Correlations for Predicting Oil Recovery

by Steamflood
Ezzat E. Gomaa, SPE-AIME, Standard Oil Co. of California
Introduction
Heavy-oil properties that classify as candidates for
steam flooding often need to be screened for priority
ranking due to budget, manpower, development, and
permitting limitations. Also, sensitivity studies often
are run on steam flood projects to determine the
effects of various operating strategies on project
performance and economic feasibility. Steam flood
performance predictions required in such screening
and sensitivity studies certainly can be made using
one or more of the analytical and empirical models
available in the literature.
I
-
4
Numerical reservoir
models that simulate the process of steamflooding
5
-
9
also can be used to make the required predictions.
While these analytical and/or numerical models
could suffice, they generally require somewhat
lengthy computations and necessitate the use of a
computer.
There is a need for a simplified easy-to-use method
for predicting steam flood performance. This paper
describes the development of such a method and its
basis, procedures, and limitations of applicability.
Basic Concept and Assumptions
The basic concept of the method is to define the
minimum set of parameters that have the most in-
fluence on steam flood oil recovery and are easy to
01492136180100026169$00.25
1980 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
determine for any given project. Oil recovery then is
determined as a function of these parameters using
field data and/or numerical simulation. Generalized
correlations or charts are prepared from these results
and used for prediction purposes.
In a steam flood, oil recovery should be dependent
on (1) rock properties such as permeability, porosity,
compressibility, relative permeability, capillary
pressure, and net/gross ratio; (2) fluid properties
such as specific gravity, viscosity, compressibility,
and PVT relationships; (3) flood geometry such as
pattern shape, spacing, and sand thickness; (4)
thermal properties such as thermal conductivity, heat
capacity, and thermal expansion; (5) reservoir
conditions such as initial oil saturation, temperature,
pressure, and residual oil saturation after steam-
flood; and (6) injection conditions such as rate,
pressure, and steam quality.
Because most steamflood applications are focused
on shallow heavy-oil-bearing sands, typical un-
consolidated sand characteristics were used in this
work. This meant that parameters such as absolute
permeability, capillary pressure, compressibility,
thermal properties, and fluid properties were not
considered as variables in the development of these
correlations. Instead, these parameters were fixed at
acceptable typical values.
In most projects, reservoir temperature and
pressure prior to steam flooding generally are low.
Low temperature is because of the shallow depths
Reservoir simulation was used to develop a set of correlation charts for predicting
steamflood oil recovery and oil/steam ratio as functions of reservoir characteristics
and operating conditions. The correlations emphasize the effects of steam quality,
mobile oil saturation, reservoir thickness, and net/gross ratio.
FEBRUARY 1980 325
I
INJECTOR
2 3 4
J
2
3
5
PROOUCER
Fig. 1 - Simulation grid for oneeighth of fivespot pat
tern.
involved in such projects, and low pressure primarily
is a result of reservoir depletion that takes place
during primary and/or stimulated production prior
to steamflooding. With low initial reservoir tem-
perature and pressure, any variations in their values
from one area to another would be insignificant
compared with injected steam temperatures and
pressures. Therefore, typical values also could be
assumed and kept unchanged for those two
parameters.
The relative permeability for heavy-oil sands and
their variation with temperature probably are the
most difficult to measure or predict among the
parameters mentioned above. Even when
measurements are available from a few core samples,
they may not be representative of the whole reser-
voir. Thus, considerable uncertainty almost always
exists in any set of relative permeability values used
in a study. Therefore, it was considered practical in
this work to use a set of curves typical of un-
consolidated heavy-oil sands. Normalizing the
saturation axes of such curves would allow the use of
different residual oil saturations.
Fixing the above parameters at their typical values
reduced the independent parameters that influence
oil recovery to porosity, net/gross ratio, reservoir
thickness, initial oil saturation, residual oil
saturation after steamflood, pattern shape, spacing,
injection rate, and steam quality. Coats et al.'sB
numerical steam flood simulator then was used in a
TABLE 1 - ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES
Horizontal permeability, md
Vertical permeability, md
Solution gas
Tank oil gravity, API
Formation compressibility, psi -1
Water compressibility, psi-
1
Oil compressibility, psi-
1
Specific heat of rock, Btulcu ttoF
Specific heat of oil, BtullbmoF
Specific heat of overburden, Btulcu ftoF
Specific heat of underburden, Btulcu ttoF
Thermal conductivity of formation,
Btu/tt day F
Thermal conductivity of overburden,
Btulft day F
Thermal conductivity of underburden,
Btulft day F
Thermal expansion coefficient of oil,
F-
1
326
1,900
950
o
14
0.00008
0.0000031
0.000005
35
0.485
47.0
47.0
43.0
17.0
17.0
0.00041
V
r/
I
INJECTOR
/
~
/
3 4
\
\
\
1\
3
4
~
PROOUCER
Fig. 2 - Simulation grid for onetwelfth of sevenspot
pattern.
sensitivity study to determine the effect of each of
these parameters on oil recovery and to supply the
results necessary for developing the correlations.
Simulation Data
Two simulation grids were used. A 5 x 3 grid
represented one-eighth of a five-spot pattern (Fig. 1)
and a 5 x 4 grid represented one-twelfth of a seven-
spot pattern (Fig. 2). These grids were considered
adequate for this study because the interest is in
overall project performance rather than individual
wells. Four reservoir layers were used with each grid
and were found to be adequate for representing the
gravity override effects.
As mentioned earlier, several reservoir rock and
fluid properties were fixed at their typical values
throughout the present study. Table 1 shows a
summary of the assumed values. Table 2 shows the
viscosities of oil, water, and steam as functions of
temperature.
A typical set of oil/water and gas/oil relative
permeability curves was obtained through history
matching of an actual Kern River field steamflood by
Chu and Trimble.
1O
This set of curves was used in
this study after normalizing their saturation axes to
vary the residual oil saturation. The normalized
curves for the oil/water and gas/oil systems are
shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
A reservoir temperature of 90F and reservoir
pressure of 60 psi a were assumed prior to steam
TABLE 2 - VISCOSITY AND TEMPERATURE DATA
Temperature
rF)
75
100
150
200
250
300
350
500
Oil
4200.0
1100.0
130.0
33.0
12.5
6.4
3.8
1.6
Viscosity (cp)
Water
0.920
0.681
0.435
0.305
0.235
0.187
0.156
0.118
Steam
0.0095
0.0102
0.0114
0.0127
0.0138
0.0149
0.0158
0.0174
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
k
row
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
o 0.2

\
\
\
I
I\k
row
I
\1
*rw
------
K

0.4 0.6 O.B
0.04
krw
0.02
o
1.0
Fig. 3 - Normalized oil/water relative permeability
curves.
injection. Injected steam pressure at the sand-face
was fixed at 200 psia. Producing wells were assumed
to be skin free and pumped off to a 40-psia bot-
tomhole pressure at all times.
Analysis of Simulation Results
Effect of Various Parameters on Oil Recovery
The effect of each parameter on oil recovery was
investigated by varying its value over a reasonable
range while fixing others at their typical values. In
general, the observed qualitative effects were in
agreement with conclusions made by previous in-
vestigators. However, this analysis was extended to
quantify these effects and to develop a method to
predict oil recovery. The results are summarized as
follows.
Porosity. High-porosity reservoirs produced more oil
100
I I I
INJECTION RATE = 1.7 B/O/Acr. Ft.
80 - STEAM QUALITY = 0.6
RESERVOIR THICKNESS = 100 Ft.
MOBILE OIL SATURATION = 0.42


/-


f
,-
POROSITY
-0.21
r--
III
--- 0.35
.--?-
I
o
o 2 3 4 6
TIME, YEARS
Fig. 5 - Effect of porosity on steamflood oil recovery.
FEBRUARY 1980
1.0 r-----,----,-----,----,----,


krog
8
krg


0.4 0.6
SL - Sw.i- - Sorq
f - Sw.i- - Sorg
0.8 1.0
Fig. 4 - Normalized gas/oil relative permeability curves.
per barrel of steam injected than low-porosity
reservoirs due to the larger fraction of heat used in
the latter for heating solid rock. But on a fractional
recovery basis, the effect of porosity becomes in-
significant as long as the steam injection rate per unit
of reservoir volume is fixed (Fig. 5).
Reservoir Thickness. Fig. 6 shows the effect of
reservoir thickness on oil recovery for a fixed steam
injection rate per unit of reservoir volume. The
thicker the reservoir, the higher the recovery at any
given time. This is basically because the heat loss
from thin reservoirs to overlying and underlying
strata is more significant relative to the total heat
input. Therefore, it was determined that the net heat
injected would give a better correlation. Net heat
injected equals the total enthalpy of the injected
steam less the heat lost to overlying and underlying
100,---,----,----,----,----,---.--.
INJECTION RATE = 1.7 B/O/Acr. Ft
STEAM QUALITY = 0.6
80
MOBILE OIL SATURATION = 0.42
I RESERVOIR
-+----+ THICKNESS,FI
, __ -
300
,_---,100


TIME, YEARS
Fig. 6 - Effect of reservoir thickness on steamflood oil
recovery.
327
100
I I I
INJECTION RATE = 1.7 B/D/Acr. Ft.
STEAM QUAU TV = 0.6
80
_ MOBilE Oil SATURATION = 0.42
o
o
X
X
0
xO
0
.,.
.410
I AX
RESERVOIR
o
THICKNESS,Ft.
X 300
AJL 0
-
i
a

-
A 20

10
A."oX
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
NET HEAT INJECTED MMBfu./Acre FI.
Fig. 7 - Effect of reservoir thickness on steamflood oil
recovery.
100
I I I
INJECTION RATE: 1.7 B/D/Gro Acr.Ft.
STEAM QUALITY = 0.6
80 f- MOBilE OIL SATURATION = 0.42
I
----

/
/// -
/
"
"
V//
GROSS THICK. NET/GROSS
//
/
FI. RATIO
}/I
- 100 0.6
-
--- 60 1.0

/ I I
I I
o
o 4 6
TIME, YEARS
Fig. 8 - Effect of net/gross ratio on steamflood oil
recovery.

328
INJECTION RATE = I. 5 B/D/Acr. Ft.
RESERVOIR THICKNESS = 70 Ft.
MOBilE OIL SATURATION 0.42
o
__ ____ ____ _L ____ _L ____
o 2 3 4 5 6
TIME, YEARS
Fig. 9 - Effect of steam quality on oil recovery.
strata. When oil recovery was plotted vs net heat
injected per unit of reservoir volume (Fig. 7), all
curves became nearly identical.
Net/Gross Ratio. A reservoir may contain some
discontinuous shale streaks so that its net productive
thickness is less than the gross interval without
diminishing vertical communication. This situation
was modeled by using effective porosity and per-
meability equal to the product of net/gross ratio and
the sand porosity and permeability, respectively. The
reservoir thickness then was taken as the gross in-
terval. The oil recovery of this case was compared
with that of a clean sand with a thickness equal to the
net productive interval. Fig. 8 shows this com-
parison, which indicates that for a fixed injection
rate per unit of gross reservoir volume, the shaly sand
apparently has a slightly better recovery. This was
mostly the result of lower heat loss to overlying and
underlying strata from the shaly reservoir because of
its greater thickness. When the fractional oil recovery
of the two cases was plotted vs net heat injected, as
discussed before, the differences disappeared. This
suggested that in steam flooding shaly sands, the
injection rate should be based on gross interval and
the oil production on net interval. As a result, the
shaly sands would require higher steam/oil ratios
than clean sands.
Mobile Oil Saturation. In this work, mobile oil
saturation was defined as
Sam = So;-Sors , ............. '" ...... (1)
where Sam = initial mobile oil saturation, So;
initial oil saturation prior to steamflood, and Sors =
residual oil saturation after steamflood.
It was found that steamflood oil recovery (ex-
pressed as fraction of mobile oil in place) correlates
very well with Sam' An increase in the value of Sam
causes an increase in both ultimate recovery and rate
of recovery.
Pattern Shape, Spacing, and Injection Rate. As
mentioned earlier, two pattern shapes were modeled
in this work: five-spot and seven-spot. It was found
that neither pattern shape nor spacing influenced the
oil recovery curve as long as the injection rate per
unit of reservoir volume was fixed. The result also
was conditional upon the absence of any limitation
on well productivity in the simulator. Therefore, the
basic difference between the five- and seven-spot
patterns - producer-to-injector ratio - becomes
meaningless. In actual field projects, where
limitations on well productivity could exist,
preference may be given to patterns with higher
producer-to-injector ratios. Caution, however,
should be exercised when considering a pattern with
nonuniform locations of producers with respect to
the injectors - e.g., the nine-spot. This may cause
earlier steam breakthrough, lower sweep efficiency,
and, perhaps, a loss in ultimate oil recovery.
It was found that the steam injection rate is best
expressed per unit of reservoir volume, which
eliminates the effect of several geometrical
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
parameters. However, even in this form the injection
rate was found to have a slight effect on oil recovery.
This effect was not considered in this work.
Steam Quality. Fig. 9 shows the effect of injected
steam quality on oil recovery at a fixed injection rate.
As would be expected, higher steam quality resulted
in higher and faster oil recovery. However, when the
data were converted to a net heat injected basis, the
differences did not disappear (Fig. 10). In other
words, at any fixed value for the net heat injected,
the oil recovery was dependent on steam quality. As
Fig. 10 indicates, the effect of quality is somewhat
complex. Oil recovery increased with quality up to a
point and then decreased, indicating an optimum
steam quality in the range of 40070. This is believed to
be caused by at least two factors: (1) the combined
effects of steam volume and viscosity and (2) vapor
override and liquid underrunning in the reservoir.
High-quality steam has larger volume but lower
viscosity than low-quality steam; thus, countereffects
could occur and result in an optimum quality range.
The effect of vapor override and liquid underrunning
is illustrated in Fig. 11, which shows the influence of
steam quality on various displacement parameters.
The displaced oil bank (zone of So ~ Soi) and the
temperature front reach the producing wellbore most
uniformly for the 40% injected steam quality. This
allows optimum utilization of the heat and minimizes
bypassing regions of high oil saturation. For steam
qualities higher or lower than 40%, nonuniformity of
displacement and bypassing regions of high oil
saturation do occur. The vapor saturation profiles
shown in Fig. 11 indicate earlier breakthrough for the
higher injected steam qualities. This, of course, will
result in premature higher heat losses to both
overburden strata and producing wells. Similarly, the
lower injected steam qualities will give rise to earlier
hot-water breakthrough at the bottom of the
reservoir and bypassing of oil at the top.
Heat Utilization Factor
It is clear that steam quality has a pronounced effect
on steamflood oil recovery. Besides being a necessary
factor in determining the total heat injected, the
quality also has an effect on displacement charac-
teristics. To quantify the latter effect, the quantity
"effective heat injected" is introduced and defined
as the fraction of the net heat injected that is utilized
effectively in the reservoir. In other words, it is the
minimum required net heat to achieve a given oil
recovery. The ratio between the effective heat in-
jected and net heat injected is defined as the "heat
utilization factor":
Q
e
= YQinj' ......................... (2)
where Q
e
= effective heat injected (MMBtu/acre-
ft), Qinj = net heat injected (MMBtu/acre-ft), and Y
= heat utilization factor.
The heat utilization factor could be viewed as a
measure of how efficiently the wet steam heats and
displaces oil in the reservoir. In other words, it
represents some sort of an overall sweep efficiency
and accounts, at least in part, for the heat lost with
FEBRUARY 1980
the produced fluids, especially after breakthrough.
From the data in Fig. 10 and other similar plots for
different Sam' a correlation was obtained for the Y
factor as a function of steam quality. The following
procedure was used.
1. At a fixed oil recovery value on Fig. 10, the
values of net heat injected corresponding to the
different steam qualities were read.
2. The net heat injected values were plotted vs
quality to determine the minimum net heat required
for that recovery value. This minimum, of course, is
the effective heat defined earlier.
3. The heat utilization factors (Y) then were
calculated as the ratio between the effective and net
heat injected values for each steam quality.
4. Steps 1, 2, and 3 were repeated for several oil
100r-----,-----,-----,-----,-----,----.
MOBILE OIL SATIIRATION = 0.42
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
O ~ ~ ~ L _ ____ L-__ L - __ L _ __ ____
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
NE T HEAT INJECTED. MMBtu / AcrfJ Ft.
Fig. 10 - Effect of steam quality on oil recovery.
QUALITY, %
o
--- 20
+ + + + 40
60
0000 80
~ I O O
INJECTOR
(A): 50"10 OIL SATURATION PROFILES
(DISPLACED OIL BANK)
QUALITY, %
o Sol = 500/0
- -- 20 Qinj: 395 MMBlu/Acre Ft.
++++ 40
....... 60
0000 80
""*"""* 100
INJECTOR
(B): 150F ISOTHERMS
(UNIFORMITY OF WELL BORE HEATING)
(C): 10"10 VAPOR SATURATION PROFILES
(STEAM ZONE GROWTH a BREAKTHROUGH)
Fig. 11 - Effect of steam quality on displacement
parameters.
329
recovery values and for several mobile oil saturation
(Sam) values.
5. The results then were correlated to give the
average relationship between Y and steam quality.
This correlation is shown in Fig. 12.
The correlation in Fig. 12 shows an optimum
steam quality of slightly less than 40070. At this
optimum steam quality value, the heat utilization
factor is 1.0 and the required net heat is a minimum.
Vertical Heat Loss
The simulation results were used to correlate vertical
..,
/""
..........
r---......
/
",
.........
"'-
"'
o Q2 Q4 Q6 Q8 1.0
INJECTED STEAM QUALITY
Fig. 12 - Heat utilization factor as a function of steam
quality.
100
o
o


10..
1\\
\f\:
"\
40

HEAr INJECrJON RArE

t'-.05 .-
V MMBtu./O/Acr. Ft.
f'..-
1'.1
'.2.
. ""'-.. ]'.4
h:'
f;::::
::::::-
.6
r--

t--
80 120 160 200 240 280 320
RESERVOIR rHICKNESS, FEEr
Fig. 13 - Heat loss to overlying and underlying strata.
I I I I - ..-
80 INlriAL MOBILE
OIL SArI/HArlaN, 111 V /"" VI--
"'-sgtV/V I "" '" _I-- ,--I--
so 40 V ...-c..
hv 30 V Vt-
V/V V20,0 .... V
40 hV IV V

:l] hVl'ir/ vV

o 200 400 SOO 800 1000 1200 1400
EFFECTIVE HEAr INJECTED, MMBfu./Gro$$ Aero Ff.
Fig. 14 - Steam flood oil recovery as a function of effective
heat injected and mobile oil saturation.
330
heat loss to overlying and underlying strata with
some independent variables; thus, the net heat in-
jected could be calculated for any given system. Of
the variables discussed earlier, only reservoir
thickness, injection rate, and steam quality showed
consistent effects on heat loss. Large reservoir
thickness, high injection rate, and high steam quality
result in low heat loss as a fraction of input and vice
versa. The effects of injection rate and steam quality
were combined by lumping the two variables as the
heat injection rate. The variation of heat loss with
time was neglected in this study. Fig. 13 shows the
percent of heat loss as a function of thickness and
heat injection rate per unit of reservoir volume. The
correlation indicated that for reservoirs thicker than
180 ft, heat loss is on the order of 15070 of input and is
almost independent of thickness.
Prediction of Steamflood Oil Recovery
As discussed, simulation results indicated good
correlations between steam flood oil recovery and
both effective heat injected per unit of reservoir
volume and initial mobile oil saturation. Thus, all
available results were used to construct a group of
curves relating these three parameters (Fig. 14).
The procedure to use Fig. 14 to predict oil recovery
for a given steam flood could be summarized as
follows.
1. Read the vertical heat loss (fhv) as fraction of
input from Fig. 13.
2. Read the heat utilization factor (Y) from Fig.
12.
3. Calculate the net heat injected (Qinj) in
MMBtu/gross acre-ft from
Qinj = 0.128 1:[/ h (1-hv) .::It]i J (3)
where / = injection rate (B/D/gross acre-ft), h =
enthalpy (Btu/Ibm) from Fig. 15, .::It = time in-
crement (years), and i = index of time increments .
4. Calculate the effective heat injected (Qe) in
MMBtu/gross acre-ft from Eq. 2.
5. Read the oil recovery from Fig. 14.
6. Repeat Steps 3, 4, and 5 as many times as
necessary until the ultimate recovery is reached.
The oil recovery predicted from Fig. 14 should be
considered only as the combined steam flood and
primary response. Net response due to cyclic steam
stimulation should be estimated from field per-
formance and added to the predicted recovery to
make up the total. In this regard, the oil saturation
used in the above procedure should be adjusted to
reflect the net cyclic stimulation recovery.
Oil/Steam Ratio
The ultimate oil/steam ratio (Pas) was calculated
from Figs. 13, 14, and 15 for a case of constant
injection rate of 1.5 B/D/acre-ft and steam quality
of 0.6. The oil/steam ratio is plotted in Fig. 16 as a
function of reservoir thickness, net! gross ratio, and
initial mobile oil saturation. As expected, increasing
any of these three variables resulted in a significant
increase in the oil/steam ratio. Plots similar to Fig.
16 could be obtained for other conditions and should
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
be helpful in designing and determining economics of
steam flood projects.
Limitations of Applicability
The correlations should be useful in predicting oil
recovery and oil/steam ratio for steamflood projects
that have reservoir characteristics similar to or near
the range of those outlined above. Caution should be
exercised when using the method for reservoirs with
characteristics outside that range. This is especially
important if precise values of oil recovery and
oil/steam ratio are required. In addition, if details of
saturation, temperature, and pressure distributions
are required, use of numerical reservoir simulators is
recommended. If the oil recovery and oil/steam ratio
predictions are required for property screening and
sensitivity analysis, this method should be
satisfactory in most cases.
Application to a Field Case
Data and performance of a steam flood project in the
Kern River field in California were given by Blevins
and Billingsley.1I The basic data required for the
application of the method is summarized in Table 3.
Calculations of predicted oil recovery for this
example and actual observed values are shown in
Table 4. Comparison of observed and predicted
recoveries indicates reasonable agreement. The
calculated recoveries do not include any adjustments
due to cyclic steam stimulation. Field performance
dictated that stimulation response was insignificant
with respect to flood response.
Note that in calculating the effective heat injected
at any time for a project, only the portion of the
injected steam that is confined to the project area
should be used. Steam quality used should be that at
the sand-face - i.e., at bottom hole conditions.
Conclusions
1. Average vertical heat loss as a fraction of input
is correlated with reservoir thickness and heat input
rate.
2. Above 180 ft, reservoir thickness has little
effect on vertical heat loss.
3. Pattern shape and spacing have insignificant
effect on steam flood oil recovery if injection rate per
unit of reservoir volume is fixed, well productivity is
not a limiting factor, and producers are at uniform
distance from injectors.
4. In designing steam flood projects, injection rate
should be based on gross reservoir thickness.
5. Steamflood oil recovery is dependent on steam
quality, even on a fixed total heat injected basis. A
heat utilization factor is introduced to account for
this effect. Maximum heat utilization appears at a
steam quality of about 40070.
6. Steam flood oil recovery is correlated with
effective heat injected per gross acre-foot and initial
mobile oil saturation.
7. Cumulative oil/steam ratio depends strongly on
initial mobile oil saturation, reservoir thickness, and
net/gross ratio.
FEBRUARY 1980
TABLE 3 - BASIC PROJECT DATA FOR THE FIELD CASE,
KERN RIVER FIELD
Area (acres)
Sand thickness (gross ft)
(net ft)
Porosity
Oil saturation prior to steamflooding
Residual oil saturation after steamflood
Injected steam quality
61
100
70
0.35
0.52
0.10
0.6
Injection rate
Year
1
BID of Cold Water
Equivalent
400 0
2000
1000
800
600
400
200
100
80
'" Q. 60
40

il:
20
2
3
4
5
6
6,600
9,100
6,600
6,000
6,100
6,100
/: /f0
/
II
/
\ \
/ /
/ / / I
/ / I
/ / I I I
STEAM' / i /
/ I il
100 QUALITY," - 0 20 40 60

I I I I
/ I I I
/ I I II
,
/ I II
II
II
I
,
'I
I I
o
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ENTHALPY, Blu./LIJ.
Fig. 15 - Enthalpy of wet steam as a function of quality
and pressure.
0.5,----,--,-----r---,----r---.-'ZOO
04


STEAM QUALITY" 60%
INJECTION RATE" 1.5 BIDIGROSS ACRE FT.
NET IGROSS
-1.00
--- 0.75
100
zoo
03 1----+--+-----+---+.'1'-+1-7'--+ 100
'"
:::!
c
oz
i:: '
"


30
30
01 ....-TC7''''''--:...t-'''-'----+- THICKNESS, Ft.

INITIAL MOBILE OIL SATURATION, "
Fig. 16 - Effect of oil saturation, reservoir thickness, and
net/gross ratio on cumulative oil/steam ratio.
331
TABLE 4 - PREDICTED AND OBSERVED OIL RECOVERY FOR THE FIELD CASE, KERN RIVER FIELD
Incremental Cumulative Predicted Observed
Incremental Effective Effective Cumulative Cumulative
Steam Injected Heat Injected Heat Injected Oil Recovery Oil Recovery Oil Recovery
Year (bbl/gross acre-ft) (MMBtu/gross acre-ft) (MMBtu/gross acre-ft) (% of mobile oil) (bbl) (bbl)
1 395 85
2 544 122
3 395 85
4 359 75
5 365 77
6 365 77
Nomenclature
fhv = vertical heat loss, fraction of input
Fos
h
I
krg
krog
k
row
k
rw
Q
e
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
cumulative oil/steam ratio
steam enthalpy, Btu/Ibm
index of time increments
steam injection rate, B/D/gross acre-ft
relative permeability to gas
relative permeability to oil in presence of
gas
relative permeability to oil in presence of
water
relative permeability to water
effective heat injected, MMBtu/ gross
acre-ft
Qinj net heat injected, MMBtu/gross acre-ft
S L = liquid saturation
S Ln = normalized liquid saturation
So oil saturation
Soi = initial oil saturation
Som initial mobile oil saturation
Sorg = residual oil saturation after gas flood
Sors = residual oil saturation after steam flood
Sorw residual oil saturation after water flood
SVi = initial vapor saturation
S w = water saturation
Swi = irreducible water saturation
S wn = normalized water saturation
!::.t = time increments, years
Y = heat utilization factor
Acknowledgments
I thank the management of Standard Oil Co_ of
California for permission to publish this paper. I also
express my appreciation to P.T. Woo and J.H.
Duerksen of Chevron Oil Field Research Co. for
their helpful and constructive discussions.
References
I. Marx, J.W. and Langenheim, R.N.: "Reservoir Heating by
Hot Fluid Injection," Trans., AI ME (1959) 216, 312-315.
332
85
207
292
367
444
521
1.0 46,000 40,000
16 756,000 820,000
29 1,372,000 1,350,000
43 2,034,000 2,000,000
57 2,696,000 2,550,000
65 3,075,000 3,000,000
2. Mandl, G. and Volek, C.W.: "Heat and Mass Transport in
Steam Drive Processes," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1969) 59-
79; Trans., AIME, 246.
3. Neuman, C.H.: "A Mathematical Model of the Steam Drive
Process - Applications," paper SPE 4757 presented at the
SPE 45th Annual California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
April 2-4, 1975.
4. Myhill, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L.: "Steam-Drive
Correlation and Prediction," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 173-
182.
5. Shutler, N.D.: "Numerical, Three-Phase Model of the Linear
Steamflood Process," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1969) 232-246;
Trans., AIME, 246.
6. Shutler, N.D.: "Numerical Three-Phase Model of the Two-
Dimensional Steamflood Process," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec.
1970)405-417; Trans., AIME, 249.
7. Vinsome, P.K.W.: "A Numerical Description of Hot-Water
and Steam Drives by the Finite Difference Method," paper
SPE 5248 presented at the SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Oct. 6-9,1974.
8. Coats, K.H., George, W.D., and Marcum, B.E.: "Three-
Dimensional Simulation of Steamflooding," Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(Dec. 1974) 573-592; Trans., AIME, 257.
9. Coats, K.H.: "Simulation of Steamflooding With Distillation
and Solution Gas," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1976) 235-247.
10. Chu, C. and Trimble, A.E.: "Numerical Simulation of Steam
Displacement - Field Performance Applications," J. Pet.
Tech. (June 1975)765-776.
II. Blevins, T.R. and Billingsley, R.H.: "The Ten-Pattern
Steamflood - Kern River Field, California," J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1975) 1505-1514; Trans., AI ME, 259.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
acre-ft x 1.233482 E+03 m
3
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m
3
Btu x 1.055056 E+03 J
cp x 1.0* E-03 Paos
cu ft x 2.831 685 E-02 m
3
degreeAPI 141.5/(131.5 +. API) g/
cm
3
degree F CF-32)/1.8 C
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
Ibm x 4.535924 E-Ol kg
psi, psia x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
Conversion factor is exact.
JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July
29, 1976. Revised manuscript received April 4, 1979. Paper accepted for
publication Oct. 22, 1979. Paper (SPE 6169) first presented at the SPE 51st
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in New Orleans, Oct. 3
6,1976.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY