SPE 129157

EOR Development Screening of a Heterogeneous Heavy Oil Field -

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

Challenges and Solutions
J.P. Strauss, SPE, D.M. Alexander, SPE, N. Al-Azri, SPE, M. Al-Habsi, SPE, T. Al-Musallami, SPE, M. Koning,
F. Eriavbe, SPE, Mukmin, SPE, and R. Al-Jarwani, SPE, Petroleum Development Oman, and A.J. Landman, SPE,
Shell Technology Oman

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil & Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 11–13 April 2010.

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
This paper covers EOR development concept screening from a sub-surface perspective. The field in question is a medium
sized heavy oil field with complex geology that is located in South Oman. The two front running concepts considered are
steam and polymer flood, both of which present their own challenges. Common to both concepts are the difficulty in
obtaining adequate conformance in a field that is characterised by high and highly variable permeabilities in a channelised
environment and that includes lateral extensive shales that break the system up into vertically distinct sand units. Additional
challenges are presented by a permeable regional scale aquifer, an erosive top surface that reduces the equivalent oil column
(EOC) in the core of the field leaving thicker columns laterally close to the edge aquifer and the friable nature of the sand that
makes sand control necessary. Challenges specific to steam are the relatively high initial pressure, inferred connection to a
regional-scale strong aquifer, and relatively high CAPEX associated with the development. Polymer on the other hand
represents a relatively untested option for oil with viscosities of greater than 400cP as are present in this field.
Modelling work used to identify risks and the subsequent development potential of these two options is presented.
Potential development and maturation solutions for the various options are discussed and concepts are compared.

Field Background
The structure is a four-way dip closed anticline caused by outward salt withdrawal and dissolution from salt walls outside the
field limits (Figure 1). No extensional forces are required to develop this structure. A significant feature of the structure is its
‘bow-tie’ shape, which is caused by the embayment in the south-east. This embayment is a result of the salt dissolution and is
flanked by faults. The oil bearing reservoir is characterised by thin 10-20m Middle to Lower Gharif Permian age fluvial
sandstones, of which the two upper Middle Gharif units (HSGHM4a and HSGHM4c) are the main pay that the developments
target and will continue to focus upon (Figure 2). The lowest unit, HSGHLG2, is only oil bearing across the crest of the field
and contains a small oil column with bottom water. It only accounts for a very small proportion of the total STOIIP and if it
were to be brought on production is subject to extreme water coning behaviour and as such does not represent an attractive
target for development. The three oil bearing units are separated by laterally extensive floodplain shales (HSGHLG1 and
HSGHM4b) and unconformably overlain by the Nahr Umr Lower Cretaceous shales (Figure 2). The Gharif formation is
underlain by the extensive glacial lacustrine ‘Rahab Shale’. Additional non-extensive shales are also present within the units,
particularly in the uppermost HSGHM4c unit. The unconformity has resulted in some of the upper units of the reservoir being
absent; no Upper Middle or Upper Gharif sands are present in the crest. In the three cores obtained in the field, the sandstones
are observed to be very friable. Core permeabilities are typically high with 60% of the population above 1D and an upper limit
of 10D that is more a reflection of measurement capability and core integrity than intrinsic permeability. Production
performance supports the presence of multi-darcy (>5D) sands and three wireline mini-DSTs give single sand unit horizontal
permeability averages of 4 to 8D.
The field has been under primary production using progressive cavity pumps (PCP) since January 1989, with 35 vertical
wells and one horizontal well drilled within the field OWC. The oil is medium-heavy (18º API), low GOR (<0.2m3/m3), and
relatively viscous (400-1,000cP) implying a very adverse mobility ratio displacement of oil by water. However, in spite of this,
many wells show a slow development of watercut, though they ultimately produce at high watercuts. Observations of pressure
versus depth show evidence of local differential depletion of individual sand units and coupled with the slow watercut
development support the concept of laterally extensive shales. Pressures in the deepest sand unit show an initial decline
2 SPE 129157

followed by recent recharge in spite of increased offtake. This is interpreted as being representative of the changes in the
regional aquifer pressures that are being driven by much larger offtake and water disposal volumes at neighbouring fields.
Historical production has achieved a low recovery given the relatively low rates achievable with vertical wells under cold
production and the high watercuts once water breakthrough has occurred. Thermal recovery was initially identified as the only
mature EOR approach that could conceivably achieve a reasonable recovery in such a system and as a consequence the
operator has embarked on a single pattern steam trial that has been operating since 2008. Recent data gathering and analysis
efforts including downhole sampling with a wireline formation testing tool have revised initial estimates of oil viscosity
downward allowing a wider range of development concepts to be considered.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

Sub-surface Modelling
Static Modelling
Static modelling was designed to deliver a suite of full field, low, base and high case realisations of structures and
properties for dynamic assessment, noting that both coarse full field and high resolution sector models would be used for
dynamic simulation. A correlative framework was put in place using all of the 37 holes in the field. This proved to be
challenging work given the erosive top, variability of the system, and the limited entry of some of the wells. A key learning is
that new wells should be drilled at least to a depth of a common marker such as the Rahab shale in order to promote a
progressively improved understanding of reservoir architecture. The comprehensive set of wireline formation pressures
proved to be very valuable in demonstrating differential pressure depletion across some of the shale units and indicating which
units can be correlated together and those that are likely to be continuous over significant distances. The steam trial area wells
are close enough together (45 to 120m) that they also provide a good indication of the small scale variability (Figure 3).
The complex geology with highly variable grain size distribution, varying clay content including high proportions of
kaolinite, and radioactive sands makes log based identification of facies / permeability classes very difficult. Saturation height
relationships and porosity permeability relationships are only poorly dependant on porosity with grain size, grain roughness,
and clay content clearly also playing a role.
The concept of relative porosity difference (RPD), equation 1, is based on the relative difference between neutron and
density porosities and had been successfully used by the operator as a quality indicator in the Gharif formation for an analogue
field1,2. The RPD was used as a key input for the definition of a range of facies types with three net facies representing a range
of quality / permeability, and 2 non-net facies representing shale or cemented non-net sands.
φN − φD
RPD = (1)
φD
Multiple realizations with different facies proportions are generated using different RPD ranges per facies to give a high,
mid, and low case facies set. A density cut-off is used to determine cemented facies.
The permeability model is based on Amaefule’s flow zone indicator (FZI) as described by Uguru et al3, where the
permeability is given by a modified Kozeny-Carman equation:

φ3
k = 1014 FZI 2 (2)
(1 − φ )2
Each facies is assigned an FZI based on data analysis and a range of permeability models is generated by varying the FZI
assigned to a particular facies for high, mid, and low case permeability models.
Log based facies, porosity, and permeability are scaled up at the wells to a static model with 0.6 m thick layers in the units
of interest and lateral cell dimensions of 25 x 25m. Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS) and Sequential Gaussian Simulation
(SGS) based on variograms from local and regional analogues were used to populate the model between wells. Porosity and
net-to-gross (NTG) were facies constrained, whereas permeability was additionally co-kriged with porosity. Separate high,
mid, and low case structure models (each holding a full set of property realizations) were provided on the basis of the picking
and velocity uncertainty in the structural interpretation.

Dynamic Modelling
Forecasts for concept selection and uncertainty analysis are based primarily on reservoir simulation. Various models are
used to address different aspects:
• Simplified symmetry element models are used for rapid initial screening of steam parameters
• High resolution single pattern models (12.5 x 12.5m blocks) with geologically realistic inputs are used to assess
steam pattern, operating, and completion concepts as well as establishing the impact of sub-surface uncertainties
on the steam forecast
• Medium resolution sector models (25 x 25m blocks) are used to investigate the impact of the edge geometry on
steam forecasts and are the basis for testing polymer concepts and sensitivity analysis
• Coarse full field models (100 x 100m blocks) are used for history matching and testing infill concepts
SPE 129157 3

Dynamic parameters with a high degree of uncertainty that were deemed to have a possibility of having a significant
impact on the results were provided with values or relationships representing high, mid, and low cases. Selected parameters
are: oil-water relative permeability, initial oil viscosity, viscosity reduction with temperature, residual oil saturation and
reduction of residual oil with temperature, over and under burden heat capacity and conductivity, aquifer strength, and degree
of connection to the aquifer.
An initial phase of full-field history matching addresses the gross behaviour of the model. Particular issues were the
difficulty in immobilizing water under initial conditions and in achieving the observed delay in water influx. The high
mobility contrast between oil and water implies that even a small mismatch in the saturation height function allows for
significant initial water production unless relative permeability to water remains very low over a significant saturation range.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

The observed delay in water production requires a high degree of base seal that can only be provided by some of the shale
units being extensive and by relative permeabilities that are more favourable than expected from internal correlations based on
the oil and water properties. Additional uncertainty parameters related to a cut-off height for mobile water, degree of shale
seal, fault seal, and a productivity multiplier were introduced in this phase.
A combined uncertainty analysis and assisted history matching approach is used in a second phase to establish a full range
of history constrained realizations to test concepts against. Initially a set of single parameter sensitivities is run for the history
and used to assess the influence of each parameter on historical observables. Part of this assessment addresses the degree to
which the parameter is linear. Response surface models (RSM) that mathematically relate the outcome to key input
parameters are then generated for each observable. Typically first pass assessments use linear response surface models but if
the sensitivity analysis indicates strongly non-linear behaviour for higher ranking parameters then a partially quadratic RSM is
used. This RSM is used as a proxy for full reservoir simulation allowing rapid testing of parameter combinations. An external
spreadsheet macro is used to exhaustively test combinations of high, mid, and low parameter values to find those combinations
that come close to matching the historical observables. The objective here is not to find a single perfect history match but
instead to be able to generate as many nearly matched combinations as required to cover the outcome probability space for
future development concepts. Figure 4 shows several history match results result from this approach. Similarly sensitivities
and RSMs are derived for the various concept forecasts and used to define probability distributions for forecast outcome based
on both the exhaustive combination (not history constrained) and history matching combinations (history constrained).
Specific parameter combinations that should adequately match the history and that fall close to defined points on the forecast
outcome probability distribution are then selected for full simulation providing “blind” tests of the RSM and specific
realizations that the development concepts can be tested against (Figure 5 and 6). Analysis of selection frequencies for
individual parameters allows adjustment of the input parameter ranges. A sub-set of selected realizations is used as the basis
for detailed comparison and optimization of concepts with particular emphasis being placed on a base case that gives close to
expectation recovery.

Development options and related issues

Pre-screening
Infill drilling is a development option that can be implemented relatively cheaply and easily, and given the likely nature of
the aquifer amounts to a natural water drive. Given the very adverse mobility ratio of the displacement and the highly
heterogeneous reservoir, the incremental recovery can be expected to be low. In order to realize the desire to optimize oil
recovery requires moving to EOR techniques. Field proven EOR technologies that might be considered fall into the realm of
Miscible Gas, Chemical and Thermal flooding.
Miscible Gas flooding is not applicable as miscibility is hard to achieve in heavy oils that are located at relatively shallow
depth and in addition the large viscosity contrast between the gas and the oil will cause severe oil bypassing and consequently
result in poor recoveries.
Chemical flooding comes in many shapes and forms like Polymer flooding, Alkaline Surfactant Polymer (ASP) flooding
and Solvent flooding. Individually these floods can again be performed with a wide range of different chemicals. Nevertheless
at this moment in time only polymer floods can be considered as commercially proven on field scale and specifically the
polymer floods in light to medium heavy oil reservoirs (<100cP). However, more recently polymer pilots have been
performed in reservoirs with higher oil viscosities of up to and greater than 800cP (polymer reference). In the long term (>10
years) there is a possibility of using ASP. However this would depend on the successful implementation of the operators plans
to progressively mature this technology in other fields in Oman.
Thermal Flooding. Of the field proven thermal recovery processes Steam flooding and In Situ Combustion (ISC) rank
highest. Steam flooding is a tried and tested thermal recovery technique for heavy oil reservoirs, albeit at the expense of many
wells and high operating expenditure. ISC is less favoured for the field in question; although the relative small thickness of
the reservoir would tend towards ISC, the flatness of the field’s structure would cause poor air and flue gas confinement. This
has been extensively studied for other fields in the operator’s portfolio and was shown to result in excessive spread of the gas
and a combustion front that is difficult to sustain. It is our assertion that the only successful ISC field projects were in steeply
dipping reservoirs.
4 SPE 129157

Steam and polymer flooding are therefore the favoured recovery processes for this field with infill being retained for
comparison as a non-EOR, low recovery but easily commercial alternative. Initial analysis of screening factors and
identification of risks show that neither of the EOR options are straight forward given the specific characteristics of this field.

Background on Polymer Flooding

Polymer flooding is a chemical EOR technique applied in medium oil reservoirs. The objective of the process is to
improve the mobility contrast between the oil and the aqueous phase, and hence improve the displacement sweep efficiency.
In moderately heterogeneous reservoirs, polymer flooding is also applied to improve the volumetric sweep efficiency. Few
successful large-scale polymer floods have been reported. One exception is the Daqing field (China) where a polymer flood

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

has been in operation since 1996. It is understood that the polymer flood currently contributes to 25% of the field’s total
production and incremental oil recoveries of up to 14% are expected4. Although polymer floods have been typically applied in
medium light oils (<200cP), there are some field tests where polymer flood was considered for heavier oil reservoirs. Also in
Daqing a pilot using higher viscosity polymer solution such as might be suitable for more viscous oil is being conducted with
favourable initial results. Pelican lake in Canada5, operated by EnCana and CNRL is high oil viscosity example where a
polymer test in high permeability reservoir (2- 5D) containing 600-1,000 cP oil was successfully conducted using long
horizontal wells (>1,000m) and a polymer viscosity of 60cP. The polymer was injected into two horizontal injectors
supporting three horizontal producers. The trial results were deemed to be very positive, and field extension is currently
ongoing. Information has recently become available regarding another field trial of polymer flood in heavy oil (600-2,000cP)
in Canada, that at East Bodo6. Early performance using a 50cP polymer appears to be favourable.
Background on Steam Flooding
The fundamental basis of steam injection is that the introduction of heat into the reservoir reduces the viscosity of the oil,
implying higher flow rates at given pressure gradients and promoting gravity drainage effects (warm oil draining from the
steam filled zone). In a steam flood, drive is provided by the fact that steam takes up volume in the reservoir and, although the
nature of displacement of a liquid (oil) by a gas (steam) is normally highly unfavourable, the nature of steam (where liquids
are condensing from the gas phase) helps to reduce fingering and improve stability. Furthermore, the fact that the viscosity of
heavy oil decreases far more rapidly with temperature than water results in a more efficient displacement of oil by water than
for a cold displacement. The large difference in density between the steam and other fluids leads to the formation of a steam
chest and promotes gravity driven separation and movement of fluids (gravity drainage). Residual oil saturation in the steam
swept zone can often be very low (~5-7%) due to the efficient gravity drainage of warm oil from the steam contacted zone and,
in some cases, oil distillation effects. All of these factors combine to make it possible, under the right conditions, to achieve
high oil recovery factors (up to ~70%) within a steam flood area.
Steam is a well established recovery technique (Oil and Gas Journal’s 2008 EOR survey7 shows more than a 100 projects
in the USA alone during the 1990s). Reservoir thickness is important in determining heat losses. Oil concentration (oil per
unit volume) influences the heating overhead in terms of additional material that needs to be heated to get the oil to a given
temperature and in conjunction with the thickness, determines the oil per unit area that can be recovered. Thin sands and low
vertical permeability reduce the effectiveness of the gravity drainage component of recovery. Pore pressure is important in
that a low pressure reservoir allows operation at a lower temperature in order to have free steam down hole. Too high a
pressure comes at the expense of needing higher heat content (more energy consumption) for a given steam volume and
increased thermal losses. It also reduces the proportion of heat that can be released from latent heat of vaporisation as the
steam condenses in the reservoir. High connectivity to a strong aquifer implies either operating a high pressure steam flood
with high heat requirements to generate a given size steam chest and large thermal losses, or large volumes of water influx
(coupled with associated cooling of the reservoir and increased disposal requirements) that need to be dealt with.
Screening factors for Steam flood
• Tried and tested technique [+]
• Net sand oil concentration (product of porosity, oil saturation and NTG) within sands is favourable (porosity of
33%, oil saturation of 0.7 and NTG>0.8) [+]
• Mobilities are sufficiently high to allow cold production and therefore allow pressure depletion before steam
injection [+]
• Shale barriers lead to low initial water influx and demonstrated local depletion [+]
• Reservoir depth (~870m below surface) and initial pressure (~9,600kPa) are higher than in most commercially
viable floods [-]
• Overall oil concentration including intervening shales is poor (non-net shales also need to be heated) [-]
• The thin nature of the sands (individual sands are ~6-10 m) imply high heat losses and poor gravity drainage
contribution [-]
• The stacking of sands implies that not all this heat is lost to over and underburden, some is transferred to adjacent
reservoir units [+]
• Edge aquifer is deemed to be strong once connection is developed and of a large scale [-]
• Target area limited by basal water wedge [-]
SPE 129157 5

Screening Factors for Polymer

• Favourable reservoir temperature (50°C) [+]
• Favourable water salinity (11,000ppm) [+]
• High permeability gives good total mobility for oil and polymer [+]
• Base seal avoids excessive water coning or loss of polymer to aquifer [+]
• Preservation of base seal requires relatively low injection pressure [-]
• The target area is large as polymer injection can take place all the way to the edge water [+]
• Few commercial field proven examples [-]

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

• Oil viscosity (400-1,000cP) significantly exceeds the typical application range of polymer (5-200cP) [-]
• High oil viscosity leads to high polymer viscosity (>50cP) [-]
• There is potential for edge aquifer water to finger through the polymer slug [-]

Key sub-surface risks

Aquifer Response – The field observations have indicated that it is attached to a large-scale strong regional aquifer. The
ability to operate at low pressure is fundamental to good steam recovery and steam costs, hence the inability to deplete will
have a significant impact. The extensive shales in the system act to retard any bottom aquifer and an oil bank on the flank may
help to retard the stronger edge aquifer, but ultimately there are breaks in the shale and high permeability streaks coupled with
the unfavourable mobility ratio will act against the oil bank. Aquifer pump-off is the common option employed in these
circumstances, but early indications are that this is not feasible due to the excessive volumes that would need to be pumped off
with associated increase in disposal requirements. The nature of the aquifer is of less importance for polymer flood as this can
be conducted under voidage replacement conditions thus reducing the extent to which aquifer water will finger through the
polymer. Although some polymer may be lost to the aquifer the presence of base seals in the form of the extensive shale
barriers minimizes the extent to which this will occur.
Conformance & Sweep Efficiency – The Gharif fluviatile environment is considered a heterogeneous reservoir comprised
of a mix of channel sands and floodplain shales. The channel sands can comprise of very high permeability thief zones that
may result in poor conformance. Modelling to date has indicated poor conformance and short-cutting that lead to a localized
reduction in sweep efficiency. These are issues affecting the success of all the proposed recovery mechanisms (Infill/natural
water drive, polymer injection, steam flood) being considered, but are particularly serious for steam as shown below. The
current steam trial, in which continuous injection commenced in July 2009, is providing ongoing information about the degree
of heterogeneity and current results are broadly in line with the modelled response.
Geomechanics – Sanding is a known issue for the field given the weak nature of the sand and is a consideration for the
existing and future completion designs. Well bore mechanical failure is a risk for highly inclined designs and should be a
consideration in optimising trajectories and drilling parameters. Under steam flood the heating of the reservoir will lead to a
change in the stress state and possibly rock mechanical properties. This may cause uplift, seal breaches, and / or fault
reactivation. A geomechanical assessment8 shows that these risks are low for this field given the depth, initial stress state, and
weak nature of the sand. For polymer flooding the main geomechanical risk is the initiation and propagation of fractures,
possibly leading to shortcuts between producers and injectors or breach of the base seals that prevent loss of polymer to the
aquifer. This can be addressed through careful control of injection pressure to avoid propagation.
Target STOIIP – The geometrical distribution of oil in place with a relatively flat structure and crestal erosion (Figure 1
and Figure 2) puts a large proportion of the volume close to the OWC on the base of the sand units or directly over basal water
within a unit. This is particularly problematic for a steam flood where one ideally seeks to drop the pressure to a point where
steam flooding becomes efficient in terms of heat losses, latent heat delivered, and size of the steam chest for a given quantity
of heat delivered. Given that the water is far more mobile than the oil, the proximity of the water implies high water rates. In
order to keep water influx to manageable level, whether produced through dedicated aquifer pump-off wells or through the
edge wells in the pattern, it is necessary to keep some distance away from the aquifer. This reduces the area and hence the
volume that can be targeted by a steam flood. For a polymer flood the target area can be bigger as the flood can be conducted
under voidage replacement conditions. Extending the flood outward to areas with basal water would, however, allow some
polymer to be lost to the aquifer reducing the effectiveness of the process and limiting the area that can be targeted.

Potential Solutions
Simulation models were used to evaluate several cases for Infill, Steam flood and Polymer flood. A simulated no further
activity (NFA) that uses only current wells was used as a basis for comparison in order to calculate incremental volumes and
economics.

Infill
Two infill options were considered: infill with vertical wells and infill with horizontal wells. Both of these options are
economically favourable but generate relatively small incremental volumes against the NFA case (incremental recovery
factors of 8 and 12% respectively).
6 SPE 129157

Steam Flood
The well pattern options considered were: Inverted 5 spot; inverted 7 spot; inverted 9 spot; line drive with dedicated
horizontal injectors and producers per reservoir unit. For each pattern option the model was run with different well spacing
and in different positions in the grid.
Vertical Well Steam Option
Early results on a confined single well pattern confirmed that conformance would be a major issue. For vertical well cases
the issue is uneven injection and production from the two sand units. Production wells may have disproportionate production
from one of the sand units and which of the sand units is the dominant producer varies from well to well. The result is uneven
steam breakthrough with one producer breaking through first on the upper unit and another well breaking through on the lower

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

unit first. Choking back on the wells with breakthrough would help to distribute the steam more evenly if one was dealing
with a single layer system but in a multi-layer system it also results in choking back on the sand that still has steam free
production leading to rapid loss of production rate and little possibility of adjusting offtake to distribute steam more evenly.
Figure 7 shows steam distribution for such a case using an inverted 7 spot pattern that only achieves a pattern scale recovery of
36%. Another issue is that the sands are relatively thin and thus gravity drainage does not operate effectively and help to
spread out the steam. Performance is that of a steam drive with little afterflow once steam has broken through. Similarly the
injection well without conformance control will inject preferentially into one unit rather than another leading to breakthrough
on one of the units while the other remains relatively unswept. Introducing conformance control in both injectors and
producers has benefits in promoting a more even breakthrough, higher sustained production, and higher ultimate recovery of
>50% for an interior pattern (Figure 8 and 9). From an economic standpoint the increment in discounted (present value) oil
production can justify a substantial fractional increment in well cost. Conformance control was therefore assumed as a basis
for further dynamic evaluation of all the vertical options. Preliminary results lead to an inverted 7 spot producer with a
producer-injector spacing of 125m (40,600m2 or 10 acre pattern) being selected as optimum. Factors influencing this are the
high heat losses demonstrated by the steam trial, implying a preference for a high rate per steam injector, the increased
producer to injector ratio over a 5 spot and ability to take out extra water production from aquifer influx, and better
conformance compared to an inverted 9 spot.
Horizontal Well Steam Option
A horizontal well option with dedicated horizontal producer and injector per sand similarly shows issues with rapid
breakthrough of steam. Here the steam rapidly finds the highest permeability pathway between the wells and then cones down
to the producer (Figure 10). Once the steam has broken through the advantage of high horizontal PI is largely lost as the well
needs to be choked back to avoid excessive steam production. As a consequence, there is little in the way of viscous effects to
promote steam chest expansion given that production rates from the cold portion of the horizontal well are very low.
Furthermore, as the steam finger can be relatively narrow there is also little gravity drainage to help spread the gas cap or give
an attractive post breakthrough drainage rate. However, a clear advantage of horizontal well options is the speed with which
the target area can be covered with wells, the attractive pre-breakthrough rate per well, and the greatly reduced well count (that
reduces not only direct drilling CAPEX but also hook-up, gathering, and OPEX). From a purely economic standpoint the
horizontal well option is more attractive than the vertical well patterns.
Improving Horizontal Steam Pattern Performance
The following strategies were considered in an attempt to further improve the horizontal pattern performance:
Reduced pressure injector – Less aggressive injection initially is investigated by setting the injection pressure to a lower
value. In the vertical well case this is not attractive because of increased high losses but in a horizontal well case one can
maintain a sufficiently high rate to avoid excessive heat losses but end up with a lower steam rate per unit area. This should
reduce the extent to which the pressure increases prior to breakthrough of hot fluids and maximize the volume of steam
relative to mass injected. As such, it is expected that this should improve the oil-steam ratios, but at the expense of reduced
rate per pattern and higher heat losses.
Optimised steam taper – The post-breakthrough steam rate is progressively reduced to the point where the steam rate is
only sufficient to keep the steam chest from collapsing and this is achieved in the model by choking back on the injection well
to avoid the reservoir pressure rising. This strategy is expected to improve oil steam ratios after steam breakthrough,
potentially allowing additional patterns to be brought on more quickly.
Interval steaming – The injection well is divided in several segments and one segment is steamed at a time. It is envisaged
that this would be achieved through the use of a segmented well with a controllable valve per segment. The objective is that
the steam is not only distributed evenly over the well over time, but also that steam fingers do not have a chance to grow as
they only receive steam intermittently. This should delay steam breakthrough allowing more production from the higher rate
steam drive phase and lead to a better distribution of steam at breakthrough.
Limited Entry Perforation (LEP) – The steam is distributed evenly to multiple well segments by passing the steam
through a fixed aperture per segment that is designed to achieve critical flow. Even if the flow is sub-critical, the steam will
still be better distributed than without any kind of conformance control. The injection rate achievable with the LEPs may be
reduced, but the steam breakthrough should be delayed with a larger steam chest at breakthrough.
Results in terms of cumulative oil steam ratio (cOSR) and cumulative oil production are shown in Figure 11 and 12
respectively. Properly executed steam tapers raise the late time cOSRs with minimal impact on recovery rate. An increased
oil to steam ratio allows more patterns to be on stream simultaneously and results in lower steam costs per unit oil. Reduced
SPE 129157 7

pressure injection (less aggressive injection) initially leads to delayed oil production, but also higher cOSR. Interval steaming
delays the formation of the steam fingers and leads to accelerated oil production. Although the steam finger formation is
delayed, ultimately a single steam chest is formed at the injector allowing the steam to divert to the most permeable flow path
regardless of which interval is being injected into. Nevertheless, comparison with cases not using conformance control show
that the steam chest covers a larger area leading to higher drainage rates after breakthrough and potentially higher recoveries.
The LEP option has delayed oil initially but achieves the best cOSR of options considered to date and has notably higher
drainage rates after breakthrough leading to a long production tail and higher ultimate recovery. The delayed oil on a pattern
basis is more than overcome on a field basis by the fact that in this option the oil is accelerated by being able to operate all of
the injection wells simultaneously. This option is therefore also the most favourable steam option from an economic

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

standpoint. Conformance control for the producers is an option that is currently under evaluation, but is a more challenging
from a production technology standpoint.

Polymer Flood
Polymer flood options were evaluated with two types of high resolution (25 x 25m block width) sector models: a pattern
scale model, and a multi-pattern strip running from crest to flank that incorporates an edge aquifer. Injection pressure in the
assessment is limited to a value that is below the in situ minimum stress as assessed from the geomechanics study as this
would ensure no fracture propagation and avoiding breaching the all important base seal. A high molecular weight polymer
such as will be used in one of operator’s other fields was selected. Pattern scale models were used to select an optimum
viscosity (polymer concentration). Higher viscosities achieve higher recovery at given water cuts, but require higher polymer
concentrations and are therefore more costly. Increasing polymer viscosity reduces the injectivity and this could result in a
slower flood and loss of NPV. A polymer viscosity of 90cP was found to be optimum. Two well pattern concepts were
evaluated: a 5 spot vertical well case with wells targeting both sands simultaneously, and a line drive using horizontal wells
with wells targeting single sand units. Patterns with a range of well spacing and in various positions in the field were
simulated in order to determine optimum well spacing and cut-off equivalent oil column (EOC) for development. A horizontal
well development with 300m spacing between injector and producer was found to be optimum. Evaluation in the strip model
shows that the polymer flood successfully can be extended at least up to the inner OWC (the point at which a given unit starts
to have base water). Consequently the polymer has a larger target volume than the steam, and although the recovery factor on
target volume is lower, the total recovered volume on a field basis is expected to be considerably higher. From an economic
standpoint the polymer option also considerably outperforms the steam flood option.
The nature of the displacement of oil by the optimum polymer is still an unfavourable one (though to a far smaller degree
than for water or steam) and thus conformance will still be an issue. An option for further improving the polymer flood
performance is to consider various conformance control solutions for injectors and producers. Another option that may
improve economics is to consider using make-up water that has been processed to have lower salinity as this reduces the
concentration of polymer needed to achieve a given viscosity.

Completion Options
The dynamic evaluation clearly indicates the benefits of conformance control in the different development options, but
implementing with the particular characteristics of this field and the concepts being considered, is far from straightforward.
The producing formation is friable and contains a high percentage of fines; existing vertical producers are therefore equipped
with gravel packs for sand control. This makes zonal isolation difficult given the small spacing between units. In the steam
option, high temperatures limit the range of hardware that is available and field tested. Critical flow orifices (LEP) provide a
means of distributing steam evenly. Boone et al9 give an example of successful use of LEP in a horizontal well where the well
replaced many vertical injection wells and good distribution of steam was achieved. A disadvantage of LEP is the high
pressure difference required to achieve critical flow. Chokes based on achieving critical flow in a venturi (sonic / venturi
chokes) have an advantage in achieving critical flow at smaller pressure differences (Downstream pressure needs to be less
than 88% of upstream pressure) and solutions based on this principle are now being offered by vendors. A smart well
alternative for producer or injector conformance control is the use of inflow control valves (ICV). Conformance control for
polymer floods may be less critical than for other options given that process is inherently more stable than either steam or
water flood. Implementing conformance control for polymer is in some respects more straightforward than for a steam flood
given that much of what has been developed for water flood is also applicable, though care needs to be exercised to avoid
shearing the polymer.
Vertical Infill – The preferred completion is an external gravel pack (EGP) and 4½” wire wrap screen (WWS) over both
sands. Zonal isolation with such a completion is challenging. Water shut off options are limited to the lower sand (either
plug-back or gel) and historically this is where the water comes in given the proximity to the oil water contact.
Horizontal Infill – The preferred completion is a 4½” WWS with swellable packers for zonal isolation. An alternative
would be an EGP but in a horizontal well a full pack can be difficult to guarantee. The WWS has been used by the operator
relatively successfully in analogue fields as the drawdowns in horizontal wells are typically low and because the WWS
presents a large flow area that is forgiving of plugging.
8 SPE 129157

Vertical Steam Producer – The preferred completion for a no-isolation case is a 4½” Slotted Liner (SL) and EGP. If
isolation is required then the preferred option becomes an expandable sand-screen (ESS) with a blank section between the two
sands, a bridge plug or a cup packer set over the blank section to provide isolation on either lower and upper sands.
Horizontal Steam Producer – The preferred completion for a no isolation case is a stand alone 4½” SL. If conformance
control is required, then one option would be a Smart well with a 7” liner, and thermally compliant inflow control valves
(ICV) and thermal swellable packers for isolation of well segments (Figure 13). This is a very expensive option as it involves
substantial additional hardware and an upsizing of the well to allow for the larger casing requirement. Furthermore it utilizes
hardware that is not yet thoroughly field tested. On the other hand it allows a high degree of control and flexibility for better
steam chest management that should lead to larger ultimate recoveries and increased recovery rates.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

Vertical Steam Injector – Various options have been considered: Venturi chokes, limited perforation intervals, LEP, dual
string, injecting down annulus as well as tubing. Of these options the preferred option involves use of a thermal packer with a
cup packer positioned between the sand units with packers set into a 7” cemented casing. Control of the steam rate would
most likely rely on venturi chokes.
Horizontal Steam Injector – The preferred completion is a 4½” Liner with thermal swellable packers for segmentation and
venturi chokes to control steam per segment.
Vertical Polymer Producer – The preferred completion is identical to the infill case.
Horizontal Polymer Producer – The preferred completion is identical to the infill case.
Vertical Polymer Injector – The preferred completion is a cemented 7” liner with a packer set between the two sand units
allowing for injection into the upper sand through the annulus and injection into the lower sand through the tubing.
Horizontal Polymer Injector – The preferred completion is a 4½” Liner with swellable packers for segmentation and SSD
for flow control.

Option Ranking
A quantitative comparison based on various economic criteria, and accommodating uncertainty, was performed internally. A
qualitative ranking on incremental recovery, CO2 footprint and do-ability was also performed and this can be shared
externally. A value of 3 is top versus 0 which is bottom, with a simple arithmetic average applied to provide the ranking
(incremental oil has double weighting as top ranked driver). The traffic light system is used to visualise the comparison (Table
1).
NFA and cold infill appear equally as attractive in terms of overall scoring. However in terms of the key UR driver,
neither is favourable. Steam meanwhile develops significantly volumes of oil, but has the greatest CO2 footprint, is a more
challenging development, carries the highest subsurface risks, and is not economically attractive (in large part due to a high
CAPEX requirement). Polymer scores best in terms of oil recovery, CO2 footprint and economic attractiveness. However
there are risks with the process in terms of its largely unproven nature in high oil viscosity, the use of horizontal wells and the
reservoir characteristics (high degree of heterogeneity). These components can be partially de-risked through understanding
the polymer flood that will shortly be initiated in one of the operator’s other fields.

Conclusions
The in-depth study of the field in question confirms its challenging nature with respect to an EOR development. Nevertheless,
some potential solutions to these challenges have been presented. Currently polymer flooding is deemed to be the more
favourable approach, but is a relatively untested technique for oils with the viscosity found in this field. Some solutions have
been presented that might make a steam development feasible, but these require use of innovative or only recently available
hardware. Steam flooding also requires management of several defined risks such as steam conformance, and the influence of
edge aquifer influx for example. A horizontal well development is a favoured option for both polymer and steam flood, and as
this is also favourable for the non-EOR infill option, it represents a way forward for the ongoing development of the field with
progressive de-risking of the other options based on field learnings, targeted trials, ongoing hardware development, and
maturation of EOR plans in the operator’s other fields.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Ministry of Oil and Gas in the Sultanate of Oman for permission to publish this paper and also the
management of Petroleum Development Oman for use of the data and their generous support on the project. The authors also
acknowledge the many contributions from PDO and Shell staff related to this project.

Nomenclature
FZI = Flow zone indicator
RPD = Relative porosity difference
Φ= Porosity
ΦD = Porosity derived from density logs
ΦN = Porosity derived from neutron logs
SPE 129157 9

References
1. de Vries, M. and Herring, T., “Nimr-C Field Geologic Model in support of Field Development Planning”, PDO Internal Report
200602100065, February 2006.
2. Garimella, S., “Petrophysical Review of the Nimr-C Field”, PDO Internal Report 200612100030, December 2006.
3. Uguru, C.I., Onyeagoro, U.O., Lin, J., Okkerman J. and Sikiru, I.O.,” Permeability Prediction Using Genetic Unit Averages of
Flow Zone Indicators (FZIs) and Neural Networks”, SPE paper 98828, presented at the 29th Annual SPE International Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August, 2005.
4. Hui Pu and Qinglong Xu, “An Update and Perspective on Field-Scale Chemical Floods in Daqing Oil Field, China”, SPE paper
118746, presented at the 2009 SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, March 2009.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

5. Zaitoun A., Tabary, R., Fossey, J., and Boyle, T., “Implementing a Heavy-Oil Horizontal-Well Polymer Flood in Western
Canada”, Heavy Oil Conference, Beijing, 1998.
6. Wassmuth, F.R., Arnold, W., Green, K., and Cameron, N., “Polymer Flood Application to Improve Heavy Oil Recovery at East
Bodo”, JCPT, Volume 48, No. 2, February 2009.
7. Moritis, G. (Ed.), “Special Report – Biennial Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Survey”, Oil & Gas Journal, April 21, 2008.
8. Qobi, L., Alexander, D.M., and Strauss, J.P., “EOR Geomechanical Screening: Identification of Risks to Mitigate and
Opportunities to Pursue”, SPE paper 129142, to be presented at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas Wets Asia, Muscat, April
2010.
9. Boone, T.J., Youck, D.G., and Sun, S., “Targeted Steam Injection using Horizontal Wells with Limited Entry Perforations”, SPE
paper 50429, presented at the 1998 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, November 1998.

Figures

5 685
L68 F WL
A
FWL6
FW 85 FW
L6
85
5
L68
FW

FWL685
5
L68
FW

FWL6
FW

85
L6
85

FWL685

85
L6
FW
FWL685

FWL
685

FW
L68
5
5
8
L6
FW

0 500 1000 1500m

A’
4000 406000 408000 410000 41200
Figure 1: Top Structure Map
10 SPE 129157

A A’

-620

-620
Top Seal

-620

-620
0 200 400 600 800 1000m

Nahr-Umr Shale
-640 Extensive Internal

-640
-640

-640
Shale Units (4b & LG1)
-660

-660
-660

-660

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

-680

-680
-680

-680
-700

-700
-700

-700
Base Seal
-720

-720
-720

-720
Rahab Shale
-740

-740
-740

-740
Symbol legend
HSGHM4c HSGHL1 FWL685
HSGHM4b HSGHL2
-760

-760
-760

-760
HSGHM4a HSGHL3

-1600 -1200 -800 -400

-1600 -1200 -800 -400 00 400
400 800
800 1200
1200 1600
1600 2000
2000 2400
2400 2800
2800
Figure 2: Cross-section through reservoir

Well[ A ]
100m Well [ B ]
45m Well [ C ]
75m Well [ D ]
SSTVD 0.5 PORD_1stPass 0.0 0.0 SH_WS_clipped_1stPass 1.0 SSTVD 0.5 PORD_1stPass 0.0 0.0 SH_WS_clipped_1stPass 1.0 SSTVD 0.5 PORD_1stPass 0.0 0.0 SH_WS_clipped_1stPass 1.0 SSTVD 0.5 PORD_1stPass 0.0 0.0 SH_WS_clipped_1stPass 1.0

WANUb

645 645 645 645

WANUb

WANUb

WANUb

650 650 650 650

655 655 655 655

660 660 660 660

HSGHM4b HSGHM4b
HSGHM4b
HSGHM4b

HSGHM4a
HSGHM4a
665 665 665 665 HSGHM4a

HSGHM4a

670 670 670 670

HSGHL1 HSGHL1
HSGHL1

675 675 675 675

HSGHL2 HSGHL2
HSGHL2

(680) 680 680 680

LGOWC_681.5 LGOWC_681.5 LGOWC_681.5

(685) 685 685 685

Figure 3: Well Section through Steam Trial Area showing Log Porosity and Oil Saturation
SPE 129157 11

1.20e+6

9.00e+5
Cumulative Volume (m3)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

6.00e+5

Oil
3.00e+5

Water
0.00e+0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Time (Date)

Figure 4: Example Results from Multiple History Constrained Parameter Combinations

1.0
Incr. Oil Rec. - Unconstrained
0.9
Incr. Oil Rec. - Constrained
0.8
Blind Tests
0.7
Prob. of Smaller

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0E+00 1.0E+06 2.0E+06 3.0E+06 4.0E+06 5.0E+06 6.0E+06 7.0E+06

Incremental Oil Recovery

Figure 5: Horizontal Infill Recoveries for Unconstrained and History Constrained Parameter Combinations
12 SPE 129157

1.00e+7

8.00e+6
Cumulative Volume (m3)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

6.00e+6

4.00e+6

2.00e+6

0.00e+0

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Time (Date)

Figure 6: Infill Outcomes for History Constrained Parameter Combinations

Figure 7: Example of Early Steam Breakthrough in Inverted 7 Spot without Conformance Control
SPE 129157 13

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

Figure 8: Improved Sweep in Inverted 7-spot with Conformance Control

1e+5 200

1e+5

150 Oil Rate SC - Monthly (m3/day)

Cumulative Oil SC (m3)

8e+4

6e+4 100
Cumulative Oil - Conformance Control
Cumulative Oil - No Control
Oil Rate - Conformance Control
Oil Rate - No Control
4e+4

50

2e+4

0e+0 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time (day)

Figure 9: Relative Comparison of Vertical Well Pattern with and without Conformance Control
14 SPE 129157

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

Figure 10: Steam Fingers in Horizontal Well Steam Pattern

0.95
High Press Injection
High Press Inject with Steam Taper
High Press Inject and Interval Steaming
Red Press Inject and Interval Steaming
Oil Steam Ratio Cum SCTR (m3/m3)

Red Pressure Injection with Steam Taper

0.75 Limited Entry Perforation (Model 2)
Limited Entry Perforation (Model 1)

0.55

0.35

0.15
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Time (Date)
Figure 11: Improved Horizontal Steam Options
SPE 129157 15

1.40e+5

1.20e+5

1.00e+5
Cumulative Oil SC (m3)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

8.00e+4

6.00e+4

High Pressure Injection

4.00e+4 High Press Inject with Steam Taper
High Press Inject and Interval Steaming
Red Pressure Inject and Interval Steaming
Red Pressure Inject with Steam Taper
2.00e+4 Limited Entry Perforation (Model 2)
Limited Entry Perforation (Model 1)

0.00e+0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Time (Date)
Figure 12: Improved Horizontal Steam Options

9 5/8” casing

Pump inside 7”
Thermal Swellable Packer
Tubing
Thermal/ Swell/ Cup Packer

5 x ¼” Control Lines High Temperature Interval 7” Sand Screen

and DTS & DPS Control Valve
8.5” Open Hole
Figure 13: Completion Diagram Showing some Smart Well Options for a Horizontal Steam Producer
16 SPE 129157

Incremental CO2
Scenario Do-ability Economics Average
Oil Footprint
NFA 0 2 3.0 2 1.8
Cold Vert
2 2 2.3 2 2.1
Infill
Cold Horz
3 3 1.6 3 2.7
Infill

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/10OGWA/All-10OGWA/SPE-129157-MS/1768508/spe-129157-ms.pdf/1 by BP Exploration Operating Co user on 15 December 2021

Steam
4 1 0.7 1 1.7
Flood
Polymer
6 3 0.3 3 3.1
Flood

Table 1: Qualitative Ranking for Development Options