SPE

International

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 39233

Heavy Oil Reservoir Management

Ganesh C. Thakur – Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.

Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Fifth Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference and Exhibition held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 August to
3 September 1997.

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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

INTRODUCTION The following questions address heavy oil reservoir

Good prices and continued cost reduction are helping
production from heavy oil reservoirs worldwide. Some
estimates expect Alberta, Canada’s heavy oil sands
production to exceed 1.2 million b/d in the near future.
Recoverable bitumen reserves in Alberta are estimated at
300 billion bbl. In Venezuela, the government companies
are forming partnerships to enhance recovery in the
Orinoco tar sands. It could be producing 600,000 b/d by
2000, and it contains about 300 billion bbl of recoverable
heavy oil and EOR reserves. In China, CNPC (China
National Petroleum Corp.) produces about 150,000 b/d of
heavy crude from some 7000 wells, and it has about 8
billion bbl of heavy oil reserves. Heavy oil resource base in
the world may exceed 4 trillion barrels. Thus, it is of great
importance to pay attention to heavy oil reservoir
management.
Chevron’s thermal and heavy oil production information
are shown in Figure 1, and worldwide thermal productions
are documented in Figure 2.
Sound reservoir management relies on the use of financial,
technological, and human resources, while minimizing
capital investments and operating expenses to maximize
economic recovery of oil and gas from a reservoir. The
purpose of reservoir management is to control operations to
obtain the maximum possible economic recovery from a
reservoir on the basis of facts, information, and knowledge.
When used for heavy oil, the term Heavy Oil Reservoir
Management applies. Heavy oil reservoir management has
now matured to the point where great emphasis is placed on
working as a crossfunctional team, involving all technical
areas, management, economics, legal, and environmental
groups. This type of reservoir management model has
proved to be quite successful.
management philosophies:
1. When should reservoir management start?
2. What, how, and when to collect data?
3. What kinds of questions should be asked if we want to
ensure the right answer in the process of reservoir
management?
4. Should we design a heavy oil reservoir management from
the cradle to grave?
5. Should we prefer total optimized design, or small pieces of
the project be optimized?
6. What should be the management style to most effectively
utilize heavy oil reservoir management concepts?
A comprehensive plan for reservoir management, including a
team approach, is highly desirable. However, every reservoir
may not warrant such a detailed plan because of cost-benefit
considerations. The above concepts are summarized in Tables 1-
3 as the need for reservoir management, elements of successful
reservoir management, and attributes of successful reservoir
management organization and program, respectively.
The need for integrated technology development process is more
urgent now than ever before because of continuous push to move
ideas or concepts from the inception to the final phase of field
implementation. This is shown, as an example for heavy oil
technology development, in Figure 3. Also, because of reduction
in R&D budget and trying to leverage capabilities, the push is to
develop technology jointly working with other companies and
industry consortiums, e.g., the partnership activities for the fiber
optic sensor development program (see Figure 4).

References and illustrations at end of paper

2 GANESH C. THAKUR
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
A. Reservoir Simulation
The economic viability of a reservoir is greatly influenced
by the production performance under current and future
operating conditions. Today, with the advent of computer
hardware and software, simulation studies are much easier
and less expensive. In fact, with the availability of software
on PCs and graphical user interfaces, reservoir simulation is
becoming a common tool for practicing geoscientists and
engineers, and is leading to increased use in reservoir
management. For thermal processes, simulation takes us
well beyond the capabilities of analytical models and
correlations. We are able to combine reservoir geology, rock
and fluid properties, and well completion and
injection/production history of a specific reservoir with the
fluid and heat flow physics in steam injection processes to
predict the effects of design and operating strategies on
performance (see Figure 5).1,2
We have learned and developed some efficient ways to build
thermal reservoir models, addressing the following
questions:
1. What aspects of reservoir geology are most important?
Are the distributions of reservoir and nonreservoir rock
types and of reservoir fluids accurately represented?
2. What is the coarsest model that still accurately
describes conductive heating and gravity drainage of oil
in a steam chest?
3. What are the errors associated with using single pattern
or strip models as elements of large fields, and what
can be done about them?
4. What is the best type of model to use for single well
cyclic steam stimulation?
B. HASDrive (Heated Annulus Steam Drive)
HASDrive uses a horizontal, unperforated pipe between
vertical steam injection and production wells. High
temperature steam is circulated inside the horizontal pipe.
Heat is transferred from the hot pipe to the surrounding tar
sands, creating a significant annulus of heated tar sand
around the pipe. Drive steam from the injector then heats
bitumen in the formation and displaces it along the high-
mobility, heated HAS pipe annulus to the producer.
C. WASP
Chevron began utilizing the Water-Alternating-Steam-
Process (WASP) in 1988 in the West Coalinga field,
California (see Figures 6, 7 and 8). To date over 100
patterns have been converted to WASP, and it has resulted
in alleviating steam breakthrough with significant reduction
in steam usage and operating costs.
39233
Simulation model study assists in designing optimum water
injection rates and appropriate lengths of the alternating water
and steam injection periods. Water injection rate is typically 1.0
to 2.0 times the design steam injection rate, and the alternating
periods between 3 to 6 months. The WASP lowers reservoir
temperature, allowing the return-to-production of the shut-in
well and the lowering of the fluid levels in the wells that
required back pressure to combat steam breakthrough.
Recommended practices for WASP are summarized below:
1. Carefully select a candidate reservoir: WASP is highly
applicable to thin, low permeability sands where wells
cannot be produced once high temperature steam
breakthrough occurs. In these reservoirs most of the oil
recovery occurs prior to steam breakthrough. Once
breakthrough occurs WASP assists in diverting steam to
other zones and/or patterns.
2. Design specific injection strategies: To maximize benefits of
WASP, we must stick to our plans.
3. Monitor surrounding producers and project results: WASP
requires close attention early on so that the effect of WASP
on project production is identified.
D. WASP to Hot Waterflooding
Simulation models were used to design WASP and hot
waterflooding. Also, they were compared with continuous steam
injection. Although cumulative oil production for WASP was
slightly lower than the continuous steam injection, sales oil
production was accelerated. The net oil sales increased with
decreasing months of steam injection, i.e., 3:2 WASP yielded
higher net oil sales than 3:3 WASP, and 3:1 WASP resulted in
higher oil production than 3:2 WASP.
Taken to its extreme, simulation showed that Continuous Hot
Waterflood After Steam was the most effective strategy for the
West Coalinga field. Furthermore, the process was optimized if
the conversion to hot waterflood was timed to coincide with the
thermal maturity of the drive sand. Thermal maturity occurs
when the viscosity reduction recovery mechanism becomes less
important than the frontal advance displacement recovery
mechanism.
E. Short-Term Injection Curtailment
Chevron implemented short-term injection curtailment in the
Midway-Sunset field, California, during winter months of high
gas (generator fuel) prices (see Figure 9). The results of both the
simulation study and the field trial helped develop project
strategies for mature steamfloods in Midway-Sunset. The oil
production dropped when steam injection was shut-in but
increased when steam injection resumed.
In the field trial, it was decided to shut-in 16 high steam-oil-
ratio patterns (SOR greater than 5) rather than uniformly reduce
rates across the entire field. Half of the original 16 shut-in
patterns show little change in production and consequently
remain shut-in. Because of significant drops in pattern oil
SPE 39233 HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
production, the other 8 injectors were returned to injection
at reduced rates following 3 to 4 months of shut-in.
The results of the curtailment field trial show:
1. Total oil production from the curtailed patterns
increased during the first three months of shut-in and
has returned to pre-curtailment levels. The short-term
increase in production is assumed to result from
decreased casing pressure and effluent rates during
steam shut-in.
2. Although net sales oil has been on a steady annual
decline of 9% for the last two years, the curtailment has
temporarily halted this decline.
3. About $500,000 has been saved during the curtailment
period.
4. Oil-fuel-ratio improved from 9 prior to curtailment to
16 during curtailment.
F. Downhole Fiber Optics Sensors
This system consists of a commercially available standard
optical fiber and operates in principle as an optical analog
of radar. A pulse of light is sent along the length of the fiber
to measure scatter that is caused by imperfections at any
point along the optical fiber. The scatter mechanism
measures the ratio of scattered light intensity changes as
compared to what is expected along the fiber’s path. This
ratio yields temperature. Temperature data can be obtained
with accuracy over a length of 6-20 miles and at
temperatures greater than 700°F.
The fiber optic pressure sensor is an optical interferometer
that is constructed to provide two paths for the light beam
that is launched into it. The two paths have different
propagation properties for passing light and are dependent
on the hydrostatic pressure which the fiber is exposed to.
Changes in pressure cause a change in length between the
two paths, and these get translated into absolute pressure.
The pressure sensor is a point measurement only, thus
several sensors are needed to measure pressures at different
points.
The application of fiber optics technology in thermal
recovery can add value on both the short and long-term
economics by improving reservoir management. The
convenience of surface readout, and even connection to a
central facility, would allow for continuous monitoring of
reservoir conditions. Such information is invaluable,
particularly in the early stages of a steam drive, and can be
incorporated into a simulator to consider various
operational scenarios to optimize heat management.
G. Crosswell Tomography
The crosswell tomography data and the inferred steam
migration characteristics has changed the operating strategy
for the steam drive in the West Coalinga Field and were
3
later a factor in the abandonment of continuous steam injection.
Crosswell tomography surveys were conducted using two
observation wells in the vicinity of a new, infill steam injector.
The primary objective of the surveys was to monitor steam
(heat) migration within an 80-foot thick, unconsolidated, heavy
oil sandstone reservoir showing steam override.
The time-lapse crosswell tomography detected heat-induced
velocity decreases between two surveys. The first survey was
conducted before steam injection, and the second was conducted
three months later. Difference plots from the two surveys clearly
defined areas with temperature change. Heat fronts were
interpreted as moving both updip (steam override) and downdip
(condensed hot fluids underrun). Contact temperature logs in the
receiver wells (observation wells) later corroborated the zone of
peak change. In addition, the presence of small-scale vertical
permeability barriers was indicated, which may locally inhibit
vertical sweep.
H. Non-thermal Methods
In the past, heavy oil sands technology were primarily focusing
on vertical wells employing thermal methods. The recent trends
are to utilize more horizontal wells and to deploy primary or
non-thermal recovery technology. Some of the successful non-
thermal technology include: cold production, horizontal well
technology including multi-laterals, foam and miscible gas, and
hydraulic fracturing.
RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT IN THE DURI
STEAMFLOOD
The Duri Steamflood (DSF) is the largest steamflood in the
world, currently injecting 1,250,000 BSPD and producing
284,000 BOPD from some 3,000 wells (Figure 10). Cyclic
steamflood in Duri began in 1967. The first steamflood pilot was
implemented in 1975 and led to the first major project in 1985.
The DSF project has 12 development areas to be processed from
now until the year 2021. Duri reserves occur in the Duri and
Bekasap formations, which are tidally dominated deltaic in
deposition, at depths from about 300 ft. to the oil-water contact
at 750 ft. The geology is characterized by low dip and layered
stratigraphy. Although the layers are hydraulically continuous
on a pattern scale, 11 to 16 acres, there is significant contrast in
oil saturation and permeability within a given lobe and between
lobes.
Production drive mechanism prior to steam breakthrough was
pressurization of the reservoir and large horizontal viscous
forces. Production occurs mostly as a “push” from steam
injection until breakthrough. Average reservoir pressures
increase to 150 to 200 psi (50 to 100%) during startup in an
area. Viscosity reduction and gravity drainage mechanisms are
less important to recovery in Duri than other steamfloods.
Because crude gravities are relatively high (19°-22°API), steam
injection only causes a 40-fold reduction in viscosity, whereas in
other steamfloods the reduction can be 200 to 500 greater.
4 Ganesh C. Thakur
Oil production schedules are also quite different between
Duri and other steamfloods because of differences in oil
viscosity, layer thickness, drive mechanisms, and pattern
size. Peak production in Duri occurs before, rather than
after, pattern breakthrough. The timing of peak production
dictates the timing of value generation and affects the
priorities of various objectives associated with reservoir
management.
Based upon reservoir simulation studies and actual field
performance, the following strategies are implemented
fieldwide:
1. The bulk of value generated by DSF comes from the
proper initial installation of the floods.
2. Following steam breakthrough, profile control
contributes about 10% incremental reserves.
In DSF, reservoir management is a life-cycle concept which
starts at initial planning and designing of an area and ends
with its abandonment, almost “from the cradle to the grave”
approach. Good reservoir management practices in Duri
start with an optimized development plan and design for the
wells, patterns, and surface facilities in the Design and
Construction stage. Most of DSF’s project value generated
is simply due to proper project planning, design,
construction, implementation, and normal maintenance.
Activities typically associated with heat management, like
rate reductions and injector profile modification, generate a
relatively smaller portion of the total value.
The estimated comparative percentages of recovery factors
for DSF are 7.5%, 20%, and 55% OOIP for primary, and
huff and puff, and steamflood, respectively. The steam
injection patterns for DSF are generally 7-spot. The actual
field performance DSF is documented in Figure 11. The
elements of successful reservoir management program at
DSF are shown in Table 4. Figure 12 shows the results of
the 4-D seismic survey for this field, and this technology
played a key role in the management of the steamflood.
Following the initial stage, the Ramp-Up Stage initiates
steam injection and brings it up to design rates (1.2
BSPD/net acre-ft.). At the end of this stage, production
approaches its peak. This leads to the Main Stage in which
steam breakthrough, and therefore heat management, is
expected to begin. One of the primary objectives in the
Main Stage is to optimize injection rates as steam
breakthrough occurs.
The reservoir management practices in the Duri steamflood
continue to evolve, and the following are currently being
studied:
1. Steam zone detection methods in producers
2. Use of simulation methods for routine calculation of
pattern allocation factors and steam zone positions
39233
3. Determination of optimal timing for cementing off
breakthrough zones and diversion of steam into other layers
4. Rate target setting methods for patterns and strings with
breakthrough versus those without breakthrough
5. Optimal rate reduction schedules for mature areas
SUMMARY
Chevron in California significantly reduced operating expenses,
both per barrel and in total, from 1991 to 1995 by successfully
implementing heat management strategies. The operating
expense of $9.50 per barrel was reduced by 40% (or $200
million a year) to $5.70 per barrel. In addition to many
applications of technology, teamwork played a key role in
achieving these tasks. The heat management flow chart and
process utilized in these fields are documented in Figures 13 and
14.
In the future, the following items must be considered for
effective heavy oil reservoir management:
1. Modeling of heat management should be an integral part of
engineers/geoscientists’ day-to-day business and their
performance evaluation.
2. Applications of various technologies and teamwork should
be emphasized to lower operating expenses and increase
profitability.
3. New technologies, e.g., use of horizontal/designer wells,
fiber optic sensors for downhole temperature and pressure
measurements, 4D seismic, SAGD process (Figure 15), heat
management utilizing WASP, hot waterflooding, steam
injection curtailment, and others should be deployed.
HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT IN THE
YEAR 2000
In the year 2000 heavy oil reservoir management will include
total economically optimized design of the project “from the
cradle to the grave” (see Figure 16). Teamwork will become a
routine way of developing an asset and the hierarchical
management style will be out of practice. Technology will play a
key role and will include extensive use of horizontal/designer
wells including multi-laterals, cold production method, reservoir
characterization utilizing geostatistics, 3D/4D seismic, and 3D
visualization, reservoir simulation, downhole steam generation
and cogeneration of steam and power, real-time reservoir
monitoring and interactive reservoir management, variations of
water-and-steam process and SAGD process, and more use of
field automation and “smart well” concept (see Figure 17).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance provided by K.C. Hong, M. Kumar, R. Schmidt
and J. Bube in the preparation of this paper is duly appreciated.
SPE 39233 HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT 5
The author would like to thank Chevron Petroleum
Technology Company for permission to publish the
information.

REFERENCES
1. Thakur, G.C.: “The Role of Technology and Decision
Analysis in Reservoir Management,” SPE Paper 29775
presented at the Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 11-14
March 1995.

2. Tchelepi, H.A., Durtofsky, L.J., Chen, W.H., Bernath,

A., Chien, M.C.H.: “Practical Use of Scale Up and
Parallel Reservoir Simulation Technologies in Field
Studies,: SPE Paper 38886 presented at the 1997 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1997.

7DEOH  ¥ 5HVHUYRLU 0DQDJHPHQW ¤ :K\" 7DEOH  ¥ (OHPHQWV RI 6XFFHVVIXO 5HVHUYRL U 0DQDJHPHQW

• Need to Enhance Recovery • Data Collection and Management

• Profound Effect of Timing • Integrated Technology
• Team Approach – Geoscience and Engineering
• Value Creation and Economic Screening – Reservoir Modeling and 3-D Visualization
– Field Surveillance and Monitoring
• Economic and Decision Analyses
• Team Approach

7DEOH  ¥ $ WWUL EXWHV RI 6XFFHVVIXO 50 2UJDQL ]DWL RQ

DQG 3URJUDP 7DEOH  ¥ (OHPHQWV RI 6XFFHVVIXO 5HVHUYRL U 0DQDJHPHQW

• Early Start of RM • Well Completions

• Cross-Functional Team • Data Gathering and Data management
• RM Bulletin Board • Simulation
• Field Personnel and Management Buy-In • Technical Training
• Comprehensive and Cost-Effective • Production Optimization
Surveillance Program • Reservoir Monitoring and Heat Management
• Innovation and Risk Taking by Integrating – Current Fuel Cost = $350 Million/Year
New Technology
6 Ganesh C. Thakur 39233

Alba, North Sea

80,000 B/D
San Joaquin Valley, 20 °API
California
60,000 B/D
12-15 °API Boscan,
Venezuela
80,000 B/D
9-10 °API
Duri, Indonesia
300,000 B/D
19-22 °API

Thermal

Non Thermal

Fig. 1 — Chevron’s thermal and heavy oil production.

450,000

Chevron
350,000
Total B/D

250,000

150,000

50,000
0
California Indonesia Venezuela China Alberta

Fig. 2 — Worldwide thermal productions.

SPE 39233 HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT 7

Phase
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Select Approve Choose

Approve Implement Approve Modify Final
Candidate Field Best
Lab Tests Pilots Expend. Program Evaluation
Fields Test/Pilot App.

Value of "Managing Expectations"

Heavy Crude

Minimize Reservoir Related Problems

Development Strategies

Alternatives to Conventional Steam

Reservoir Management and Production “Tools”

Idea or Unproven Tested Proven Accepted Applied Operate &

Prototype
Concept Tech. Tech. Tech. Tech. Tech. Evaluate

Fig. 3 — Integrated technology development process (ex: heavy oil).

Clear Objectives Seismic Model

Fiber Optic Sensor Development Program and Prioritize
Resource Organizations Rock and Fluid
Geologic Model
Charac.

CHEVRON TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES Reservoir

Well Test Charac. Geostatistical
and FE Model
Choose the Appropriate
OPCO Partners Simulation Model
Construct
Sim. Model • Compare with
T H E V I S I O N
Consistency conv. RE analysis
Continuous Real Time High Resolution among geophy., Validate Model • Avoid arbitrariness
Reservoir Measurements geol., geostat., in HM
sim., lab, and Range of Models • Test against
Fully Integrated Reservoir Management field data field data

3-D Visualization Shared Globally Range of Predictions

Fig. 4 — Partnership. Fig. 5 — Reservoir modeling and performance prediction.

8 Ganesh C. Thakur 39233

CHEARS Desktop Results:

Simulation in Field • WASP Increased Sales Oil from
Project Area Realigned Office to Compare: Both Breakthrough and
for Section-Wide WASP Continuous Steam Non-Breakthrough Patterns
WASP with Different Cycles • Higher Water Rate and Longer Water
Hotwater After Steam Cycle Improved Project Performance
• Project Currently Under Continuous Water
Ph 1 • Reduced Lifting Cost from $6.82 to $4.41/bo
NW Area
SE Area • Increased Project Value by $4 Million

Ph 2
Ph 3 Pilot

y
x
z
SP Resistivity
Top Temblor
1200

C Sands
14 DIP
1300
"E" Point
Inj. Strategies After
E Sands Vertical 35
3 Yrs. of Cont. Steam
"G" Point Expansion Hot WF
Oil Production (MSTB)

1400
G Sands Sands 3:1
Cumulative Sales

25 3:2
"H" Point
3:3 WASP
1500 H Sands Original
"J" Point 15
Drive
J Sands Sands
1600 "J" Point
5
Jv Sands
60 ft
Kreyenhagen
9 ft 1700 -5
0 5 10 15 20
SP/+10-/MV Sphere Focus
100 0 0 100 Time (Years)

Fig. 6 — Water-alternating-steam process (WASP) as a transition to more economical hot waterflood.

Continuous Steam

Steam
Override Steam
Breakthrough

Unswept
Zone

WASP

Steam Steam

Steam B.T.
Delayed or
Eliminated
Unswept
Zone
Water Water

Fig. 7 — Process schematic.

SPE 39233 HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT 9

Mainframe Simulation: Results:

Evaluate Process • Eliminated Steam Breakthrough
Design Pilot WASP • Allowed Pumps to be Lowered
Coalinga 13D
• Shut-In Wells Returned to Production
Steamflood Patterns
• Project Returned to Positive Cashflow
• Validated Simulation Model
Ph 3 Ph 1

Ph 2
Pilot

Production Performance
Start of VE in Phase
700 Total Oil
Sales Oil

Pilot Production Rate (B/D)

600 1st Cycle
Incremental Oil –
Continuous 15,400 Bbl
500
Steam WASP

After 400
Steam Cycle Baseline Sales Oil

300
After VE Water Steam Water Steam Water
Water Cycle
200
J M M J S N J M M J S N
1988 1989
Year

Fig. 8 — Water-alternating-steam process (WASP) to combat steam breakthrough problems.

CHEARS Simulation:
Coalinga • Effect of Steam
Curtailment on
Bakersfield Sales Oil Rate
Area

Cymric
Bakersfield
Area
Results:
Taft Area • 16 Patterns Shut In for 14 Months
SF
• Total Property Sales Oil Increased
Bakersfield • Oil-Fuel Ratio Improved from 9 to 16
LA • Increased Cashflow by $500,000
• Validated Simulation Results
Taft 26C 200 400 600 Return/
Oil Production (MBOPD)

0 10 Total Property Sales Oil Pattern

in Serv

200 6 Shutdown Stm

by 14 Patterns
Tank
Oil Production
400 Cleaning
2 Curtailed Patterns

J M S J M S J M
1992 1993 1994
Seasonal Variation
of Steam Generation Costs 10
Oil-Fuel Ratio (OFR)

Increase Stm Pressure

3 Start Stm Curtailment
$/Bbl or $/MMBtu

6
2 Gas Price ($/MMBtu)
1 2
Gen Cost ($/Bbl Stm)
0
J M M J S N J M M J M J S N J M M J S N J M M J
1993 1994 1992 1993 1994

Fig. 9 — Heat management with CHEARS (thermal simulation) to combat steam breakthrough problems.
10 Ganesh C. Thakur 39233

(A)

Forecasted
300
D. Main
Rindu Pilot
250 Area 8
Kern
Area 7
Daily Production, 1000 BOPD

Area 6 River Duri

Area 5 Field Field
200
Area 4 Area 3,910 6,600
Area 3
Area 2 Inj. Wells 2,640 999
150 Area 1
Prod. Wells 6,300 2,166
Steam Inj. (BWPD) 830,000 1,200,000
100
Oil Prod. (BOPD) 125,000 284,000
Oil Res. (BBO) 2.0 2.5
50

0
1975
1980
1985
1987
1989

1990
1991

1992
1993

1994
1995

1996
1997

1998
1999

2000

(B)

Fig. 10 — (A) CPI area of operations, (B) Duri steamflood.

SPE 39233 HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT 11

Chronology: Steamflood Performance

7
Discovery 1941 6
1200 300
Placed on 1958

Steam Injection, MBCWEPD

Production

Oil Production, MBOPD

5
Cyclic 1967 4
Steaming 800 200

Continuous
Fore-
Steam Injection 3 Actual cast
Start-Up Area 2
400 1 100

0 0
85 87 89 91 93 95
Year

Fig. 11 — Duri steamflood

No 5 Months
Steam Steam Difference
0
B. Shallow
Steam Leak
in Injector
Casing
B
S. Zone of
Steam
Penetration
0.1
P. Polarity
Reversal
(Steam
Time (s)

S “thief”
Zone?)

0.2

0.3
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Distance (Km)
Fig. 12 — Reflection images (migrated) across steamflood
9 Ganesh C. Thakur 39233

Begin

Compare Actual vs Target Performance

Determine Thermal Efficiency

Determine Material Balance

Determine Target Steam Determine Target Steam

Injection Rate and Predict No Gravity Dominated Yes Injection Rate and Predict
Response for Viscous- Steamflood Response for Gravity-
Dominated Steamflood Dominated Steamflood

∆t No
Make Rate Adjustment?

Yes
Implement Adjustment

∆t No
Terminate Injection?

∆t Yes
Compare Prediction to Actual Performance

End

Fig. 13 — Heat management flowchart.

4
Project
Design
4/1

2
Data Steam 1 Injection 3
Management Injection Well Mgt.
6/7 5/1 3/2

1 Steam 2
Reservoir Heat Management Generator
Analysis (Op. Costs / Bbls.) Distribution
1/5 2/3

Production 3 Project
2
Well Review
Management 2/5
3/1

Fig. 14 — Heat management process.

SPE 39233 HEAVY OIL RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT 13

Scheme I: Steam Injection Well

Production
A Horizontal Well
Well Pair

Scheme II: Steam

Vertical Steam Production Injection
Injection Wells and Well Wells
a Horizontal
Production Well

Fig. 15 — Steam-assisted oil gravity drainage.

• More Efficient Heat Utilization

Co- Via Heat Management:
Downhole Generation – By Pattern
Steam of Steam – By Area
Gen. and • Processing of Multiple Sands With Zonal
Power Segregation and Production Allocation
Prod Accurate
Steam • Subsurface Fluid Control
Allocation
by Horizon Metering • Reservoir Simulation on Desktop
and Dist Computers
Heat New Econ and
Decision • Reservoir Management Tools:
Mgmt Technology – Gas and Oil Saturation
Analysis
Geostat. Thermal Logging
Reservoir Horizontal – X-Well Tomography and 4D
Charact Wells Seismic
– Slimhole Injectors
High Logging - Horizontal Wells
Resolution in High • Process Modifications:
4D Temp
Seismic – SAGD
Env – WASP
– Hotwater After Steam

Fig. 16 — Reservoir management for heavy oil in year 2000.

Real Time
Reservoir
Measurement Modeling
• Temperature Tools
• Pressure
• Acoustics • Geolith/G2
• Passive Seismic • Chears
Chevron Technology 3D Visualization • Stratamodel
Companies • Gocad
• Facies Finder
Database • Voxel/Geo
Management • Mincom Geolog
• Scale up
• Seisworks
Conventional • Geoquest
Reservoir Data Charisma
• RMA
• Well Log Data • AVO Modeling
• Production Data • Seismic Attribute
Asset Management • Rock and Fluids Data Analysis
Team • Seismic Records
• Production Logs
Fig. 17 — Fully integrated reservoir management system.