SPE 72137

Benchmarking of Steamflood Field Projects in Light/Medium Crude Oils

Alfredo Prez-Prez, PDVSA Intevep, Marjorie Gamboa, Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV), SPE, Csar Ovalles
and Eduardo Manrique, PDVSA Intevep, SPE.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 89 October 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
A benchmarking study on 43 steamflood of light/medium
crude oils was performed, to find attractive reservoir
characteristics and successful operational practices that are
used worldwide. More than 30 successful projects were
analyzed and summarized in a database, which included
reservoir properties, best operational practices and results
obtained. On average, an incremental oil recovery of 19%
OOIP was obtained by steamflooding, during a project
lifetime of up to seven years.
Based on the successful project characteristics, we
developed a model to rank potential reservoirs. Reservoir data
were analyzed using standard statistical methods for
properties, such as: API gravity, initial oil saturation, reservoir
temperature, porosity, initial pressure, depth, net pay, viscosity
at reservoir condition, initial (at the beginning of steamdrive)bubble pressure ratio and average permeability. The statistical
model ranked the properties on a standardized score scale. A
predicted score close to one hundred indicates a high
probability of success. Supported by this numerical model, we
selected the La Salina reservoir (La Rosa Formation, Lake
Maracaibo, Western Venezuela) as a potentially successful
reservoir to apply steamflood technology.
In addition, unsuccessful projects from two different
reservoirs (the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, and Buena
Vista Hills, both in the USA) were analyzed, to understand the
reasons for failure. Several reasons were identified, such as:
poor reservoir characterization, thief zones and carbon dioxide
formation by decomposition of reservoir minerals.

Introduction
In 1952, steamflood was initiated as an enhanced oil recovery
technique in the Yorba Linda Field in California. This early
work determined that steam injection is generally most
efficient in highly permeable reservoirs (k > 1 Darcy) and
thick sands (greater than 30 feet)1. By the 1970s many fields
were benefiting from steamdrive technology; and oil
production peaked in the mid 1980s has been fairly constant
since1. This production had been almost exclusively from the
heavy oil reservoirs (10-22 API).
Light/medium oil steamflood (LMOSF) also had its roots
in California2. In the 1960s, one of the first LMOSF field
trials was initiated at the Brea Field near Los Angeles2.
Application of steamdrive in medium/light oil reservoir (> 22
API) now has a prominent position in producing thermal
EOR projects3.
Because of the small viscosity (at reservoir conditions) and
the large volatility of the light oils, the principal recovery
mechanisms are different from those responsible for
steamflood recovery of heavy oil4. Figure-1 qualitatively
displays the roles that individual mechanisms play on light and
heavy oils5-6. Thermal expansion and distillation are the most
important for light oil and viscosity reduction plays the
primary role for heavy oil1. The beneficial effect of steam for
light oils is distillation of light hydrocarbons, which results in
small residual oil saturation7.
Additionally, a successful EOR project requires selection
of a reservoir, whose characteristics should be appropriate for
steamflooding. Steamflood screening guides are useful for this
purpose. These have been proposed by various authors8. A
review of steamflooding was carried out by Ovalles et al6.
Table 1 shows a summary of screening criteria applicable to
light/medium crude oil reservoirs. A list of the various
screening guides depicted in Table 1 shows that only 6 criteria
have been defined as critical properties.
The final goal of this work is to develop a statistical model
that can be used to select prospective reservoirs in a more
reasonable way than the isolated criteria in Table 1. In this
model, each property will be ranked against others based on
their relative significance. If successful, the method will lead
to better decision about where and how to apply LMSOF
projects.

PEREZ-PEREZ, A.; GAMBOA, M.; OVALLES C. AND MANRIQUE, E.

Finally, we will summarize the best operational practices

and results obtained during LMSOF projects. This will be
done by briefly examining successful LMSOFs. This paper
presents a list of different reasons why some LMSOFs were
not successful.
Field Studies
There are close to 25 documented LMOSF fields trials, out of
which only one half are considered successful1. Ten of these
were analyzed here. We defined successful LMOSF projects
as those whose average oil rate was increased in at least 30%
after three years of steamflooding. The successful LMOSF
reservoirs analyzed here are:
Loco, US 9-10
Yates, US 11
Georgsdorf , Germany 12-14
Rhlermoor, Germany 15
Emlichheim, Germany 16-19
Schoonebeek, Netherlands 20-22
Karamay, China 23-24
Emeraude, Congo 25-28
Duri, Indonesia 29-34
Lacq Suprieur, France 35-39
In addition, the unsuccessful LMOSF reservoir studied are:
Elk Hills, (Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1), US 40-42
Buena Vista Hills, US 43-44
Method
The benchmarking study was focused on the LMOSFs. First,
43 successful steamflood projects were studied. Physical and
numerical simulations of steamflooding were not included.
LMOSF projects were reported as found in the open literature.
Unfortunately, not all field trials are adequately described, and
this overview is limited to the publically accessible data.
Successful and unsuccessful projects were studied
separately to identify reasons for failures. Successful LMOSF
projects served to create a database. The reservoir selection
was performed taking into account those projects that had the
most reliable data. Ten reservoirs (corresponding to 35
successful projects) were selected from a total of 16 studied
reservoirs (43 total projects). Often several steamflooding
existed in the same reservoir. In these cases, the arithmetic
average of the studied variables was used. This was made to
avoid favoring one project over another.
Variables were selected according to two simple rules:
each property must be reported in at least 50 percent of the
fields studied and each variable must be a single property, not
a combination of others, i.e So.
Properties such as pressure, temperature and depth are
related. Because some variables could be more important than
others, it was necessary to develop a model that weighted each
variable. The distribution of the variables was performed from
the coefficient of variation (CV), a dimensionless number (see
Appendix for definitions). This coefficient allows the
determination of how disperse the values are with respect to

SPE 72137

the average. The larger the CV for a certain property, the more
dispersed it is and, hence, its relative importance is
diminished. Small values of CV for a property, indicate
greater " weight " (a greater importance) to this model.
Once the importance of each property was established, a
program was performed to determine if the success of LMOSF
projects could be predicted based on the previous experience.
The program calculates a value called SCORE, which varies
between zero (0) and one hundred (100). As the SCORE
approaches 100, there is a greater probability that the LMOSF
will be successful. Values near 50 indicate a possible failure.
Values smaller than 50 or near zero indicate a failure, or at
least, a bigger risk.
Final SCORE is obtained as shown:
n

SCORE = (Properties Weight) i ....(1)

i =1

where is an indicator of the property (from the data

analyzed for a successful LMOSFs) and can be equal to 0.0,
0.5 or 1.0 according to the following considerations:
= 0.0, if the value of the property is outside the interquartile
range (between the 25 and 75 percentiles).
= 0.5, if the value of the property is smaller than the greater
25-percentile or to 75-percentile.
= 1.0, if the value of the property is within the interquartile
range.
Percentile values were used to establish ranks for each of
the selected properties. The central interval of distribution
(between the 25 and 75-percentiles) was preferred over
properties in the borders. This procedure allowed performing a
grouping of the reservoir properties within a similar group, in
addition to the grouping previously made between the
different variables.
Results
Critical properties and basic statistics for LMOSF projects
are shown in Table 2. API gravity, oil saturation and pressure
at the beginning of steamflooding, reservoir temperature,
porosity, depth, net pay, viscosity at reservoir condition, initial
(at the beginning of steamdrive)-bubble pressure ratio and
average permeability are the main parameters. Most of the
selected properties are in typical screening guides6,8. API
gravity, oil saturation at the start of steam and reservoir
temperature are the least dispersed, meanwhile permeability
and initial/bubble pressure ratio are the most dispersed. The
distribution of properties into a model is shown in Figure-2.
Oil rate was reported for the evaluated projects. Figure-3
shows that the oil rate increases with time, after
steamflooding. An average incremental oil recovery of 19% in
seven years of lifetime was reported using steam drive as a
EOR process.
To validate the model, properties of each LMOSF were
introduced into the models. The average scores for some
reservoirs included in this work are shown in Figure-4, as a
function of incremental oil recovery and lifetime during

SPE 72137

BENCHMARKING OF STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS IN LIGHT/MEDIUM CRUDE OILS

steamflooding. The majority of successful LMOSFs obtained

high values in the standardized score scale (70-100 points).
Only one successful steamflood project (the Duri Field)
reported a score close to fifty. In fact, Duri is an uncommon
medium/heavy oil reservoir with high viscosity at reservoir
condition (160 a 100F) and API gravity close to 2230. In this
case, our model does not yield a good prediction.
Despite the limited information used in the statistical
model, some unsuccessful applications (Buena Vista Hills and
Elk Hills (NPR-1)) were predicted to be failures with scores
close or less than fifty.
The reliability of this class of forecast depends on the
quality and quantity of the data collected. Thereby, it is
essential to be certain that the provided information is
accurate. Only thus we will be able to trust the results of any
benchmarking study. This screening guide allows the selection
of reservoirs for steamflooding. However, it should not be the
only tool used in the selection. Numerical and physical
simulations and experts opinion ought to be considered
before applying any EOR method.
Several Venezuelan reservoirs were evaluated using the
numerical model. One of the most promising reservoirs was
La Salina Field (La Rosa Formation, Lake Maracaibo,
Western Venezuela). La Salina obtained 75 points on the
standardized score scale. We would expect an incremental oil
recovery between 7 and 32 %OOIP after steamflooding
according to the rest of successful projects (see Figure-4). This
reservoir was selected as a potentially successful reservoir to
apply LMOSF.
In addition, the best operational practices used worldwide
are summarized in Table 3. Typical pattern size was 12.7
acres, with the following pattern types: inverted 5-spot (40%),
5-spot (15%), inverted 9-spot (10%), inverted 7-spot (10%)
and others (25%). Steam-oil ratio (SOR) are reported in 4.4 in
ten successful LMSOFs. The SOR is the most important factor
characterizing the success or failure of steam projects. The
overall SOR should be around 4 according to Chu8.
Finally, the origin of failure in some fields test (Elk Hills
NPR-1, and Buena Vista Hills) were identified. The most
important reasons for these projects to be considered
unsuccessful were:
CO2 generation by decomposition of calcites and siderites
and obstruction by precipitation of carbonates40
Formation damage40-42
Poor reservoir characterization40
Lack of supervision and monitoring41-43
Thief zones44
Conclusions
1. The statistical model developed consists in a good
approach for ranking reservoirs for steamflooding
technology in light/medium oil reservoirs.
2. The model has been useful for surveys of an important
number of field candidates of LMOSF in Venezuela in
advance of time-consuming detailed studies. Additionally,
this type of analysis might contribute to the development
of analytical simulators as well as the planning of future

3.
4.
5.

LMOSF projects in Venezuela, based on field

experiences.
As expected, experimental and numerical simulation
studies and experts opinions are strongly recommended to
select the best candidate for a LMOSF test.
Based on previous field results an average incremental oil
recovery of 19% can be estimated using a steam drive as a
EOR process in LMOSFs.
The reliability of this class of forecast depends on the
quality and quantity of the data collected. This is the only
way to trust the results of any benchmarking study.

Nomenclature
= relative value of a reservoir property (0.0 or
0.5 or 1.0)
X
= variable

X
n
s
VC

= average of variable
= number of component
= standard deviation
= variation coefficient

Subscripts
i
= i component
x
= x variables
y
= y variables
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper wish to thank to PDVSA Intevep for
allowing to publish this information and K., Hong, L., Lake,
A., Araque and W., Alvarado for their valuable coments and
suggestions.
References
1
Hoffman, B.: Light Oil Steam Injection into Diatomite
Reservoirs. Work presented at the 2001 SUPRI-A Industrial
Review Meeting, in the Hartley Conference Center, Mitchell
Building, Stanford University, CA, April 20, 2001.
2
Volek, C., Pryor, J.: Steam Distillation Drive, Brea Field,
California. Journal Petroleum Technnology, August, 899906, 1973
3
OGJ SPECIAL, Oil and Gas Journal, March 20, 2000. 3962.
4
Hong, K.: Numerical Simulation of Light Oil Steamflooding
in the Buena Vista Hills Field, California. Paper SPE 14104,
presented at International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Beijing, China, March 17-20, 1986.
5
Burger, J., Sourieau,P., Combarnous, M.: Thermal Methods
of Oil Recovery, Edition Technip, Paris, France 89,1985.
6
Ovalles, C., Alvarez, C., Rodrguez, E.: Estado del Arte y
Simulacin Numrica Conceptual en el Area de Inyeccin de
Vapor en Yacimientos de Crudos Livianos y Medianos,
Visin Tecnlogica, Vol. 8, N1, PDVSA Intevep, Los
Teques, Venezuela, 2000.
7
Dehghani, K., Ehrlich, R.: Evaluation of Steam Injection
Process in Light Oil Reservoirs. Paper SPE 49016, presented

PEREZ-PEREZ, A.; GAMBOA, M.; OVALLES C. AND MANRIQUE, E.

at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,

New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September 1998.
8
Chu, C., State-of-Art Review of Steamflood Field Projects,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1985, 1887-1902.
9
Wooten, R. Case History of a Successful Steamflood
Project-Loco Field, paper SPE 7548 presented at the 1978
SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, 1-4, Oct 1978.
10
Powders, M., Dodson, C., Ghassemi, F., Moore, J.
Commercial Application of Steamflooding in an Oilfield
Comprising Multiple Thin Sand Reservoirs, paper SPE
13035, 315-320, 1992
11
Snell, J. and Close A. Yates Field Steam Pilot Applies
Latest Seismic and Logging Monitoring Techniques, paper
SPE 56791 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6, October
1999.
12
Mastmann, M. Reviewing the Strategy of Steamfloods in a
Dipping Reservoir, paper SPE 39608, presented at the
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19-22,
April 1998.
13
Wilhelm, L. y Friedrich, S. Status of the Steam Drive Pilot
in the Georgsdorf Field, Federal Republic of Germany,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 173-180, January 1981.
14
Bleakley, W. German Producers Pin Hopes on Steam,
Petroleum Engineer International, June , 41-54, 1979.
15
Fabel, G., Neunhffer, T., Rudschinski, D., Sasse, J.
Reservoir Management of Mature Oil Fields by Integrated
Field Development Planning, paper SPE 54117, presented at
the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium, Bakersfield, California, March 17-19, 1999.
16
Terschak, W. Steam Soak Successful In West German
Field, Petroleum Engineer, 55-60, April 1967.
17
Rosskamp, M. Down Hole Completion of Production and
Injection Wells for Steam Flooding in the Emlichheim and
Ruhlermoor Area, Erdoel-Erdgas-Zeitschrift, 98. Jg.,
September, 317-323, 1982.
18
Stoll, R., Gudenau, H. y Lupik, M. Mobility Control for
Steam Floodings with High Temperature Resistant Additives,
paper SPE 21019, presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Ansheim, California,
February 20-22, 1-9, 1991.
19
Mastmann, M. Successful Completion of a Steamflood
Project in the Emlichheim Oilfield, paper presented at the 7th
European IOR Symposium, Moscow, Russia, October 27-29,
1993.
20
Van Dijk, C. Steam-Drive Project in the Schoonebeek
Field, The Netherlands, Journal of Petroleum Technology, ,
295-302, March, 1968.
21
Troost, P. Schoonebeek Oilfield The RW-2E Steam
Injection Project, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V,
Second International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar
Sands, 1-19, 1998.
22
Holtam, V., Van Den Boer, M. and Platenkamp, R. The
Schoonebeek Oilfield: The RW-2E High Pressure Steam
Injection Project, paper presented at the 5th European

SPE 72137

Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Budapest, April 2527, 1989.

23
Ruiqi, Y., Shengzhen, Y., Zhengying, Z., and et al Tests of
Conversion into Steam Stimulation Following Water Flooding
in Karamay Conglomerate Oilfield, paper SPE 50894,
presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition,
Beijing, China, November 2-6, 179-185, 1998.
24
Yuwen, C., Tongshu, P., Lisheng, W., and et al Monitoring
Steam Injection Performance in Shallow Heavy Oil
Reservoirs, Xinjiang Petroleum Administration Bureau,
CNPC, Karamay Oil Field, China, No. 1998.108, 1-9,1998.
25
Couderc, B., and et al Emeraude Vapeur - An Offshore
Steam Pilot, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, ,
179-191, 1989
26
Sahuquet, B., ELF-AQUITAINE Experience in Steam
Injection: Emeraude Field (Republic of Congo) and Lacq
Suprieur (France), Elf Aquitaine, France, 57-74, 1989.
27
Couderc, B., Monfril, L., Quettier, L. y Sahuquet, B.
Emeraude Vapeur An Offshore Steam Pilot, Elf
Aquitaine, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 179-191, 1989.
28
Bernard, M., Verpeaux, J., Monfrin, D. y Quettler, L.
Emeraude Vapeur: A Steam Pilot in an Offshore
Environment, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 508-516,
November 1990.
29
Peake, W. y Sjahroni, O. A review of steamflooding in Duri
Field, Sumatra, Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum
Association, 15th Annual Convention, 161-179, 1986.
30
Gael, S., Gross, S., McNaboe, G. Development Planning
and Reservoir Management in the Duri Steamflood, paper
SPE 29668 presented at the Western Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, California, March 8-10, 1995.
31
Simanjuntak, A., Suharyanto, Susanty, Y., Primadi, H.,
Setyanto, R. Implementation of cross-functional team
concept for managing Duri steamflood reservoir, proceedings
Indonesian Petroleum Association, 24th Annual Convention, ,
509-522, 1995.
32
Sulistyo, A., Gross, S., Lederhos, L. Evaluation of the
steamflood potential of the Rindu reservoirs in the Duri field,
Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum Association, 24th Annual
Convention, 153-166, 1995.
33
Sulistyo, A., Syaefuddin, A., Setiawan, A., Djamaludin, M.
Performance review of the steamflood pilot project in the
Rindu sand Duri Field, proceedings Indonesian Petroleum
Association, 26th Annual Convention, 319-333, 1998.
34
Pastor, G. y Humayunbosha. Organizing Around Work
Processes to Add Value for Large Single Field Assets, paper
SPE 36998 presented at the 1996 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference, Adelaide, Australia, October 28-31, 1996.
35
Sahuquet, B y Ferrier, J. Steam-Drive Pilot in a Fractured
Carbonated Reservoir: Lacq Suprieur Field, JPT, Vol. 34,
873-880, 1982.
36
Sahuquet, B. Pilot Project for Recovery of Oil by Steam
Injection (Upper Lacq Field), Socit Nationale Elf
Alquitaine, , 880-889, 1983.
37
Sahuquet, B. , Spreux, A., Corre, B., Guittard, M. Steam
Injection in a Low-Permeability Reservoir Through a
Horizontal Well in Lacq Suprieur Field, paper SPE 20526

SPE 72137

BENCHMARKING OF STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS IN LIGHT/MEDIUM CRUDE OILS

presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 23-26, 1990.
38
Sahuquet, B y Dubois, M. Extension de LInjection de
Vapeur a Lacq Suprieur, Elf Aquitaine, 405-412, 1985.
39
Sahuquet, B., Sitbon, A. Recent Results of Steamdrive
Development in Lacq, Elf Aquitaine, 635-644, 1988.
40
Hong, K., Blunschi, J., Cease, C., Madinson, D. Reservoir
Management of Light Oil Steamflood Pilot in the SOZ Fault
Block, Elk Hills Field. Paper SPE 24037 presented at the
Wester Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, March 30April 1, 139-150, 1992.
41
Gangle, F., Weyland, H., Lassiter, J., Veith, E., Garner, T.
Light-Oil Steamdrive Pilot Test at NPR-1, Elk Hills,
California, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 315-320, August
1992
42
Gangle, F., Weyland, H., Lassiter, J. Light-oil steamdrive
pilot test at NPR-1, Elk Hills, California, paper SPE 20032
presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting held in
Ventura, April 4-6, 315-320, 1990.
43
Hong, K Numerical Simulation of Light Oil Steamflooding
in the Buena Vista Hills, California, paper SPE 14104
presented at the SPE 1986 International Meeting of Petroleum
Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17-20, 325-333, 1986.
44
Ziegler, V. Injection Well Testing in a Light Oil Reservoir,
Buena Vista Hills Field, California, paper SPE 18140
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 2-5, 333-345, 1998
Appendix Basic Statistics
The statistical analysis for successful LMOSF projects was
made on the basis of the following aspects:
Number of projects: the number for projects that report the
value of the variable. It is a number that varies between 0-10.
Minimum: the minimum value of the variable in study.
Maximum: the maximum value of the variable in study.
Average: the arithmetic average of the variables. An estimate
of the average is the sum of the observation (Xi) divided
between the number of observations (n):
Average=

i =1

Xi ..(A-1)
n

Standard deviation (s): it is the average of the absolute

deviations of the points away from the estimated average. It
measures the dispersion of the values in a data set. The
equation for the average deviation is:
n

s=

( xi x) 2
i =1

n 1

(A-2)

Percentiles: describe the variability and the form of the

distribution of the data.

Coefficient of Variation (CV): is a measure of the relative

dispersion of the data respect to the estimated average. It is the
quotient between the standard deviation and the average. The
coefficient of variation can be used to evaluate the dispersion
of the data as a fraction of the average of the variable. Two
properties that have the same standard deviation have the same
behavior.
CV =

s ......(A-3)

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp x 1.0
E-03=Pa.s
ft
x 3.048
E-01=m
ft2 x 9.290
E-02=m2
3
ft
x 2.831
E-02=m3
in. x 2.54
E+00=cm
lbf x 4.448
E+00=N
mD x 9.869
E-04=m2
psi x 6.894
E+00=Kpa

PEREZ-PEREZ, A.; GAMBOA, M.; OVALLES C. AND MANRIQUE, E.

Vaporization
Viscosity
reduction
Wettability

Thermal
expansion

SPE 72137

Table 2- Benchmarking results in successful LMOSF

projects
Properties
Mina
Aveb
Maxc
sd
CVe
Depth, ft
466
1540
2625 892 0.579
Net Pay, ft
15
84.5
164 50.9 0.603
Porosity
0.13
0.25
0.35 0.08 0.306
Permeability, mD
25
1997
10500 3226 1.615
Temperature, F
68
103.4
140 23.8 0.229
Initial Pressure, psi 107
876
1250 406 0.464
API
20.4
24.8
32
3.81 0.153
Viscosity @RC, cP
6
531
151
148 0.979
So at start (Soi)
0.485
0.74
0.87 0.12 0.170
Current/Bubble
0.43
2.67
7.5
2.82 1.055
Pressure
a
minimum, baverage, c maximun, dstandard deviation, ecoefficient
of variation.

Water/Oil interfacial tension

Light oils

Increasing density

Heavy oils

Figure-1.-Relative contributions of different mechanisms

to the improvement of oil displacement as a function of oil
density5.

Fig.2-Critical variable weighting of select reservoir

properties based on successful project characteristics.

4500
4000
3500
Oil Rate average, b/d

Table 1-General screening guide for Steamflooding

Main
API Depth Presa
kd
hc
Sob
author
(year)
(ft)
(psi)
(ft) (mD)
Blenvis
>20 <4000 <3200 0.03-0.05 <20
(1984)
King
10-34 <5000 <2000 0.05-0.1 >20 >250
(1984)
Chu
<36
>0.08
>10
(1985)
Farouq
>20
0.05-0.1 >20
(1986)
Dehghani >22 <5000 <2500 0.03-0.1 >20
(1998)
Ovalles
>22 <5000 <2500 0.05-0.1 >20 >200
(1999)
a
pressure, bporosity and initial saturation product, cthickness,
d
permeability

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

before after 1 after 2 after 3 after 5

steam year
year
year
year

Fig.3-Oil rate before and after steamflooding.

SPE 72137

BENCHMARKING OF STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS IN LIGHT/MEDIUM CRUDE OILS

Fig.4- Incremental oil recovery as a function of average score (numbers in bracket indicate lifetime of each projects)

Table 3-Best Operational Practices

Mina
Aveb
Pattern size, acre
3.56
12.7
Prod/Inj ratio
0.25
3.48
Steam-Oil ratio, SOR
2.5
4.4
Steam injection rate, T/d
180
1005
Steam temperature (surface),F
457
549
Steam quality, %
57
84
a
minimum, b average, c maximun.

Maxc
37.5
7.5
6.4
2260
617
99