See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304919207

Designing and Implementation of the First Steam Flooding Pilot Test in

Sudanese Oil Field and Africa

Conference Paper · April 2016

DOI: 10.2118/182790-MS

CITATIONS READS
7 1,138

6 authors, including:

Husham Elbaloula Talal Elammas

University of Campinas 1 PUBLICATION   7 CITATIONS   
22 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

M. F. Rdwan Tagwa Musa

3 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   
Sudan University of Science and Technology
34 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CHemical EOR Pilot Project View project

The use of RFID technology to measure the compositions of diethyl ether-oil-brine mixtures in enhanced imbibition experiments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Husham Elbaloula on 06 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 All final manuscripts will be sent through an XML markup
process that will alter the LAYOUT. This will NOT alter the
content in any way.

SPE-182790-MS

Designing and Implementation of the First Steam Flooding Pilot Test in Sudanese Oil Field and
Africa
Husham Elbaloula, Hao Pengxiang, Talal Elammas, Fahmi Alwad, Petroenergy E&P Co. Ltd; Mosab Rdwan, Mustafa
Abdelsalam Sudanese Petroelum Corporation; Tagwa Musa, Sudan University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28 April 2016.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Case 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 wi thout 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; illustrati ons may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Steam flooding is to heat the oil to higher temperatures in order to decrease its viscosity so that it will be
more easily flows through the formation from injector toward the producing wells, as the steam moves
out into the reservoir away from the injection well, its temperature drops from heat losses and it begins
to condense as hot water in the steam zone, the residual saturation is lowered, and the relative
permeability increased. These represent the most important parameters that affect the oil recovery.
The objective of this paper is to select the optimum pilot area and propose the steam flooding injection
parameter, the suitable well spacing as well as the required steam flooding facility for FNE oil field.
FNE reservoirs are highly porous (~30%), permeable (1000-2000 mD) and unconsolidated in nature. the
fluid properties include viscous crude with 15 to 17.7 API. Corresponding viscosities are in the range of
250 cp and 500 cp at reservoir conditions.
In this paper the model was designed to simulate steam flooding of heavy oil reservoir in FNE oil field
in which the reservoir is shallow and thin, six different cases at different well spacing were investigated
and compared with the base case, the numerical thermal simulator was used to simulate the data from
the present steam flooding experiments.
Steam injection temperature of 270 ºC, with 5~7 MPa injection pressure, steam injection quality of 0.6,
and steam injection rate of 1.6 m3/d/ha/m; were used as Steam Flooding parameters for all simulation
cases while the recovery ratio of 1.2 is also considered.
The result showed that converting of Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) to steam flooding after the third
cycle could improve the recovery factor of the field up to 43 ~ 50.1%, while CSS only can increase the
recovery percent of the suggested well groups by 32.5 - 34.2% of the studied sector model which makes
it more attractive method as development scenario for FNE oil field.
Introduction and Literature Review:
FNE Oilfield is geographically located in the southwest of Sudan, about 700 km from the capital,
Khartoum; structurally located in the northeast of Fula sub-basin of Muglad basin and in the southwest
of the Moga Oilfield.
FNE Oilfield exploration began in 1989, the first well FNE-1 has been drilled In 2005, it was found one
of the largest heavy oil fields in Petroenrgy (PE) block 6 Area.
2 SPE- 182790-MS

Then immediately the development and research began. The oilfield development Case was completed
by Beijing Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development in May 2008.
The oilfield was put into development in June 2010. By May 2011 before the steam flooding study
started, a total of 43 wells had been drilled, including one horizontal well; 36 wells have been put into
operation, of which 23 wells are producing as cold, and 13 wells for steam stimulation; 33 wells were
opened, with a daily oil production of 5722bbl, a daily fluid production of 6097bbl, a water cut of 6.1%,
the total Orignial Oil In place (OOIP) is 298.7 MM STB, and the up to date recovery factor of reserves
is 0.75%. The average daily production for steam stimulation is 2 to 3 times of the cold wells. see Table
(1) and Figure (1) for FNE OOIP , Reserve and Cummulative Production.
Table (1):-OOIP & Reserve Status
Item CHOPS Thermal Total
OOIP
298.73 298.7 298.7
(MMSTB)
EUR
56 137 137
(MMSTB)
NP (MMSTB) 3.21 7.54 10.75
Remaining
52.41 131.9 126.3
EUR
Up to Date
6.41 3.74 6.36
EUR
Expected RF
18.9 45.96 45.96
%
Up to Date RF Figure (1):- OOIP , Reserve and Cum. Production for FNE
1.07 2.52 3.60
%

The 13 CSS Wells have been completed with heat compatible casing and cement. Steam quality of 75%
was injected for 6-12 days and wells were subjected to soaking of 3-5 days. Putting on production an
improvement of three to five folds has been realized compared to primary production and first cycle is
sustaining more than six months. Actual results are better than predicted in simulation studies with lower
steam intensity of 120 m3/m compared to planned 160m3/m. (Raj, 2011).
Screeing for FNE Oilfield with Similar international Heavy Oil Oilfield produce as Thermal
Recovery
Most of the previous resreach and studies confirm that FNE oil field is suitable for thermal enhanced oil
recovery and the cyclic steam injection wells reward more than double production compare to cold
wells, according to the common standards for heavy oil thermal recovery in Table (2), comparatively
analyze the geological features of FNE Oilfield Table (1), and consider that FNE oilfield is suitable for
heat mining development.
Table (2):-Screening Creataria for Thermal Recovery and Development
Item CSS SF FNE
Pay depth m <1700 <1300 550
Pay thickness m 10~35 7~60 30
NTG >0.35 >0.4 0.6
2
Horizontal perm. × 10-3μm >200 >200 4000
SPE-182790-MS 3

Porosity % >20 >20 32

Oil saturation % >60 >45 70
Dead oil viscosity m Pa·s / <10000 661(50℃)
Reservoir pres. psi <1885 <725 610
Successful Case of Similar Heavy Oil Oilfield Steam Flooding
Liaohe Oilfield Block Qi 40 Steam Flooding Development Example
Block Qi 40 Lotus Formation reservoir is bottom and edge water lithology structure reservoir, with a
depth of oil-water interface: 1025~1050m, reservoir burial depth of 625~1050m. The average effective
thickness of oil layer is 37.7m. The porosity reservoir is 30-35%, and the reservoir permeability is 1.0-
2.3μm2. The original oil saturation is 70%, and tank oil viscosity at 50℃ is 2639mPa.s. The formation
temperature is 36.8 ℃, and the original formation pressure is 8.5MPa
original oil saturation of 0.75, and degassed oil viscosity at 50 ℃ of 3100 - 4600mPa.s. Case elements
are: 4 70 × 100m anti-nine-spot well groups; the total number of wells is 27 (4 injection wells, 21
production wells and 2 observation wells). Starting from January 1998, turn drive in October. Before
Steam Flooding, recovery percent of reserves is 24%, and the initial oil saturation for vapor drive is
0.57, and the reservoir pressure is 2 ~ 3 MPa. As shown in figures (2, 3, and4).

Figure (2):- Liaohe Oilfield Block Qi 40

Steam Flooding Pilot Experiment Schematic Figure (3):- Block Qi 40 Pilot Test Well Group
Diagram (SPE- 104403) Production Results

Figure (4):- Liaohe Oilfield Block Shu 1-7-5 Steam Flooding Development Results
4 SPE- 182790-MS

Comparing with the Similar Reservoir Parameters results for different heavy oil fields, crude oil
recovery rate can increase by 20 to 30% after FNE Oilfield Steam Flooding, see Table (2).
Table (2):- Similar Reservoir Parameters Comparison (SPE- 104403)
Item Qi40 Shu1-7-5 FNE
Tectonic lithology Tectonic lithology
Tectonic lithology with
Reservoir type with edge bottom with edge bottom
edge bottom water
water water
Depth m 625~1025 510~550
Netpay m 37.7 47.8 20~30
Pi (psi) 1232.5 1508 566.95
T℃ 36.8 55 43.7
Porosity % 30~35 25.6 32
permeability (md) 1000~2300 1500 4000
viscosity@50℃ m Pa·s 3100-4600 10000 666.1
SF period recovery % 20.9~37.4 23.4 forecast>20
Selection of Steam Flooding pilot Area
Selection Principle
According to FNE oilfield geological and reservoir characteristics, combined with reservoir production
performance, determine the main factors should be considered for the selection test area, as follows:
1. Abundance of reserves.
2. Reservoir properties can represent the general level of the oilfield.
3. Oil reservoir thickness>9m:
4. Most wells should be thermal recovery completion; there are relatively more existing wells with
stimulation effect.
5. Located in the high parts of the local structure; with good cross-hole connectivity and a unified
oil-water system;
Considering the abundance of reserves in the test area, reservoir properties can represent the
oilfield properties, taking B1a, B1b and B1c oil formation for examples, it can be determined with the
porosity, permeability, oil saturation field, the abundance distribution of reserves that, the below
selected pilot area represents the general level of the overall oilfield, as shown in Figure (5).

Figure (5):- Reservoir Properties and Abundance Distribution of Test Well Groups
SPE-182790-MS 5

Most wells in the selected pilot area are the steam stimulation wells, and the reservoir thickness
is greater than 9m, For the completion data of 6 wells in the Pilot area, in addition to FNE-1 well which
is cold , all are thermal recovery completions. The single well developed reservoir of the oil layer group
composed by B1a, B1b, and B1c are greater than 9 m. All are for steam stimulation operation, with an
average daily oil production of 341bbl/d-Table (3).
Table (3):- Production Data Statistics on Steam Stimulation Wells in the Pilot Area
Top Bottom Mid- Develop Perforated
Net pay net to gross date Liquid rate Oil rate Water cut Cumulative oil
Well name boundary boundary depth depth thickness
m m m m m 1 Y-M-D m bbl/d bbl/d % bbl
FNE-34 522 544 533 22 9.5 0.43 2010-10-7 15.8 382.60 366.60 4 40126
FNE-35 504.5 537 520.75 32.5 16.59 0.51 2010-12-2 16.5 400.80 388.80 3 26905
FNE-36 509 527 518 16 9.5 0.59 2011-3-21 15 339.1 282.1 18 9003
FNE-37 520 541 530.5 21 14.5 0.69 2010-11-14 14.5 374.40 359.40 4 30571
FNE-38 517 540 528.5 23 8.2 0.36 2009-10-1 14 35 30.8 12 153271

Selected pilot test area is located in the high parts of the local structure; with good cross-hole
connectivity and a unified oil-water system, as shown in Figure (6).

Figure (6):- FNE-37-38-39 Wells Reservoir Profile.

By analysis of the reserve, structure, connectivity, oil saturation and other parameters of FNE-35, FNE-
36, FNE-37 and FNE-38 well micro-structure area, the area is in line with the selection principle for
steam injection pilot test area. FNE- 38 well micro-structure area is recommended as the area for Steam
Flooding pilot test, the test area well no. FNE-7, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38, a total of 6 wells and its main
geological parameters in table (4) below:-
Table (4):- FNE Main Geological Parameters
Development formation B1a, b, c Oil saturation 75%
Burial depth of oil reservoir 529m Degassing viscosity of crude oil at 50℃: 666.1cp
Avg.Oil reservoir thickness 20m Geological reserves 61.8MMSTB
420 × 380m,
Porosity 32% Oil-bearing area of well group
0.16Km2
4000 ×
Permeability Geological reserves of selected well group 17.28 MMSTB
10-3μm2
Numerical Model
Advanced Thermal processes reservoir simulator has been used which includes options such as
chemical/polymer flooding, thermal applications, steam injection, horizontal wells, dual
porosity/permeability, directional permeability, flexible grids, fireflood, and many more. advanced
6 SPE- 182790-MS

Thermal EOR simulator was developed to simulate steam flood, steam cycling, steam-with-additives,
dry and wet combustion, along with many types of chemical additive processes, using a wide range of
grid and porosity models in both field and laboratory scale.
The pilot area has been cut it as sector model from staic model and then used for initlization, history
matcing and prediction using advanced Thermal EOR simulator.
Review with the first part of reservoir parameters; carry out a detailed argument on the parameters used
on the numerical model. Penetration rate is divided into four areas according to the size. There is a
corresponding relative permeability and capillary pressure curve for each area.
The initial modelis two Phase model ( Oil, water) with 34 layers in K direction and the Grid Step is
DX=DY=20m and DK=2m and the Grid cell number is 57×137×34=265506 the model include Cold
production which is FNE-7 and five CSS wells (FNE-34, FNE-35, FNE-36, FNE-37 and FNE-38)
History Matching for Pilot Area.
Through pilot test area carry out the matching of the geological reserves in the test area with the
production history of 6 wells, namely FNE-1, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38. The result is:
Compared with the fine geological model, the geological reserves have a gap of 5.18%; and the
maximum relative errors of accumulative fluid, oil and water productions, steam injection amount is less
than 10%, in line with the industry standard for numerical simulation, See Table (5) and Figures (7 and
8) for whole model and typical single well such as FNE-37 the production history matching is very
good.
Table (5):- History Matching Results
Static Stimulation
Item Err(%)
Model Model
STOOIP (MMSTB) 61.8 65 5.18
Cum. Liquid (BBL) 9808 9801 0.068
Cum. Oil (BBL) 8465 8583 1.4
Cum.Water (BBL) 1343 1218 9.3
Cum. Steam Injection (BBL) 1663 1752 5.35

Figure (7):- History Matching Results for all Sector Model

SPE-182790-MS 7

Figure (8):- FNE-37 Well Production History Matching Results

Design for Pilot Test Well Group.
Detail analysis has been conducted to select the suitable formation, optimum injection parameter and
development strategy for the selected pilot area.
 Select a, b, c oil layer groups of B1 reservoir as Steam Flooding target layer.
Analyzing from the reservoir profile, to avoid the edge bottom water, select a, b, c oil layer groups of B1
reservoir as Steam Flooding target layer, See Figure (9).

Figure (9):- Schematic Diagram of Reservoir Profile Figure (10):- Schematic Diagram of Test
in The Test Area Well Group
 In the test area, select four wells, FNE-35, 36, 37 and 38, as test well group. The produced
geological reserve is 17.2786MMSTB.
 In the test area, select four wells, FNE-35, 36, 37 and 38, as test well group, as shown in Figure
(10) and the main parameters are in Table (4)
 Make full use of the heat temperature established in the existing steam stimulation well, in line
with the principles of maximizing the economic benefits, carry out the test well group reservoir
engineering design.
8 SPE- 182790-MS

Design of Development Cases

In the selected FNE-35, 36, 37 and 38 wells group, with different well patterns and well spacing, design
6 senarious for numerical simulation has been conducted; the specific Cases are as follow:
Case 1: DNC, Figure (11)
(According to the existing mode of production,
use the existing wells for steam stimulation
until the end).
Existing well: 4 producers
Developing mode: CSS

Figure (11):- Case 1 Schematic Diagram

Case 2: Converted one Producers to Injector,
Figure (12).
Existing well: 3 producers
1 injector
Developing mode: SF
Well spacing: 420m × 380m

Figure (12):- Case 2 Schematic Diagram

Case 3: Inverted Five Spot Figure (13) - one
Patterns
Existing well: 4 producers
New well: 1 injector
Developing mode: SF
Well spacing: 420m × 380m

Figure (13):- Case 3 Schematic Diagram

Case 4: : one Pattern Inverted Nine Spot
Figure (14) -
Existing well: 4 producers
New well: 1 injector and 4 producers
Developing mode: CSS+SF
Well spacing: 210m × 190m

Figure (14) Case 4 Schematic Diagram

SPE-182790-MS 9

Case 5: Four Patterns Inverted Nine Spot

Figure (15)
Existing well: 4 producers
New well: 4 injectors and 17 producers
Developing mode: CSS+SF
Well spacing: 105m × 95m

Figure (15):- Case 5 Schematic Diagram

Case 6: Four Patterns Inverted Five Spot
Figure (16) -
Existing well: 4 producers
New well: 4 injectors and 5 producers
Developing mode: CSS+SF
Well spacing: 210m × 190m

Figure (16):- Case 6 Schematic Diagram

Comparison and Determination of Optimal Case
six Cases has been conducted including Case1 which is producing by steam stimulation production
method to the end, in Cases 2 ~ 6, numerical simulation is carried out based on the method of Cyc;ic
steam stimulation switching to Steam Flooding after 3 cycles. Parameter is set as follows:
Conditions for ending the numerical simulation are: the single-well production is taken as the average
single-well oil production of 100bbl/d for the whole region's conventional production (cold); Steam
stimulation cycle duration is one year, with a steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, steam injection
pressure of 5~7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 200m3/d, steam injection
Intensity of 110m3/m, the cycle steam injection volume is same, and the well soaking time of 6 days.
The Steam flooding parameters are: steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the steam injection pressure
of 5~7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 1.6m3/d/ha/m, and the recovery ratio
of 1.2.
Table (5):- Numerical Model Results Comparison of Parameters at Different Cases
Recovery RF RF
Cum. Cum. Cum. Cum. Well
Water WC OSR of of RF of
case Oil Water CSS+SF
Liquid Steam Ratio CSS SF Num.
MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl % % f % % %
case1 1.23 2.57 1.34 0.21 65.2 52.2 6.0 7.1 0.0 7.1 4
case2 1.36 5.71 4.35 4.54 95.8 76.3 0.3 1.5 6.3 7.8 4
case3 3.24 17.49 14.22 18.05 78.9 81.5 0.2 2.6 16.1 18.7 5
case4 4.25 17.55 13.27 18.18 72.9 75.8 0.2 5.1 19.5 24.5 9
10 SPE- 182790-MS

case5 8.74 26.29 17.55 18.56 94.6 66.8 0.5 18.0 32.4 50.4 25
case6 7.42 24.09 16.67 18.31 91.2 69.2 0.4 10.1 32.7 42.8 13
From table (5) it’s clearly that case 5 and 6 is most likely to be the opmimum cases, and in order to
select the best case adetail design has been conduct for each case include the following:-
 Converting time form CSS to SF
 Injection-production Ratio Optimization
 Oil Recovery factor from each case
Steam Flooding-turning Timing Selection
Based on the choice of Case5 and Cases 6, the drive-turn timing were designed for steam stimulation
switch to drive after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 cycles, respectively. The numerical simulation parameters are:
Steam stimulation parameters: steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the steam injection pressure of 5 ~
7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 200m3/d, steam injection strength of
110m3/m, the same cycle amount of steam injection, and the well soaking time of 6 days. The cycle was
identified as 16, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 6 months (set according to the steam stimulation design of well
under actual production, that is FNE-35, 36, 37 and 38).
Steam flooding parameters: steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the steam injection pressure of
5~7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 1.6m3/d/ha/m, and the recovery ratio of
1.2.
Other conditions are the same with those selected in 6.3 Case for the numerical simulation.
Case5 Drive-turning Timing Selection
Numerical simulation results for turning to Steam Flooding after Case5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cycles are as
shown in Table (6). Compared with profits and recovery percent of reserves, switching to Steam
Flooding after the second period of steam stimulation is the best.
Table (6):- Case 5 Comparison of Steam Flooding Production Results at Different Cycles
Cum. RF RF
Timing Cum. Cum. Cum. WC OSR of of
RF of Well
of Oil liquid water steam CSS+SF num.
CSS SF
converti
MMb MMb
ng MMbbl MMbbl % f % % %
bl bl
1 8.37 26.3 17.9 19.9 68.2 0.4 10.3 38.1 48.4 25
2 8.68 25.9 17.2 18.4 66.5 0.5 17.6 32.5 50.1 25
3 8.68 25.7 17.0 17.9 66.2 0.5 19.2 30.9 50.1 25
4 8.62 24.8 16.2 17.1 65.3 0.5 20.7 29 49.7 25
5 8.49 24.0 15.5 16.4 64.7 0.5 21.5 27.6 49.1 25
6 8.43 23.3 14.9 15.7 63.9 0.5 22.2 26.4 48.6 25
Case6 Drive-turning Timing Selection
Numerical simulation results for turning to Steam Flooding after Case6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cycles are as
shown in Table (7), Compared recovery percent of reserves, switching to Steam Flooding after the
second period of steam stimulation is also the best.
SPE-182790-MS 11

Table (7):- Case 6 Comparison of Steam Flooding Production Results at Different Cycles
Cum. Cum. Cum. Cum. RF of RF of RF of
Timing of WC OSR
Oil liquid water steam CSS SF CSS+SF
converting
MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl % f % % %
1 7.28 24.83 17.55 19.81 70.7 0.4 5.1 37.9 42.0
2 7.44 23.54 16.09 17.62 68.4 0.4 8.7 34.2 43.0
3 7.44 24.27 16.83 18.65 69.4 0.4 11.9 31.0 42.9
4 7.41 22.81 15.40 16.71 67.5 0.4 14.1 28.8 42.9
5 7.40 22.32 14.92 15.94 66.9 0.5 16.1 26.6 42.8
6 7.23 21.29 14.06 15.13 66.1 0.5 17.1 24.7 41.8

the changes in the temperature, pressure, and saturation of the well group are shown in Figure (17)
When the Cyclic steam stimulation in Case 6 switches to Steam Flooding after the second period, and at
this time the hot connectivity for oil layer of the well group was established with a reservoir temperature
of 44℃, reservoir pressure of 2.7MPa, and oil saturation of 72%.

Figure (17):-Case 6 Temperature, Pressure and Saturation Fields when Switching to Steam Drive
after the Second Cycle
Selection of Steam Flooding Injection Steam Parameters
Taking Case5 as an example, separately carry out optimization for the steam injection rate, injection-
production ratio, steam injection quality and other parameters.
Steam Injection Rate Optimization
Taking Case5 as an example, under the conditions that the Steam Flooding parameters are as follows:
the steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the steam injection pressure of 5 ~ 7MPa, steam injection
quality of 0.6, and the recovery ratio of over 1.2, with the design steam injection rate at 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8,
and 2 m3/d/ha/m, make a contrast on the recovery percent of reserves. See Table (8) and figure (18).
12 SPE- 182790-MS

Table (8):- Case 5 Comparison of Steam

Flooding Production Results at Different
Rates
SIR Cum. Cum.
Cum. Cum.
m3/d. WC OSR RF
Oil Liquid Water Steam
ha.m
MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl % f %
1.2 8.08 20.9 12.8 14.2 61.4 0.6 46.7
1.4 8.41 23.6 15.2 16.5 64.4 0.5 48.6
1.6 8.68 26.3 17.7 18.8 67.0 0.5 50.2

1.8 8.92 29.0 20.1 21.1 69.3 0.4 51.5

2 9.14 31.7 22.6 23.4 71.2 0.4 52.8 Figure (18):- Case 5 Comparison of Steam
Flooding Production Results at Different Rates
Injection-production Ratio Optimization
Taking Case5 as an example, under the conditions of the steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the
steam injection pressure of 5 ~ 7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, and the steam injection rate
of1.6m3/d/ha/m, with the design injection-production ratio at 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6, make a contrast
on the recovery percent of reserves, See Table (9) and Figure (19) for the oil-steam ratio. It is
recommended to use the injection-production ratio of 1.2.
Table (9):- Case 6 comparison table of Steam
Flooding Production Results at Different
Injection-Production Ratios
Cum. Cum. Cum. Cum.
WC OSR RF
PIR Oil Liquid Water Steam
MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl MMbbl % f %
0.8 6.51 19.2 12.7 18.8 66.1 0.3 37.6
1 7.73 22.8 15.0 18.8 66.0 0.4 44.7
1.2 8.68 25.9 17.2 18.4 66.4 0.5 46.7

1.4 8.74 26.8 18.1 18.8 67.4 0.5 50.5

1.6 8.73 26.8 18.1 18.8 67.4 0.5 50.4

Figure (19):- Case 6 comparison of Steam
Flooding Production Results at Different
Injection-Production Ratios
Case Indicator Forecasting
Case5 Case Indicator Forecasting
Convert to Steam Flooding production after two cycles of steam stimulation.
Steam stimulation parameters: bottom steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, steam injection pressure of
5~7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 200m3/d, steam injection strength
110m3/m, the cycle steam injection amount unchanged, and the well soaking time of 6 days.
Steam Flooding parameters: steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the steam injection pressure of 5 ~
SPE-182790-MS 13

7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 1.6m3/d/ha/m, and recovery ratio of 1.2.
Case5 development prediction curve is as shown in Figure (20) . The time for the significant effective of
single-well Steam Flooding is 10 months.

Figure (20):- Case 5 Development Index Prediction Curve

Case 6 Forecasting
Convert to Steam Flooding production after two cycles of steam stimulation.
Steam stimulation parameters: bottom steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, steam injection pressure of
5~7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 200m3/d, steam injection strength
110m3/m, the cycle steam injection amount unchanged, and the well soaking time of 6 days.
Steam Flooding parameters: steam injection temperature of 270 ℃, the steam injection pressure of 5 ~
7MPa, steam injection quality of 0.6, steam injection rate of 1.6m3/d/ha/m, and recovery ratio of 1.2.
Case6 development indicator forecasting is as shown in Table (6). The development prediction curve is
as shown in Figure (21). The time for the significant effective of single-well Steam Flooding is 9
months. as shown in Figure (22).

Figure (21):-Case 6 Development Figure (22):-Case 6 Different Well Effective

Index Prediction Curve Production Prediction Curve
 14 SPE- 182790-MS

Table (10):- Case 6 Development Indicator Prediction

effect
Pro. daily/effect OS Cum rate
Pro. Pro. daily/all well Pro. yearly Cum RF
inj. oil well well R OSR Pro.
time
well well
Inj.
Inj.
oil liquid steam Oil liquid steam oil water liquid stea oil water liquid
steam
m
Year STB MMSTB F STB f % %
2011 13 8 100 164 48 803 1311 382 0.24 0.15 0.39 0.11 2.1 0.24 0.15 0.39 0.11 2.1 1.4 1.4
2012 13 8 271 426 0 2170 3409 0 0.65 0.37 1.02 0.00 0.89 0.52 1.42 0.11 7.8 3.8 5.2
2013 13 8 220 402 42 1760 3219 335 0.53 0.44 0.97 0.10 5.2 1.42 0.96 2.38 0.22 6.6 3.1 8.2
2014.
13 8 201 339 0 1611 2715 0 1.55 1.05 2.60 0.22 7.2 9.0
03
2014.
4 9 4 285 559 678 1139 2236 2710 0.46 0.43 0.89 0.81 0.6 1.88 1.39 3.27 1.03 1.8 2.6 10.9
12
2015 4 9 4 345 955 880 1379 3819 3520 0.41 0.73 1.15 1.06 0.4 2.29 2.12 4.42 2.08 1.1 2.4 13.2
2016 4 9 4 326 1041 882 1303 4166 3530 0.39 0.86 1.25 1.06 0.4 2.68 2.98 5.67 3.14 0.9 2.3 15.5
2017 4 9 4 287 1051 880 1149 4202 3520 0.34 0.92 1.26 1.06 0.3 3.03 3.90 6.93 4.20 0.7 2.0 17.5
2018 4 9 4 276 1052 880 1105 4208 3520 0.33 0.93 1.26 1.06 0.3 3.36 4.83 8.19 5.26 0.6 1.9 19.4
2019 4 9 4 280 1051 880 1121 4203 3520 0.34 0.92 1.26 1.06 0.3 3.69 5.75 9.45 6.31 0.6 1.9 21.4
2020 4 9 4 286 1054 882 1145 4217 3530 0.34 0.92 1.27 1.06 0.3 4.04 6.68 10.71 7.37 0.5 2.0 23.3
2021 4 9 4 290 1055 880 1160 4221 3520 0.35 0.92 1.27 1.06 0.3 4.39 7.59 11.98 8.43 0.5 2.0 25.4
2022 4 9 4 289 1056 880 1156 4224 3520 0.35 0.92 1.27 1.06 0.3 4.73 8.51 13.25 9.48 0.5 2.0 27.4
2023 4 9 4 284 1056 880 1134 4224 3520 0.34 0.93 1.27 1.06 0.3 5.07 9.44 14.52 10.54 0.5 2.0 29.3
2024 4 9 4 279 1059 883 1118 4236 3530 0.34 0.94 1.27 1.06 0.3 5.41 10.38 15.79 11.60 0.5 1.9 31.3
2025 4 9 4 263 1056 880 1053 4224 3520 0.32 0.95 1.27 1.06 0.3 5.72 11.33 17.05 12.65 0.5 1.8 33.1
2026 4 9 4 255 1056 880 1018 4224 3520 0.31 0.96 1.27 1.06 0.3 6.03 12.29 18.32 13.71 0.4 1.8 34.9
2027 4 9 4 250 1056 880 1000 4224 3520 0.30 0.97 1.27 1.06 0.3 6.33 13.26 19.59 14.77 0.4 1.7 36.6
2028 4 9 4 246 1059 883 983 4236 3530 0.29 0.98 1.27 1.06 0.3 6.63 14.23 20.86 15.82 0.4 1.7 38.3
2029 4 9 4 249 1056 880 997 4224 3520 0.30 0.97 1.27 1.06 0.3 6.92 15.20 22.13 16.88 0.4 1.7 40.0
2030 4 9 4 232 1056 880 930 4224 3520 0.28 0.99 1.27 1.06 0.3 7.20 16.19 23.39 17.94 0.4 1.6 41.6
2031 4 9 4 150 712 593 599 2847 2372 0.18 0.67 0.85 0.71 0.3 7.38 16.86 24.25 18.65 0.4 1.0 42.7
From tables (8, 9 and 10) The results showed that converting of Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) to
steam flooding after the third cycle could improve the recovery factor of the field up to 43 ~ 50.1%,
while CSS only can increase the recovery percent of the suggested well groups by 32.5 - 34.2% of the
studied sector model which makes it more attractive method as development scenario for FNE oil field.
Steam Flooding Implemntation
Case 6 has been selected and additional 9 new wells has been drilled and put in CSS production
including the producer and injectrs since 2013, see figures (23, 24 and 25) for the structure map, cross
section and completion profile.
As of sep. 2015 the 13 steam flooding wells see figure (27) as follow:-
 Eight wells under the third cycle including three injectors.
 Five wells under the fourth cycle including one injector
SPE-182790-MS 15

Figure
Sketch (23):-
of teamStructure Map for Steam
injection string Figure (24):- Reservoir Cross Section
Flooding Pilot Wells Location for Steam Flooding Pilot Wells.

8.
10-3/4" Surafce Casing Depth :62.11m

JRB 127/62-3K Heat compensator Depth

:205 m

K331-150 Theraml Packer Depth: 509.0 m

? 100 mm Bell Mouth Depth 510.0m

Top of Perforation: 512 m

15m /1 zone

Bottom of Perforation :542.0 m

7" casign Shoe Depth :696.22m

Figure (25):- Sketch of Steam Injection Well

On 17th sep.2015 the Steam flooding pilot project has been started successfully by three wells and after
one month the fourth injector has been added, currently the inectors and producers are under monitoring
and the breack through is expected after sex month from start up and the project is under evaluation
period.
Acual Steam Injection Parameters ：
Injection Rate: 1.6m3/(d·ha·m)；Injection-production ratio: 1.2； Steam Quality: 0.60
Formation: B1a+b and the Injectors: FNE-50，51，52，53
Table (12):- Steam Injection Parameters of the Well Injectors
Injection rate for Total Injection
Well Formation Interval(m) Thickness(m)
eachformation(bbl/d) Rate（bbl/d)
FNE-50 B1a 512 519 18 724.608 845.376
16 SPE- 182790-MS

B1a 523 534

B1b 539 542 3 120.768
B1a 517 520
10 402.56
FNE-51 B1a 524 531 644.096
B1b 544 550 6 241.536
B1a 507 512
10 402.56
B1a 517 522
FNE-52 644.096
B1b 530 534
6 241.536
B1b 541 543
B1a 511 517
10 402.56
B1a 522 526
FNE-53 684.352
B1b 536 539
7 281.792
B1b 544 548

And the steam Generator Figure (26) used for FNE Pilot prject has the following parameters:-
Maximum working Pressure = 12 Mpa, Heating Surface of blioler 1525 m3
Maximum Steam capacity 32 t/h

Figure (27):- Surface location for FNE Oil Field Steam

Figure (26):- Steam Flooding Generator for Flooding wells.
FNE Oil Field

Current Staus of the Field (as of Dec. 2015)

Total no. of wells 79 Daily Oil Rate: Water Cut:
CSS: 58 wells CSS: 5,938 STB/D Total: 43%
CHOPS: 21 wells CHOPS: 1,070 STB/D CSS: 46%
Total: 7008 STB/D CHOPS: 29%
Single CSS well: 126 STB/D
Single CHOPS well: 65 STB/D
SPE-182790-MS 17

Conclusions and Recommendation

 After the analogy with the development effect of similar international oil fields Block Qi 40 and
Block Shu 175 in Liaohe Oilfield, combined with international standards for thermal recovery,
the preliminary result from the screening show that FNE Oilfield is suitable for Steam Flooding.
 According to the geological facts of FNE Oilfield, the steam flooding pilot test area and well
groups has been selected, and main indicators for the test well group, the produced area is 1.22
km2, and the expected produced reserve is 40.04 MMSTB.
 Detail design for different well pattern and well spacing for the test well group, combined with
the oil recovery factor and other parameters from each case has been done, Case5 and Case6 are
as the most recommended cases for implementation.
 Case 6 have been selected for implementation and addional 9 new wells has been drilled
including 4 inectors.
 From the modeling of Case 5, 6 it has been found that the suitable time to converts to Steam
Flooding production after three cycles of steam stimulation.
 The Steam flooding Pilot Project has been started after finished the 3rd cycle for most of the pilot
wells then the nine wells has been converted from CSS to SF and four wells converted from CSS
to SF Injector.
 The steam injection parameters for the Steam Flooding in Case6 Case were as follow ( Steam
Injection Parameters ： Injection Rate: 1.6m3/(d·ha·m)； Injection-production ratio: 1.2；
Steam Quality: 0.60.
 Case 6 final result showed that converting of Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) to steam flooding
after the third cycle could improve the recovery factor of the field up to 43 ~ 50.1%, while CSS
only can increase the recovery percent of the suggested well groups by 32.5 - 34.2% of the
studied sector model which makes it more attractive method as development scenario for FNE
oil field.

Nomenclature
API American Petroelum Inistitute m3/d Cubic Meter/day
B1a+b Bentue 1 a +Bentue 1 b m3/m Cubic Meter/Meter
BBL Barrel mD Meli Darcy
Bbl/d Barrel per Day MMSTB Milion Stock Tank Barrel
BOBP Barrel Oil per Day MPa Mega Pascal
CHOPS Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand NP Cummulative oil Production
 18 SPE- 182790-MS

CMG Computer Modeling Group NTG Net to Gross

Cp Centi Pois OEPA Oil Exploration and Production Authority
CSS Cyclic Steam Stimulation OOIP Original Oil In Place
D·ha·m Day.Hectare.meter OSR Oil Steam Ratio
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery PE Petroenergy
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery PIR Production Injection Ratio
DX Dimention in X Direction RF Recovery Factor
DY Dimention in Y Direction SF Steam Flooding
DK Dimention in Z Direction STB Stock Tank Barrel
IOR Improved Oil Rec overy STOIIP Stock Tank Oil Initial In Place
M3 Cubic Meter t/h Ton/hour
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Oil Exploration and Production Authority (OEPA), Ministry of
Petroleum and Gas (MOPG) and Petroenergy E&P Co. Ltd. for the permission to publish this paper.

References:-
 Computer Modeling Group (2013) “CMG Products’’ [online] Available: [www.cmgl.ca]
Accessed 14th December 2013.
 Jiu-quan, A., Li, J., & Jiang, H. (2006, January 1). Steam-Flood Trial and Research on Mid-
Deep Heavy Oil Reservoir QI40 Block in Liaohe Oilfield. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/104403-MS.
 J.J Taber…et al, 1997. “EOR Screening Criteria Revisited – Part 1: Introduction to Screening
Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects’. SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal,
volume 12, page 189-198, SPE-35385-PA.
 Oil Exploration and Production Authority (OEPA) (2012), Data Base, Ministry of Petroleum,
Khartoum, Sudan.
 Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., & Seright, R. S. (1997, August 1). EOR Screening Criteria
Revisited—Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/39234-PA
 Tewari, R. D., Abdalla, F., Lutfi, H. G., Keqiang, Y., Faroug, A., Bakri, H., & Guocheng, L.
(2011, July 19). Successful Cyclic Steam Stimulation Pilot in Heavy Oilfield of Sudan.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/144638-MS
 Wang, R., Wu, X., Yuan, X., Wang, L., Zhang, X., & Yi, X. (2011, January 1). First Cyclic
Steam Stimulation Pilot Test in Sudan: A Case Study in Shallow Heavy Oil Reservoir.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/144819-MS

View publication stats