SPE-186187-MS

Well and Inflow Performance Relationship for Heavy Oil Reservoir under
Heating Treatment

F. Hakiki, King Abdullah Univesity of Science and Technology; A. Aditya, Pertamina EP; D. T. Ulitha, Imperial
College London; M. Shidqi, Shell Indonesia; W. S. Adi, K. H. Wibowo, and M. Barus, Pertamina EP

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19 October 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Well and Inflow Performance Relationship, termed TPR and IPR, respectively have been the unfailing
methods to predict well performance. It is further to determine the schemes on optimising production. The
main intention of the study is to explore TPR and IPR under heating treatment for heavy oil well. Klamono
is a mature field which mostly has depleted wells, it produces heavy oil within 18.5 °API (>0.95 g/cc
oil density), and therefore, artificial lifting method is necessary. Sucker Road Pump (SRP) and Electrical
Submersible Pump (ESP) are the most deployed artificial lifting method in this reservoir. To boost the heavy
oil production, the application of Electric Downhole Heater (EDH) in Well KLO-X1 is being studied. Whole
Klamono's production is more than 100,000 blpd within 97-99% water cut. By installing EDH, oil viscosity
is decreased hence oil mobility ratio will play a role to decrease water cut. EDH is installed together with the
tubing joint to simplify its application in the wellbore. The study shows that EDH application can elevate
fluid (mixed oil and brine) temperature. Oil viscosity confirms a reduction from 68 to 46 cP. The gross well
production is up to 12.2 bopd due optimising its outflow performance and reducing 97.5 to 96.9% water
cut. The field data gives an incremental of 4.9 bopd. The computational results only show an attainment of
net oil production up to 8.3 bopd (2 bopd incremental). The EDH works to lessen both density and viscosity
as we hypothesised for the mechanism of thermally induced oil production improvement. The evaluation
study on its economics aspect exhibits good result that is 1.4 USD/bbl additional profit margin according
to field data despite the challenging annual rig rent cost. Following the field data, the expected net income
through analytical model revealed that this project is financially promising.
KeyWords: IPR heavy oil, TPR heavy oil, Electric Downhole Heater (EDH), flow assurance, heavy oil,
Klamono Field, thermal well stimulation, economics analysis
2 SPE-186187-MS

Introduction
Downhole Heating
Heating oil at downhole conditions by deploying a concentrated resistive heaters was first introduced in 1969
by USSR (now: Russia) and US (Farouq Ali, 1973). This method is one of the well stimulation techniques
because it focuses on altering the fluid and rock in the wellbore area.
There are three proposed mechanism of thermal induction in reservoir to improve oil production,
which are: lowering viscosity, reducing oil gravity and wettability alteration. Some researches have shown
laboratory or field experimental results which thermal-based induction operation can reduce viscosity
(Ojeda and Parman, 2013), reduce heavy oil density (Naser et al., 2015) and alter wettability (Weinbrandt et
al., 1975; Permadi et al., 2016). Decreased viscosity influences the mobility ratio to increase which means
oil will easily flow (See Eq. 1).

[1]

Oil gravity can be regarded as a mechanism due to its ability to segregate with water. Density of liquid is
strongly correlated with its viscosity as liquid gets lighter, the liquid will be less viscous (Andrade, 1930).
Wettability is a rock characteristic that refers to the interaction between rock and fluid (oil and brine). Taking
into account wettability means heat transmission is quite strong to reach the near wellbore rock. Wettability
is the manifestation of rock-fluid interaction associated with fluid distribution in porous media (Hascakir
et al., 2009). Mathematically, wettability which is measured by contact angle θ can be depicted in capillary
number NC. An important key of fluid flow in porous media is that by altering wettability in such way to
increase the capillary NC or Bond number NB (in case of considering gravity effect Δγ), the fluid would flow
easier (See Eq. 2 and 3 by Pennel et al. (1996); Lenormand et al. (1988)).

[2]

[3]

There has also been a research done on altering capillary number on EOR process (Hakiki et al., 2015).
The study found that rock-fluid interaction is also exhibited by relative permeability. Accordingly, the
understanding of wettability effect is governed by its relative permeability alteration.
A summary on increasing capillary number to reduce residual fluid saturation is presented in Figure
1. This summary is resumed from various phenomena of fluid flow in porous media, which covers oil,
microemulsion and brine flow. Figure 1 portrays the attempt to recover more fluid either oil or brine is
achievable by increasing trapping number NT. The contribution of trapping number can be approached either
by capillary number side or Bond number side. Bond number covers the density difference Δγ, fluid bubble
size d and both wettability θ and surface tension Ts. Capillary number is increased if the invading fluid
(brine or polymer) is introduced, escalating a higher fluid velocity by injecting another invading fluid (water
injection), changing wettability or a decrement in interfacial tension. In the discussion of wettability, it must
be able to detach more oil from its surface, structural or pore trap.
SPE-186187-MS 3

Figure 1—Capillary desaturation curve (CDC) under stable displacement regime or piston-like displacement. Once
buoyancy number NB is ignored, trapping number NT would equal to capillary number NC. Bouyancy number at particular
inclination α is only considered in Youssef (2015). All data are abstracted from laboratory results except Al Shalabi (2014)
which is from numerical simulation. Normalised residual saturation is expressed as follow Sn=(Sor-Sor(min))/(Sor(max)- Sor(min)).

Wettability is inter-correlated with surface tension Ts as equated by Young-Dupre in Eq. 4 (Schrader,

1995). It is obvious that interfacial tension plays the role in producing more oil (Hakiki, 2014; Hakiki et
al., 2015). For this reason, there might be a possibility that electrical downhole heating also change both
wettability θ and oil-water interfacial tension Tow.
[4]
Doubt was raised whether or not thermal recovery affect wettability in better condition in such a way
to mobilize more oil (Punase et al., 2014). This was answered by an observation of a negative relation
that wettability alteration happened from oil wet to stronger oil-wet by steam (Permadi et al, 2016). Our
discussion will concentrate on the flow assurance of heavy oil through tubing in which EDH acts as the
intake of tubing. The focus is to apply EDH in Klamono Field, Indonesia. Table 1 is evident that electrical
downhole heating is promising. The heater used in this field trial was a resistive type heater (Ohmic heater).

Table 1—Summary of application of Ohmic (resistive) downhole heating in various places.

4 SPE-186187-MS

Klamono Field
Technical screening following the algorithm developed by literature study suggests that Klamono is suited
to be treated with immiscible CO2, steam flood, and polymer (Hartono et al., 2017). Concerning the shallow
reservoir and high viscosity, it led to the trial of heat-based EOR or well stimulation to boost the production.
Klamono is an onshore field located in Salawati Basin, in the North-West of Papua Island currently
operated by Pertamina EP. This basin is the mature one, with high potential of hydrocarbon, which was
proven ever since the first oil well, Klamono-1 (KLO-1) drilled by NNGPM (Nederlandsch Nieuw Guinea
Petroleum Maatschappij) in 1936 (Satyana et al., 1999). Figure 2a tells that Klamono Field is located in the
East part of Salawati Basin. The reservoir consists of three formations, which are Kais, Sirga and Klasefet
Formation under strong water drive force. The New Guinea Limestone Group encompassed of Oligocene
to Miocene aged Faumai, Sirga, Kais and Klasafet formations are the key in tertiary strata (See Figure 2b).
The major reservoir is Kais carbonates while the source of hydrocarbon is Klasafet shale (Satyana et al,
1999). General reservoir properties are displayed in Table 2. The reason of EDH application is due to its
API at 18.5 and viscosity 68 cP (at 52 °C). A crude is categorised as a heavy oil if its API is between 10
to 22 (Pramana et al., 2012).

Figure 2—Part (a): Map showing Salawati Basin tectoning setting. Salawati Basin is bounded by Sorong Fault
and there exists some faults within SW-NE and SSW-NNE trending, genetically formed as enechelon extension
fractures to the Sorong Fault (Satyana et al., 1999). An index map at upper left part indicates that Salawati
Basin is in foreland position of Papua Island and nearby the Indo-Australia Plate. Part (b): Stratigraphy map of
Salawati Basin (Satyana et al., 1999). Red box points where Klamono Field is, mainly from middle to late Miocene.
SPE-186187-MS 5

Table 2—Reservoir, rock and fluid properties of Klamono Field and feature of well KLO-X1.

Current field gross production is 134,221 blpd with up to 99% water cut (net oil production up to 930
bopd). Peak field production up to 5,972 bopd with 17 total number of production wells was achieved in June
1949. As per 2016, Klamono has 205 total number of wells, consisting of 128 production wells, 21 injection
wells, 40 suspended wells and 16 abandoned wells (4 hole problem wells & 12 dry hole wells). Most of them
were drilled after 1970 since the Indonesia government started the Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs)
policy in 1968. Up to 2011, Klamono's oil cumulative production is around 41.42 MMSTB from total 93.33
MMSTB OOIP (44.38% of recovery factor). Due to current low reservoir pressure, Klamono wells need
an artificial lifting method where out of 128 total production well, 64 wells are sucker rod pump (SRP)-
assisted and 64s well are electrical submersible pump (ESP)-assisted well.
The primary candidate for our trial of EDH is well KLO-X1 (See Figure 3). KLO-X1 was drilled on 6
Aug 2007 at 141 m TVD. It could be categorized as a shallow oil well. It is assisted by Sucker Rod Pump.
Due to low influx, the well is suspended for a while. The well has been producing since 15 May 2009 at
289 blpd and 5.8 bopd (98% water cut) after respacing job (change of rod spacing at SRP). Current well
oil cumulative is approximately 1085 STB (See Figure 3a). Reparation job has been done 4 times those are
Feb 2008, Aug 2009, Sept 2011 and Nov 2013.
6 SPE-186187-MS

Figure 3—Part (a): Profile of production history for 7 years of well KLO-X1. Part (b): Profile of
pressure and temperature of well KLO-X1. The data is obtained using pressure and temperature
gauge (PT Log) at static condition (no flow). This measurement was conducted on 13 March 2015.

The objectives of this paper are, thus, not only to study the fluid behaviour (viscosity and gravity) with
respect to the transmitted heat by EDH but also to perform reservoir and tubing performance relationship
analysis and field economics evaluation based on the selected well KLO-X1 of Klamono Field, Indonesia.

Methods
Theoretical Approach
There are three main aspects of computations: (i) fluid fraction prediction, (ii) rate computation, and (iii)
financial assessment. Part (i) is initiated by predicting wellbore fluid temperature to know the fluid viscosity
(See Eq. 5 through 7). The viscosity is then input into fluid fraction model (Eq. 8). Aspect (ii) is to compute
the liquid rate corresponding to field data and predicted TPR (Eq. 9 and 10). Aspect (iii) is predicting oil
production from oil cut derived from the frame (i) and liquid rate from the frame (ii). A comprehensive
economics study is then performed.
As mentioned in the Introduction section, viscosity is critical to the fluid flow of oil. Experimental data
is achieved from Fann VG measurement and a set of fitting equations is employed to see how dead oil
behaves under a wider temperature range. Possible temperature range must follow what reservoir condition
is like and the density is, in fact, pressure dependent (See Figure 3b). Dead oil equation is presented as Eq.
5 (McCain, 1990). Detailed parameters of equation set to compute oil density is presented in Appendices
section. A macro tool has been provided to compute the equations set and density of dead oil properties
(See Appendix 1 and Figure 4) (Guo, 2007). A rough trend of thermal gradient is projected from the top
and bottom well temperature as follows 0.180833 °C/m.

[5]
SPE-186187-MS 7

Figure 4—Red curve: Viscosity profile of oil sample from Klamono Field. Prediction of viscosity is computed using Eq. 5 (See
also Appendix 1) indicated by continuous line (-) and the experimental data is performed by Fann VG measurement indicated
by (□). Green curve: Fractional flow for oil computed by modifying Eq. 8 (fo=1-fw). This chart is computed based on 6 selected
temperature. The value of kro/krw is obtained from the history matching of production data, i.e. fo=2.5% (fw=97.5%) at 52 °C (from
fluid sampling in conjunction of PT Log operation). Point fo=2.5% at 52 °C points out initial condition before EDH was installed.

Figure 3b shows the reservoir condition 5 days before EDH installation. A simple computation is
considered by assuming a radial-horizontal flow into the tubing intake (surrounding of EDH). A constant
isobaric specific heat cp is deployed to take into account heat convection hence these set of equations will
prevail in this condition (Equating Eq. 6 and 7, also Appendix 2 (Geankoplis, 1993)).
[6]
[7]
The mass term in Eq. 6 is derived from oil density times heated volume in the annulus covering the EDH.
Unfortunately, it is clueless to assess the volume in the annulus. As a result, the heated volume is acquired
by imposing that the volume inside the annulus is equal to gross pipe volume (Pipe ID=2.441 inch, length of
pipe=109 m) subtracted by SRP rod volume (Rod OD=0.75 inch, length of rod=106 m). This net volume is
below 0.3 m3 (≈10.6 cuft). This assumption is infused since the reservoir is undergoing assistance by SRP.
The fluid comes into tubing via EDH as the intake-hole will fully be controlled by SRP instead of reservoir.
That statement is strengthened by its low reservoir pressure, 149 psi.
A horizontal fractional flow fw is adopted for predicting water cut for every selected viscosity. Each
viscosity data for a particular temperature is computed using Eq. 5. A fluid temperature change is assumed
to happen at near sand-face in which fluid satisfies radial-horizontal flow condition and assuming both oil
and brine relative permeability are not changed, in this case, it is still reasonable to further simplify the case
(See Eq. 8 and Figure 4).

[8]

A reservoir performance will be pronounced only through IPR model and more deal with near-wellbore
activity because of supposing no change in kro/krw. Vogel's equation is considered adequate to describe the
two phase's inflow performance relationship (See Eq. 9 by Vogel (1968); Guo (2007)). A detailed change
of IPR under heating treatment will in-depth be discussed in the of Section 3.1.
8 SPE-186187-MS

[9]

The tubing performance relationship is generated by utilising Hagedorn-Brown correlation (Hagedorn

and Brown, 1965; Guo, 2007) (See Eq. 10 and Appendix 3).

[10]

Field Application
The heater EDH installation is joined with producing tubing string at 109 m TVD. The breakdown of
instrument specification and temperature regarding EDH application is summarised in Table 3 and Eq. 11.
A temperature gradient is retained from the data of pre-installation, 0.180833 °C/m then substitute it by
subtracting post-installation bottom-hole well temperature Twbh.

[11]

Table 3—Heater specification and PT log-survey and -computation.

SPE-186187-MS 9

Economic Model
The Economic model is done using a single-flow concept to calculate profit margin from net income and
cost. Costs consist of two main parameters: rig and fuel daily cost, while income is achieved from net
daily oil production sale. Detailed calculation assumptions are disclosed in Table 4. Under pre-installation
process, the required investment is annual rig rent of 3,422,374 USD. The other expenses are 346 USD, 50
USD and 58 USD for personnel, maintenance and consumable use respectively. The set of equations for
economy analysis (Eq. 12).

[12]

Table 4—Assumptions of economic parameters used in the calculation using Eq. 12.

The EDH tool consists of two main components, EDH panel and cable. EDH Panel is purchased at 437
USD/set. EDH Cable costs 397 USD/set. The computation of the economics analysis is all converted to US
dollar even though there exist some costs or contract that were delivered in Indonesian Rupiah (IDR). The
conversion rate was following the rate exchange at mid of January 2015 (12,578 IDR/USD). As presented
in Eq. 12, there is a square root of three , which means multiplication for 3-electrical phase pump and
division of 1000 is to convert into kilo watt.

Results and Discussion

Well and Inflow Performance
A published simulation study has shown that recovery will increase as ratio of μo/μw gets lower (Maini and
Okazawa, 1987). The outcome of this research shows that brine viscosity reduction is not as drastic as oil,
from 0.55 to 0.47 cP and from 68 to 46 cP, for brine and oil respectively. Detailed comparison results pre-
and post-EDH application is shown in Table 5. As seen from the summary, heat treatment lessens brine
viscosity as much as 0.08 cP while oil viscosity is reduced by as much as 22 cP. Due to the reduction
of mobility ratio (|ΔM|=26, from 124 to 98), the production of oil is higher. Mathematically, this relation
can be acquired by combining Eq. 1 and 8 to gain the oil cut relation as below, Eq. 13. Since this paper
is not discussing a response on wettability or relative permeability, the rock-fluid interaction will not be
considered. Mathematically, the value of kro/krw remains constant.
10 SPE-186187-MS

[13]

Table 5—Reservoir properties, production & economics prediction summary before and after EDH installation.

Heavy oil density gets lighter as saturation pressure-temperature increase, while steam density is found to
be heavier under the same condition (Naser et al., 2015). It shows that liquid is more temperature dependent
and gas phase is more pressure dependent. The steam gets compressed (ΔP>0 → V decrease → ρ increase)
and the oil experiences expansion (ΔT>0 → V increase → ρ decrease). The results of this field trial show
diminutive decrement of density (Δρ=0.01 g/cc). This decrement is normal since the increment of fluid
temperature approximates 10 °C. It is a good compromise with published data on heavy oil (20 °API) which
undergoing reduction of density Δρ=0.057 g/cc for incremental temperature ΔT=15 °C (Naser et al, 2015).
This research assumes that the reservoir fluid temperature Twbh will reach temperature as high as the
surface fluid-measurement by heater Thf that is at 74 °C. This optimistic temperature is the better option
since we do not perform an advance heat transfer along the pipe. The final surface temperature is inversely
enumerated from the reservoir fluid temperature Twbh =74 °C and handled by a constant well temperature
gradient 0.180833 °C/m for both cases. The gradient is derived from the PT log data at the pre-EDH
installations. Then, the surface data of wells was used as an input to get average well temperature (See
Appendix 2).
Figure 5 displays the initial and final liquid rate are added to 14 blpd (field data). By zooming Figure
5a, the initial and final liquid rates are 251 blpd and 261 blpd, respectively for the prediction data through
computation. This study assumes constant productivity index PI at 5 bbl/day/psi.
SPE-186187-MS 11

Figure 5—KLO-X1 inflow and outflow performance. Part (a): Liquid phase inflow and outflow performance is
constructed by Eq. 9 and 10, respectively. Outflow performance is conducted by matching pressure & rate based on
BHP survey and production test of well. "Before" refers to condition when EDH was just about to install at 18 March
2015 and "After" is showing the condition at 20 March 2015. Part (b): Oil phase inflow performance relationship.

Figure 5b portrays that a shifted IPR due to heating treatment effects: a reduction of water cut and
viscosity. There are 3 IPR models presented: Vogel (solution gas-driven reservoir) and general oil flow
model derived from diffusivity equation (Guo, 2007). The Guo model shows a normal trend where the
heated well curve moves to the right for both liquid and oil phase curve. It has similarity with Vogel IPR
from zero rate until 270 blpd.
The reservoir still has dissolved gas with 3.3 scf/bbl GOR even the reservoir pressure is below the bubble
point. It is, therefore, still reasonable to use Vogel IPR. In the case of pure heavy oil, a single phase IPR
must be deployed. The comparison works with field data employs intersections of well performance (TPR)
and Vogel IPR. A matched is set between Vogel IPR and Guo IPR at EDH-treated condition for liquid phase
(Figure 5a). A comparison study on flow model in heavy oil reservoir appears in Table 6.
The analytical results have good agreement with the field data oil rate, with 0.8% and 2.3% relative error
with respect to the field data, pre- and post-EDH installation respectively. It gains 10 blpd rises after EDH
was installed on the 2nd day after installation (See Figure 6). The comparison of field and prediction data
as revealed in Figure 6 shows that prediction has a pessimistic trend. It might be due to higher volume
exhibiting heat exchange via convection than it should be. The computation of temperature is carried out
at the static condition of heat transfer along the tubing (gross pipe length Lpipe=109 m). According to Eq. 6
(also See Appendix 2), the volume considered is the entire liquid along inside the tubing.
12 SPE-186187-MS

Table 6—A literature study of flow model in the heavy oil reservoir.
SPE-186187-MS 13

Figure 6—Well KLO-X1 production performance. Actual production are collected from well production test data. Prediction
data are computed by inflow versus outflow performance relationship. The continuous line (-) represents field data
and dashed line (--) refers to prediction data computed. The vertical red line indicates the date of EDH installation.
14 SPE-186187-MS

It is difficult to verify how much volume in the annulus is heated by EDH. As mentioned in the Methods
section, the volume being heated equals to be the one inside the tubing because the pump is more accounting
for the flow of liquid instead of the reservoir performance itself. The calculation results in Figure 6 is derived
from the intersection points between well inflow performance or IPR with respect to outflow or tubing
performance relationship (TPR) in Figure 5a.

Economics Analysis
A major consideration in downhole heating is wellbore power transmission and associated power loss (Sahni
et al., 2000). The heater demands a higher power supply i.e. 4 kW than what is being supplied, 1.32 kW.
Yet, it is also paramount to see how much energy is consumed for each produced oil for this heat treatment.
The amount of energy would be associated with money spent for investment and operation of the
downhole heating set. The itemised production profile and economics evaluation is summarised in Table
5. The output states that predicted profit margin is 76 USD/day, accordingly better than before EDH usage
(ΔMp=76 USD/day). The daily-consumed energy depends on the power transmission, thus it affects the
daily operating cost CD (see Table 5).
The additional oil rate accelerates around 4.9 bopd on the 2nd day after installation, which boost the
income at roughly 217 USD/day compared to no EDH adoption. Theoretically, the income was anticipated
to step-up only 88.5 USD per 2 additional bopd. Prior to profit considerations, the value of predicted profit
margin must be evaluated, those are 251 USD/6.3 bopd (≈39.8 USD/bopd) and at 327 USD/8.3 bopd (≈39.4
USD/bopd), before and after installation respectively. This USD/bopd value is assigned into a variable called
x (=Mp/Qo).
The result shows a reduction of x at 0.4 USD per produced barrel (Δx=-0.4 USD/bbl). A comprehensive
simulation is demonstrated for a whole year application of EDH by assuming a 25% annual decline rate
from each well and a fixed initial rate at qo=8.3 bopd after 2 days installation processes. The comparison
was also carried out for a case of no EDH application at a fixed initial rate at qo=6.3 bopd for each well
experiencing 25% decline rate too. The detailed calculation is presented by Eq. 14 to 15 in case of no EDH
(with constant x=39.8 USD/bbl) and Eq. 16 to 18 in case of adopting EDH.
The equations used to calculate the annual profit of field PA is calculated by summation of each well
annual profit for all 64 SRP-aided wells (i denotes well counter). The well profit per barrel is denoted by xt,i
and remain constant during a particular duration of well i. The daily oil rate qo is declined at dr=0.0684932%
(converted from 25% annually) for a whole year of operating duration.

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]
SPE-186187-MS 15

[18]

In case of no EDH, t=365 days (1 year) within constant x. In the case of using EDH, it is vital to judge
that the well is able to operate on the 2nd day of installation processes (1 day for rig movement and 1 day
for putting the EDH set into wellbore). Supposing rig will move around the field to install EDH in a series,
the total operating EDH is summation of 365, 363, 361 days and so on following the number of wells.
Before EDH is applied, the rate is assuming no-EDH case i.e. initiated at 6.3 bopd then it will be shifted
at ratio rq=8.3/6.3 of a-day-before installation's rate. Bouncing back to 8.3 bopd/6.3 bopd ratio shows that
this simulation results are optimistic, where it disregards the installation day required for the first well, and
that it works immediately on the days of installation. The cost of rig renting also starts on the first day of
usage to install EDH.
The simulation exploiting analytical models assuming Eq. 14 through 18, details shown in Appendix 4
(consists of Table 7 through Table 10) and Appendix 5 (consists of Table 11 through Table 14). The results
show that by heating the fluid, the annual field profit margin could reach up to 6.5 million USD. It must,
however, subtract the rig rent cost of about 3.4 million USD annually. As results, the net profit margin
would be 3.1 million USD.
The field could achieve 5.2 million USD of net profit margin from natural flow. For sure, it is a rough
prediction because even though no EDH is installed, there might be some additional costs to execute a work
over service in each well. The results that EDH installation is still better as it adds more income (adding
more than 1.3 million USD) but the rig investment is not economically reasonable. It could be paid off
if the profit margin is secured at x=54.8 USD/bbl daily (Δx=15.0 USD/bbl). The minimum x=54.8 USD/
bbl is assumed at the oil rate-independent case. Thus, EDH installation is not economically worth applying
following the prediction data due to rig cost.
This estimation was, in fact, not performed as the basis of feasibility study prior to performing
EDH installation. The computation data was used to evaluate the performance of EDH theoretically. A
considerable amount of investment will be required to run EDH for all wells in the field.
The real field observations yield a profit margin of 296 USD/7.3 bopd (≈40.5 USD/bopd) and 511
USD/12.2 bopd (≈41.9 USD/bopd), before and after installing EDH respectively. It succeeds in driving
more Δx=1.4 USD per daily barrel produced oil according to the field data. It could be paid off if the profit
margin can guarantee x=41.0 USD/bbl daily (Δx=0.5 USD/bbl). The minimum x=41.0 USD/bbl is assumed
at the oil rate-independent case. It is acceptable to have a decrement in profit margin per barrel as long as the
oil rate is comparable. The analogue computation using field data is quite optimistic and promising since it
has an improved rate of 12.2 bopd/7.3 bopd ratio rq times the latest rate before installation.
An analogue computation is tested in the basis of field data's profit per produced oil (x=40.5 and 41.9
USD/bbl) and after installation rate ratio rq=12.2/7.3. This analogy only substitutes the post-installation
initial rate and profit per barrel x. It yields 9.7 and 6.3 million USD, before and after subtracted by rig rent
cost respectively. No-EDH installation field produces only 6.1 million USD. The 9.7 million USD can pay
off the rig rent cost. Therefore, there is an additional 0.2 million USD of profit margin. Therefore, it can
be concluded that this project is economically viable.

Concluding Remarks
Application of an electric downhole heating (EDH) or resistive (Ohmic) heating in the case study in
Klamono shallow heavy oil field well KLO-X1 positively improves the production. Experimental and
simulation study results show:
16 SPE-186187-MS

1. Heat transfer from EDH to fluid in the wellbore resulted in a slight oil density reduction as 0.01 cP
per ΔT=9 °C. It satisfies the condition of one of the proposed mechanisms.
2. Viscosity reduction could increase oil mobility passing water mobility thus decreasing water cut of
produced liquid from 97.5 to 96.9%. A viscosity reduction mechanism is thus realized.
3. The field data of flow assurance through the tubing is proven to improve well production from 253
to 267 blpd; equals to increasing oil from 7.3 to 12.2 bopd.
4. EDH application is predicted to give an income gain up to 88.5 USD/day for additional 2 bopd,
analytically. The economics study employing prediction data reveals that EDH installation is not
financially favorable due its high rig rent cost.
5. On the contrary with the 4th conclusion, the actual data from field holds a positive economics result
that the EDH installation might be financially feasible by assuming an optimistic oil rate i.e. holding
rate ratio rq=12.2/7.3 every starting post-installation phase.

Acknowledgements
Appreciation is highly presented to Mrs. Emeline Chong at Petrofac Malaysia Ltd., acting as a SPE
APOGCE Committee for reviewing this manuscript.

Nomenclature
M = Mobility ratio []
krw = Water relative permeability []
μw = Water viscosity [cP]
μo, μod = Oil viscosity or dead oil viscosity [cP]
kro = Oil relative permeability []
NC = Capillary number []
Fd = Drag frorce [N]
Fc = Capillary force [N]
d = Fluid bubble size [m]
μinv = Invading fluid viscosity [cP]
νinv = Invading fluid velocity in porous media [m/s]
Ts = Surface or interfacial tension [mN/m]
θ = Contact angle [rad]
NB = Bond number []
Fb = Buoyancy force [N]
Δγ = Gravity different, (ρo-ρw)g [N/m3]
Sor = Residual oil saturation []
Tow = Water-oil interfacial tension [mN/m]
Tos = Solid-oil interfacial tension [mN/m]
Tws = Solid-water interfacial tension [mN/m]
API = API oil gravity []
T = Temperature of dead oil [°C], [°F]
fo = Oil cut []
fw = Water cut []
cp = Isobaric fluid calor capacity, crude oil has 2090 [J/kg/K], 0.5 [btu/lbm/°F]
qs = Specific heat [J]
m = Fluid mass [kg], [lb]
Tbo = Final bottom-hole fluid temperature [°C], [°F]
SPE-186187-MS 17

Tbi = Initial bottom-hole fluid temperature [°C], [°F]

qc = Convection heat [J]
ha = Fluid convection coefficient [J/s.m2.K], [btu/hr.ft2.°F]
A = Area [ft2]
ΔTa = Temperature average for convection process [°C], [°F]
QL = Liquid rate [blpd]
Pwf = Flowing bottom-hole pressure [psi]
Pr = Reservoir pressure [psi]
z = Depth [ft]
= In-Situ average fluid density [lbm/ft3]
fF = Fanning friction factor []
Mt = Total mass flowrate [lbm/d]
um = Mixture velocity [ft/s]
gc = Unit conversion factor, 32.17 [lbmft/lbf s2]
Δz = Elevation increase [ft]
Twbh = Bottom-hole well temperature [°C], [°F]
Twh = Surface well temperature (well-head) [°C], [°F]
P = Power [kW]
f = Operating frequency [Hz]
fi = Ideal operating frequency, 50 Hz
V = Electrical voltage [V]
I = Electrical current [A]
cos π = Power factor []
Qo = Oil rate [bopd]
Qw = Water rate [bwpd]
Pcon = Daily consumed energy required by producing well [kWh]
Pinj = Daily consumed energy for injecting brine [kWh]
β = Pump energy consumption [kWh/blpd]
ID = Daily income [USD]
po = Indonesian Crude Price, ICP, 44.25 [USD/bbl]
CD = Daily cost [USD]
Vf = Consumed fuel [liter/kWh]
Cf = Fuel cost [USD/liter]
Mp = Profit margin [USD]
h = Reservoir thickness [ft]
= Average reservoir pressure [psi]
γ = eγ= 0.781073015, Euler's constant γ = 0.577216 []
CA = Dietz reservoir shape factor for square shape with a well in the middle, 30.8828 []
re = Drainage radius [ft]
rw = Well radius [ft]
Bo = Formation volume factor [bbl/stb]
s = Skin factor []
α = Mathematical constant, 0.01 []
Go = Depletion factor on horizontal distance [psi/ft]
L = Reservoir length [ft]
18 SPE-186187-MS

PA = Annual field profit margin, subscript: "without" means no EDH installed; "EDH"
means using EDH [USD]
i = Well counter from 1st to 64th well []
t = t-th day [day]; Day counter from day 1 to 365 []
qo, qo' = Oil rate production from each well [bopd]
dr = Decline rate of well at daily basis []
x, x' = Profit margin per barrel oil produced at daily basis, Mp/Qo [USD/bbl]
rq = Rate ratio of before and after of EDH installation []
NRe = Reynold number []
Di = Inside diameter [m2], [ft2]
ν = Fluid velocity in pipe [ft/s]
ρ = Fluid density [kg/m3], [lb/ft3]
NPr = Prandtl number []
k = Heat conductivity [J/s.m.K], [btu/hr.ft.°F]
NNu = Nusselt number []
Dpipe = Inner diameter of pipe [inch]
Lpipe = Tubing length [m]
Tw = Average well temperature [°C], [°F]
yL = Liquid fraction []
ρL = Liquid density [lbm/ft3]
ρG = In-situ gas density [lbm/ft3]
uSL = Superficial velocity of liquid phase [ft/s]
uSG = Superficial velocity of gas phase [ft/s]

References
Farouq Ali, S.M. 1973. Well stimulation by downhole thermal methods. Petroleum Engineer 45(11), pp. 25-35.
Ojeda, S.S. & Parman, D.G. 2013. Use of electric downhole heaters to improve production and recovery of heavy, viscous
oil in California and Venezuela. SPE-167347-MS. Presented at SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 8-10
October, Kuwait City, Kuwait. DOI: 10.2118/167347-MS.
Naser, M.A., Permadi, A.K. Bae, W., Ryoo, W. & Siregar, S. 2015. A laboratory investigation of the effects of saturated
steam properties on the interfacial tension of heavy-oil/steam system using pendant drop method. Energy & Env.
Research, 5(1), pp. 94-109.
Permadi, A.K., Naser, M.A., Bae, W.S., Ryoo, W.S. & Siregar, S. 2016. Investigating the effect of steam saturation
properties on wettability through contact angle measurement using a novel experimental method. IJAER 11(1), pp.
177-184.
Weinbrandt, R.M., Ramey, H.J.Jr., & Casse, F.J. 1975. The effect of temperature on relative and absolute permeability of
sandstones. Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, 15(5), pp. 376–384. DOI: 10.2118/4142-PA.
Andrade, E.N. da C. 1930. The Viscosity of Liquids. Nature 125, pp. 309–310. DOI: 10.1038/125309b0.
Hascakir, B, Acar, C & Akin, S. 2009. Microwave-assisted heavy oil production: An experimental approach. Energy
Fuels, 23, pp. 6033–6039. DOI: 10.1021/ef9007517.
Schrader, M.E. 1995. Young-Dupre revisited. Langmuir 11(9), pp. 3585-3589. DOI: 10.1021/la00009a049.
Pennell, K.D., Pope, G.A. & Abriola, L.M. 1996. Influence of viscous and buoyancy forces on the mobilization of residual
tetrachloroethylene during surfactant flushing. Environ. Sci. Technol., 30(4), pp. 1328–1335. DOI: 10.1021/es9505311.
Lenormand, R, Touboul, E., & Zarcone, C. 1988. Numerical models and experiments on immiscible displacements in
porous media. J. of Fluid Mechanics, 189, pp. 165–187. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112088000953.
Lake, W.L. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kamath, J., Meyer, R. F., & Nakagawa, F. M. 2001. Understanding waterflood residual oil saturation of four carbonate rock
types. SPE-71505-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 September-3 October, New Orleans,
Louisiana. DOI: 10.2118/71505-MS.
Sheng, J.J. 2011. Modern chemical enhanced oil recovery: Theory and practice. Elsevier. DOI : 10.1016/c2009-0-20241-8.
SPE-186187-MS 19

Al Shalabi, E. W., Sepehrnoori, K., & Delshad, M. 2013. Mechanisms behind low salinity water flooding in carbonate
reservoirs. SPE-165339-MS. SPE Western Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting 2013 Joint Technical
Conference, 19-25 April, Monterey, California. DOI:10.2118/165339-MS.
Youssef, S., Peysson, Y., Bauer, D. & Vizika, O. 2015. Capillary desaturation curve prediction using 3d microtomography
images. Presented at the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts held in St. John's Newfoundland
and Labrador, Canada, 16-21 August.
Hakiki, F, Maharsi, D.A., Marhaendrajana, T. 2015. Surfactant-polymer coreflood simulation and uncertainty analysis
derived from laboratory study. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 47(6), pp. 706-725. DOI: 10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2015.47.6.9.
Hakiki, F. 2014. A critical review on microbial enhanced oil recovery using artificial sandstone core: Mathematical model.
Paper IPA14-SE-119. Proceeding of the 38th Indonesian Petroleum Association Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta,
May 21-23.
Punase, A., Zou, A. & Elputranto, R. 2014. How do thermal recovery methods affect wettability alteration? J. Pet. Eng.
2014. DOI: 10.1155/2014/538021.
Vinsome, K., McGee, B.C.W., Vermeulen, F.E., & Chute, F.S. 1994. Electrical heating. J. Canadian Petrol. Tech, 33(4),
pp. 29-36. DOI: 10.2118/94-04-04.
McQueen, G., Parman, D. & Williams, H., 2009. Enhanced oil recovery of shallow wells with heavy oil: A case study
in electro thermal heating of California oil wells. 2009 Record of Conference Papers - Industry Applications Society
56th Annual Petruleum and Chemical Industry Conference, September, 14-16. DOI: 10.1109/pcicon.2009.5297168.
Vielma, W. E.S., Misenta, M., Ponticiello, I., & Secco, G. 2010. Downhole electrical heating system: feasibility of heavy
oil implementation in offshore Congo. SPE-136857-MS. Presented at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference, 1-4 November, Abu Dhabi, UAE. DOI: 10.2118/136857-MS.
Quintero, E., Quezada, A., & Romero, I. 2014. Technical-economic evaluation of downhole electric heater cable
application in orinoco oil belt: Successful case. SPE-169351-MS. SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, 21-23 May, Maracaibo, Venezuela. DOI: 10.2118/169351-MS.
Hartono, A.D., Hakiki, F., Syihab, Z., Ambia, F., Yasutra, A., Sutopo, Efendi, M., Sitompul, V., Primasari, I., Apriandi,
R. 2017. Revisting EOR Projects in Indonesia through Integrated Study: EOR Screening, Predictive Model, and
Optimization. Paper SPE-186884-MS. Presented at the 2017 SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Bali, Indonesia, 17-19 October.
Satyana, A.H., Salim, Y. & Demarest, J.M. 1999. Significance of focused hydrocarbon migration in the salawati basin:
Controls of faults and structural noses. Proceeding of the 27th Indonesian Petroleum Association Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, October.
Pramana, A.A., Rachmat, S., Abdassah, A., M. Abdullah. 2012. A study of asphaltene content of Indonesian heavy oil.
Modern Applied Science, 6(5), pp. 64-72. DOI: 10.5539/mas.v6n5p64.
McCain, W.D. 1990. The properties of petroleum fluids. Tulsa, USA: PennWell Publishing Company.
Guo, B. 2007. Petroleum production engineering: A computer-assisted approach. Burlington, USA: Elsevier. DOI :
10.1016/B978-075068270-1/50000-1.
Geankoplis, C.J. 1993. Transport and unit operations. 3rd. Ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Vogel, J.V. 1968. Inflow performance relationships for solution-gas drive wells. J Pet Technol 20(1), pp. 83–92. SPE
1476-PA. DOI: 10.2118/1476-PA.
Hagedorn, A.R. & Brown, K.E. 1965. Experimental study of pressure gradients occurring during continuous two-phase
flow in small diameter vertical conduits. J Pet Tech, 17(4), pp. 475-484. DOI: 10.2118/940-PA.
Maini, B.B. & Okazawa, T. 1987. Effects of temperature on heavy oil-water relative permeability of sand. J. Canadian
Petrol. Tech., 26(3), pp. 33-41. DOI: 10.2118/87-03-03.
Liu, H., Wang, J., Xie, Y., Ma, D., Shi, X. 2012. Flow characteristics of heavy oil through porous media. Energy Resources,
Part A. 34(4), pp. 347-359.
Kumar, R., Mahadeva, J. 2012. Well-performance relationships in heavy-foamy-oil reservoirs. Paper SPE-117447-PA.
SPE Prod Op 27(1), pp. 94-105.
Jahanbani, A., Shadizadeh, S.R., 2013. Determination of the inflow performance relationship in naturally fractured oil
reservoirs: analytical considerations. Energy Resources, Part A. 32(8), pp. 762-777.
Sahni, A., Kumar, M., & Knapp, R. B. 2000. Electromagnetic heating methods for heavy oil reservoirs. SPE-62550-MS.
SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting, 19-22 June, Long Beach, California. DOI:10.2118/62550-MS.
20 SPE-186187-MS

Appendix 1
Dead oil properties formula (McCain, 1990)
SPE-186187-MS 21

Appendix 2
Heat transfer and capacity formula (Geankoplis, 1993)
Definition of dimensionless number which are: Reynold, Prandtl, and Nusselt.

Those dimensionless numbers are adapted for compute convection heat constant ha.

Heat transfer considered from convection process is to increase m oil sampel temperature from Tbi to Tbo.

Equating specific heat qs with respect to the convection heat qc yields the final oil temperature Tbo as
follow.
22 SPE-186187-MS

Appendix 3
Hagedorn-Brown correlation (Hagedorn and Brown, 1965).
SPE-186187-MS 23

Appendix 4
Detailed simulation of economics aspects using predicted data.
Table 7—Rate calculation in case of no EDH installed. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th day at Well #1
to #5. The computation of rate at t days is following Eq. 15. Units are in bopd. Rate at 6.3 bopd is predicted data.

Table 8—Rate calculation in case of installing EDH. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th day at Well #1 to #5.
The computation of rate at t days is following Eq. 17. Units are in bopd. The highlighted yellow means the effect of EDH
performance i.e. bounced back at 8.3/6.3 ratio (predicted data). It is assumed to take 1 day rig moving and 1 day installation.
24 SPE-186187-MS

Table 9—Daily profit calculation in case of no EDH installed. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th
day at Well #1 to #5. The computation of profit at t days is following Eq. 14 to 15. Units are in USD. This
computation is employing x=39.8 USD/bbl. This x value is derived from prediction data rate as presented in
Figure 6 and Table 5. Referring to Table 5, Mp =251 USD is the maximum profit margin before installing EDH.

Table 10—Daily profit calculation in case of installing EDH. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th day at Well #1
to #5. The computation of profit at t days is following Eq. 16 through 18. Units are in USD. Since the yellow highlighted
cells and below, the computation uses x=39.4 USD/bbl. The green highlighted cells are employing x=39.8 USD/bbl. Both
these x value are derived from prediction data rate as presented in Figure 6 and Table 5. Referring to Table 5, Mp =251 USD
is the maximum profit margin before installing EDH and Mp =327 USD is the maximum profit margin after installing EDH.
SPE-186187-MS 25

Appendix 5
Detailed simulation of economics aspects using field data.
Table 11—Rate calculation in case of no EDH installed. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th day at Well #1 to #5. The
computation of rate at t days is following Eq. 15 with rate adjustment. Units are in bopd. Rate at 7.3 bopd is field observation data.

Table 12—Rate calculation in case of installing EDH. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th
day at Well #1 to #5. The computation of rate at t days is following Eq. 17 with rate adjustments.
Units are in bopd. The highlighted yellow means the effect of EDH performance i.e. bounced back at
12.2/7.3 ratio (field observation data). It is assumed to take 1 day rig moving and 1 day installation.
26 SPE-186187-MS

Table 13—Daily profit calculation in case of no EDH installed. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th day at Well
#1 to #5. The computation of profit at t days is following Eq. 14 to 15 with some rate and x adjustments. Units are in USD.
This computation is employing x=40.5 USD/bbl. This x value is derived from field observation data rate as presented
in Figure 6. Calculating from Figure 6 using Eq. 12, Mp =296 USD is the maximum profit margin before installing EDH.

Table 14—Daily profit calculation in case of installing EDH. The results shown are truncated for 1st to 13th day at Well #1 to
#5. The computation of profit at t days is following Eq. 16 through 18. Units are in USD. Since the yellow highlighted cells
and below, the computation uses x=41.9 USD/bbl. The green highlighted cells are employing x=40.5 USD/bbl. Both these x
value are derived from field observation data rate as presented in Figure 6. Calculating from Figure 6 using Eq. 12, Mp=296
USD is the maximum profit margin before installing EDH and Mp=511 USD is the maximum profit margin after installing EDH.