SPE 89411

Enhanced Oil Recovery by Steamflooding in a Recent Steamflood Project, Cruse E

Field, Trinidad
V. Ramlal, SPE, Petrotrin
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1721 April 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Based on the success of the Cruse E Pilot steamflood,
Petrotrin decided to venture into a large-scale thermal project
called the Cruse E (IADB) Expansion Steamflood. The
project area consists of 270 acres in the zone of interest, the
Upper Cruse E sand. Surface and infrastructure work began
in January 1994, and was followed by rig work - drilling,
recompletions, and workovers.
Sixty (60) new wells
comprising twenty-eight (28) injectors and thirty-two (32)
offtakes were drilled and completed to form twenty-eight (28)
patterns. Also thirty-five (35) existing wells were utilized as
offtakes. The project was commissioned in January 1996
when steam injection began. It was predicted in 1992 by
reservoir simulation that 11 million barrels of heavy oil would
be recovered over fifteen (15) years with production peaking
in the year 2000.
However, in 1998 when oil production reached 900 bopd,
the project was adversely affected by environmental concerns
to a residential area in the vicinity of the steamflood and it was
actually shutdown by order of the Environmental Management
Agency in November 1998. Extensive environmental work
was undertaken by Petrotrin in the areas of communication,
training and operations to improve the safety and
environmental aspects of the steamflood, and ensure that it
was brought up to required environmental standards. After
forty (40) months of inactivity, approval was finally obtained
in March 2002 from the environmental regulatory agency to
restart steam injection.
This paper discusses the performance of the steamflood
during steam injection and during no injection, the operational

and economic aspects of the project, and the environmental

upgrade conducted. The paper also discusses the production
response since restart, the amended forecast from historymatched reservoir simulation and future operating strategies.
Introduction
The Cruse E (IADB) steamflood is situated in the
southwestern part of Trinidad in the Parrylands area, about 8
miles from the town of Point Fortin [Fig. 1]. It is one of
several active thermal projects being operated by Petrotrin,
and is the most recent steamflood developed by the company.
Some of the very mature steamfloods have been converted to
heat scavenging projects. Oil production from these thermal
projects and heat scavenging schemes account for eighty
percent [80%] of EOR production.
The Cruse E Expansion Steamflood was undertaken
following the success of the Cruse E Pilot Project. With
loan financing from the Inter-American Development Bank,
twenty-eight [28] new patterns were formed by drilling sixty
[60] wells and incorporating thirty-five [35] existing wells in
the thermal area [Fig. 2]. Steam generation and distribution
equipment and production facilities were installed during 1995
and actual steam injection began in January 1996. The
shallow Cruse E sands were ideal for steamflooding, and as a
result response was obtained in just nine (9) months. Twentytwo (22) months later production reached 1200 bopd. For
environmental reasons, the flood was shut down in November
1998 and approval was not obtained to re-start until March
2002.
The factors that will contribute to the success of this project
are:
(a)

high reserves of shallow heavy oil of average 17o API.

(b)

reliable, adequate supplies of fresh water for injection

and natural gas for steam generation.

(c)

good reservoir continuity with the project limits.

(d)

the accumulated expertise gathered in the past thirty

[30] years in enhanced oil recovery from Petrotrins
predecessor companies.
the success of the Pilot Project.

(e)

The Cruse E Pilot Project

The Cruse E Pilot Project commenced in 1986 with four [4]
inverted five-spot patterns and extended over an area of forty
[40] acres. The sand exploited is the Cruse E sand which is
located at an average depth of 1800 ft and with a net oil sand
thickness average of 120 ft. Each pattern has one or two
central injectors and the displacement mechanism is by steam
drive.
In February 1986 cyclic steam stimulation was attempted in
the Pilot Project to test the applicability of the process to the
reservoir, which had a seventeen percent [17%] recovery from
primary production. In 1987 another pattern was added to the
north of the existing flood, and in 1988 two [2] more patterns
were added to the south-west to form what is referred to as the
2P/3P project.

SPE 89411

Reservoir closure to the north and south of the project area is

provided by shale out. The reservoir is limited to the east by
shale out and water levels in a down dip position.
Reservoir Engineering and Production Forecast
Drilling of sixty [60] new wells provided information that led
to a better understanding of the reservoir, especially marker
depths and fault positions. As a result, several faults such as
Fault 101, Fault 185 and Fault 420 were confirmed from
contour misties and fluid anomalies.
The patterns were originally intended to be inverted 5spots, but because of the presence of faults and actual
positions of wells, their configurations had to be revised and
as a result, pattern areas range from 3.8 to 11.0 acres. Twentyeight [28] patterns were completed with a total project area of
270 acres. Fence diagrams were done for all patterns.

Injection rate averaged 1800 bspd during 1986-1990 and oil

production peaked at 300 bopd in 1987. The Pilot Project is
still active and cumulative oil production from start of
steamflooding to date is 1.65 million barrels oil, which
represents a recovery factor of 33 %.

Two [2] wells, FC 416 and CR 154 were full hole cored
within the objective Upper Cruse sands to determine accurate
reservoir rock and fluid properties. A summary of the
reservoir rock and fluid properties is given in Table 1.

Geology of Cruse E Sands

The project is situated in Point Fortin/Cruse area and has
acreage in three [3] fields Point Fortin Central, Point Fortin
East, and Cruse Fields. It lies just north of the Los Bajos fault
system along the northern flank of the east-west trending Point
Fortin anticline feature.

Primary production accounted for seventeen percent [17%]

of the original-oil-in-place. The oil-in-place at start of
steamflood was estimated to be 31.1 million barrels.
Assuming an ultimate recovery factor of 33%, the recoverable
reserves by steamflooding is estimated to be 10.3 MMBBL.
The recovery to date is 3.3% of OIP at start of steamflood.

The associated structure is that of a NNE gently dipping

anticline limits. Dips are non-uniform and range from 45o in
the south to 4o NNE in the down dip areas to the north and
east. The project area is roughly bounded by two [2] northwest/south-east trending faults. These faults are controlled by
seismic data and are related to the major Los Bajos fault
system. Fig. 3 is a structure map of the project area.

Actual field data derived from wells in the Pilot Steam

Project was used to estimate the production performance of
the wells in this expansion steam project. For example, in the
Pilot Project the following observations were made:

The primary objective is the uppermost section of the

Pliocene Upper Cruse formation. It represents a major
regressive deltaic sequence deposited in a high stand system
tract. The objective sands are uncomformably overlain by a
thick shale sequence known as the Lower Forest Clay. It
represents the upper transgressive system tract. This regional
transgressive shale forms the effective upper seal of the
reservoir. The objective sands are interpreted to consist of
north-east/south-west trending distributary channel/mouth bar
complexes, which were deposited, in a lower deltaic plain
environment.
It consists of several stacked discrete,
mappable, elongate reservoirs with distinct shale out edges,
which attain an average gross maximum thickness of 150 feet.
The objective interval are separated into four [4] mappable
units, namely, the stratigraphically lowermost Unit A to the
uppermost Unit D. Each unit is separated from the overlying
and underlying units by distinct shales. A type log is shown in
Fig. 4. Best sand development occurs in Units B and C.
Four (4) oil sand isopach maps for Units A to D are in
Figs. 5 8.

(1)

wells responded favorably to cycles 1 and 2 of cyclic

steam stimulation, while cycles 3 and onwards were not
as favorable.

(2)

duration of the first cycle was nine [9] months, with

average injection rate of 300 bspd. Subsequent cycles
were of progressively shorter periods.

(3)

the volume of oil recovered per well per cycle averaged

6000 bbls and 3500 bbls for cycles 1 and 2
respectively.

The initial steam drive performance was predicted using

the Jeff-Jones analytical model, which was based on a
modification of Myhill-Stegemeier. A base case production
forecast was done using average properties of the Cruse E
rock and fluids. In the most likely scenario, a total of 10.3
million bbls oil was expected to be produced in a fifteen [15]
year span with peak oil production of 3800 bopd occurring in
the year 2001. This forecast is shown in Table 2.
Production and Injection
The production and injection profile for the Cruse E
Expansion steamflood is shown in Fig. 9. Steam injection was
started in January 1996, and increased to 10,000 bspd. There

SPE 89411

was almost immediate response to steam injection, and oil

production climbed quickly to 1100 bopd by November 1997.
Injection volumes were decreased to 7,500 bspd in November
1997 because of high water cuts in some offtakes, but this had
a downward effect on production which fell to 850 bopd [Fig.
10]. Injection was stopped by order of the Ministry of Energy
in November 1998, because of reports of harmful gases in the
atmosphere having adverse effects on nearby residents.
Cessation of injection caused production to plummet to 140
bopd by November 1999. After all requirements set out by the
regulatory bodies were met by Petrotrin, the Ministry of
Energy granted approval to re-commence activity in this
project in March 2002, subject to certain operating conditions.
The project is serviced by five [5] 50 MMBTU steam
generators having a combined maximum output of 15,000
bspd. Water for the generators are obtained from water wells
in Forest Reserve, which is softened and treated to remove
oxygen and bacteria. The generators discharge pressures are
about 1000 psi and they are capable of delivering steam of
80% quality. The entire steam distribution system is insulated
with magnesia and aluminum.
The cumulative steam-oil-ratio [SOR] up to when injection
was stopped was 9.65, while the instantaneous SOR at that
time was 11.0. Actual production was close to predicted up to
November 1997, but fell back when injection was reduced
because of high water production in some wells.
Response since Restart
Because the scheme was closed in for an extended period of
time almost all the wells had returned to ambient temperature.
Steam injection was actually re-started in November 2002
using two [2] 50 MMBTU generators initially and injecting at
300 bspd per injector. A third generator came on in December
2002 and injection rates in selected patterns were increased to
500 bspd. Pattern performance is reviewed on a quarterly
basis, and injection targets are adjusted accordingly so as to
facilitate heating of the reservoir. The response time was
expected to be 6 to 9 months, but several patterns showed
stimulation after three (3) months. To date, the schemes
production has increased from 158 bopd in November 2002 to
1150 bopd in November 2003.
Steamflood Performance
Some of the techniques used to monitor the production
performance of the steamflood are:
1.

Pattern plots which are graphical representations of oil

and water production for each pattern.

2.

Injectivity plots which are graphs of injection rates and

injectivity versus time for each injector.

3.

Fluid maps for contouring and tracking flood

movement e.g. iso-gross, iso-nett, iso-watercut. There
are also iso-temperature for showing temperature
distribution, iso-basic for reservoir pressure and isocumulative for cumulative oil spread.

4.

Temperature surveys to monitor downhole temperature

profile of injectors and offtakes.

5.

Heat loss calculations, which give an indication of

steam quality at the surface and downhole.

Pattern plots for Cruse E indicate that all the patterns have
shown response to steam, but to varying extents. The most
prolific pattern during 1998 using oil production as yardstick
was Pattern 2 which had a potential of 160 bopd. These plots
also indicate that there were suddenly high water cuts in
Patterns 3,4,5,6,15,20 and 25, which were due to some wells
producing large volumes of water. These wells were causing
improper distribution of steam in the reservoir and were closed
in or tailored down when excessive water production began.
Also, steam injection rates in the patterns were either reduced
or stopped.
The sands are receptive to steam injection; with injection
rates as high as 1000 bspd being recorded. The average
injection rate during the 1996-1998 period was 500 bspd per
injector, which corresponds to an average injectivity of 0.63
bspd/psi.
The areal pattern sweep is irregular. In some cases it
follows the sand thickness trend of the B and C sands,
while in other patterns, it does not. This is confirmed by the
iso-gross, iso-nett and iso-water cut maps of 1998 [Figs. 1113]. There is poor vertical conformance in some patterns,
which is confirmed by pre-mature breakthrough in some
offtakes, as well as temperature distribution across the
perforations in injectors. Hence, it is necessary to run RST
logs to measure water saturation close to the wellbores of such
offtakes, so that water shut-offs can be recommended. Also, it
will be necessary to change injection points from time to time.
Environmental Aspects
The Cruse E Pilot and Cruse E [IDB] Expansion
steamfloods were closed in by the Ministry of Energy in
November 1998 following several reports by nearby residents
of harmful gases in the atmosphere.
A school and
kindergarten in close proximity to the scheme were of major
concern.
Baseline ambient air quality sampling was
conducted and the sample sent to the United States for testing.
Results indicated that there were unacceptably high levels of
volatile organic compounds [VOCs] present during certain
types of weather and during certain field activities. A Pan
American Health Organization [PAHO] survey listed the
possible sources of pollution and made recommendations for
corrective measures. During 1999-2000 corrective measures
were aggressively pursued by Petrotrin, and the following
activities were accomplished: (1)

More than twenty [20] meetings were held comprising

representatives from Petrotrin and all external
stakeholders such as Ministry of Energy, Ministry of
Environment, Ministry of Education, Environmental
Management Agency, and Parrylands Community
Leaders.

SPE 89411

(2)

Operations and Communications Plans were developed

and presented to the Ministry of Energy [MOE] and the
Environmental Management Agency [EMA].

(3)

An Air Quality Plan was developed for measuring and

monitoring ambient air quality in Parrylands and other
selected areas.

(4)

An Emergency Response Plan was developed to

address any upset conditions that may arise during
Cruse E operations. The plan was tested with an
exercise that involved all stakeholders.

(5)

Petrotrins Standard Field Operating Instructions

[SFOIs] were revised for conducting production
operations in Cruse E, and they were approved by the
Ministry of Energy.

(6)

More than one hundred and fifty [150] persons

comprising Petrotrin and contractor personnel were
trained on SFOIs, hydrogen sulphide awareness, and
other safety procedures.

(7)

Seven [7] steam injectors located in close proximity to

the Parrylands Village and Parrylands school were
isolated, as was recommended by PAHO/MOE/EMA.

(8)

Hydrogen sulphide was removed from the gas stream

by the installation of Sulfa Treatment Systems prior to
venting to the atmosphere at Gathering Station 9 and
40. Also, wells were treated for removal of hydrogen
sulphide using an approved H2S scavenger. The
treatment was also done to any well that produces H2S,
prior to the commencement of winch work.

(9)

The Parrylands school was re-located and the building

converted to a Community Center for surrounding
villagers. Petrotrin also constructed a football field,
basketball and netball courts adjacent to the
Community Center. Employment and training
opportunities are provided to residents of Parrylands.

Approval was formally granted to re-commence steam

injection in Cruse E Expansion and Cruse E Pilot in March
2002 by the Ministry of Energy, subject to the following
conditions:(1)

The steam lines to seven [7] patterns located close to

the school and the village to be disconnected and
blanked off.

(2)

Weekly checks for H2S and VOCs to be conducted by

Petrotrin at all locations recommended by the Ministry
of Energy, and the monitoring data must be submitted
to the Environment Management Agency.

(3)

Periodic sampling and analysis of air in the vicinity of

the Parrylands Village to be done at Petrotrins
expense, to determine levels of VOCs in accordance
with US EPA methods.

Following the approval by MOE to re-start steam injection,

the following preparatory works were conducted:(1).

Tested and inspected [T & I] the five [5] steam

generators in Cruse E.

(2)

Upgraded the entire steam distribution network.

(3)

Conducted routine workovers on forty-one [41] wells.

Noise levels from rig work was kept at <70 decibels at
a distance of 20 feet from the rig.

(4)

Performed coil cleanout jobs to all injectors.

Reservoir Simulation
Results of History Match and Simulation
Two analytical models were used, the Myhill-Stegemeier and
the Jeff Jones models.
(a) Results of Myhill-Stegemeier Analytical Model
The Myhill-Stegemeier model was used to simulate the 28
patterns. The production value it gives at the beginning of the
steamflood is higher than the actual. This can be seen in Fig.
14, which is a history match and forecast of the project using
both models. The actual production in 1996 was 482 bopd and
the Myhill-Stegemeier value was 1099 bopd. In 1997, when
the scheme peaked at 1142 bopd, the Myhill-Stegemeier value
was 1656 bopd.
This model predicts a peak production of 2601 bopd in
2004, which will decline to 2209 bopd in 2005. A final
recovery factor of 52 % of OOIP (11.29 MMbbls of oil)
would be achieved over the next twenty (20) years.
Recoveries ranges from as low as 30% in pattern 4 to as high
as 81% in pattern 2. The steam-oil-ratio history match and
forecast is shown in Fig. 15 for both models. For the MyhillStegemeier model an SOR of 3.2 could be expected when the
scheme reaches its peak in 2004, which will move to 4.8 in
2008 and continue to increase to 7.7 at the end of the projected
time. The Myhill-Stergemeier forecast of the IADB Cruse E
Expansion steamflood meets and satisfies Chus correlations
on steam flooding i.e. SOR > (or equal to) 5.0
(b) Results of Jeff Jones Model
Jeff Jones identified three stages in a steam flood scheme
Stage I, Stage II and Stage III... During Stage I, the reservoir
does not instantaneously realize the effects of the thermal
recovery phenomena. Instead, because of the large difference
in mobility between the displacing steam and the cold oil,
there is channeling and this affects initial production response.
The Jeff Jones method history match of production of this
steamflood in year 1996 is 355 bopd less that the actual, as can
be seen in Fig. 14. In 1997, when the scheme was producing
1142 bopd, this model gave a value that was 91 bopd higher
than the actual.

SPE 89411

At Stage II of a thermal scheme, the mobility of the oil

increases, and is largely due to viscosity reductions. As a
result, hot oil is displaced towards the offtakes very efficiently
and the production rate is about equal to the rate of growth of
the steam chamber. The peak production occurs early in this
Stage.
At Stage III of the process, there are substantial vertical
heat losses to the adjacent formations, but this is not
sufficiently accounted for in this model. As a result,
production will not decline to zero with time, unless manually
declined.
A peak production of 2164 bopd is forecasted in year 2005,
which will decline to 1705 bopd in 2006. By year 2010 it will
be 1073 bopd and end off at 148 bopd in 2023. The final
recovery factor of 44 % of OOIP (10.08 MMbbls of oil)
would be achieved at the end of the projected time. The steamoil-ratio results for this method is shown in Fig. 15. It is
forecasted to be 3.5 when the scheme reaches its peak in 2005,
increase to 4.9 in 2008 and reach a maximum of 14.9 at the
end of the projection.
Of the two (2) simulation models used, the Jeff Jones gives
a closer history match than the Myhill-Stegemeier. The latter
predicts very early and rapid response. It was observed that the
Jeff Jones model generates higher SORs than the MyhillStegemeier as the project reaches maturity. Based on these
results, it is felt that the Jeff Jones model is the preferred
choice over the Myhill-Stegemeier as an analytical simulator
for this project.
A simulation of this steamflood using the numerical
simulator CMG STARS is in progress. Geologic and reservoir
maps of the Cruse E sub-units are being formatted for the
software, at the time of writing of this paper.
Future Operating Strategies
The operating strategy of this steamflood will incorporate a
combination of the following activities:

Introduction of cyclic steaming in this scheme. At

present five (5) wells are being prepared for cyclic
steaming.

Improvement of steam quality at the wellhead.

Damaged or stolen steam line lagging is replaced on
a continuous basis.

Activate more patterns. Petrotrin will seek approval

from the Energy Ministry in 2004 to waterflood the
seven patterns that are closed in for environmental
reasons.

Identify cause of early water breakthrough in some

wells, by investigating vertical conformance at
injector and offtake. RST logs will be run on some
offtakes with high water cuts.

Unreliable supply of water to the generators is to be

addressed, by increasing the number of active water
wells in Forest Reserve.

Application of new technology to monitor and

improve steamflood performance, for example,
cross-well tomography, additives to steam, use of
foaming agents as diverters, and 4-D seismic.

Project Economics
The original project economics of May 1996 was severely
affected by the four-year shutdown of steam injection. A
revised production forecast was done in November 2002 with
the assumption that the remaining recoverable reserves of 7.5
MMBO will be produced in 13 years with a peak of 2200
bopd in year 2006 [Table 2]. Economic runs were done to
include capital expenditure incurred during the re-start phase.
Results of economic runs indicate that the project will be
profitable at a market oil price of $18.00 per barrel and above.
Cruse E thermal oil has a market value of $US 6.00 less
than WTI crude.
The annual economics of the project is based on the
Economic Limit Steam Oil Ratio Method, which is used for
the other Petrotrin steamfloods. In this method, the economic
limit steam-oil ratio is calculated based on an operating cost
target, steam generator cost and a total actual operating cost of
the steamflood.
If R =

Project Steam Cost

Project Operating Cost

It could be shown that:

Economic Limit SOR = (Operating Cost Target)(R)
(Cost to generate a bbl of steam)
For example, for the year 2003, the operating cost target was
$US 7.50/bbl oil and the ratio R was 0.70, which together with
an average steam generation cost of $US 0.75 per bbl steam
gives an Economic Limit SOR of 7.0 for that year. The actual
SOR for the year 2003 was 6.16, which is less than the
Economic Limit SOR, which means that the steamflood
operating cost was less than the cost target set by the
company. During 2003, it was necessary to inject at high
rates, even though not very profitable, so as to fill up and heat
up the reservoir after four (4) years of non-injection. The
injection to withdrawal ratio for the year was 2.8.

Conclusions
(1)
The interpreted bifurcating ENE/WSW trend of the
distributary channel complexes of the uppermost
section of the Upper Cruse sands which were subdivided into Units A, B, C and D was confirmed by the
many wells that were drilled. The presence of several
faults was confirmed by contour misties and fluid
anomalies

(2)

(3)

SPE 89411

The oil in place [OIP] at the start of steamflood was

estimated to be 31.1 MMBBLS. The recovery to date
is 3.3%. The remaining reserves are expected to be
produced over the next twelve [12] years with a peak
production rate of 2200 bopd occurring in year 2005,
based on no injection in seven [7] patterns and an
ultimate recovery factor of 28%.
There is evidence of uneven sweep and poor vertical
conformance in several patterns.
More reservoir
engineering type work is needed to overcome
production problems, especially high water cuts. Since
injection was restarted in November 2002, response has
been better than expected.

References
1.

Ali-Nandlal, J. : Review of the Point Fortin Cruse E Pilot and

2P/3P Steam Projects, P.E. Report No. 280, Reservoir Development
Department, Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago Limited,
1994 May.

2.

Greaser, Gary R. : New Thermal Recovery Technology and

Technology Transfer for Successful Heavy Oil Development, Paper
SPE 69731, presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, Margarita Island, Venezuela, 2001 March
12-14.

3.

Marcelle-de Silva, J. : Point Fortin Cruse E Expansion Steamflood

Production Forecast Sensitivity Analysis, P.E. Report No. 253,
Technical Department, Trinidad & Tobago Oil Company, 1992
August.
IADB Implementation Team : Revised Project Scope for Point
Fortin Cruse E Steamflood Expansion Project : P.E.. Report No.
279, Exploration & Production Division, Petroleum Company of
Trinidad & Tobago Limited, 1994 March.

4.

(4)

(5)

(6)

History-matches and performance predictions were

done using two (2) different analytical models, MyhillStegemeier and Jeff Jones. The Jeff Jones model
produces a closer history match and a more realistic
early response than the Myhill-Stegemeier model.
Environmental standards in the field and
communication with residents have improved since the
scheme was shut down. Since steam injection has restarted, greater emphasis is being placed on upkeeping
the environmental standards of an active steamflood
operation, as the scheme will be hoping for ISO 14001
certification.
The economics of the project was severely affected by
the four [4] year shutdown of steam injection. Revised
economics show that the project will be profitable at
market oil prices of $US 18.00 per barrel and above.

5.

IADB Implementation Team : Technical Report (subsurface) for

Point Fortin Cruse E Steamflood Expansion Project, P.E. Report
No. 299, Exploration & Production Division, Petroleum Company of
Trinidad & Tobago Limited, 1996 May.

6.

Prats, Michael: Thermal Recovery, Monograph Volume 7, Society

of Petroleum Engineers, Henry L. Doherty Series.

7.

Sumadh, W., Ramoutar, R. : Geological Study of the Pliocene

Upper Cruse Sands in the Cruse E Pilot Area and Proposed Eastern
Expansion Area of the Fortin Central and Cruse Fields, Geological
Report No. 680, Reservoir Development Department, Petroleum
Company of Trinidad & Tobago Limited, 1994 June.

8.

Ramlal, V.:The Cruse E Expansion Steamflood: Technical,

Economic and Environmental Perspectives, Paper SPE 81063
presented at LACPEC VIII, Port of Spain, Trinidad, 2003 April 2730.
SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Management of Petroleum Company
of Trinidad & Tobago [Petrotrin] for permission to publish
this paper. I would also like to thank the Geoscientists and
Production personnel who have worked, and who are currently
working to make this project a success.

Acres x 4.046856 *

E-01

ha

Bbl x 1.589873

E-01

m3

Cp x 10 *

E-03

Pa.s

(degree F - 32)/1.8

E-00

ft. x 3.048 *

E-01

in. x 2.54 *

E-00

cm

md x 9.869233

E-04

um2

psi x 6.894757

E+00

kPa

* Conversion factor is exact

SPE 89411

TABLE 1 - CRUSE 'E' (IADB) EXPANSION STEAMFLOOD

SUMMARY OF RESERVOIR
Average Depth to Base of Sand (ft)

2100

Average Reservoir Temperature at start of steamflood (

F)

110

Average Crude Oil Viscosity at reservoir conditions (cp)

Crude Gravity at 60

oF

175

( API)

16 - 18

Average Permeability (md)

265

Average Sand Thickness (ft)

75

Average Porosity (%)

31

Area (acres)

270

Initial Oil Saturation (%)

75

Estimated Oil Saturation at start of Steamflood (%)

68

Formation Volume Factor (Res bbl/stb)

1.1

Original Oil in Place (MMBBL) at start of steamflood

31.1

TABLE 2 - CRUSE 'E (IADB) EXPANSION STEAMFLOOD

FORECASTED AND ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND INJECTION SUMMARY
YEAR

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

ORIGINAL
FORECAST
OF 1995
(BOPD)
150
450
1,350
2,375
3,275
3,775
3,760
3,400
2,900
2,375
1,825
1,250
800
400
150

REVISED
FORECAST
OF 2002
(BOPD)

600
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,200
2,200
2,000
1,700
1,350
950
700
500
350

FORECASTED
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
INJECTION PRODUCTION INJECTION
(BSPD)

6,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,500
2,000

(BOPD)
156
417
810
877
280
148
163
144
831

(BSPD)
0
5,017
9,372
6,525
400
5,115

STEAM
OIL
RATIO
0.00
12.03
11.57
7.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.78
6.16
10.00
6.67
5.00
4.55
3.64
3.50
3.53
3.70
4.21
4.29
5.00
5.71

SPE 89411

FIG. 1 -PETROTRIN THERMAL PROJECTS LOCATION MAP

Steamflood and
He at Scavenging
Projects

FIG. 2 CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD PATTERN MAP

SPE 89411

FIG. 3 CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD STRUCTURE MAP TOP CRUSE

FIG. 4 TYPE LOG CRUSE 166

10

SPE 89411

FIG. 5 CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD NET OIL SAND ISOPACH UNIT A

FIG. 6 - CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD NET OIL SAND ISOPACH UNIT B

SPE 89411

11

FIG. 7 - CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD NET OIL SAND ISOPACH UNIT C

F IG . 8 - C R U S E E (ID B ) S T E A M F L O O D N E T O IL S A N D IS O P A C H U N IT D

2000

Jan-95
Mar-95
May-95
Jul-95
Sep-95
Nov-95
Jan-96
Mar-96
May-96
Jul-96
Sep-96
Nov-96
Jan-97
Mar-97
May-97
Jul-97
Sep-97
Nov-97
Jan-98
Mar-98
May-98
Jul-98
Sep-98
Nov-98
Jan-99
Mar-99
May-99
Jul-99
Sep-99
Nov-99
Jan-00
Mar-00
May-00
Jul-00
Sep-00
Nov-00
Jan-01
Mar-01
May-01
Jul-01
Sep-01
Nov-01
Jan-02
Mar-02
May-02
Jul-02
Sep-02
Nov-02
Jan-03
Mar-03
May-03
Jul-03
Sep-03
Nov-03

GROSS PRODUCTION
(BPD)

OIL (BOPD)

1200

Injection Stopped

1000
8000

800

600

Injection
Recommenced

200

6000
GROSS FLUID (BFPD)

5000

4000

1000

1995 JANUARY - 2003 NOVEMBER

6000

400
4000

WATER-CUT (%)

Injection Stopped
70

Water-cut

3000

Gross
Injection
Recommenced

0
60

50

40

30

20

10

STEAM INJECTION (BSPD)

1400

WATER-CUT (%)

Jan-95
Mar-95
May-95
Jul-95
Sep-95
Nov-95
Jan-96
Mar-96
May-96
Jul-96
Sep-96
Nov-96
Jan-97
Mar-97
May-97
Jul-97
Sep-97
Nov-97
Jan-98
Mar-98
May-98
Jul-98
Sep-98
Nov-98
Jan-99
Mar-99
May-99
Jul-99
Sep-99
Nov-99
Jan-00
Mar-00
May-00
Jul-00
Sep-00
Nov-00
Jan-01
Mar-01
May-01
Jul-01
Sep-01
Nov-01
Jan-02
Mar-02
May-02
Jul-02
Sep-02
Nov-02
Jan-03
Mar-03
May-03
Jul-03
Sep-03
Nov-03

OIL PRODUCTION (BOPD)

12
SPE 89411

FIG 9 - CRUSE 'E' EXP (IADB) STEAMFLOOD PROJECT

OIL PRODUCTION / INJECTION PROFILE
STEAM INJECTED (BSPD)
12000

10000

2000

1995 JANUARY - 2003 NOVEMBER

FIG. 10 - CRUSE 'E' EXP (IADB) STEAMFLOOD PROJECT

WATER-CUT / GROSS PROFILE

100

90

80

SPE 89411

13

FIG. 11 CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD ISO GROSS MAP (BFPD)

FIG. 12 CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD ISO NET MAP (BOPD)

14

SPE 89411

FIG. 13 CRUSE E (IDB) STEAMFLOOD ISO WATER-CUT MAP (%)

SPE 89411

15

2750

10000

2500

9000

2250

8000

2000

7000

1750

6000

1500

5000

1250

4000

1000

3000

750
500

2000

250

1000
2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

0
1996

Steam Injection Rate (BSPD)

Forecast (BOPD)

FIG. 14 - IADB Cruse 'E' Expansion Steamflood Forecast

using both the Myhill Stergemeier and Jeff Jones Method

Time (Years)

Jeff Jones

Myhill Stergemeier

Actual

Steam Rate

FIG. 15 - STEAM OIL RATIO Forecast for both the

Myhill Stegemeier and Jeff Jones Method
30

injection restarted
Nov-02

20

15

10

Time (Years)

Jeff Jones (SOR)

Myhill Stegemeier (SOR)

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

SOR (bbls/bbls)

25