Tami M. Aziz Thesis

REPUBLIC OF IRAQ
MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Thermal Reservoir Modeling For An Iraqi

Heavy Oil Field
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO
THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
BY
Tami Mohamed Aziz
(B.Sc. 1999)
SUPERVISED BY
Dr. Hussein Ali Baker and Dr. Safaa Hussein Sahi
2013

)(18
We certify that we have read this thesis and as examining
committee, examined the student in it's contents and that in our opinion
it meets the standard of a thesis for the degree of Master of Science
in Petroleum Engineering.
Signature: Signature:
Name: Dr. Hussein Ali Baker Name: Dr. Safaa Hussein Sahi
(Supervisor) (Supervisor)
Signature: Signature:
Ass. Prof. Dr.Ayad A. Abdulrazak Name: Dr. Sameer N. Al-Jawad
(Member) (Member)
Signature:
Ass. Prof. Dr.Sameera M. Hamad-Allah
(Chairman)
Approved by the College of Engineering, University of Baghdad.
Signature:
Name: Prof. Dr. Ahmed Abdul-Saheb M. Ali
Acting Dean of the Engineering College
Date: / / 2013
Dedication
U
I will be honored to dedicate this work

To my Mother and father, God's mercy on them.
To my wife and my children who shared difficulties
of the research with me, to my brothers and sisters.
To all the people of Iraq.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Dr.

Hussein Ali Baker and co-supervisor Dr. safaa Hussein Sahi (Ministry of
Oil) for their encouragement, guidance and enthusiasm in this study. This
research would not have been possible without their patience and
support.
Thanks to Dr. Maha R. Abedulameer, head of the department and to
my lectures and the staff members of the department for their help.
Thanks to staff of reservoir & fields development directorate, Special
thanks and greeting for Dr. Samer noori, Mrs. Dunia Al-Shamaa and
petroleum researching center for providing scientific support.
Thanks to my dear friends: Fawaz Mohamed Aziz, Adnan Ajam,
Sahmi Adwan, Gassan Hisham, Wisam Issa, Jehad Hussein, Qassim
Abdul Redha, Imad and Najim Abd Radhi for their great help.
I am greatly indebted to Dr. Hadi Samimi from British petroleum
Canada and Prof. Dr. Noman Al-kateb from the petroleum department
at University of Technology Petronas,(UTP) for their help , my
special thanks to them.
Appreciation and gratefulness to the department emblem miss Amel
and Miss Rasha.
Finally I express my great thanks to my fellow students at petroleum
engineering department for their support and the time we shared
together.
Thank you very much
Tami Mohamed Aziz
I
Abstract
U
The main objective of this research is to study feasibility of Cyclic

Steam Injection in Qayarah Heavy oil field to increase oil recovery. A
thermal reservoir simulator CMG/ STARS-2010 has been adopted to
achieve the current study by constructing single well model for Euphrates
reservoir.
Formation evaluation has been carried out for the Euphrates
formation of the Qayarah oil field well Qy-55 depending on logs and
cores data. The available logs data were digitized, using the Didger
Software Package 3.03. The environmental corrections and the
interpretations have been carried out using Interactive Petrophysics
Program v3.5 Programs.
Euphrates formation lithology is determined by Matrix Identification
(MID) and (M vs. N) Crossplot for Mineral Identification. It is consisting
of dolomite with some dololimestone, some anhydrite and little shale.
Pickett method has been used to determine of the Archie's parameters (the
tortuosity factor (a), the saturation exponent (n), and the cementation
exponent (m)) by using Interactive Petrophysics Program.
Total Porosity calculated by using (density and neutron log), then
corrected by clay volume and hydrocarbon fluid content to calculate the
effective porosity. The permeability has been predicated by using Flow
zone indicator methods.
This study concerns with the prediction of the phase behavior and
physical properties for Qayarah oil field by using WinProp simulator. A
regression technique has been used to fit sample PVT data with EOS,
then it was used to generate CMG STARS PVT model.
II
The validity of the single well thermal model achieved by comparing
its results with the available field measurements in terms of well
pressures as well as oil production measurements.
The model runs for primary production and cyclic steam injection
for 10 years and 20 years. It was observed that oil production from cyclic
steam injection is three times more than primary production in 10 years
case and approximately six times more than primary production for 20
years case.
Analysis of different parameters in the cyclic steam stimulation
(CSS) assisted in identify important parameters on results. Higher steam
injection rates enhance heat delivery, thereby increasing oil production. It
seems, in comparison with all cases the case of 3000 bbl/day steam
injection rate is the optimum case for this parameter. Also, cycle length
parameters (steam injection time, sock time and production time) have
been analyzed, the results show that (60 days, 5 days , 150 days) the best
cases for these parameters.
Steam quality effect has been analyzed, the results shown steam
quality 0.7 to 0.8 recommended. Different strategies of perforation have
been studied; the results show two best strategies for perforating were
using case No. 2 (full layers injection and 3,4,5 layers production) and
case No. 6 (top half layers injection and 3,4,5 layers production).
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE Pag
e
Acknowledgment I
Abstract II
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preface 1
1.2 Brief description on the field 2
1.3 Research Objective 3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
2.1-Literature Review 5
2.2-Theoretical Background 12
2.2.1- Steam Injection 12
2.2.2- Properties of Saturated Steam. 12
2.2.3-Reservoir Heating 17
2.2.4- Steam Zone Growth 21
2.2.4.1- Viscous Displacement 21
2.2.4.2 Bypass Displacement 22
2.2.5- Cyclic Steam Stimulation Design 23
2.2.6- Design Calculations 24
2.2.6.1- The Boberg and Lantz Method 25
2.2.6.2- The Towson and Boberg Model
P P 27
2.2.6.3- The Jones Method.
P P 28
2.2.7- Process Optimization 29
CHAPTER THREE: TECHNICAL APPROACH
3.1- Well Log Analyses And Interpretations 31
IV
3.1.1ResistivityInte 32
rpretation
3.1.2- The Gamma Ray Log 33
3.1.3- Determination of Porosity 34
3.1.4- Determination of Lithology and Mineralogy 37

3.1.4.1- The Matrix Identification (MID) Plot 37
3.1.4.2- (M vs. N) Crossplot for Mineral Identification. 38
3.1.5- Determination of Archie parameters using Pickett's method 40
3.1.6- Fluid and Formation Analysis 42
3.1.6.1- Water and Hydrocarbon Saturations Determination 42
3.1.6.2- Formation Analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis) 43
3.2-Calculate Permeability by Flow Zone Indicator Method 46
3.3 -Euphrates Formation Zoning and Averaging 51
3.4- PVT Simulator 51
3.4.1- Fluid Properties 52
3.4.2- PVT Data Used 53
3.4.3 Final PVT Model Processes 53
3.4.4- Bubble point pressures 58
3.4.5-STARS PVT Generation 58
3.5 Single Well Model 58
3.6 Model Characterization 59
3.6.1 Reservoir Geometry 59
3.6.2 Petrophysical Parameters 60
3.6.3 Relative Permeability Curves 60
3.6.4.Reservoir fluid Properties 61
3.6.5-Rock properties 61
3.6.6 Initial Conditions 62
3.6.6.A Oil Water Contacts 62
3.6.6.B Initial Reservoir Pressure and temperature 62
V
3.15.7 Boundary Conditions 62
3.16 Simulation Results and History Match 63
3.16.1 Production Schedule 64
3.16.2 Pressure Match (static pressure) 64
3.16.3-Water cut match 66
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1- Overview 67
4.2-Basic case 67
4.3-Steam injection rate 72

4.4- Injection time 74
4.5- Soak time interval 76
4.6 - Production time interval 78
4.7 - Steam Quality 80
4.8 - Well Perforation strategy 82
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions 85
5.2 Recommendations 87
References 88
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
List of Tables
Tables Page
Table (2.1): Analogs for Thermal EOR in carbonate heavy oil 11

reservoirs
VI
Table (2.2): Analogs for the success CSS applications 11
Table (2.3) Boberg And Lantz Radial Flow Factors.

P P 27
Table (2.4): Optimizing cyclic steam stimulation parameters for 30

selected project using the Jones34 model.
P P
Table (3.1) average petrophysical properties for Euphrates formation 51

well Qy (55).
Table (3.2): Fluid composition 52
Table (3.3): component after lamping process. 54
Table (3-4): Rock type number with saturation parameters. 60
Table (3.5): Viscosity-temperature relationship 61
Table (4.1): comparison between steam injection basic case and 68

primary production case.
Table (4.2) comparison between different steam injection rates. 73
Table (4.3) injection time result comparison 75
Table (4.4): shows comparison between different steam sock time 77

intervals.
Table (4.5) comparison between different steam production time 79
intervals.
Table (4.6) shows the results of different steam quality 81
Table (4.7): Results Comparison between different perforation 83

strategies.
List of Figures
VII
Figure Page
Fig. (1.1) Location Map of the Qayarah Field. 4
Figure (2.1): The processes of the cyclic steam stimulation 6
Fig.(2.2):Saturation steam temperature and pressure 14
Fig. (2.3): Steam specific volume vs. saturation pressure 15
Fig. (2.4): Enthalpy of wet steam as a function of saturation 15

pressure, temperature, and steam quality
Fig.( 2.5):Temperature profile resulting from convection and 18
conduction caused by piston displacement of steam.
Fig.( 2.6):Fraction of injected steam remaining in steam zone. 21
Fig. (3.1): Radial geometrical factors of the resistivity tools, showing 32

fluid and resistivity distributions near a well bore (after Serra, 1984).
Fig. (3.1): Environment corrections for all resistivity tools. 34
Fig. (3.2): The gamma, density and neutron corrections results of 36

well QY55 (245m-340m)
Fig.(3.3): The Matrix Identification (MID) Plot maa vs. tmaa 38
Fig. (3.4): M-N cross plot of Euphrates formation. 39
Fig.(3.5): show the Pickett's plot well Qy(55) Euphrates formation. 41
Fig.(3.6): Fluid and formation analyses of the well Qy(55) Euphrates 45

formation.
Fig.(3.7): Cross plot of core permeability vs. core porosity with Flow 48
Zone Indicator for Euphrates formation.
Fig.(3.8): Cross plot for logarithm RQI versus logarithm Z with 49

Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) for Euphrates formation.
Fig.(3.9):K-core and K-Calculated vs. depth well Qy(55) 50
VIII
Euphrates formation.
Fig.(3.10): Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values 55

of Oil density.
of GOR.
of Oil FVF
Fig.(3.13): Comparison between the Predicted and measured Values 56
of Gas SG.
of Gas Z factor.
Fig.(3.15):Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values 57
of Oil Viscosity.
Figure (3-16): Contour Map for Sector from Qayarah Field. 59
Fig. (3-17): Production versus time well Qy(73). 65
Figure (3.18) Average reservoir pressure match for Qy(73). 65
Figure (3.19) water cut versus time Well Qy(73). 66
Fag. (4.1a): comparison of oil rate steam injection case and primary 69
production case for 10 years.
Fig. (4.1b): comparison of oil rate between steam injection 69
case and primary production for 20 years
Fig. (4.1c): comparison of cumulative oil production between steam 70
injection case and primary production for 10 years.
Fig. (4.1d): comparison of cumulative oil production between steam 70
injection case and primary production for 20 years.
IX
Fig. (4.1e): comparison of oil recovery factor 10 years between 71
steam injection case and primary production.
Fig. (4.1f): comparison oil recovery factor between steam injection 71
case and primary production for 20 years.
Fig.(4.2a): Oil rate comparison between different cases. 73
Fig.(4.2b):Comparison cumulative oil production between different 74

cases.
Fig.(4.3a) shows oil rate comparison of different steam injection time 75
intervals.
Fig.(4.3b) :Cumulative oil production comparison of different steam 76
injection time intervals.
Fig.(4.4a): Oil rate comparison of different steam sock time 77
intervals.
Fig.(4.4b) : Cumulative oil production comparison of different steam 78
sock time intervals.
Fig.(4.5a): Cumulative oil production comparison of different 79
production time intervals
Fig.(4.5b): Oil production rate comparison of different production 80
time intervals
Fig. (4.6a): Cumulative oil production for different steam quality. 81
Fig. (4.6a): Cumulative oil production for different steam quality. 82
Fig.(4.7a): Steam chamber volume growth for different cases. 84
Fig.(4.7b): Cumulative oil production for different perforation 84

strategy.
X
Nomenclature
U
Symbols Description Unit

A Cross section area cm2 P
a lithology factor (-----)

A area, sq ft [m2]P P
A RD
R R dimensionless buoyancy defined in Eq. 2.23 (-----)
At
R time-dependent heated area, sq ft [m2]P P
Bo
R oil formation volume factor, (-----)
C isobaric specific heat Btu/(lbm-F)
[kJ/kgK]
Co R isobaric specific heat of oil, Btu/(lbm-F)
[kJ/kgK]
Cw R isobaric specific heat of water, Btu/(lbm-F)
[kJ/kgK]
Di Diameter of invasion in
DT Sonic transit time s/ft
DTC Corrected sonic transit time s/ft
Eh
R R heat efficiencyfraction of injected heat (-----)
remaining in reservoir
XI
erfc(x) complementary error function (-----)
F Formation factor (-----)
F1, F2 constants defined in Table (2.3)
f hv
R R fraction of heat injected as latent heat (-----)
f pD
R R heat loss factor caused by hot fluid production
fs
R steam quality (-----)
f Vr
R R conductive heat loss factor caused by radial
conduction
f Vz
R R conductive heat loss factor caused by vertical
conduction
g gravity acceleration constant, 32.174 ft/sec2 P P
[9.8067 m/s2]P P
G(t D ) R R function defined by Eq. 2.10

h enthalpy per unit mass, Btu/lbm
[kJ/kg]
hf R R enthalpy of liquid portion of saturated steam, Btu/lbm
[kJ/kg]
h fs R R enthalpy of < 100% quality saturated steam, Btu/lbm
[kJ/kg]
h fv R R enthalpy of vapor portion of saturated steam, Btu/lbm
[kJ/kg]
hh R R fluid level in stimulated reservoir, ft [m]
hn R R net reservoir thickness, ft [m]
hs R R steam zone thickness, ft [m]
ht R R gross reservoir thickness, ft [m]
hv R R enthalpy of 100% quality (saturated) saturated Btu/lbm
steam, [kJ/kg]
hw R fluid level in cold wellbore, ft [m]
J productivity of a cold well, B/psi-D
[m3/kPad]
P P
Jh R R productivity of a stimulated well, B/psi-D

[m3/kPad]
P P
K SP coefficient (-----)
k Permeability md
ko, kw & kg
R R R R R Effective permeability of oil, water and gas md
XII
respectively
K RGCL R K rg at Connate Liquid

R R (-----)
k ro , k rw & k rg
R R R R R Relative permeability of oil, water and gas (-----)
respectively
K ROCW R K ro at Connate Water
R R (-----)
K ROGCG R K rog at Connate Gas
R R (-----)
k rs
R R relative permeability to steam (-----)
K RWIRO R K rw at Irreducible Oil
R R (-----)
m Cementation exponent (-----)
Mg R R volumetric heat capacity of gas, Btu/(ft3-F) P P
[kJ/m3K] P P
ml R R mass of liquid, lbm [kg]

Mo R R volumetric heat capacity of oil, Btu/(ft3-F) P P
[kJ/m3K] P P
MR R R volumetric heat capacity of the reservoir, Btu/(ft3-F) P P
[kJ/m3K] P P
3
Ms R R volumetric heat capacity of steam zone, Btu/(ft -F) P P
3
[kJ/m K] P P
MS R R volumetric heat capacity of surrounding Btu/(ft3-F) P P
formation, [kJ/m3K] P P
mv R R mass of vapor, lbm [kg]

Mw R R volumetric heat capacity of water, Btu/(ft3-F) P P
[kJ/m3K] P P
M R volumetric heat capacity of reservoir rocks, Btu/(ft3-F) P P
[kJ/m3K] P P
n Saturation exponent (-----)

ps R R steam pressure, psia [kPa]
Q amount of injected heat remaining in reservoir, Btu [kJ]
Q (o/w)influxR R heat flowing into system, Btu [kJ]
q gh R R hot gas production rate, Mcf/D [std
m3/d]
P P
Qi R heat injection rate, Btu/D

[kJ/d]
q is R R reproduced steam rate, B/D [m3/d] P P
Ql R R heat loss rate, Btu/D
XIII
[kJ/d]
q oc R R cold oil production rate, B/D [m3/d]P P
3
q oh R R hot oil production rate, B/D [m /d]P P
q oi R R initial oil production rate, B/D [m3/d]P P
Q ot R R cumulative oil recovery at time (t), B/D [m3/d]P P
Qp R R heat removed with produced fluids, Btu/D

[kJ/d]
q wc R R cold water production rate, B/D [m3/d]P P
q wh R hot water production rate, B/D [m3/d]P P
R Correlation coefficient (-----)

r radius of reservoir, ft [m]
re R R external radius of heated zone, ft [m]
rh R R radius of heated or steam zone, ft [m]
Ri R Invaded zone resistivity ohms.m
Rm R Resistivity of mud ohms.m
R mfe R Equivalent resistivity of mud filtrate ohms.m
Ro R Resistivity of the 100% watersaturated rock ohms.m
Rt R True formation resistivity ohms.m
Rw R Formation-water resistivity ohms.m
rw R R radius of well, ft [m]
R xo R Flushed-zone resistivity ohms.m
S skin factor before stimulation
S.G Specific gravity, dimensionless (-----)
Sg R R gas saturation fraction
S GCON R Endpoint Saturation: Connate Gas (-----)
S GCRIT R Endpoint Saturation: Critical Gas (-----)
Sh R R skin factor after stimulation
S hr R Residual hydrocarbon saturation (-----)
So R R oil saturation
S oi R R initial oil saturation fraction
S OIRG R Endpoint Saturation: Irreducible Oil for Gas- (-----)
XIV
Liquid Table
S OIRW R Endpoint Saturation: Irreducible Oil for (-----)
Water-Oil Table
S or R Movable Hydrocarbon saturation (-----)
S or R residual oil saturation fraction
S ORG R Endpoint Saturation: Residual Oil for Gas- (-----)
Liquid Table
S ORW R Endpoint Saturation: Residual Oil for Water- (-----)
Oil Table
Sw R Water saturation (-----)
Sw R R water saturation fraction
S WCON R Endpoint Saturation: Connate Water (-----)
S WCRIT R Endpoint Saturation: Critical Water (-----)
S wirr or S wi.
R R R Irreducible water saturation (-----)
S xo R Mud filtrate saturation (-----)
t time, day
t cDR R critical dimensionless time
tD R R dimensionless time
average temperature in heated reservoir F
Th R R temperature in stimulated zone, F
Ti R R influx water temperature, F
Tp R produced fluid temperature, F
TR R unaffected reservoir temperature, F
Ts R R steam temperature, F
U unit function equals 1 for tD tcD > 0, 0 for
tD tcD < 0 in Eq. 2.22
V Sh R Shale volume (-----)
w st R R mass flow rate of dry steam, lbm/D
[kg/d]
x distance along the x ordinate
Z Compressibility factor (-----)
XV
Greek Symbols Description Unit
b R True bulk density gm/cc
bCorr
R Corrected true bulk density gm/cc
f R Density of fluid gm/cc
h R Density of hydrocarbon gm/cc
maR Density of rock matrix gm/cc
maa
R Apparent density of rock matrix gm/cc
w and o
R R R Formation water and Hydrocarbon density gm/cc
respectively
tf R Sonic travel time in fluid sec/ft
tma R sonis transit time in rock matrix sec/ft
t maa R Apparent sonic transit time inrock matrix sec/ft

D R Density log porosity (-----)
e R Effective porosity (-----)
NCorr
R Corrected neutron log apparent porosity (-----)
NDR Neutron density log porosity (-----)
NfR Neutron log equivalent porosity of fluid (-----)
S R Sonic log apparent porosity (-----)
Z R Normalized porosity (-----)
taR Apparent tatal porosity (-----)
Contact angle
Viscosity c.p.
interaction coefficients between different (-----)
Components, dimensionless
Acentric factor, dimensionless (-----)
Fugacity coefficient, dimensionless (-----)
thermal diffusivity of reservoir, ft2/D [m2/d]
P P P P
E R R thermal diffusivity of earth, ft2/D [m2/d]

P P P P
s R R thermal diffusivity of surrounding formation, ft2/D [m2/d]

P P P P
specific gravity (-----)
XVI
increment or decrement (-----)
h h R change in stimulated zone fluid level, ft [m]
t time steps, D [d]
T steam temperature/reservoir temperature, Ts/TR, F
thermal conductivity, Btu/(ft-D-F)
[kJ/mdK]
S R R thermal conductivity of surrounding formation, Btu/(ft-D-F)
[kJ/mdK]
viscosity, cp [Pas]
oh R hot oil viscosity , cp [Pas]
oi R R initial oil viscosity, cp [Pas]
s R steam viscosity, cp [Pas]
constant pi, 3.141
density, lbm/ft3 P P
[kg/m3] P P
o R density of oil, lbm/ft3 P P
[kg/m3] P P
s R density of dry steam, lbm/ft3 P P
[kg/m3] P P
w R R density of water, lbm/ft3 P P
[kg/m3] P P
s R R steam specific volume, ft3/lbm

P P
[m3/kg] P P
Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
Avg. Average
bbl Barrel
BVI Bound volume fraction
CMG Computer Modeling Group
CNL Compensated Neutron Log
CPI Computer Processed Interpretation
DL Differential Liberation
XVII
EOR Enhance Oil Recovery
EOS Equation of state
FDC Formation Density Compensated
FVF Formation Volume Factor
FZI Flow Zone Indicator
GOR Gas-Oil Ratio scf/ stb
GR Gamma ray log API unit
GRC Corrected Gamma-Ray Log
HFU Hydraulic Flow Unit
ILD Resestivity from deep induction log
MID Matrix Identification
MLL Micro Laterolog
OOIP Original Oil in Place
PHIE Effective porosity
PHIN Porosity-Derived Neutron
PHINC Corrected Porosity-Derived Neutron
PR Peng-Robinson
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature
RF Recovery Factor.
RHOB Bulk density
RLLD Deep Induction Resistivity
RLLDC Corrected Deep Induction Resistivity
RLLS Microlaterlog Resistivity
RLLSC Corrected Resistivity Microlaterlog
RMSF Short Normal Resistivity
RMSFC Corrected Short Normal Resistivity
RQI Reservoir quality index
XVIII
scf Standard cubic foot
SEOR Steam Enhance Oil Recovery
SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers
SRK Soave-Redlich-Kwong
STARS Steam And Additives Thermal Reservoir Simulator
stb Stock tank barrel
W.C Water Cut.
XIX
Chapter one Introduction
Chapter one
Introduction
1.1 Preface
U
The total world oil resources are estimated to be around 9 13 trillion barrels
and heavy oil accounts for 15 percent. As the production of conventional oil
declines, recovering heavy oil becomes more important. Unfortunately, the
primary recovery of heavy oil is extremely low, in the range of 5 to 15 percent,
because of the high viscosity and low mobility of oil.1 Heavy oil recovery is further
P P
complicated by the presence of underlying water. Due to a high water/oil mobility

ratio (M >> 1) and a small density difference between oil and water, water coning
and cresting may lead to early water breakthrough and rapidly increase water cuts
to nearly 100 percent.2 These factors lead to a low ultimate recovery within a range
P P
of 1 5 percent.3 P
In Iraq, there are several heavy oil reservoirs whose importance is growing as
the conventional resources depleting. Heavy oil is defined as oil which its API
22.3, and when API 10 API known as extra heavy, ultra heavy or super heavy
because they are denser than water. While oil density is important for evaluating
resource value and estimating refining output and costs, the fluid property that
most affects productivity and recovery is oil viscosity. The more viscous oil, the
more difficult it is to produce, there is no standard relationship between density
and viscosity, but "heavy " and "viscous" tend to be used interchangeably to
describe heavy oils, because heavy oils tend be more viscous than conventional
oils. Conventional oil viscosity may range from 1 cp to about 10 cp. Viscosity of
heavy and extra heavy oils may range from less than 20 cp to more 1,000,000 cp.
1
The most viscous hydrocarbon, bitumen, is a solid at room temperature, and

softens readily when heated.1 P P
Thermal techniques aim at reducing oil viscosity in order to increase its

mobility through the application of heat. A 400oF temperature reduces the viscosity
P P
of most heavy oils to about 1 cp. This is accomplished either by fluid injection or
by underground combustion.4 P
Cyclic steam stimulation is basically a single well operation although sooner or

later, communication between the wells develops and the process becomes very
complex. Steam is injected in to a well at high rate short time, following which the
well may be shut in for a few days for heat distribution. After that, the well is
allowed to flow or pumped. The oil rate increase rapidly to a high value, and stay
at an economic level for months, when the rate becomes uneconomic, the whole
process is repeated. This is the most successful EOR method, and is usually the
first stage in steam flood development. It is the only economic oil recovery method
in the tar sand of Canada and the California coast.4 Qayarah field has been chosen
P P
in this study as a heavy oil field because oil viscosity of this field is about 143 cp at
reservoir condition.
1.2- Brief Description of The Qayarah Field:

U
The Qayarah oil Field is located in the northern part of Iraq, 50 kilometers to
the south-east of Mosul city. The field discovered in 1928 by well Qy(1) the other
well developed to date 1990. It corresponds to a long and narrow anticline, nearly
symmetrical, oriented north-west to south-east with flank dips about 6 to 10
degree: 16 kilometers long and only 4.5 kilometers width, Figure (1.1) illustrates
the location of this field. The lower Miocene reservoir is about 160 m thick,
divided into three formations: Jeribe formation at the top, Euphrates formation at
the bottom, these two reservoir formations being separated by the more or less
2
gypsiferous Dhiban formation. The oil in place was estimated at 4.1 billions of
STB. The total production from Qayarah field 37.6 MMSTB the majority of this
has been from the southeast part of the field. During 1956 to 1978 only well QY 37
and Qy38 were in production these two wells alone account for 29%of the total
production.5 P
1.3- Objective of the study

U
This study was suggested by Ministry of Oil / Reservoirs and Fields Directorate
.The objective of this study could be summarized by following:
1. Formation evaluation of well Qy 55.
2. STARS PVT model using Winprop simulator for Qayarah field.
3. Single well model using CMG STARS simulator for Qayarah field.
4. Evaluate Qayarah oil field Euphrates formation under one of the thermal
recovery methods. Cyclic steam injection method has been chosen to
develop single well simulation model.
5. Comparing the results of model for primary production and cyclic steam
stimulation method.
6. Analyzing the model for several parameters that effective in cyclic steam
stimulation process.
3
Fig. (1.1) Location Map of the Qayarah Field.
4
Chapter Two Literature Review and
theoretical background
Chapter Two
Literature Review and Theoretical Background
This chapter divides in to section the first deals with literature review and
history of cyclic steam stimulation (CSS). The second section explains the
theoretical background and the models that used in (CSS) calculations.
2.1-Literature Review
Shell Company discovered the process of steam stimulation by accident

in Venezuela when it was producing heavy crude by steam flooding in the
Mene Grande field near the eastern shore of Lake Maracaibo. During the
flood, a breakthrough of steam to the surface of the ground occurred and, in
order to reduce the steam pressure in the reservoir, the injection well was
allowed to flow back. Copious quantities of oil were produced; from this
accidental discovery in 1959 (reported by de Haan and van Lookeren 1969)
came the steam stimulation process, which also goes by the name of steam
soak and huff and puff' There was a very rapid growth in the use of steam
stimulation in the next decade particularly in California. By 1967 there were
408 steam generators in use in California producing about 120000 B/d of
oil.6
In this process, steam is injected under high pressure and temperature.
The high injection pressure dilates or fractures the reservoir rock and the
high temperature helps to reduce oil viscosity. The cyclical injection takes
place in three stages: Stage 1, injection time: Steam is injected in a well, for
a certain period of time (days or weeks). Stage 2, soaking time: After the
5
injection period, the well is closed for some days to equalize pressure and
exchange heat. Stage 3, production time: The same well used for steam
injection is used to produce heated oil. At the beginning, oil is produced at
high rates, which eventually begin to rapidly decrease. Figure (2.1) shows
the processes of the cyclic steam stimulation. The cycle can be repeated
several times, whilst still economically viable. This process has as main
advantage the fast return during early production. However oil recovery can
be as low as 10 or 20% of the original oil volume. This process can use
horizontal and vertical wells, depending on the reservoir thickness.7
Figure (2.1): The processes of the cyclic steam stimulation.8
The cyclical steam injection has been used in several oil fields with success,
like in Alberta, Canada, where oil viscosity is about 100.000 cp. In heavy oil
6
fields of Venezuela and Brazil this thermal recovery method has also been
used with success. In California, it was used as a first stage before
continuous steam injection. Recently, this technology has also been used in
horizontal wells, mainly in Venezuela and in Alberta (Canada).7
Dominant mechanisms in heat transfer are: conduction and forced
convection during injection, conduction and a minimum convection effect
during the soaking period, and counter current of convection-conduction
during the production period.6
A significant characteristic of steam stimulation is that the injected heat is
concentrated close to the well, where the flow lines converge and the
pressure gradients are highest. Steam stimulation tends, inherently, to place
the heat where it will make the best benefit. The largest difference among
the stimulation in cyclical steam injection and the conventional continuous
steam injection is that, in cyclical stimulation, the displaced oil becomes and
remains warm as it flows to the producing well, whilst in conventional
continuous injection oil should pass through colder areas of the reservoir. It
is important to highlight that in cyclical steam injection the reservoir can
contain such viscous oil that can be considered solid. The steam role is to
dissolve that solid and to allow it to flow through the reservoir. One of the
operational conditions in that process is related to the steam required to
increase the reservoir temperature to a certain level, taking into account the
heat losses.9
In some point of the cyclical steam injection process, there should be an
effective driving force to displace the oil to the producing well. If the oil
already has substantial mobility and can be produced by conventional
means, without steam at considerable rates, then the same push drive or
7
reservoir pressure can transport oil to the producing well. The initial flow is
faster than in conventional steam process production because of resistance.
When cold oil is initially immobile or almost immobile, the reservoir
pressure is inadequate to the displacement of the oil to the producing well in
a practical rate and, in that case, other driving forces are required. The
soaking time after steam injection can vary from a few days to weeks. There
are different opinions regarding optimization of the soaking time. In some
cases, mechanical and operational considerations will favor a short closing
time in the steam injection.9
The treated well is then put in production and should produce by natural
lifting, with its own reservoir energy, during days. This is desirable, because
the imposed bottom well pressure tends to prevent water flashing at high
temperatures. In the following period, the well will have to be pumped. In
some cases, sand control becomes the main operational problem.
The response for a cyclic steam injection varies considerably with the
reservoir characteristics. As an example, for highly tilted and thick
California reservoirs, gravity drainage is dominant and many cycles are
possible, since less viscous, warm oil continue to flow down in the direction
of the producing well.9
Regardless of the reservoir type, the cyclic injection becomes usually less
efficient with increasing number of cycles. This fact is evident in several
production statistics. The average and maximum rates as long as total oil
recovery decrease in the last cycles.10
Researches on similar studies in carbonate heavy oil reservoirs and
successful cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) applications were first carried
out. Two types analogs were the thermal EOR projects in carbonate heavy
8
oil reservoirs and were considered successful CSS operations. Eight analogs
were selected for thermal EOR in carbonate heavy oil reservoir Table (2.1) .
Six other analogs were studied for understanding drive mechanisms as well
as steam quality in CSS applications (Table 2.2). Literature suggested that
viscous oils trapped in carbonate reservoir constituted tremendous
resources. To develop these resources, the industry as a whole faces many
challenges.11P
The application of CSS in carbonate heavy oil reservoirs can

increase oil recovery through a combination of viscosity reduction, thermal
expansion, distillation, capillary imbibition, solution gas drive, CO2
generation, and gravity drainage.12 Mateo suggested that steam distillation,
P P
solution gas drive, capillary imbibition and thermal expansion were the
major drive forces in a fractured carbonate reservoir during steam
injection. 13 Macaulay et al, postulated a number of recovery mechanisms
P P
for the Qarn Alam field, including thermal expansion, gas oil gravity
14
drainage (GOGD), distillation/stripping and wettability reversal. P
P
One technical issue discussed in the literature was wettability reversal.

Macaulay et al, stated experimental work on Qarn Alam field observed the
P
P
rock wettability might change from oil-wet to water-wet at a temperature

14
between 150 to 200 oC. In a summary of literature review, Swapan
P
P
concluded that the wettability of the carbonate rock will be altered at

12
high temperature operation in CSS or SAGD. P
Swapan stated that mechanical strength of the carbonate rock may be

12
significantly impacted by flooding or thermal process. P
P
However, analyses
of previous injection history supported that the geomechanical problems did
9
14
not have much influence on the process in Qarn Alam and Lacq field. The
field injection history suggested that in general, permeability was not
affected dramatically in these cases.14,15 For the Oudeh field in Syria
Shiranish reservoir CSS pilot the steam injection pressure was lower than
the formation fracture pressure and the cap rock of Shiranish reservoir is
also very thick. Based on these observations, the complex geomechanical
effect, like dilation/recompaction model, was not incorporated in the
Shiranish CSS simulation. The injection pressure and thermal expansion
were believed not to make cap rock failure in steam injection process.11
One main parameter in a deep steam injection process was the amount
of heat that can be effectively delivered into the formation. This parameter
is directly linked to the pressure, temperature and steam quality at the
bottom of the hole. A major disadvantage of hot water injection, compared
to steam, is that steam is far more efficient in delivering heat to reservoir
than hot water.16
Steam injection rate controls steam quality and the amount of energy
delivered to the reservoir. Injection rate also affects the balance of viscous
to gravitational forces and the temperature distribution in the formation.11
Heat transfer models were also reviewed. Heat transfer by
conduction and convection are involved in a CSS process. Heat loss in the
wellbore and to the over- and under-burdens is through conduction.
Convective and conductive heat transfers contribute to formation heating in
the injection and soak period. Heat is also lost through produced fluids
during the production period.11
10
Table (2.1): Analogs for Thermal EOR in carbonate heavy oil reservoirs. 11
Table (2.2): Analogs for the success CSS applications. 11
11
2.2-Theoretical Background
2.2.1- Steam Injection

The most common method used to enhance oil production over primary rates
is water injection, commonly referred to as secondary oil recovery. Common
practice in the industry is to refer to all other methods as tertiary enhanced
oil recovery. According to Prats,17 thermal enhanced oil recovery (TEOR) is
a family of tertiary processes defined as any process in which heat is
introduced intentionally into a subsurface accumulation of organic
compounds for the purpose of recovering fuels through wells. By far, the
most common vehicle used to inject heat is saturated steam. Hot water and
heated gasses have been tried, but none are as effective as quality steam.
According to a 2000 Oil and Gas Journal survey, steam enhanced oil
recovery projects account for 417,675 barrels of oil per day (BOPD), or 56%
of the total for all tertiary enhanced recovery methods. That production rate
has been essentially flat for more than 15 years. Hydrocarbon gas injection
and CO2 gas injection are the only other significant contributors and amount
to only 17% and 24%, respectively. 18
2.2.2- Properties of Saturated Steam.
Like other substances, water can exist in the form of a solid (ice), as a liquid
(water), or as a gas (loosely called steam). SEOR processes are concerned
with the liquid and gas phases, and the change from one phase to the other.
The phase change region, in which water coexists as liquid and gas, is where
our interest lies when considering steam for use in the oil field. The term
steam is an imprecise designation because it refers to a water liquid/gas
system that can exist from 32F to any higher temperature; from 0.1 psia to
12
any higher pressure; and from nearly all liquid to 100% gas. Steam quality
refers to the phase change region of liquid to gas and is defined as:

= ..................................................... (2.1)
+
Where,
: Steam quality.
: mass of vapor, lbm.
: mass of liquid, lbm.
Heat capacity is expressed in units of Btu/(lbm-F). A Btu is defined as

the amount of heat required to raise 1 lbm of water from 60 to 61F. All
liquids and solids are compared to pure water, which has the highest heat
capacity of any substance at 1 Btu/(lbm-F). By calculating a ratio of the
heat capacity of water divided by that of another substance, a convenient
fraction called specific heat is obtained.20
Notice that petroleum has a specific heat of 0.5, or half that of water and
sandstone is only 20% of water on a per pound basis. No other liquid or gas
carries as much heat per pound as water. Also, the temperature range at
which this high heat carrying performance is achieved, 34 to 700F, is ideal
for many processes, including SEOR. 20
Enthalpy is a useful property defined by an arbitrary combination of
other properties and is not a true form of energy. The absolute value of
enthalpy is of no practical value. Changes in enthalpy are extremely useful,
however, and are the basis for SEOR energy calculations. The total enthalpy
held by each pound of liquid water at any temperature is called sensible heat,
h f . The heat input, which produces a change of state from liquid to gas
without a change of temperature, is called the latent heat of evaporation
13
and is shown by h fv . The total heat, h v , in each pound of 100% quality or

saturated steam is the sum of these two, h v = h f + h fv .17
In the phase change or saturation region, steam can only exist at
one temperature for a given pressure regardless of quality or latent heat
content, as shown in Figure (2.2). Steam decrease in specific volume as
pressure increases, as in Figure (2.3).This is a useful property in displacing
oil in an SEOR process. The volume occupied by 1 lbm of steam at any
pressure is its specific volume ( ) in ft3/lbm. Figure (2.4) is a chart of the
phase change region. Equations have been derived that approximate the
values to acceptable accuracy for most SEOR calculations.17
Fig.(2.2):Saturation steam temperature and pressure.17
14
Fig. (2.3): Steam specific volume vs. saturation pressure. 17
Fig. (2.4): Enthalpy of wet steam as a function of saturation pressure,

temperature, and steam quality. 17
15
Simple versions that are accurate to within a few percent in the normal
pressure ranges encountered in SEOR projects are:21
= 116.790.2229 , F; ...................................... (2.2)
443
= 0.02 + ( 0.02), ft3 / lbm; ................................... (2.3)

= 5.06 0.000359 ( 5), lbm / ft3; ...................................... (2.4)

= 910.2574 , Btu / lbm; ..................................... (2.5)
= 1,318 0,0877 , Btu / lbm ; ........................................... (2.6)
= 1,119 0.01267 , Btu / lbm ;
P ............................................ (2.7)
And
1,318
= + 91 0.2574 , Btu / lbm ...................................... (2.8)
0.08774
Where,
: Steam temperature, F.
: Steam pressure, psia.
: Enthalpy of < 100% quality saturated steam, Btu/lbm.
These are recommended for hand calculations or simple analytical

equations. There are more precise versions in the literature, but for most
purposes, Eqs.( 2.2) through (2.8) are more accurate than any other available
information that goes into SEOR calculations and are more than adequate for
most calculations. The more accurate equations are cumbersome and lend
themselves to computer applications. 21
16
2.2.3-Reservoir Heating
The basis for reservoir heat-transfer calculations is traced back to the
published solution22 to a mechanical engineering problem. Marx and
Langenheim23 were the first to publish an adaptation of this solution to an
SEOR process. They assumed that the equations for temperature response in
a thin plate, backed in perfect contact to a semi-infinite solid after sudden
exposure to constant heat input, were analogous to steam injection into an
oil-bearing reservoir. Figure. (2.5) shows the temperature distribution
anticipated in this model. The entire flood zone is at steam temperature
upstream of the steam front, and the reservoir downstream of the steam front
is at initial reservoir temperature. The true temperature profile is much less
defined. Their equation for the heated area, A t , over time, t, is

= ( ) , ft2; ..........................................(2.9)
42
Where,
: Heat injection rate, Btu/D.
: Volumetric heat capacity of the reservoir, Btu/(ft3-F).
: Gross reservoir thickness, ft.
: Thermal diffusivity of reservoir, ft2/D.
2 : Thermal conductivity of surrounding formation, Btu/(ft-D-F).
: Steam temperature/reservoir temperature, T S /T R , F
G(t D ) from the mechanical engineering problem is a function of

dimensionless time, t D .

( ) = + 2 1 ......................................... (2.10)

Where, t D is time of injection, t, multiplied by a few reservoir properties.
17
2
= 4 ............................................ (2.11)
2
Where,
: Volumetric heat capacity of steam zone, Btu/(ft3-F).
: Thermal diffusivity of surrounding formation, ft2/D.
h : Reservoir thickness, ft.
And the complementary error function, erfc(x), is common in heat

conduction calculations. Several publications have tables of values for G(t D )
vs. time, but van Lookeren24 offers a simple equation with sufficient
accuracy for most calculations, which is written as:
1
( ) = ............................................... (2.12)
(1+0.85 )
Other useful relationships derived from the Marx and Langenheim

equations are heat loss to the adjacent formations,

= 2 ( ) ................................................... (2.13)

18
Fig.( 2.5):Temperature profile resulting from convection and conduction

caused by piston displacement of steam (after Marx and Langenheim23).
Rate of heated zone growth,
=
43,560
( ) 2 + 1 ............................. (2.14)
Where,
: Influx water temperature, F.
Heat remaining in the reservoir,
2 2

= ( ) ................................................... (2.15)
4 2
Cumulative heat loss to the adjacent formations,

= ...................................................... (2.16)
And reservoir efficiency or fraction of injected heat remaining in the
reservoir,
19
( )
= = ....................................................... (2.17)

Two constants appear in the equations that need definitions. The First, M R is
the volumetric heat capacity of the composite formation including rock and
fluids.

= (1 ) + + + + (1 + )( +

) ..... (2.18)
Where,
: Volumetric heat capacity of reservoir rocks, Btu/(ft3-F).
: Volumetric heat capacity of oil, Btu/(ft3-F).
: Volumetric heat capacity of water, Btu/(ft3-F).
: Volumetric heat capacity of gas, Btu/(ft3-F).
C w : Isobaric specific heat of water, Btu/(lbm-F).
: Density of dry steam, lbm/ft3.
Note that there are two gas components: inert gas represented by the
volumetric heat capacity, M g , and steam represented by two terms, one
owing to the latent heat of vaporization and one to the sensible heat.
The second, Thermal diffusivity, , is the ratio of the thermal conductivity to
the volumetric heat capacity,26

= ............................................(2.19)

Where,
: thermal conductivity, Btu/(ft-D-F).
C: Isobaric specific heat, Btu/(lbm-F).
:density, lbm/ft3.
Farouq Ali,25 showed it is appropriate to use average values for M and
when the thermal properties of various layers of formation and over/
underburden differ significantly. Ramey,26 and Prats,27 showed that the
20
reservoir heating efficiency, E h , is independent of reservoir and steam zone

geometry. Further the relationships apply to any form of heat transport
(convection, conduction, or even radiation) in the plane of the reservoir and
when the heat transport to adjacent formations is three-dimensional (3D).
2.2.4- Steam Zone Growth

Reservoir heating by steam injection translates into the formation of a swept
zone of some shape and an oil bank consisting of a migrating zone
containing the displaced oil. Two general concepts have been proposed to
describe this process.26
2.2.4.1- Viscous Displacement.

This is an extension of early water flooding concepts in which the
displacement front is considered to be an advancing vertical front, the plane
of which is normal to the bedding plane and extending vertically from the
top to the bottom of a homogeneous flow section. Displacement of oil in this
model is piston-like and is directly proportional to injection rate.25
Mandl and Volek,28 followed by a slight modification by Myhill and
Stegemeier,29 contributed the concept of a critical time beyond which the
vapor front stagnates and heat is carried only by hot water traveling through
the condensation front. Dimensionless critical time, t cD , is defined by:
1 ................................................... (2.20)
Where f hv is the fraction of heat injected as latent heat.
21
1
1+
= ...................................................... (2.21)

And f s and h fv are at reservoir conditions.

1 ( )
= ( ) + (1 ) 2 2(1 )

0 ( ) ................................................ (2.22)

The Marx and Langenheim equation Eq. (2.10) is an upper bound to Eq.
(2.22), as shown in Figure. (2.6).
Fig.( 2.6):Fraction of injected steam remaining in steam zone.28
2.2.4.2 -Bypass Displacement.

These models address the severe buoyancy forces that pertain when steam
vapor, a gas, is injected into a liquid filled reservoir. In bypass models, the
fronts are not vertical; the steam migrates quickly to the top of the reservoir.
22
Van Lookeren24 describes the severity of this override with a buoyancy

factor.
0.5
= ( )2 .........................................(2.23)

Average steam zone thickness is

0.5 ......................................... (2.24)
The shape of the steam zone is described by

0.5
2
ln 0.5 + 0.5 2 ................................ (2.25)

Note that steam zone thickness is not dependent on net zone thickness in
Eqs. (2.24) and (2.25).
Neuman30 addresses the bypass or steam override concept by basically
assuming that injected steam quickly rises to the top of the zone and spreads
out evenly. Thickness of the steam zone, h s , is related to
4()
= ..(2.26)

2.2.5- Cyclic Steam Stimulation Design
Prats18 defines stimulation as any operation (not involving perforating or

recompleting) carried out with the intent of increasing the post-treatment
production rate without changing the driving forces in the reservoir.
Periodic injection of steam into a producing well, alternating with a
production cycle, has many features of this definition but also has many
features that distinguish it as a true enhanced recovery mechanism. The
23
primary benefit of the process is true stimulationnear wellbore reduction

of flow resistance, viscosity reduction. However, there are EOR benefits of
high-temperature gas dissolution, wetability changes, and relative
permeability hysteresis (water flows into the reservoir easier than it flows
out). Fortunately, calculating the temperature history of the wellbore,
tracking the water/oil saturation history and the oil viscosity reduction is
adequate to estimate the oil production response to the process.18
2.2.6- Design Calculations

Steamflood design is simple compared to cyclic steam stimulation
(CSS) design. Whereas steamflood reaches equilibrium and can be
represented by a set of steady-state equations for much of its life, the CSS
process is one of constantly changing conditions. First there is the injection
phase, which is relatively so short that it is a total transition period. Then
during the soaking period, steam vapor condenses and temperature begins to
fall. The producing period is in a constant state of flux as testified by the
constantly changing producing rates. Relative permeability curves, which
can typically be ignored in steamflood calculations, become very important
to CSS.18
In spite of these problems, there are several desktop calculations that give a
good representation of what can be expected from CSS. Probably the
simplest representation of the process is by Owens and Suter,31

= ............................................................. (2.27)

24
This simply indicates the productivity ratio resulting from steam

temperature-induced oil-viscosity reduction. No attempt was made to
calculate how the reservoir got the peak temperature, but once the well is
steamed and placed on production, the authors propose that the operator can
simply watch leadline temperature and accurately predict the production
history of the production period prior to the next cycle.
2.2.6.1- Boberg and Lantz Method. 32

The referenced paper describes the definitive work that serves as the
basis of virtually all subsequent analytical analyses of CSS. They first
calculate the reservoir temperature distribution resulting during the injection
period. Eq. (2.9) is used to calculate the area of the processed zone that is
heated to Ti. Then, the well is placed on production and temperature of the
heated volume, which is assumed to remain constant and begins to fall by
conduction to the surrounding cold reservoir rock and by hot fluid
production. The average temperature in the hot zone is
= + 1 ...................................... (2.28)
Where f Vr and f Vz are unit solutions of component conduction in the radial
and vertical directions, respectively from:
(ln +4.6)2
= 0.92 13.5 ....................................... (2.29)
And
(ln +4.4)2
= 0.96 27 ....................................... (2.30)
The term f pD accounts for heat removed with produced fluids.

25
1
= ....................................(2.31)
2 0
And

= 5.615 + + + + (103 )

.... (2.32)
The subscript, h, indicates that the properties should be for fluids from the
hot zone at the sand face. The model does not predict steam, gas, or water
producing rates, which must be estimated from some other source. Oil
production rates are calculated by :32

= .......................................................(2.33)

And
1
=( ................................................... (2.34)
)1 +2
F1 and F2 are radial flow factors for which Boberg and Lantz give
expressions in Table (2.3).
26
Table (2.3) Boberg And Lantz Radial Flow Factors. 32
2.2.6.2-Towson and Boberg Model. 33

The Boberg and Lantz method assumes that there is significant reservoir
energy to produce oil under primary conditions. Because many CSS
candidates have only gravity forces and initial viscosity is high, there is no
significant primary production. Many California reservoirs have free liquid
surfaces in the oil zones with a gas oil interface at atmospheric pressure.
Towson and Boberg extended the former work to cover this situation. Eq.
(2.28) is used to calculate the heated zone temperature from which oil
viscosity is estimated. Then, gravity drainage oil rate may be calculated.
2 2)
(1.127) (
= 1 ....................................... (2.35)
(ln )
2
h h must be computed for each time step during the production cycle by first
calculating the average hot-zone fluid level.
(5.615)
= 2 2 )( ) ......................................... (2.36)
(
27
Now the fluid level at the heated zone radius is
=
1 1 2 1
4 (ln ) 16( )2 ln 2 8( )2 ln

2 2 2
(2.37)
2.2.6.3- Jones Method. 34
Jones took a similar approach to Towson and Boberg33 in calculating oil
rates as a function of gravity forces alone. He extended the model by also
calculating heated-zone water rate. Information on relative permeability is
necessary to accomplish this. Further, recognizing that Towson and Boberg
and other similar models commonly over-predict oil production, he limited
the vertical size of the zone that is invaded with steam using a version of Eq.
(2.24). This phenomenon is easily demonstrated by running a downhole
temperature survey following a steam cycle. Then, because cold oil sand is
still exposed in the wellbore, another set of equations similar to Eq. (2.35) is
used to calculate oil and water from the cold zone. Using this modification,
fluid rates can be matched quite well without need of a scaling factor to
reduce predicted oil rates to realistic levels.
A convenient parameter to track, when trying to history-match a field steam
cycle with this model, is produced fluid temperature that represents a
combination of cold/hot oil and water.
( + )+ ( + )
= ( + ) +( + )
......................... (2.38)
28
This method does not lend itself to hand calculation and should be
programmed on a computer. Because steam only enters a small fraction of
the sandface in a thick interval as in California oil fields, there is opportunity
to improve performance of a steam cycle by using packers or other methods
to divert steam into more of the oil zone.
2.2.7- Process Optimization

There are always the operational questions of how much steam should be
injected during a cycle; what rate should steam be injected; when should a
well be resteamed; etc. Jones34 reported the results of the use of the model
previously described to history-match a massive 20-year, 1,500-well cyclic
steam project in the Potter Sand in the Midway Sunset field, California. He
then used the history-match information to do a long-life parametric study of
the process. Table (2.4) lists the conclusions for this particular application.
This is, however, not a common practice. There are so many variables that
the results from a single well or even a small group of wells cannot be used
for a meaningful history match. Further, cyclic steam is easy to apply in the
field and is relatively inexpensive, so most operators simply start
immediately with a field trial. Very little is published on optimizing CSS.
29
Table (2.4): Optimizing cyclic steam stimulation parameters for selected

project using the Jones model. 34
It is generally true of CSS that soak time should be as short as possible and
that steam quality should be as high as possible. Further, efforts should be
made to divert steam out of depleted zones and gas caps and into as much
good oil-saturated sand as possible.34
There are generally two reasons to apply CSS. First, there is the obvious
stimulation of economic oil production immediately from the well. Second,
because of the time delay in oil response from the initiation of steam
injection into a continuous steam injector in a steam flood project, CSS
concentrated in the steam flood zone is often used to accelerate project
response.34
30
Chapter three Technical approach
Chapter Three
Technical Approach
3.1- Well Log Analyses And Interpretations

This section deals with the interpretation of well logs. As a first step, the
available logs scanned and digitized. The Didger Software Package 3.03 was used
for the digitization of the logs. One reading per 0.25m depth selected for recording
the input data measurements, which used in this study. This step followed by
checking the digitization results and carrying environmental corrections to the log
readings.
The interpretations were made using Interactive Petrophysics Program
v3.5. It was found that the differences between the original logs readings and
the corrected logs readings of resistivity logs were negligible. Negligible
differences between the original and corrected recordings of the gamma ray and
density, the neutron log gave relatively small difference between the corrected
and the original logs.
Accordingly, the corrected log sets used as input data to evaluate the
carbonate rocks (Euphrates Formation) for the well under study. The pre-
interpretation also includes the determination of effective porosity corrected to
shale effects and all the parameters that are required in the interpretation
processes.
Well Qy (55) has full set logs data that were chosen in this study to evaluate
Euphrates formation from (245 m) to (340 m). The core data (porosity and
permeability) and well log measurements allocated to match the depth intervals
31
for the geological units to construct the data tables for correlation purposes.
3.1.1 Resistivity Interpretation
The resistivity of a formation far enough from the borehole Rt used for the
determination of Sw in the Archie saturation model. The resistivity of the
flushed zone near the borehole Rxo may also be used to obtain the saturation in
the flushed zone Sxo to indicate residual saturation or hydrocarbon movability. 36
The flushed zone resistivity Rxo can be measured directly with

microtools. Under favorable conditions, the focused deep-reading tools [the
laterolog (LLD) and the deep induction (ILD)] may give measurements very
close to (Rt) even without correction because they have the largest depths of
investigation in most conditions.40 However, to obtain accurate values, correction

for the skin effect must be made. The correction is made automatically in modern
sondes.35
An Interactive Petropysics programs v.3.5 were use to carry out
environmental corrections including hole-size, mud cake and invasion effects that
conform to the Schlumberger requirements for the application of equations above.
Figure (3.1) show environmental corrections for well Qy (55).The diameter
of invasion ranged, for most levels between 20 in to 60 in. This is considered
shallow to intermediate invasion. It can be observed that the differences
between the original logs readings (RLLD, RLLS and RMSF) and the corrected logs
readings (RLLDC, RLLSC and RMSFC) were negligible.
32
Scale : 1 : 500 w55

DB : QY IP (2) DEPTH (245.M - 340.M) 7/22/2013 12:11
1 2 3 4 5
CALI (inch) DEPTH RLLDC (ohm.m) RLLSC (ohm.m) RMSFLC (ohm.m)
6. 16. (M) 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
Di (inch) RLLD (ohm.m) RLLS (ohm.m) RMSF (ohm.m)
0. 100. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000. 0.2 2000.
250
300
Fig. (3.1): Environment corrections for all resistivity tools.
3.1.2- The Gamma Ray Log

The gamma ray log measures the natural radioactivity of the formation. The
log is therefore, useful in detecting and evaluating deposits of radioactive minerals
such as potash or uranium ores.39
In sedimentary formations, the gamma ray log normally reflects the shale
content of the formations. This is because the radioactive elements tend to
33
concentrate in clays and shales.38 Thus, as shale content increases the gamma ray
log response increases also.39
The gamma ray deflection is a function not only of the radioactivity and
density of the formations, but also of hole conditions (hole-diameter, mud weight,
casingetc.). In the present work, corrections for borehole (caliper log), non-
barite, and open hole were made. The results are presented in Figure (3.2). It may
be noticed, the hole conditions has a little effect on gamma ray reading. To
calculate the shale volume (Vsh) from the gamma ray log, the following equation
was used:35
= 0.038 (23.7 1) .(3.1)

= ....(3.2)

Where,
GR: Gamma ray log reading in zone of interest (API units).
GR cl : Gamma ray reading in clean zone, (API units).
GR sh : Gamma ray reading in shale zone, (API units).
I GR : Gamma ray index.
3.1.3- Determination of Porosity

The total porosity within the Euphrates Formation was determined from the
readings of the combination of Neutron-Density logs. Schlumberger (1974)
proposed an equation to compute the total porosity from neutron and density logs
that may be expressed as: 38, 36
+
= (3.3)
2
In order to determine effective porosity values with greater accuracy,
corrections must be made for shall. The corrections to Neutron and Density
34
readings for the shale effect are made after estimating the shale volume from
gamma ray.
Figure (3.2) shows the gamma, density and neutron, corrections by interactive
petrophysics program for the mud and other contaminants (well radius, and mud
cake density) effects. Small differences between the original and corrected
recordings of the gamma ray may be noticed. These differences may be attributed
to the contamination of the well and the presence of small amount of shales. The
effect is much smaller on the density recordings because the FDC equipment of
Schlumberger makes automatic corrections for the contaminants. The shaliness has
a greater effect on the neutron recordings and reflects a greater porosity values in
front of clay layers. This is because neutron equipment responds to all hydrogen
ions present in the formation and since water is presents in the clay minerals
structures, the concentration of hydrogen will increase which ultimately increases
the values of the neutron log recordings.
35
Scale : 1 : 500 w55

DB : QY IP (2) DEPTH (245.M - 340.M) 7/22/2013 15:48
1 2 3 4
DEPTH GR (API) ROHB (G/cc) NBHI (DEC)

(M) 0. 150. 1.95 2.95 -0.15 0.45
GrC (API) RHOC (G/cc) NPHIC (DEC)
0. 150. 1.95 2.95 -0.15 0.45
250
300
Fig. (3.2): The gamma, density and neutron corrections results of well QY55
(245m-340m).
36
3.1.4- Determination of Lithology and Mineralogy
3.1.4.1- The Matrix Identification (MID) Plot

Identifications of lithology can be made by use of the MID (matrix
identification) plot. Determination of lithology is readily accomplished by
comparison of the apparent lithology values with the apparent density of matrix
maa and apparent transit time in rock matrix tmaa . To use the MID plot, three
logs are required (the sonic, neutron, and density logs). These logs are sensitive
to lithology. The apparent total porosity ta must be determined using the
derived neutron-density. The values of the apparent density of matrix maa
and the apparent transit time tmaa are determined from the following
36
equations:

= ..(3.4)
1

= .(3.5)
1
Where,
maa : apparent density of matrix (gm/cc),
t maa : apparent transit time in rock matrix (sec/ft), and,
: is the apparent total porosity (fraction).
Euphrates Formation lithology was determined by the matrix identifiers
(MID) crossplot (maa and tmaa) as shown in Figure (3.3). It is noted that the
matrix density value range between 2.74-2.98 gm/cc, the matrix velocity range
between 30 s/ft and 55s/ft. This means that all the crossed sections is mainly
dolomite, some dololimestone, anhydrite with little shall and that is inline with the
geological knowledge of the formation.
37
w55
DTMAPP / RHOMAPP
Interval : 245. : 340.
3.1
2.98
2.86
RHOMAPP
Dolom ite
2.74
Calcite
Quartz
2.62
2.5
30. 35.6 41.2 46.8 52.4 58.
DTMAPP
346 points plotted out of 381
Well Depths
(2) w55 245.M - 340.M
Fig.(3.3): The Matrix Identification (MID) Plot maa vs. tmaa
3.1.4.2- (M vs. N) Crossplot for Mineral Identification.

The demonstration procedure of this type of crossplots for mineral
identification was presented by Schlumberger.39 It is a two-dimensional display of
all three porosity log responses in complex reservoir rocks. 36
An (M-N) crossplot can be used for lithology determination, gas detection,
clay minerals classification, etc. Each mineral has unique set of (M, N) values, and
the concept is applicable to binary and ternary minerals models.

= 0.01 (3.6)

38

= ..(3.7)

Where, = 1.0.
From the M-N crossplot that has been prepared using IP program, figure (3.4)
shows no evidence of gas detection in Euphrates formation. It is almost clean from
shale, moreover, a little anhydrite, some dololimestone found. It can be decided
that most of the formation consists of dolomite.
Fig. (3.4): M-N cross plot of Euphrates formation.
39
3.1.5- Determination of Archie parameters using Pickett's method

Archie coefficients or parameters, which are sensitive to pore type, should be
determined in order to apply Archies equation. Uncertainty regarding the values
of these coefficients causes many errors in saturation evaluation especially in the
determination of the volume of oil in place. The cementation exponent (m) is the
main factor, which causes error in determining saturation.43
Classic petrophysics holds that Archie's parameters (a, m, and n) are constants
for a given sample of a reservoir rock. This presumed constancy formulates the
basis for the determination of hydrocarbon saturation from resistivity
measurements for a particular lithology. An increasing number of cases are being
encountered where the saturation exponent (n) has been observed to vary from the
common value of 2. 43
Pickett's (1966) suggested a method that depends on a crossplot of
Resistivity vs. porosity to calculate (m) and/or (a) from well logs. The following
logic describes this method. According to Pickett (1966):44
a Rw
Rt = (3.8)
m S wn
Where,
Sw: Water saturation (fraction),
R w : Water resistivity (ohm-m),
R t : Formation resistivity (ohm-m), and,
a, n, and m: Archies parameters (dimensionless).
The logarithm of both sides of Eq. (3.8) yields:

log R t = m log + log a R w n log S w .. (3.9)
In a water-bearing zone S w = 1, thus Eq. (3.9) may be reduced to:

log R t = m log + log a R w (3.10)
40
Equation (3.10) is an equation of a straight line on log-log plot, where m is

the slope and (a.Rw) is the intercept at =1. As Rw is known from other sources,
(a) may easily found.
Figure (3.5) show the Pickett's plot for Euphrates formation and calculated
Archie's parameters (a, m, and n) are (1, 1.99, 2) respectively and R wa =0.333 ohm.
w55
Rt / PHIE
Interval : 245. : 340.
1.
0.5
0.2
PHIE
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.3
0.5
0.02
0.01
1. 10. 100. 1000.
Rt
376 points plotted out of 381
Parameter : Rw : 0.333
Parameter : Rw Form Temp : 0.333
Parameter : m exponent : 1.99
Parameter : n exponent : 2.
Parameter : a factor : 1.
Well Depths
(2) w55 245.M - 340.M
Fig.(3.5): Pickett's plot for well Qy(55) Euphrates formation.

41
3.1.6- Fluid and Formation Analysis

3.1.6.1- Water and Hydrocarbon Saturations Determination
Porosity and fluid saturation are among the most important reservoir properties
used in the reserve estimation of oil and gas. Because of the heterogeneity of most
reservoirs, continuous recording of these properties vs. depth is essential for
accurate evaluations. Since a complete coring and core analysis of the entire pay
zone is impractical, well logging appears to be the most plausible mean to obtain
such information. To achieve this task, different logs including resistivity, acoustic
and radioactive logs are recorded in the well and well log interpretation is used to
obtain the required properties.39
Fluid saturation is estimated from resistivity measurement by using Archie
equation which relates the resistivity of the information to porosity, water
saturation, and resistivity of the formation water by Eq. (3.8) which may be re-
expressed as: 37
1
aR n
Sw = m w
Rt ........................................... (3.11)
Equation (3.13) could be used to estimate the saturation in the original zone
or in the flushed zone, taht is the saturation needed to determine the original
hydrocarbon in place.39 When Eq. (3.11) is used with micro-resistivity logs it gives
the value of the aqueous phase saturation in the flushed zone, which is composed
mainly of mud filtrate R mf . The resistivity of this zone is usually denoted by R xo ,
Eq. (3.11) can be take the following form: 35
42
1
aR n
S xo = m mf
Rxo . (3.12)
Where,
S xo : Saturation in the flushed zone, fraction.
The saturation in the flushed zone which is obtained from Eq. (3.12) can be
used to estimate the residual oil saturation and the movable hydrocarbon
saturation; depending on coefficients (m, n and a) from the Pickett's plot which are
given Fig.(3.6).
The residual oil saturation [.(1-Sxo)] and movable hydrocarbon [.(Sxo-Sw)] are
calculated from the following equations: 41
S or = [(1-S xo )] .(3.13)
S hr = [ (S xo -S w )] ... (3.14)
Where,
S or : Residual oil saturation, fraction; and,
S hr : Movable hydrocarbon saturation, fraction.
3.1.6.2- Formation Analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis)

From the matrix identifiers and lithology crossplot, the matrix density has a
ranged between (2.75-2.95 gm/cc). This means that all the crossed sections consist
mainly of dolomite with some dololimestone, anhydrite and little shale. That
highly fits the geological knowledge for the crossed formations.
The formation analysis results for Qy well (55) is given in Figure (3.6), in the
bulk volume analysis track respectively. This figure represents Computer
Processed Interpretation (CPI), depict as composite the followings:
43
1. Bulk volume analysis is divided in to effective porosity ( e ), percentage of

shale (V sh ), and percentage of non-shale matrix (V matrix ).
2. Porosity analysis track, which is divided in to effective porosity ( e ), water
filled porosity in the invaded zone ( e .S xo ), and water filled porosity in the
un-invaded zone ( e .S w ). The area between ( e .S xo ) and ( e .Sw) represents
the movable hydrocarbon, but the area between ( e ) and ( e .S w ) represents
the total hydrocarbon.
The above-mentioned figures show the water and hydrocarbon saturation
(porosity analysis track), and formation analysis (Bulk volume track). It may be
observed that the shale volume is small in most wells under study. It varies from
0% to 28% in well Qy(55) as a maximum reading. I could be observed that water
saturation in Lower Euphrates greater by about 22.5% than Upper Euphrates. Also
movable and residual hydrocarbon in upper Euphrates is greater than lower
Euphrates.
44
Fig.(3.6): Fluid and formation analyses of the well Qy(55) Euphrates formation.
45
3.2-Calculate Permeability by Flow Zone Indicator Method

The term flow unit is used to designate a co-relatable and map-able zone of
appreciable lateral extension within a reservoir, which controls fluid flow and
have practically similar reservoir properties that differ significantly from
those of adjacent layers. Each flow unit is characterized by a flow zone
indicator (FZI). Thus, with the use of flow zone indicator and identification of flow
units, reservoir zonation can be employed for evaluating the reservoir quality
on the bases of porosity-permeability relationships. 45
Several authors [Amaefule et al., (1993); Mortensen et al., (1998); Prasad,
(2003); Fabricius et al., (2007)]46 showed that, for the same porosity, rocks
permeability could vary in several orders of magnitude depending on type of rock,
depositional environment, and digenetic process.
Rock types are defined as the units of rock deposited under similar
conditions, which experienced similar digenetic processing resulting in a unique
porosity-permeability relationship.48
The Flow zone indicator is a function of reservoir quality index and void
47
ratio, and can be determined from the following equations:

= 0.0314

(3.15)

=

... (3.16)

=

(3.17)
log(RQI) = log(FZI) + log(z ) ... (3.18)
46
Where,
K: permeability (md),
FZI: Flow Zone Indicator (m),
RQI: Reservoir quality index (m),
z : Normalized Porosity (pore volume to grain volume) (fraction),
e : Effective porosity (fraction).
Equations (3.17) through (3.18) are used to compute the functions for
preparing a log-log plot of RQI versus z for Euphrates formation. The data that
have similar FZI values fall on a straight line (of the same slope); and all data on
the same straight line could be considered to have similar pore throat attributes (the
same hydraulic unit) governing the flow. The permeability could be computed for
those points on the same straight line (with same FZI) using the equation:47
2 3
= 1014 2
(1 )
.(3.19)
Figure (3.7) shows a cross plot for the logarithm of permeability vs. porosity
data obtained from core analyses. The high scattering in pore throat sizes indicates
large variations in particle size and sorting within each rock type, that in turn
control permeability.
47
10000 y = 3.1349e20.567x
R = 0.7872
y = 0.401e18.297x
1000 R = 0.7236
y = 0.0256e20.288x
100 R = 0.855
FZI=0
k (md)
FZI=1,2
10
FZI=3,11
Expon. (FZI=0)
1
Expon. (FZI=1,2)
Expon. (FZI=3,11)
0.1
0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(fraction )
Fig.(3.7): Cross plot of core permeability vs. core porosity with Flow Zone
Indicator for Euphrates formation.
Figure (3.8) shows cross plot for logarithm of reservoir quality index (RQI)
versus logarithm of normalized porosity ( Z ) for various values of Flow Zone
Indicator (FZI). All data points that fall on the same (FZI) straight line can be
considered to have similar pore throat attributes (i.e., they represent the same
hydraulic unit). Figure (3.8) shows the existences of five hydraulic units within the
cored interval of Euphrates formation. Each of these subunits is characterized by a
certain average FZI value.
48
10
1
RQI(m)
FZI=0
0.1
FZI=1
FZI=2
FZI=3
FZI=4 to 11
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
z (fraction )
Fig.(3.8): Cross plot for logarithm RQI versus logarithm Z with Flow Zone
Indicator (FZI) for Euphrates formation.
There are three equations show in figure (3.7) govern the relationship between
permeability and porosity to compute the permeability for well Qy (55), using
these equations in cored sections and uncored sections. The results were show in
figure (3.9). A good agreement exists between K calculated and K core.
49
k md
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
240
250
260
270
280
kcore
depth m
k pred.
290
300
310
320
330
340
Fig.(3.9):K-core and K-Calculated vs. depth well Qy(55) Euphrates

formation.
50
3.3 -Euphrates Formation Zoning and Averaging

Euphrates formation can be divided mainly in two zones depending on CPI
analysis the first zone is upper Euphrates(50 m) and the second zone is lower
Euphrates (45m ). These two zones could divided in to eleven subzones then take
arithmetic average for the porosity and water saturation and harmonic average for
permeability.
Rock type criteria used in the study adopted from Franlab company study.5
Table (3.1) Show Euphrates formation subzones in well Qy (55) and average
petrophysical properties which would be used in the simulation study.
Table (3.1) average petrophysical properties for Euphrates formation well Qy (55).
layer No. Tops( m) Thick( m) K (md) phi avg. SW avg. Rock type
1 245 7 23.9508 0.20 0.12 2
2 252 20.25 487.664 0.25 0.14 3
3 272.3 7.25 10.2486 0.17 0.22 2
4 279.5 11.5 566.856 0.26 0.11 3
5 291 3.5 17.1428 0.23 0.12 2
6 294.5 4 169.191 0.21 0.18 3
7 298.5 5.5 9.3094 0.29 0.42 1
8 304 11.5 43.0642 0.30 0.40 2
9 315.5 9.5 5.98403 0.28 0.47 1
10 325 6.25 38.2222 0.29 0.51 2
11 331.3 6.75 3.33909 0.24 0.58 1
total 93
3.4- PVT Simulator

The simulator, ("WinProp-2010") of Computer Modeling Group, Ltd. "CMG"
has been adopted to predict reservoir fluid properties for Euphrates formation in
51
Qayarah oil field. This simulator uses two equations of state for the prediction of
different reservoir fluid properties. These are; Soave-Redlich- Kwong Equation of
State & Peng-Robinsons Equation of State and its modifications.49
WinProp could be used to analyze the phase behavior of reservoir gas and oil
systems, and for generate component properties for CMG's Thermal simulator
STARS. WinProp contains a graphical interface allows preparing data, running
phase property calculation engine, viewing output with an editor, and creating plots
with Excel.
3.4.1- Fluid Properties

Qayarah field crude is heavy oil with a stock tank gravity of 15.04API, the
sample was taken from well Qy(39), the main characteristics of reservoir crude oil
are: saturation pressure @43.3 C=18.5 kg/cm2, oil F.V.F. @sp = 1.1068 , Gas/oil
ratio (Diff. Lib.)=15.51 m3/m3, Density @75 kg/cm2 and 43.3 C =0.9176 gm/cc,
viscosity @ 75 kg/cm2 and 43.3 C =92.806 cp, compressibility @ 75 kg/cm2 and
43.3 C=8.258 * 10 -5(kg/ cm2)-1. Table (3.2) shows the fluid composition.50
Table (3.2): Fluid composition
Composition Mole fraction

H2S 0.9
Co2 0.35
C1 4.43
C2 Table(3.2): fluid composition
19.08
C3 5.76
IC4 2.12
NC4 4.5
IC5 3.89
NC5 4
C6+ 54.97
Sum 100
52
3.4.2- PVT Data Used

PVT laboratory sample data of the Qayarah Formation was used in the tuning
of EOS (Peng-Robinson Equations of State). PVT laboratory data include
differential liberation (DL) experiments (GOR, relative oil volume, gas Z factor,
oil SG, gas SG, and oil viscosity) and reservoir fluid composition with Mole
fractions, C6+ density and molecular Weight (Table 3.2). List of experiments and
measured parameters were loaded into the PVT software.
3.4.3 Final PVT Model Processes

Several attempts were made to match all parameters by tuning EOS, but no
match was obtained. Splitting and lumping processes were used to tune or
characterize the EOS to be able to reproduce the PVT experiments. It was a
multistep process started by splitting the heavy components.
Whitson's method uses a six-parameters (2 stages- exponential) to
characterize the molar distribution (mole fraction/molecular weight relation) and
physical properties of petroleum fractions such as hexanes-plus (C6+). This method
used to enhance EOS predictions. 56
In this study, several methods to splitting of C6+ have been tried such as six,
seven, nine and ten pseudo component to achieve good match between measured
and calculated data, but it has been found that splitting of C6+ into the one pseudo
component gave accurate match between the data.
In general, the regression parameters were basically the C6+ pseudo
component critical pressure (Pc), critical temperature (Tc), a centric factor () and
binary interaction coefficients (). The shift parameters of the C6+ pseudo
component were also regressed together; changes within the C6+ fraction were
consistent.
The lumping process consisted of forming new pseudo components from
53
existing components. Then regressions were performed to fine-tune the newly

formed pseudo component EOS properties. This process was repeated a number of
times to select the best grouping at each stage in the pseudoization process.
From the 9-component EOS model, and C6+ pseudo components remain alone.
A 5-component EOS model was obtained as following: (CO2, H 2 S, C1); (C2, C3);
(i-C4, n-C4); (i-C5-n-C5), and (C6+). Table (3.3) shows the new components and
their mole fractions after lumping process.
Regression was performed again, and the 5-component EOS model predicted
PVT properties have good agreement with experimental data. Figures (3.10)
through (3.15) show the comparison of results for the selected experiments. As
could be seen, the results provided good match with the measured values for all
parameters. This EOS was accepted for use in reservoir thermal simulation.
Table (3.3): Component after lamping process.
Component Mole fraction

Co2 -H2S- C1 5.43E-02
C2-C3 2.37E-01
IC4-NC4 6.33E-02
IC5-NC5 7.54E-02
C6+ 5.70E-01
Sum 1.00E+00
54
1.4
1.2
Oil density (gm/cc) 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure
Exp. Oil density (lbm/ft3) Calculated. Oil Density
Fig.(3.10): Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values of Oil

Density.
35
30
Gas-Oil Ratio(m3/m3)
25
20
15
10 Calc.GOR
5 Exp.GOR
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure ( kg/cm2)
Fig.(3.11): Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values of GOR.
55
1.14
1.12
1.1
Oil FVF (rb/stb)
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure kg/cm2
calc. oil FVF EXP. Oil FVF
Fig.(3.12): Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values of

Oil FVF.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Gas S.G.(Air=1)
0.8
0.6 Calc. Gas S.G

Exp. Gas SG
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure (kg/cm2)
Fig.(3.13): Comparison between the Predicted and measured Values of Gas SG.
56
1.2
0.8
Gas Z factor
0.6
0.4
Calc. Gas Z Factor
0.2
Exp.Gas Z Factor
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure (kg/cm2)
Fig.(3.14): Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values of Gas Z

factor.
250
200
Oil viscosity cp
150
100
Calc. oil visc.

50
Exp. Oil visc.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pressure (kg/cm2)
Fig.(3.15):Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values of Oil

Viscosity.
57
3.4.4- Bubble point pressures

The calculated bubble point pressure obtained by the simulator after
regression analysis was (19.7 kg/cm2 or 281.56 psi), while the measured bubble
point pressure was (18.5 kg/cm2 or 263 psi).
3.4.5-STARS PVT Generation

Once the regression parameter completed and good agreement with the
experimental date was obtained, basic PVT (STARS) model formed and would be
used in the single well thermal model. This option of WinProp could be used to
generate the complete PVT data required by CMGs (STARS) simulator.49
3.5- Single Well Model

Single well model has been created to study numerical Cyclic Steam
Stimulation model for Qayarah Field through studying the history of well Qy-73.
Figure (3.16) shows well location in the field. History production data would be
used to match the field data for this well with the model.
In this study, a reservoir simulator (CMG-STARS-2010) was used. STARS is
CMG's new generation advanced processes reservoir simulator which includes
options such as chemical/polymer flooding, thermal applications, steam injection,
horizontal wells, dual porosity/permeability, directional permeabilities, flexible
grids, fireflood, and many more. STARS 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.51
58
Figure (3-16): Contour Map for Sector from Qayarah Field.5
3.6 Model Characterization
3.6.1 Reservoir Geometry
The simulation model has cylindrical geometry (r, , and z); with a single
vertical well located in the center with reference datum level 50m below sea level.
The model layers number are: eight layers in radial direction (r), one layer in the
angular direction (), and eleven layers in the vertical direction (z). Total of 88 grid
blocks are fixed for well. The radial geometry of the model is defined by a 7" well
bore diameter and the radius of eight radial cells are divided as following: 0.7798
ft, 10.4328 ft, 60.7298 ft, 260.4138 ft, 860.1578 ft, 1760.7798 ft, 2960.7768 ft,
4460 ft. The thickness of the eleven layers are dependent on the particular well
considered and were defined from the basic CPI log layering, table (3-1) explainsq
the divisions of the vertical layers.
59
3.6.2- Petrophysical Parameters
For each layer, porosity, water saturation, permeability and rock type number
values were computed from the core and log well data. Table (3-1) explains the
petrophysical parameters for each layer.
3.6.3- Relative Permeability Curves
The Corey-Brookes [CMG (software)] model for relative permeability curves

has been used to generate relative permeability curves. The variables to generate
these curves include the initial water saturation (S wi ), the exponent (n) for all
phases and; the end points, for each rock type. These data adopted from Franlab
study.5 Table (3-4) shows the rock type number with saturation parameters. Tables
(C.1) through (C.6) and Figures (C.1) through (C.6), in Appendix C show
generated curves of relative permeability.
Table (3-4): Rock type number with saturation parameters.5
Details Rock Type 3 Rock Type2 Rock Type

1
S WCON 0.2 0.28 0.4
S WCRIT 0.2 0.28 0.4
S OIRW 0 0 0
S ORW 0.2 0.2 0.2
S OIRG 0.05 0.05 0.05
S ORG 0.2 0.2 0.2
S GCON 0 0 0
S GCRIT 0.03 0.03 0.03
K ROCW 1 1 1
K RWIRO 0.6 0.5 0.45
K RGCL 0.5 0.4 0.35
K ROGCG 1 1 1
60
3.6.4.Reservoir fluid Properties
Fluid properties were obtained depending on sample taken from well Qy-39.
This sample calibrated to EOS equation by (CMG) Winprop program, PVT
STARS model and deferential liberation table has been generated with field unit to
be used in (CMG STARS model ).Figures (B.1) to (B.13) in appendix B illustrated
deferential liberation and K-factor for Qayarah field crude oil. Viscosity-
temperature relationship which used in the model as following:
Table(3.5): Viscosity-temperature relationship.42
Temperature F Viscosity cp
80 439.4
100 231.2
104 205.2
150 60.5
200 26.6
250 14.4
3.6.5-Rock properties
Thermal rock properties have been assumed; also it assumed for the formation
above and below simulated formation as following:42
Rock property value

Compressibility (1/psi) 3 x 10 -5
Heat capacity (BTU/(ft3.F)) 35
Thermal 24
conductivity(BTU/(ft3.day.F))
61
3.6.6 Initial Conditions
3.6.6.A Oil Water Contacts
From log analysis, the initial oil-water contact has been located at 135m
below sea level.5
3.6.6.B Initial Reservoir Pressure and temperature
The initial reservoir pressure is 415 psi at 50m below sea level (datum).The
reservoir temperature estimated to be 110F at the datum.5
3.6.7 Boundary Conditions
The aquifer supplies an additional energy to a connected reservoir in the form

of water influx. There are two main types of aquifers; bottom and edge aquifer
which can be defined depending on geological information and field history. There
are two well-known analytical methods, which are widely used in the simulation
industry. The first is Carter-Tracy method, which is a modified version of the
original Van-Everdingen and Hurst method. The second and more recent is
Fetkovitch method. 51
A flow boundary (with an aquifer) has been encountered as a boundary

condition in the current study. The type of aquifer considered as a bottom water
drive. The water influx at the flow boundary simulated by Carter-Tracy
method.52This method was found to be best validated through the history matching
process for the reservoir under study.
62
3.7 Simulation Results and History Match
Performance matching is the process of varying reservoir characteristics in a

reservoir simulator until the performance predicted by the simulator agree within
some acceptable tolerance with a set of observed performance data, at the same
time the parameters meet some criterion of reasonableness.53 The reservoir and
aquifer matching parameters are:
Aquifer Transmissibility.
Aquifer Storage (hC w ).
Reservoir Rock Properties.
Relative Permeability
Fluid properties and their distribution.
On other hand, the observed performance parameters to be matched include

pressure, flow rates, gas-oil ratios (GOR's), water cut (wc %) and times of
breakthrough.
Finally, history matching process can be achieved by two approaches, these are:
1. Manual History Matching
In this approach the reservoir parameters variation is done manually and the
process continued until an acceptable match occurs between result of simulation
model and observed field performance.
The parameters variation requires several factors to be controlled. These factors
63
are field experience, required effect of changes and constraints of variation.
2. Automatic History Matching
Automatic history matching methods are iterative in general sense and usually
couple some statistical analysis with optimization techniques to obtain the best
parameters to match the reservoir history.54
In most case, manual matching is better than automatic matching for

petroleum engineer because of its judgment role and specific knowledge of
reservoirs under study; in addition, manual adjustments are required even if
automatic history matching processes are used.
Several runs have been performed to match the average reservoir pressure,
monthly production and Produced water cut. The final match of these as follow:
3.7.1 Production Schedule
Well Qy(73) was perforated from depth 236m to 290m and produced from
1985 to1987 with an cumulative oil production 453210 STB. Model calibrated
with production oil rate history data, results versus time are showed in the figure
(3-17).
3.7.2 Pressure Match (static pressure)
The model average reservoir pressure values was compared with the
measured average reservoir pressure. The best match of average reservoir pressure
shown in Figure (3-18).
64
Well-1 cmgbuilder08.irf
1,000
800
Oil Rate SC (bbl/day)
600
400
200
0
1985-1 1985-7 1986-1 1986-7 1987-1 1987-7 1988-1 1988-7 1989-1 1989-7 1990-1
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC cmgbuilder08.irf
Oil Rate SC well 73 history.fhf
Figure (3-17): Production versus time well Qy (73).
Figure (3.18): Average reservoir pressure match for Qy(73).
65
3.7.3-Water cut match
There was no available measurements for water production in Qayarah Field,

water occurrence reported in some wells from time to time with an amount of
water cut from 0.2% to 10%.55 Figure (3.19) represent water cut versus time for
Well Qy(73).
Well-1 cmgbuilder08.irf
0.030
0.025
0.020
Water Cut SC - %
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
1985-1 1985-7 1986-1 1986-7 1987-1 1987-7 1988-1 1988-7 1989-1 1989-7 1990-1
Time (Date)
Water Cut SC - %
Figure (3.19): Water cut versus time Well Qy(73).
66
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
Chapter Four
Results and Discussion

4.1- Overview
U
In this chapter the results of each scenario for cyclic steam stimulation
(CSS) that obtained from simulation model by using numerical simulator CMG
STARS will be discussed. The basic case of cyclic steam injection has been
performed for comparing it with same model with primary production. Sensitive
analysis of different parameter will be discussed to find the optimized important
parameters for each scenario. Results of recovery factor, cumulative oil
production and cumulative water production for each scenario based on the
optimized parameters will be compared.
Analysis of different parameters in (CSS) assisted in identify important

parameters on results. The factors which concerned are injection time, sock
time, production time, perforation strategy, Steam injection rate and steam
quality. During steam injection, steam quality and steam injection rate have
been adjusted in the model. Bottom hole pressure is a function of rate of
injection and rate of production. On the other hand, because injected steam is
pure and without any additives, steam pressure and temperature will fluctuate
on the vapor pressure line. Therefore as soon as bottom hole pressure in injector
changes, steam temperature changes correspond to saturation pressure on the
vapor pressure line.
4.2-Base case
U
This case was run using the same model from chapter three with cyclic
steam stimulation method. Steam was injected with fixed steam rate (CWE cold
water equivalent ) 5000 bbl/day and injection time, sock time and production
67
time(60, 6, 365 days ) respectively. Simulator will adjust the steam temperature
based on the saturated steam table and well bottom-hole pressure. The
maximum injection bottom hole pressure for injecting steam was fixed to 630
psi to avoid formation fracturing and steam quality (0.8).Therefore, with respect
to steam table, the maximum steam injection temperature was 492 oF. The P P
production constraint of minimum bottom hole pressure has been fixed to equal
the bubble point pressure (P b ) 281.56 psi for base case of steam injection and
R R
primary production, which explain recovery factor behavior.
Table (4.1) shows comparison between basic case model with steam
injection and primary production model, the well open to production for 10
years at first and for 20 years. Oil production from steam injection case is
approximately three times more than primary production in 10 years and
approximately six times more than primary production for 20 years. Same
behavior we fined in recovery factor. Figures (4.1a) to (4.1f) shown the oil rate,
cumulative oil production and recovery factor comparison for 10 years and 20
years of steam injection cases.
Table (4.1): comparison between steam injection base case and primary
production case.
Case Cumulative oil production RF %

Steam injection base case for 10 3,124,400 1.30
years
Primary production for 10 years 1,069,865 0.36
Steam injection base case for 20 6,021,718 2.51

years
Primary production for 20 years 1,115,182 0.38
68
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC, steam injection basic case
Oil Rate SC, primary production
Fig. (4.1a): Comparison of oil rate steam injection case and primary production
case for 10 years.
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2015 2020 2025 2030
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC , steam injection basic case
Oil Rate SC , primery production
Fig. (4.1b): Comparison of oil rate between steam injection case and primary
production for 20 years.
69
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
Cumulative Oil SC (bbl)
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative oil production ,steam injection basic case
Cumulative oil production , primary production
Fig. (4.1c): Comparison of cumulative oil production between steam injection

8.00e+6
6.00e+6
4.00e+6
2.00e+6
0.00e+0
2015 2020 2025 2030
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC , steam injection basic case
Cumulative Oil SC , primary production
Fig. (4.1d): Comparison of cumulative oil production between steam injection

70
1.40
1.20
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR , steam injection basic case
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR , primary production
Fig. (4.1e): Comparison of oil recovery factor between steam injection case and
primary production for 10 years.
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2015 2020 2025 2030
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR, steam injection basic case
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR , pimary production
Fig. (4.1f): Comparison oil recovery factor between steam injection case and
primary production for 20 years.
71
4.3-Steam injection rate

U
To find the optimum rate of steam injection for this model, The base case
model for 10 years has been used and the steam injection rate changed for four
cases (1000, 1500, 3000 and 5000 bbl/day), figures (4.2a) and (4.2b) show oil
rate comparison and cumulative oil production for all cases, figures (A.1), (A.2)
and (A.3) in appendix A show comparison cumulative water production and oil
recovery factor and cumulative enthalpy injection for all cases. Table (4.2)
summarized the results of recovery factor for different steam injection rate. As
the rate of steam injection increases, the cumulative oil production, oil recovery
factor and cumulative water production increases dramatically. Higher steam
injection rates enhance heat delivery, thereby increasing oil production.
Excessively high injection rates cause overheating of the reservoir matrix that
result in larger heat losses, thus causes a decrease in the thermal efficiency of
the process. The optimum steam injection rate is the one that results in minimal
heat losses and maximum heated volume. It seems, in comparison with all the
cases, case of 3000 bbl/day steam injection rate is the best case. Reasonable
amounts of oil and water production from the well are the most important
factors for parameter selection. Although economical factors such as steam
generation cost, steam generation capacity, wellbore and surface facilities,
oil price and many other factors will determine the final decision on rates of
injection parameter.
72
Table (4.2) Comparison between different steam injection rates.
Case Cumulative Oil Cumulative RF %

prod. bbl water prod. bbl
Steam injection rate5000 3,124,400 1,744,290 1.30

bbl/day
Steam injection rate 3000 2,555,083 1,103,172 1.06

bbl/day
Steam injection rate 1500 1,842,971 562,717 0.76

bbl/day
Steam injection rate 1000 1,626,218 405,480 0.67

bbl/day
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC injecion 1000 bbl.irf
Fig.(4.2a): Oil rate comparison between different cases.
73
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC injecion 1000 bbl.irf
Fig.(4.2b):Comparison cumulative oil production between different cases.
4.4- Injection time

U
To detect the best injection time of steam, four different values of this
parameter has been tested, 30, 40, 50 and 60 days by using base case model.
Figures (4.3a) and (4.3b) illustrate oil rate and cumulative oil production;
Figures (A.4) to (A.6) in appendix A represented the cumulative water
production, oil recovery factor and cumulative enthalpy injection. Tables (4.3)
summarize the results. As steam injection time increases, the total heat carried
by the vapor increases. Hence, there is a greater volume heated as the injection
time increases, thereby increasing the quantity of heated oil flowing towards the
production well. This explains the increasing of cumulative oil production when
injection time increase and the cumulative water production also increase.
Choosing which case is the optimum will depends on ability of surface facilities
and steam boiler capability.
74
Table (4.3) Injection time result comparison.
Case Cumulative Oil Cumulative water RF %

prod. bbl prod. bbl
Steam Injection 2,510,605 1015585 1.04
time 30 day
Steam Injection 2,794,786 1274876 1.16
time 40 day
Steam Injection 3,010,920 1542576 1.25
time 50 day
Steam Injection 3,124,933 1754242 1.30
time 60 day
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC injection 30 day.irf
Fig.(4.3a): Oil rate comparison of different steam injection time intervals.
75
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC injection 30 day.irf
Fig.(4.3b) :Cumulative oil production comparison of different steam injection

time intervals.
4.5- Soak time interval

U
To find the effect of soak time on oil recovery and amount of

water production from the well, the model was run for different sock times
(5, 10, 20 and 25 days). The results were summarized in Table (4.4). It was
important to know that with increasing or decreasing the period of soak time the
length of each cycle didnt changed, therefore periods of injection and
production were changed. To have better comparison between the sensitivity
cases, steam injection rate and liquid production rate were changed somehow
that the total amount of injection and production remain constant. Figures (4.4a)
and (4.4b) show oil rate and cumulative oil production .Figure (A.7) and (A.8)
in appendix A show the cumulative water production and recovery factor.
During soak time exchange of heat between matrix and reservoir fluids with
injected hot fluid causes easy flow of oil to the wellbore, a short period of soak
time causes high fraction of hot water production and a too long period of soak
76
time causes no more exchange between matrix medias hot fluid and therefore
reduction of recovery due to waste of time and heat loss to overburden and
underburden. It has been concluded that the soak time of 5 days is optimum
time for this parameter.
Table (4.4): Comparison between different steam sock time intervals.
Detail Cumulative Oil prod. Cumulative water prod. RF %

bbl bbl
Sock time 5 days 3,132,297 1,753,854 1.30
Sock time 10 days 3,093,893 1,683,939 1.29
Sock time 20 days 3,008,824 1,568,553 1.25
Sock time 25 days 2,957,812 1,506,062 1.23
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC sock 5 day.irf
Fig.(4.4a): Oil rate comparison of different steam sock time intervals.
77
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC sock 5 day.irf
Fig.(4.4b) : Cumulative oil production comparison of different steam sock time

intervals.
4.6 - Production time interval

U
This case was run using the same model of basic case and four different
values of production time, 150, 250, 365 and 500 days. Figures (4.5a) and
(4.5b) show cumulative oil production and oil rate. Figures (A.9) and (A.10) in
appendix A represented the cumulative water production, oil recovery factor.
Table (4.5) summarize the results, it clear that as production time increases, oil
recovery decrease, because of the heat loses increase due to production liquids
from reservoir, and the numbers of steam injection cycles are increase in same
time interval as shown in fig. (4.5b). more than 16 cycles in production time
150 days, 11 cycles for production time 250 days, 8 cycles for production time
365 days and 6 cycles for production time 500 days, That mean more heat
injected in reservoir for case 150 day production time and less heat injected for
other cases respectively. Also we can observe that cumulative water production
behave in same manner for same reason.
78
Table (4.5):Comparison between different production time intervals.
Case Cumulative Oil Cumulative water Oil

prod. bbl prod. bbl RF %
Production time 150 3,582,181 3,239,157 1.49
day
Production time 250 3,226,103 2,255,409 1.34
day
Production time 365 3,124,400 1,744,290 1.30
day
Production time 500 2,964,263 1,363,887 1.23
day
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC production ime 150 day.irf
Cumulative Oil SC production time 250 day.irf
Fig.(4.5a): Cumulative oil production comparison of different production time

intervals.
79
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC production ime 150 day.irf
Oil Rate SC production time 250 day.irf
Fig.(4.5b): Oil production rate comparison of different production time

intervals.
4.7 - Steam Quality

U
Different steam qualities are tested to find the effect of steam quality on
oil recovery in CSS process. Figures (4.6a) and (4.6b) show cumulative oil
production and cumulative injection enthalpy, also figures (A.11), (A.12) and
(A.13) in appendix A show cumulative water production oil recovery factor and
oil rate for different steam quality. Table (4.6) summarizes the results of
different steam quality on cumulative oil production, recovery factor and water
production. The operational parameters except the steam quality are constant
the same as base case. As steam quality of injection fluid increases, obviously
the cumulative oil production from the well increases due to more heat content
of steam with higher quality. On the other hand, cost of steam generation
increases dramatically as quality of steam increases. In real cases usually steam
80
quality between 0.7 and 0.8 is used, generally to choose the best one for any
field, economical factors must be considered. The cost of steam with higher
quality should be compared with the revenue that is obtained from incremental
oil production. If the revenue is remarkably higher than the cost then the steam
with higher quality will be chosen. That is why the sensitivity analysis to steam
quality is required.
Table (4.6): Results of different steam quality.
Detail Cumulative Oil prod. Cumulative water prod. RF %

bbl bbl
Steam quality 2,971,749 1,784,316 1.23
0.6
Steam quality 3,076,258 1,779,327 1.28
0.7
Steam quality 3,124,400 1,744,290 1.30
0.8
Steam quality 3,176,531 1,707,462 1.32
0.9
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC steam qualiy 0.6.irf
Cumulative Oil SC steam quality 0.7.irf
Fig. (4.6a): Cumulative oil production for different steam quality.
81
1.20e+12
1.00e+12
Enthalpy Inje Cum SCTR (Btu)
8.00e+11
6.00e+11
4.00e+11
2.00e+11
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Enthalpy Inje Cum SCTR steam qualiy 0.6.irf
Enthalpy Inje Cum SCTR steam quality 0.7.irf
Fig.(4.6b): Cumulative injection enthalpy for different steam quality.
4.8 - Well Perforation strategy

U
Six cases were run to detect the best strategy for perforation. Table (4.7)
summarizes results of cases. Since there is basically no flooding in (CSS)
process and therefore there is no front and breakthrough issues. Finding
optimum strategy of perforating is not as sensitive as cases of steam or hot
water flooding, but still it is important to see effect of different strategies of
perforation on oil recovery.
The results show two best strategies for perforating is using cases (Full
layers injection 3, 4, 5 layers production) and (Top half layers injection 3, 4, 5
layers production). The other strategies show less oil recovery Fig. (4.7a) shows
steam chamber volume growth for all cases. It was clear that steam chamber
volume growth in case (Full layers injection 3, 4, 5 layers production) and (Top
82
half layers injection 3, 4, 5 layers production) was the best. This can be
explained in terms of steam, water and oil gravities. Steam has low gravity
compared to oil and water; therefore it goes to the upper layers and pushes oil
down to the bottom layers. On the other hand, in the reservoir due to
gravitational segregation, water is accumulated in the bottom layers and oil in
the top layers during soak time. The hot water in the bottom layers can
exchange the remaining heat and also, imbibe to the matrix media as additional
recovery mechanisms to improve recovery of the reservoir. Production from
bottom layers can disturb these mechanisms and therefore reduce final recovery.
Figure (4.7b) show cumulative oil production and figure (A.14) to (A.16) in
appendix A show oil rate, cumulative water production and recovery factor.
Table (4.7): Results of different perforation strategies.
Case Detail Cumulative Cumulative Oil RF

no. Oil prod. bbl water prod. bbl %
1 Full layers inj. and prod. 2,986,948 1,747,000 1.24
2 Full layers inj. 3, 4, 5 layers prod. 3,485,126 1,759,610 1.45
3 Full layers inj. half bottom layers 2,509,437 1,711,958 1.04

prod.
4 Top half layers inj. bottom half 2,564,822 1,726,865 1.07
layers prod.
5 Top half layers inj. top half layers 2,966,101 1,720,037 1.23
prod.
6 Top half layers inj. 3, 4, 5 layers 3,480,107 1,759,870 1.45
prod.
83
3.00e+6
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR (ft3)
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR Full layers inj. and prod.irf
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR Full layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR Full layers inj. half bottom layers prod..irf
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR Top half layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR Top half layers inj. top half layers prod..irf
Steam Chamber Volume SCTR top half layers inj. bottom half layers prod..irf
Fig.(4.7a): Steam chamber volume growth for different cases.
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Oil SC full layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Cumulative Oil SC Full layers inj. and prod.irf
Cumulative Oil SC Full layers inj. half bottom layers prod..irf
Cumulative Oil SC Top half layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Cumulative Oil SC Top half layers inj. bottom half layers prod..irf
Cumulative Oil SC Top half layers inj. top half layers prod..irf
Fig.(4.7b): Cumulative oil production for different perforation strategy.
84
Chapter five Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter five
Conclusions And Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions:
The main conclusions of the current study can be summarized as following:
1. Formation evaluation study for well Qy (55) has been done. It was
found that the field consists mainly of dolomite, dololimestone, some
anhydrate and secondary porosity. Also determine the porosity and
fluid saturation. Permeability was estimate by using FZI method.
2. Acceptable production and pressure matching have been obtained
from the current model according to the correct trends of matching
results with respect to the available field measured data.
3. The model runs for primary production and cyclic steam injection for
10 years and 20 years. It observed that Oil production from cyclic
steam injection is three times more than primary production in 10
years case and approximately six times more than primary production
for 20 years case.
4. The optimum steam injection rate is that results minimum heat losses
and maximum heated volume. It seems, in comparison with all cases,
case of 3000 bbl/day steam injection rate is the optimum case.
5. When steam injection time increases, the total heat carried by the
vapor increases. Hence, there is a greater volume heated as the
injection time increases, thereby increasing the quantity of heated oil
flowing towards the production well. This explains the increasing of
cumulative oil production when injection time increases and
cumulative water production also increase.
85
6. Short period of soak time causes high fraction of hot water

production and too long period of soak time causes no more exchange
between matrix medias hot fluid and therefore reduction of recovery
due to waste of time and heat loss to overburden and underburden. It
is concluded that the soak time of 5 days was optimum case for this
parameter.
7. When production time increases the oil recovery factor, oil rate and
cumulative water production decrease because of numbers of steam
injection cycles are increase in same time interval which mean more
heat injected in reservoir for case 150 day production time and less
heat injected for other cases respectively.
8. It observed that increase in steam quality results in higher oil
production, as there is more energy per unit mass of the reservoir
matrix due to a greater fraction of energy injected as latent heat of
vaporization. Hence, a greater oil rate observed. The results show
steam quality 0.7 to 0.8 is recommended.
9. The results show the two best strategies for perforating are cases (Full
layers injection 3, 4, 5 layers production) and (Top half layers
injection 3, 4, 5 layers production), other strategies show less oil
recovery.
6.2 Recommendations:
1. According to the present study result we strongly recommend to evaluate

Qayarah oil field with pilot project at less three well. It will give a realistic
understanding of the nature of the field and the amount of its response to the
steam injection methods.
86
2. New data must be provided like formation evaluation depends on modern

programs, new core and special core analysis and seismic study to build full
field geological model also PVT reports from crest and both direction of
flank to get well understanding of reservoir rock and fluid properties.
3. Build full field thermal and black oil simulation model to estimate
reservoir performance.
4. Depending on well Qy (55) formation evaluation shows evidence to

secondary porosity which raises the need for a fracture field study. Fracture
study information is very important to build dual porosity dual permeability
simulation model describe real behavior of the field.
5. To minimize the uncertainty of thermal reservoir study a full production,

pressure, water cut and any other data are needed.
87
References
1. Alboudwarej, H., Felix, J., et al. 2006. Highlighting Heavy Oil. Oilfield
review 18(2): 34-53.
2. Kasraie, M. and Ali, S. M. F. 1987. Steam flooding Bottom Water
Reservoirs. Paper SPE SS-87-5, Technical Meeting / Petroleum
Conference Of The South Saskatchewan Section, Regina, October 6-8.
3. Butler, R. M. and Mokry, I. J. 1993. Closed-Loop Propane Extraction
Method For The Recovery Of Heavy Oils And Bitumen Underlain By
Aquifers: The Vapex Process. Paper SPE SS-93-35, Technical Meeting /
Petroleum Conference Of The South Saskatchewan Section, Regina,
October 18-20.
4. Farouq Ali, S.M., et al. 1997, Practical Heavy Oil Recovery, University of
Alberta, Canada, draft volume, Page 3-1.
5. Franlab company: Study of Qayarah field, static and dynamic study), Iraq,
1984.
6. Butler, R.M., Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen, 4th Printing by Grav
Drain Inc, Calgary, Alberta, 2004.
7. Farouq Ali, S. M.: Heavy oil-evermore mobile. Journal of Petroleum
Science & Engineering. 37, 5-9, 2003.
8. U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy technology laboratory:
Enhanced oil Recovery review,2002.
9. Barillas, J. L. M.; Dutra Jr., T. V.; Mata, W. Improved Oil Recovery
Process For Heavy Oil: A Review. Brazilian Journal Of Petroleum And
Gas. v. 2, n. 1, p. 45-54, 2008.
88
10. Queiroz, G. O.: Optimization of injection cyclic steam in oil reservoirs
heavy. 2006. 135 p. Thesis (Chemical Mater Engineering degree) Center
Technology, Department of Engineering Chemistry, Graduate Program in
Chemical Engineering, Federal University Rio Grande do Norte, Natal.
11. Wang, H. and Li, M.: A Simulation Study of a Cyclic Steam Stimulation
Pilot in a Deep Carbonate Heavy Oil Reservoir in Oudeh Field, Syria
CSUG/SPE 137603. 2010.
12. Swapan Das, Application of Thermal Recovery Processes in Heavy oil
Carbonate Reservoirs, SPE 105392, 2007.
13. Mateo Hernandez J.A., Trevisan O.V., Heavy-Oil Recovery Mechanisms
During Steam Injection in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE 107372,
2007.
14. Macaulay, R.C., Kraft, J.M., Hartemink, M., Escovedo, B.: Design of a
steam pilot in a fractured carbonate reservoir Qarn Alam Field, Oman,
SPE 30300, 1995.
15. Sahuquet,B.C., Spreux, A.M., Corre, B., Guittard, M.P., Aquitaine, Elf
:Steam Injection in a low-permeability reservoir through a horizontal well
in Lacq Superieur Field, SPE 20526, 1990.
16. Insitu heavy oil course notes, RESR-464, South Alberta Institute of
Technology, Gorden McNab.
17. Larry, W. Lake, Edward, D. Holstein, Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
Volume V (2007): chapter 15, Jeff Jones. Thermal Recovery by Steam
Injection. SPE, Nations Petroleum
18. Prats, M.: Thermal Recovery, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas
(1982) 7, 1.
19. Moritis, G.: EOR Weathers Low Oil Prices, Oil & Gas J. (March 2000)
39.
89
20. Keenan, J.H. et al.: Steam TablesThermodynamic Properties of Water
Including Vapor, Liquid and Solid Phases, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York City (1969) 2.
21. Chien, S.: Empirical Correlations of Saturated Steam Properties, paper

SPE 20319 presented at the 1991 SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth,
Australia, 47 November.
22. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford U.
Press, Amen House,London (1950) 373.
23. Marx, J.W. and Langenheim, R.H.: Reservoir Heating by Hot Fluid
Injection, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 312.
24. Van Lookeren, J.: Calculation Methods for Linear and Radial Steam
Flow in Oil Reservoirs,SPEJ (June 1983) 427.
25. Farouq Ali, S.M.: Oil Recovery by Steam Injection, Producers Publishing
Co., Bradford,Pennsylvania (1970) 51.
26. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Discussion of Reservoir Heating by Hot Fluid Injection,
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 364.
27. Prats, M.: The Heat Efficiency of Thermal Recovery Processes, JPT
(March 1969) 323; Trans., AIME, 246.
28. Mandl, G. and Volek, C.W.: Heat and Mass Transport in Steam Drive
Processes, SPEJ (March 1969) 59; Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1972) 10, 27.
29. Myhill, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L.: Steam drive Correlation and
Prediction, JPT (February 1978) 173.
30. Neuman, C.H.: A Gravity Override Model of Steamdrive, JPT (January
1985) 163.
90
31. Owens, W.D. and Suter, V.E.: Steam StimulationNewest Form of
Secondary Petroleum Recovery, Oil & Gas J. (April 1965) 90, 82.
32. Boberg, T.C. and Lantz, R.B.: Calculation of the Production Rate of a
Thermally Stimulated Well, JPT (December 1966) 1613; Trans., AIME,
237.
33. Towson, D.E. and Boberg, T.C.: Gravity Drainage in Thermally
Stimulated Wells, J. of Canadian Petroleum Technology (October
December 1967) 130.
34. Jones, J.: Why Cyclic Steam Predictive Models Get No Respect, SPERE
(February 1992) 67.
35. Desbrandes, R.:Encyclopedia of Well Logging, 1985.
36. Schlumberger Log Interpretation Principles/Applications,
Houston, 1989.
37. Ellis V. Darwin, Singer M. Julian , Well Logging for Earth
Scientists , Second Edition, Springer Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008.
38. Schlumberger, Log InterpretationVol.1 Principles, 1972.
39. Asquith, G., and Gibson, C. Basic Well Log Analysis for
Geologists, Methods in Exploration Series, AAPG, 1982.
40. Serra, O. Fundamentals of Well Log Interpretation Volume 1: The
Acquisition of Logging Data Developments in Petroleum Science,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1984.
41. Serra, O. Advanced Interpretation of Wire-line logs, Schlumberger; 1986.
42. Ivanhoe Company. "Thermal Reservoir Modeling For Qayarah Oil Field
Study" 2005.
43. Almalik, M.S., Hamada, G.M. and Al-Awad, M.N.,Accuracy Analysis
of Archie Parameter and Relevant Effect on Water Saturation Values,
Saudi Arabia ,SCA ,2001.
91
44. Pickett, G. R. A Review of Current Techniques for Determination of
Water Saturation from Logs SPE 1446, 1966.
45. Aghazadeh Naser, Rahimpour-Bonab Hossein and Kadkhodayee-
ilkhchi Ali Identification of petrophysical rock types with the use of flow
units concept and cluster analysis: A case study from the South Pars gas
field, Iran, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU2010-68-1,
2010.
46. Alam, M., Mohammad, Sharma Ravi, Fabricius Ida L. 1, and Prasad
Manika Permeability Prediction in Chalks, AAPG Annual Convention,
Denver, Colorado, June 7-10, 2009.
47. Jude O. Amaefule , Mehmet Altunbay , Djebbar Tiab, David G. Kersey and
Dare K. Keelan.," Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core and Log
Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict permeability in
Uncored Intervals/ Wells" , Paper SPE 26436 presented at the 68 th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.
48. Gunter, G. W., Finneran, J. M., Hartman, D. J. and Miller, J. D. Early
Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical
Method, SPE 38679. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, 5-8 October 1997.
49. Win prop, phase property program, User's Guide, by Computer Modeling
Group Ltd, version 2010.
50. Ministry of oil. Thermodynamic Study And Physical Properties Of
Reservoir Fluid. Qayarah field well (39), Technical note no. 305.
51. CMG's STARS, advanced processes reservoir simulator, User's Guide, by
Computer Modeling Group Ltd, version 2010.
92
52. Chapman. C. .: Estimation and Classification of Reserves of Crude oil,
Natural Gas, and Condensate, SPE books committee, Richardson, Texas
(2001).
53. Carter, R.D., Kemp, L.F., Price, A.C. and Willams, D.L.: Performance
Matching with Constraint SPEJ, April.1974, pp: 187-196.
54. Crichlow, H.B.: Modern Reservoir Engineering-A Simulation
ApproachPrentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1997.
55. Mohammed, O. H.: Study of Tertiary reservoir of Qayarah Field, Kirkuk,
April (1981).
56. Tarek Ahmed,: "Equations of State and PVT Analysis", published in 2007,
by Gulf Publishing Company.
93
Appendix A
Appendix A
A-1
Appendix A
2.00e+6
Cumulative Water SC (bbl)
1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Water SC injecion 1000 bbl.irf
Fig.(A.1) comparison cumulative water production
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR injecion 1000 bbl.irf
Fig.(A.2) comparison oil recovery factor.
A-2
Appendix A
1.00e+12

8.00e+11
6.00e+11
4.00e+11
2.00e+11
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Enthalpy Inje Cum SCTR injecion 1000 bbl.irf
Fig.(A.3) comparison of cumulative enthalpy injection.
2.00e+6
1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Water SC injection 30 day.irf
Fig.(A.4) shows cumulative water production comparison of different steam

injection time
A-3
Appendix A
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR injection 30 day.irf
Fig.(A.5) shows recovery factor comparison of different steam injection time.
Entire Field
1.00e+12
8.00e+11
6.00e+11
4.00e+11
2.00e+11
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Enthalpy Inje Cum SCTR injection 30 day.irf
Enthalpy Prod Cum SCTR injection 30 day.irf
Fig.(A.6) shows cumulative enthalpy injection comparison of different steam

injection time.
A-4
Appendix A
2.00e+6
1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Water SC sock 5 day.irf
Fig.(A.7) : Cumulative water production comparison of different sock time.
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR sock 5 day.irf
Fig. (A.8): Recovery factor comparison of different sock time.

A-5
Appendix A
4.00e+6
3.00e+6
2.00e+6
1.00e+6
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Water SC production ime 150 day.irf
Cumulative Water SC production time 250 day.irf
Fig.(A.9) : Cumulative water production for different steam production time.
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR production ime 150 day.irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR production time 250 day.irf
Fig.(A.10): Recovery factor for different steam production time.

A-6
Appendix A
2.00e+6
1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Water SC steam quality 0.9.irf
Cumulative Water SC steam qualiy 0.6.irf
Fig.(A.11) :Cumulative water production for different steam quality.
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR steam quality 0.9.irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR steam qualiy 0.6.irf
Fig.(A.12): Oil recovery factor for different steam quality.

A-7
Appendix A
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC steam qualiy 0.6.irf
Oil Rate SC steam quality 0.7.irf
Fig.(A.13): Oil rate for different steam quality.
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Rate SC full layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Oil Rate SC Full layers inj. and prod.irf
Oil Rate SC Full layers inj. half bottom layers prod..irf
Oil Rate SC Top half layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Oil Rate SC Top half layers inj. bottom half layers prod..irf
Oil Rate SC Top half layers inj. top half layers prod..irf
Fig.(A.14) shows oil rate for different perforation strategy.

A-8
Appendix A
2.00e+6
1.50e+6
1.00e+6
5.00e+5
0.00e+0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Cumulative Water SC full layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Cumulative Water SC Full layers inj. and prod.irf
Cumulative Water SC Full layers inj. half bottom layers prod..irf
Cumulative Water SC Top half layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Cumulative Water SC Top half layers inj. bottom half layers prod..irf
Cumulative Water SC Top half layers inj. top half layers prod..irf
Fig.(A.15) shows cumulative water production for different perforation strategy.
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Time (Date)
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR full layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR Full layers inj. and prod.irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR Full layers inj. half bottom layers prod..irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR Top half layers inj. 3,4,5 layers prod..irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR Top half layers inj. bottom half layers prod..irf
Oil Recovery Factor SCTR Top half layers inj. top half layers prod..irf
Fig.(A.16) shows oil recovery factor for different perforation strategy.

A-9
Appendix B
Appendix B
B-1
Appendix B
200 Dif. Lib. Calc. 1.12
Relative Oil Volume (rb/stb)

1.10
Gas-Oil Ratio (scf/stb) 150
1.08
100 1.06
1.04
50
1.02
0 1.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pressure (psia)
GOR ROV
Figure(B.1)
1.00 Dif. Lib. Calc. 1.20
1.00
Gas Compressibility Factor
0.95
0.80 Gas FVF (rcf/scf)
0.90
0.60
0.85
0.40
0.80 0.20
0.75 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pressure (psia)
Gas Z Gas FVF
Figure(B.2)
B-2
Appendix B
0.96 Dif. Lib. Calc. 1.25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1.20
1.15
Oil SG (Water = 1)
0.94 1.10
Gas SG (Air = 1)
1.05
1.00
0.92 0.95
0.90
0.85
0.90 0.80
Pressure (psia)
Oil SG Gas SG
Figure(B.3)
200 Dif. Lib. Calc. 0.0075
180
0.0070
Gas Viscosity (cp)
Oil Viscosity (cp)
160
140 0.0065
120
0.0060
100
80 0.0055
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pressure (psia)
Oil Visc. Gas Visc.
Figure(B.4)
B-3
Appendix B
1.00E+01
(Temperature = 1.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
110.00 deg F)
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
K values (vap./liq.)
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-12
1.00E-13
1.00E-14200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Pressure (psia)
H2StoC1 C2 toC3 IC4toNC4 IC5toNC5 C06+
Figure(B.5)
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
160.00 deg F)
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-12200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.6)
B-4
Appendix B
1.00E+02
(Temperature = 1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
210.00 deg F)
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1.00E-11200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.7)
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
260.00 deg F)
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.8)
B-5
Appendix B
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
310.00 deg F)
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1.00E-09
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.9)
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
360.00 deg F)
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1.00E-08
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.10)
B-6
Appendix B
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
410.00 deg F)
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1.00E-07
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.11)
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
460.00 deg F)
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1.00E-07
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.12)
B-7
Appendix B
1.00E+02
(Temperature =
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
510.00 deg F)
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1.00E-06
Pressure (psia)
Figure(B.13)
B-8
Appendix C
Appendix C:
Generated curves of relative permeability
C-1
Appendix C
Tables (C.1) Tables (C.2)

RT1 RT1
sw krw krow Sl Krg Krog
0.4 0 1 0.45 0.35 0
0.425 0.000781 0.878906 0.525 0.256319 0
0.45 0.003125 0.765625 0.6 0.1772 0
0.475 0.007031 0.660156 0.623125 0.155743 0.000193
0.5 0.0125 0.5625 0.64625 0.135669 0.001546
0.525 0.019531 0.472656 0.669375 0.11698 0.005217
0.55 0.028125 0.390625 0.6925 0.099675 0.012367
0.575 0.038281 0.316406 0.715625 0.083755 0.024153
0.6 0.05 0.25 0.73875 0.069219 0.041737
0.625 0.063281 0.191406 0.761875 0.056067 0.066277
0.65 0.078125 0.140625 0.785 0.0443 0.098932
0.675 0.094531 0.097656 0.808125 0.033917 0.140862
0.7 0.1125 0.0625 0.83125 0.024919 0.193226
0.725 0.132031 0.035156 0.854375 0.017305 0.257184
0.75 0.153125 0.015625 0.8775 0.011075 0.333894
0.775 0.175781 0.003906 0.900625 0.00623 0.424517
0.8 0.2 0 0.92375 0.002769 0.530212
0.9 0.3125 0 0.946875 0.000692 0.652137
1 0.45 0 0.97 0 0.791453
0.985 0 0.891666
1 0 1
C-2
Appendix C
Tables (C.3) Tables (C.4)

RT2 RT2
0.28 0 1 0.33 0.4 0
0.3125 0.001019 0.878906 0.405 0.311743 0
0.345 0.004075 0.765625 0.48 0.234473 0
0.3775 0.009169 0.660156 0.510625 0.206079 0.000204
0.41 0.0163 0.5625 0.54125 0.179518 0.001634
0.4425 0.025469 0.472656 0.571875 0.154789 0.005515
0.475 0.036675 0.390625 0.6025 0.131891 0.013074
0.5075 0.049919 0.316406 0.633125 0.110825 0.025535
0.54 0.065201 0.25 0.66375 0.091591 0.044124
0.5725 0.08252 0.191406 0.694375 0.074189 0.070067
0.605 0.101876 0.140625 0.725 0.058618 0.10459
0.6375 0.12327 0.097656 0.755625 0.04488 0.148918
0.67 0.146701 0.0625 0.78625 0.032973 0.204276
0.7025 0.17217 0.035156 0.816875 0.022898 0.271892
0.735 0.199677 0.015625 0.8475 0.014655 0.35299
0.7675 0.229221 0.003906 0.878125 0.008243 0.448795
0.8 0.260802 0 0.90875 0.003664 0.560535
0.9 0.370756 0 0.939375 0.000916 0.689433
1 0.5 0 0.97 0 0.836716
0.985 0 0.915934
1 0 1
C-3
Appendix C
Tables (C.5) Tables ( C.6)

RT3 RT3
0.2 0 1 0.25 0.5 0
0.2375 0.001318 0.878906 0.325 0.401259 0
0.275 0.005273 0.765625 0.4 0.313368 0
0.3125 0.011865 0.660156 0.435625 0.275421 0.000209
0.35 0.021094 0.5625 0.47125 0.239922 0.001675
0.3875 0.032959 0.472656 0.506875 0.206872 0.005652
0.425 0.047461 0.390625 0.5425 0.17627 0.013397
0.4625 0.0646 0.316406 0.578125 0.148115 0.026165
0.5 0.084375 0.25 0.61375 0.122409 0.045213
0.5375 0.106787 0.191406 0.649375 0.099152 0.071797
0.575 0.131836 0.140625 0.685 0.078342 0.107172
0.6125 0.159521 0.097656 0.720625 0.059981 0.152594
0.65 0.189844 0.0625 0.75625 0.044067 0.20932
0.6875 0.222803 0.035156 0.791875 0.030602 0.278605
0.725 0.258398 0.015625 0.8275 0.019586 0.361705
0.7625 0.296631 0.003906 0.863125 0.011017 0.459876
0.8 0.3375 0 0.89875 0.004896 0.574374
0.9 0.459375 0 0.934375 0.001224 0.706455
1 0.6 0 0.97 0 0.857375
0.985 0 0.926859
1 0 1
C-4
Appendix C
1.00
0.80
kr - relative permeability
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.40 0.52 0.64 0.76 0.88 1.00
Sw
krw vs Sw
krow vs Sw
Figure (C.1): relative permeability curves of RT1.
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.45 0.56 0.67 0.78 0.89 1.00
Sl
krg vs Sl
krog vs Sl
C-5
Appendix C
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.28 0.42 0.57 0.71 0.86 1.00
Sw
krw vs Sw
krow vs Sw
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.33 0.46 0.60 0.73 0.87 1.00
Sl
krg vs Sl
krog vs Sl
C-6
Appendix C
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.20 0.36 0.52 0.68 0.84 1.00
Sw
krw vs Sw
krow vs Sw
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.25 0.40 0.55 0.70 0.85 1.00
Sl
krg vs Sl
krog vs Sl
C-7
Appendix D
Appendix D:
Results of Porosity and
Permeability and Comparison
with Core Analysis Data
D-1
Appendix D
Table (D-1): Results of porosity and permeability for well Qy(55)
depth k core k pred. core fraction fraction

250 621.7 292.43269 0.335 0.3602792
250.5 621.7 130.4975972 0.322 0.3161802
251 437.2 258.5906775 0.408 0.3535574
251.3 220.8 233.000076 0.406 0.3478621
251.5 83.65 143.1681934 0.211 0.3212447
251.8 445 50.49917181 0.198 0.264292
252 32.3 585.0135491 0.103 0.2542441
259 87.27 144.4557862 0.15 0.1862389
259.5 56.16 304.3487442 0.133 0.2224718
260 107.5 315.8346685 0.19 0.2242729
260.3 489.9 364.1177267 0.243 0.2311898
260.5 118.3 437.0333524 0.189 0.2400648
261 15.9 6.33183453 0.099 0.1508107
261.3 1.72 0.737442385 0.043 0.1656445
261.5 231 0.541688788 0.167 0.1504386
261.8 0.38 0.931800157 0.072 0.177175
273 0.71 1.186967899 0.11 0.1891051
273.5 0.23 1.272867882 0.089 0.1925491
273.8 5.13 12.39137259 0.12 0.1875058
274 30.53 13.06923899 0.205 0.1904167
274.3 277.7 15.92353805 0.175 0.2012129
274.5 1.62 15.30983615 0.236 0.1990648
275 57.3 9.882551074 0.163 0.1751415
275.3 58.57 4.021335464 0.283 0.1259992
D-2
Appendix D
275.5 3.79 4.012278901 0.139 0.125876

275.8 7.639671162 0.1610728
276 274.5 119.5095701 0.18 0.1770214
276.5 20.47 186.237461 0.128 0.1985912
276.8 12.96 153.82172 0.16 0.1892934
277 65.06 97.64966803 0.161 0.1671993
277.3 360.6 125.3642123 0.232 0.1793468

277.5 33.58 7.931645069 0.096 0.1631226
279 40.89 12.23251775 0.129 0.1868007
279.5 25.33 372.8361662 0.211 0.2323402
280.3 389.3 1460.982021 0.295 0.298744
280.5 41.85 1046.72463 0.243 0.2825314
281 381.4 376.1450755 0.272 0.2327699
281.3 588.6 351.3927655 0.259 0.2294602
281.5 202.3 524.4198656 0.225 0.2489277
281.8 298 786.3763837 0.288 0.2686264
282 535.5 667.4117338 0.321 0.260651
282.5 143.6 370.9427225 0.23 0.2320927
292.3 1.35 2.407001371 0.128 0.2239523
292.5 27.76 3.679220932 0.178 0.2448671
293 27.5 23.39431082 0.26 0.2222379
293.3 50.46 19.82842253 0.159 0.2131994
293.5 29.41 20.13291603 0.162 0.2140324
293.8 15.57 52.35660234 0.203 0.2662662
D-3
Appendix D
294 126.3 81.83780588 0.305 0.2906779
294.5 221.8 796.3569835 0.344 0.2692396
295 278.8 603.4985166 0.25 0.2557566
295.3 51.68 622.208996 0.325 0.2572412
295.5 185.6 379.0812487 0.295 0.2331479
296 338.4 199.5645296 0.236 0.2019517
296.3 174.2 180.6131897 0.204 0.1971002
296.5 396.8 166.6641103 0.229 0.1931922
297 75.85 69.49063779 0.185 0.1506586
297.5 611.1 134.1732765 0.192 0.1826487
297.8 455.2 130.9022412 0.183 0.1814486
298 655.7 99.81601044 0.262 0.1682662
298.3 557.7 229.1713386 0.208 0.2086776
298.5 262.7 4.368155492 0.276 0.2533273
299 11.05 8.965031854 0.315 0.2887665
299.3 10.34 9.584332226 0.338 0.292059
299.5 54.62 115.3010189 0.279 0.3094136
300 31.04 141.1223384 0.315 0.3204581
300.3 15.12 147.7770608 0.289 0.3229764
300.5 62.33 153.3102713 0.38 0.3249854
300.8 17.22 15.37826147 0.303 0.3153646
301 27.86 11.60430795 0.283 0.3014856
D-4
Appendix D
301.8 27.12 5.817402046 0.282 0.2674496
304.3 14.71 90.72809907 0.217 0.2963142
304.8 16.27 14.12679196 0.228 0.1946695
305.3 28.53 8.720322323 0.233 0.1683035
305.5 61.83 8.333729637 0.291 0.1658253
305.8 32.05 10.01573927 0.237 0.1758732
306 490 15.60472017 0.216 0.2001075
306.5 6.35 25.9589683 0.172 0.2279232
306.8 25.3 13.86230609 0.288 0.1936365
307.5 145.3 61.96888975 0.349 0.2754783
307.8 218.3 55.89946631 0.336 0.2698447
313.3 91.05 409.1039509 0.343 0.3786284
313.5 630 229.586632 0.305 0.3470555
314 38.92 96.57556244 0.271 0.2997278
314.3 35.4 110.252229 0.31 0.3069664
314.8 477 105.176873 0.325 0.3043907
315 14.93 79.80273258 0.309 0.2893016
315.8 19.52 7.821103362 0.265 0.2820381
316 6.45 6.474813085 0.216 0.2727269
316.3 7.58 6.461740235 0.234 0.2726272
316.5 10.2 7.020380322 0.27 0.2767143
317 5.45 6.489629011 0.208 0.2728395
D-5
Appendix D
317.3 9.36 4.637678036 0.266 0.2562784
317.5 6.25 3.283377272 0.186 0.2392565
318 13.99 2.221308674 0.197 0.219995
318.3 8.39 1.404733992 0.178 0.1974079
318.5 6.05 2.645261725 0.228 0.2286047
318.8 39.51 6.288591264 0.273 0.2712884
319.5 10.16 7.224929512 0.257 0.2781299
319.8 2.26 9.478565757 0.219 0.291512
320 2.5 10.88580822 0.263 0.2983351
320.3 1.7 9.372833326 0.224 0.2909591
320.5 11.45 6.950454498 0.28 0.2762209
322 4.43 11.06261424 0.243 0.2991293
322.8 6.19 11.52322746 0.282 0.30114
323 2.94 7.157764782 0.211 0.2776696
323.5 7.8 5.104875926 0.202 0.2610094
323.8 27.76 10.96989637 0.353 0.2987144
324.5 28.33 16.93829984 0.352 0.3201272
324.8 29.1 18.13955266 0.289 0.3235044
325 45.65 159.5039091 0.326 0.3271499
325.5 46.63 183.615141 0.314 0.3348437
326 134.1 195.4828364 0.341 0.3382667
326.3 111.6 159.0455326 0.336 0.3269926
D-6
Appendix D
326.5 74.03 138.9745435 0.319 0.3196199
326.8 58.22 197.9102037 0.319 0.3389412
327 23.66 85.83684786 0.294 0.2932854
327.5 11.03 13.71524907 0.177 0.3097235
327.8 5.54 20.12694285 0.195 0.3286289
328 25.73 15.39280496 0.198 0.3154112
331 14.32 29.62522096 0.258 0.2351435
331.5 2.46 4.190060289 0.217 0.2512755
332 0.77 2.863790901 0.172 0.2325172
332.5 2.74 4.066626762 0.245 0.2498017
333 0.87 4.255808866 0.181 0.252043
335.5 0.58 1.733658305 0.153 0.2077778
336 2.1 3.267991648 0.19 0.239025
336.3 4.78 4.542050284 0.229 0.2552515
336.5 4.5 6.626647522 0.246 0.2738694
337 4.44 4.063129185 0.222 0.2497593
337.3 3.8 5.688131884 0.25 0.2663419
337.5 5.47 6.92896314 0.247 0.2760683
337.8 5.51 6.05365838 0.319 0.2694118
338 2.05 2.805594543 0.162 0.2315052
D-7

/ .

. )(CMG-STARS-2010
.
) (55

.Didger package 3.03
.InteractivePetrophysicsV3.5
) Matrix Identification (MID )(M vs. N

Crossplot for Mineral Identification

. Pickett's plot )
. (.
) (
.
. FZI

) (CMG Winprop-2010
) (
. CMG-STARS

10 20 .

.

.
3000
)
( ) 60 5 150 (
.
0.7 0.8

) ( 5 4 3 )
. ( 5 4 3

) ( 1999
2013

Tami M. Aziz Thesis

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tami M. Aziz Thesis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

REPUBLIC OF IRAQ

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Thermal Reservoir Modeling For An Iraqi

Approved by the College of Engineering, University of Baghdad.

I will be honored to dedicate this work

I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Dr.

Tami Mohamed Aziz

The main objective of this research is to study feasibility of Cyclic

3.1- Well Log Analyses And Interpretations 31

3.1.4- Determination of Lithology and Mineralogy 37

4.3-Steam injection rate 72

Table (2.1): Analogs for Thermal EOR in carbonate heavy oil 11

Table (2.3) Boberg And Lantz Radial Flow Factors.

Table (2.4): Optimizing cyclic steam stimulation parameters for 30

Table (3.1) average petrophysical properties for Euphrates formation 51

Table (3.3): component after lamping process. 54

Table (3-4): Rock type number with saturation parameters. 60

Table (3.5): Viscosity-temperature relationship 61

Table (4.1): comparison between steam injection basic case and 68

Table (4.2) comparison between different steam injection rates. 73

Table (4.3) injection time result comparison 75

Table (4.4): shows comparison between different steam sock time 77

Table (4.7): Results Comparison between different perforation 83

Fig. (1.1) Location Map of the Qayarah Field. 4

Figure (2.1): The processes of the cyclic steam stimulation 6

Fig.(2.2):Saturation steam temperature and pressure 14

Fig. (2.3): Steam specific volume vs. saturation pressure 15

Fig. (2.4): Enthalpy of wet steam as a function of saturation 15

Fig. (3.1): Radial geometrical factors of the resistivity tools, showing 32

Fig. (3.1): Environment corrections for all resistivity tools. 34

Fig. (3.2): The gamma, density and neutron corrections results of 36

Fig. (3.4): M-N cross plot of Euphrates formation. 39

Fig.(3.5): show the Pickett's plot well Qy(55) Euphrates formation. 41

Fig.(3.6): Fluid and formation analyses of the well Qy(55) Euphrates 45

Fig.(3.8): Cross plot for logarithm RQI versus logarithm Z with 49

Fig.(3.10): Comparison between the Predicted and Observed Values 55

Fig. (3-17): Production versus time well Qy(73). 65

Figure (3.18) Average reservoir pressure match for Qy(73). 65

Figure (3.19) water cut versus time Well Qy(73). 66

Fig.(4.2b):Comparison cumulative oil production between different 74

Fig. (4.6a): Cumulative oil production for different steam quality. 82

Fig.(4.7a): Steam chamber volume growth for different cases. 84

Fig.(4.7b): Cumulative oil production for different perforation 84

Symbols Description Unit

a lithology factor (-----)

G(t D ) R R function defined by Eq. 2.10

Jh R R productivity of a stimulated well, B/psi-D

K RGCL R K rg at Connate Liquid

ml R R mass of liquid, lbm [kg]

MR R R volumetric heat capacity of the reservoir, Btu/(ft3-F) P P

MS R R volumetric heat capacity of surrounding Btu/(ft3-F) P P

mv R R mass of vapor, lbm [kg]

M R volumetric heat capacity of reservoir rocks, Btu/(ft3-F) P P

n Saturation exponent (-----)

Qi R heat injection rate, Btu/D

Ql R R heat loss rate, Btu/D

q oi R R initial oil production rate, B/D [m3/d]P P

Q ot R R cumulative oil recovery at time (t), B/D [m3/d]P P

Qp R R heat removed with produced fluids, Btu/D

q wh R hot water production rate, B/D [m3/d]P P

R Correlation coefficient (-----)

t maa R Apparent sonic transit time inrock matrix sec/ft

E R R thermal diffusivity of earth, ft2/D [m2/d]