more oil to the rightmost producer.

Thermal field development in Canada

The Carmon Creek thermal development project in Alberta Canada with a vertical steam drive in 10 acre
inverted 7-spots, is based on extensive experience with a broad range of thermal development options over
the Peace River area: Vertical well cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) and horizontal pattern development,
SAGD developments, etc.
The Carmon Creek development starts with 7 pads of 16 inverted 7-spot patterns, with 50 well slots
and 1 observation well, building out to 147 pads over 20⫹ years.
It started with the Peace River development in the 1950’s.
SPE-175306-MS 7

Figure 9 —extensive history and experience with a broad palette of thermal recovery mechanisms

The learnings on the effectiveness of the thermal processes in Peace River were obtained by a full
surveillance programme, at selected pad locations. The geophysical learnings are summarized below.

Figure 10 —overview geophysical learnings. Top right microseismic illustrates that only the first CSS cycle is effective in drawing in
new oil as a fracture network is not extended in subsequent CSS cycles. Low cost areal steam conformance monitoring can in Peace
river be obtained by refraction seismic, which provides a small footprint solution. Surface seismic is not recommended. Conventional
time-lapse seismic is proven technology for steam front conformance monitoring.
8 SPE-175306-MS

Continuous seismic monitoring is currently deployed on Peace River’s Pad 31.

Figure 11—We observe a progressive increase in ⴖslow downsⴖ(red features) until Week 05, followed by a decrease and an increase in
ⴖspeed upsⴖ at specific locations from that point on. We interpret the data on the Eastern side of the pad as an increase in reservoir
pressure until communication is established with the previously stimulated zone (in the ⴖspeed upⴖ area). After pump rates are reduced
in this area, conformance improves by Week 18.

Pad 31 initially was a tuning fork-well CSS development, which currently has additional injectors
overlying the toes of these older tuning fork wells that serve now as producers. The aim is to achieve
steam front conformance by heating up the full tuning fork producers.
The frequent seismic data are used to influence short and long term operational decisions and optimize
steam conformance in the pad. Detailed analysis of production/injection surveillance data combined with
areal pictures provided by SeisMovie® have led to an updated production strategy. In order to restore
steam conformance along the trajectories of the injection wells and limit steam inflow to previously
stimulated zones, the pump rates in the producers in that area were decreased, and indeed by Week 18 we
can see an improvement in conformance (return of red patterns in the Figure 2). If this conformance is
maintained, then sustained heating over such newly stimulated areas will mobilize new oil and increase
pad recovery. Integration of surveillance data and frequent time-lapse seismic data enables continuous 4D
diagnostic capability that can be used in operational and conformance optimization decision making.
The aim of Pad 31 seismic trial is to demonstrate the value of frequent seismic monitoring in improving
pad operations, to help deliver the promised oil recovery increase. In parallel, new technologies are being
developed to reduce the seismic cost to enable on demand areal steam front conformance monitoring over
Carmon Creek’s pads.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper focuses on the relevance of reservoir surveillance in support of EOR field management
decisions. The results of several surveillance methods (time-lapse geophysical monitoring, temperature
monitoring, fracture monitoring) have been discussed in this paper for several thermal projects. This paper
demonstrates well and reservoir surveillance technologies that reduce the key EOR field development
uncertainties, such as steam conformance, temperature distribution, cap rock integrity and fracture growth.
Integration of all surveillance data is important for any type of recovery mechanism but this integration
becomes critical for an EOR development to be able to understand these generally more complex recovery
mechanisms. In the pattern steam drive project, a preferential steam direction discerned from the
temperature, pressure and time-lapse VSP data has been related to the depositional direction of the
reservoir sandstones. This has changed the perforation strategy and the future surveillance plans. In the
fractured carbonate Gas Oil Gravity Drainage process, microseismic and permanent temperature moni-
SPE-175306-MS 9

toring triggered decisions to close in a producer, to recomplete and work-over the injectors. Each
surveillance method may have its own type of ambiguity and therefore combination of surveillance data
and forward modeling of the scenarios will lead to a best possible interpretation of the EOR recovery
mechanism.
In the longer term not only field management decisions, but also field development decisions are taken
based on the learnings of earlier project phases. Learnings that can be best obtained by up-front planning
of a decision driven surveillance plan. This paper illustrates how identification of key uncertainties and
potential decisions are identified upfront – that are addressed by a data surveillance plan.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Oil and Gas of the Sultanate of Oman for permission to
publish the field examples from PDO. The authors would like to thank our colleagues from PDO for work
on the technology deployment and for the fruitful collaboration over the years. Finally, the authors also
like to thank colleagues from the NAM, Shell Canada and our co-workers in Shell Projects and
Technology in Rijswijk and Houston.

References
1. Whitcombe et al., 2004: ⬙4D in BP’s North West Europe operations – 5 years on⬙ SEG conference Denver October
2004
2. Saadi al Mutairi et al.: ⬙EOR potential in the Middle East: Current and Potential trends⬙, EOR conference Kuala
Lumpur, July 2011
3. A. Nalonnil et al.: ⬙Crosswell Technologies: New Solutions for Enhanced Reservoir Surveillance⬙, EOR conference
Kuala Lumpur, July 2011
4. R. Ibrahim et al.: ⬙Time Lapse Seismic (4D) Application for EOR Immiscible Water Alternating Gas (IWAG)
Programme in Dulang Oil Field, Pininsular Malyasia of the Malay Basin⬙, EOR conference Kuala Lumpur, July 2011
5. J.K. Przybysz-Jarnut et al.: ⬙Value of Information of Frequent Time-Lapse Seismic for Thermal EOR Monitoring at
Peace River⬙, SPE-175046-MS
6. J.L. Lopez et al.:⬙Real-Time Seismic Surveillance of Thermal EOR at Peae River⬙, SPE 174459-MS
7. M. Zwaan et al. :⬙EOR Field Management Through Well-Planned Surveillance⬙, SPE-154620-PP
8. Schoofs, S. et al. 2010: ⬙Integrated Usage of Surveillance Data for Estimating Cap Rock Integrity and Heat
Distribution during Steam Injection in a Fractured Carbonate Reservoir⬙, SPE-129479-PP, 2010.