.

~h~ ~~~-pattern-.- Steamflood, .

River Field,

Kern

California

T. R. Blevins, SPE-AtME, ChevronOil Field ResearchCo.

R. H. Billingsley, SPE-ANE, StandardOil Co. of California

Introduction
The 10-pattem steamflood field trial was initiated in the
Kern River field, Calif., in Sept. 1968. This field was
selected for a commercial test after the technical success
of the steamflood process was confirmed by the Inglewood field test. 1 The Kern River field properties
of high oil viscosity, low reservoir pressure, shallow
depth, and high oil saturation are all favorable for thermal recovery techniques. Chevron Oil Field Research
Co. and Standard Oil Co. of California, Western Operations Inc., designed and operated the test to measure
vertical and areal coverages, displacement efficiencies,
and residual oil saturations with data from several
temperature observation wells and core holes.
This paper contains a description of the reservoir, the
project facilities, and the performance to Oct. 1, 1973.
The project is analyzed in detail and the performance is
compared with theory. Results of a new steamflood
prediction methodz are also included.

Project Description
Field Area and Background
The 10-pattern steamflood is being conducted in Sec.r AL.
v- D:.,,s. +Zal,-l ma
r Ralc-rcfield
~~!~f,
tlon 3 u]
mc IVGIII N VGI Ile,u,
,,&a
amw..,..-.~,
The field was discovered in 1899 and was largely developed by 1915. The reservoir is 300 to 500 ft thick
and is first encountered in Section 3 from 200 to 300 ft
below the surface. The Kern River Sand Series productive limits are defined by the downdip China Grade
Loop fault and by updip outcropping.

The dip in Section 3 averages 3, and strike is on a

northwest-southeast trend. The Kern River Sand Series
consists of at least six sand bodies separated vertically
by 6- to 20-ft-thick siltstone or clay intervals. A typical
IES log of the Kern River Sand Series is showm irt Flg.
1. The subject field tial is being conducted in the bottom sand interval, from 705 to 765 ft on the log. Upper
sands will be processed successively from bottom to
top. The productive intervals are friable and unconsolidate~ the rock ranges from fine to coarse grain, poorly
sorted sandstone, to conglomerate with pebbles from %
to +5 in. in diameter.
The reservoir data, based on wells cored at the start
of the project in 1968, are shown in Table 1. The average properties for the steamflood interval are 7,600 md
permeability, 35 percent porosity, and an oil saturation
before steamflooding of 52 percent, equivalent to an oil
content of 1,437 bbl/acre-ft. The steamflood project
area is shown in Fig. 2.
The project consists of 10 inverted seven-spot injection patterns covering 61 surface acres. The two central
patterns are confined or backed up by the outside ring
of injection wells and are the two key patterns for project analysis. The 6-acre patterns provided the opportunity to evaluate the effects of patterns larger than the
2.5-acre Inglewood test.
Well Completions
Most of the existing wells at the start of the project
were completed before 1915 with star perforated lin-

The steamflood project at Kern River j7eld consists of10 inverted seven-spot injection
patterns, with 32 producing wells covering 61 acres. Steam injection is confined to a 70-ft
sand. Extensive data analyses confirm that steam flooding is a most eflicient displacement
mechanism, with a volumetric sweep of more than 60 percent.
DECEMBER, 1975

1505

., ...

.11.

Fig.

ers that did not provide adequate sand control. Ten

new wells (Wells 5-8, 6-9, 7-5, 7-7, 9-8, 10-9, 11-9,
14-7, 16-5, and 16-6) were drilled in Feb. and March
1968 to replace 10 old wells and were completed with
40-mesh, 6%-in. slotted liners. In the remainder of
the old producers the star liners were pulled using. a
newly developed, steam-assisted, foam-solvent recovby 40-mesh, 6%-in.
~py,technique _._.
ad were
. . . .renlaced
~
slotted liners. One old well, Well 177, has a 40-mesh
inner liner set through the original 8%-in. star perforated liner.
Therefore, at the start of the project in Sept. 1968,
there were 42 producing wells 10 old wells, 10 new
-wells matching them, and 22 oid weus rccump=cu
with new liners. The 10 old wells matched by new
wells sanded soon after the project started and subsequently were abandoned.
The 10 injection wells (Wells 5-6, 7-4, 7-8, 9-6,
IO-4, 10-8, 12-6, 13-4, 13-8, and 14-6) were all completed with 51h-in. casing set through, cemented, and
jet perforated. All the injection wells except Well 14-6
were newly drilled near plugged and abandoned producing wells, with a minimum of 35 ft between a
plugged and abandoned well and an injector.
These wells are perforated in the bottom 35 ft of the
70-ft interval being flooded. The perforation density is
based on injectivity tests made in Well 7-8 and consists
of two %-in. jet holes per foot in the upper 17 ft of
perforated interval and one %-in. bullet hole per foot in
the bottom 18 ft of interval.
The 14 temperature observation wells, all designated

1 Typical Kern River IES log (Well 2-2, Section 3).

--...---l.-..a,l

191
4.2

+=

122

81

175

2-2

992

200

65
I
7s(

*..
~,s.

67

201

#*

ZJ2
g

,7

1%

40+

A.

LEGENO
~~g~.Q*~~~y&?!Qu

lmd

KLL

INJECTION WELL

l&-__

PROOUCING WILL

-+F_

ABANOONEO WELL
SHUT-IN WELL
1971 EXPANSION AREA

11.11

Fig. 2 Ten-pattern

1506

steamflood,

Section 3, Kern River.

JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF RESERVOIR DATA (AS OF 1*),

KERN RIVER FtELD STEAMFLOOD INTERVAL
Depth, ft
Oil gravity, API
Estimated original reservoir pressure,
Current resavoir pressure, psig
Average net sand thickness, ft
Reservoir temperature F
Oil viscosity at 85F, CP
Oil viscosity at 35(IW, cp
Average permeability to air, md
Average porosity, percent
Average oil content, bbl/acra-ft
Average oil saturation, percent

700 to
psig

770
14
225
80
70

80
2,710
4
7,800
1,4E
52

with T prefixes, were located to give maximum information on areal sweep, rate of advance of the heat
front, and vertical coverage of the steam drive. The observation wells were completed with 31h-in. tubing
cemented to the surface.
Project Facilities
A bank of six steam generators, each rated at 18 million
Btu/hr and 1,200 psi, was instaiied to initiate the pi~ject. A seventh generator was placed in June 1969 and
an eighth generator was added in April 1970 to bring
total steam-generating capacity to 10,400 BWPD.
Most wells in the project area formerly were produced by central-power rod lines and jack pumps.
These wells aIl have been equipped with modem pumping units ranging from WI *25to AFI i60 in SkR,
with elecrnc motor drive and lifting capacity from 200
to 1,000 B/D.
Production is routed through the gauge settings at the
injection manifold sites to the central treating plant in
Section 3. The plant uses horizontal water knock-outs
and heater treaters for separation and cleaning before
shipment through an LACT unit to the pipeline. All
production from Section 3 is metered by the LACT unit
this provides a check against daily production by
gauges. Gauging frequency ranges from once a week on
the 10 inside key-pattern wells to once a month for the
first line of wells outside the project area.

Project Performance
injection Hkitliy
The total project injection and production history is
shown in Fig. 3.
Injection rates have varied from 6,000 to 10,000
BWPD, and are currently near 6,000 BWPD. Wellhead
pressures were as high as 620 psig initially, but decreased to 200 psig w~thin 3 months as the area around
the welIbore became hot and there was less resistance to
flow because of reduced reservoir fluid viscosity. The
surface pressures and temperatures are directly related
to rates but, in general, there has been a significant increase in the injectivityy index with time.
Pressure and temperature surveys made in injection
wells indicate that most pressure losses occur in the injection tubing and not in the formation.
The project as a whole appears to be rate-sensitive;
that is, the higher the injection rate, the higher the
oil production. However, there is also an econornicoptimum injection rate that results in the most oil production
per dollar invested for steam injection. The
DECEMBER. 1975

search for this economic optimum was the basis for

most changes in injection rate. Neuman2 includes several equations that can be used to estimate the economic
feasibility of steamflooding, including an optimum injection rate.
Production History Total project
All producing wells were steam stimulated immediately
before steam injection started. The first significant rate
increase for the project attributed to steam drive occurred in Jan. 1969, or 4 months after the project was
initiated.
The oil rate climbed steadily to 1,600 BOPD in June
1970. At t.iis time, the injection rate was reduced and
the oil rate declined. The oil rate reached 1,680 BOPD
;fi j~fi. i 97 i be~a~~e of a c~ncentrated well stimulation
effort, but again declined in mid-1971. The Dec. 1971
rate of 1,490 BOPD represents a probable peaking of
the project for the current injection rate of 6,200
BWPD, production has since declined slowly to around
1,300 BOPD.
As mentioned before, steamflooding is believed to be
-..4- ,ac;t;,,a
nrluction response to changes in
1atG-s&lla,.,
. w, %$
tiie pr.-._
injection rate is often masked by wellbore plugging or
failure to keep a well pumped-off. One of the keys
to successful steam drive operations is the ability to
keep wellbores clean and the wells producing at complete drawdown in the wellbore.
The steam-oil ratio (SOR) is the most important
~ccficw,ic p~--m.eter &Qidefrom the initial investment.
The monthly SOR was 5.1 in Sept. 1973, and the
cumulative ratio had decIined to 5.8. Any significant
amount of oil produced after steam injection stops will
further reduce the cumulative SOR.
In addition to the 32 wells included in the production
history in Fig. 3, there are 10 wells immediately north
and west of the project that have responded to the
steamflood. These weIls, Wells 34, 36, 38, 39, 8-1,
8-2, 12-1, 12-2, 13-1, and 67, are all hot, but are not as
.uithip
the
nrnie~[
area.
-..*-,.- k-f
..,-11
proiiik as .dic- aIVGICI~G
,Iut
--1
. . . . ...1.....
~-_JIn addition, several other outside wells (Wells 192,
183, and 195) appeared to be heating when this paper
was written.
Cumulative production from the 32 wells in the project area since Sept. 1%8 is 2,285,100 bbl of oil and
9,705,500 bbl of water. This represents a gain of
2,166,100 bbl over extrapolated primary recovery and a
total recovery of 45.8 percent of the stock-tank oil originally in place. An ultimate recovery of 55 percent of
the oil originally in place is now anticipated.

12
90
D
6
4
2
10.000
~~

5.000

CW.

S7EAM OIL RbTlO

IIWLUD2S CVCUC C7EAMI

6TE6M lwEc71m .
(*DRIvE
+ CVCLICI ------,..

,:.>.

-.,>~,> . .

... .... . . .

. . . ..

.. . ..

. ..-.

..-..6

F-._-__-&

m.+
- ...

10 ;
z

10
lS9S)661@7168

Fig. 3 Ten-pattern

f6S

)70

steamflood

711721

?317475

total performance.
1507

1,

In.

---mm

mm

!,,

HI

NJ

,, *
t

ml
,,,
,!*

injected liquids unaccounted for, either by fillup or because they were lost outside the project area. This was
before the expansion to the south, which has apparently
contributed to production since Aug. 1971.
Of the maximum of 824,000 bbl over-injected to
Aug. 1971, it is estimated that about 600,000 bbl were
required for fillup inside the project area. This is 5.3
percent of the pore volume of the flooded zone.

.1
*
;

,,

i
,,

t,

u
,,

F@.

ml!

IV*

4 Cumulative injected and produced liquid balance.

Production Data Individual Patterns

Although supporting data are not included, production
allocations for individual patterns have been made.
These allocations are based on our knowledge of tracer
breakthrough, heat breakthrough, and pattern geometry.
The allocation is somewhat arbitrary because only four
tracers have been used, but it is the best estimate from
the available data. The production allocations in the two
key patterns, Wells 9-6 and 12-6, were used for displacement and capture analysis, and are discussed later.
Liquid Balance
The total volume of steam injected (as barrels of water)
is compared with the total liquids produced in Fig. 4.
The figure indicates that an injection-withdrawal balance was reached in Aug. 1971. The maximum difference between cumulative liquids injected and produced
occurred in July 1970, when there were 824,000 bbl of

Heat Balance
A heat balance in a large injection project like the 10pattem is more difficult to calculate than the liquid
balance. Estimates of surface heat losses, down-hole
losses in the injection and production wells, losses in
the formation based on observation well data, and heat
content of the produced fluids must be made. A complete heat balance had not been made at the time of
this report. However, in this paper the produced heat
is subtracted from the injected heat (as though it
never entered the reservoir) for calculation purposes.
Fig. 5 shows that the cumulative heat produced at
the surface has reached 15 percent of the total surface
injected heat. It is slowly increasing and may ultimately
reach 18 percent. None of the published heat-loss
theory accounts for the heat produced at the surface
with produced fluids.
Tracer Data
Four tracers were injected at the beginning of the project:
Well
12-6
10-4
10-8
9-6

Tracer
Tritium
NaN03
NaBr
NaCl

Concentration
0.5 millicuries/gal
500 ppm N03
150 ppm Br
1,000 ppm Cl

The tritium tracer was used subsequently in three other

injection patterns. The detection of these tracers and

40

40

3E

F@. 5 Cumulative and monthly heat produced in surface fluids.

1508

JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

measurement of the total solids content of produced

water from all wells formed the basis for analyzing fluid
movement and interpreting areal coverage in the individual patterns. The tracer data also were used in allocating production to individual patterns.

Project Analysis
Te.mperdureData
Surface flowline temperatures have been monitored
throughout the project and have proved useful in several
ways. The data are necessary for produced-heat calculations and can reveal whether a well is responding,
whether the liner is plugging, and whether larger pumping equipment should be considered.
More than 600 temperature profiles taken in the 14
observation wells have been used in analyzing the vertical and areal coverage, the rate of heat-front movement,
and heat losses within the reservoir. A typical temperature profile depicting the steam zone, hot water zone,
and equivalent injection interval is shown in Fig. 6.

servation wells periodically over the life of the project,

the volume of the heated zones can be estimated at
other times.
The oil displaced at the time the post-steam cores
were obtained in Pattern 12-6 is summarized in Table
2. The oil saturations in the presteam injection wells
have been adjusted for overburden pressure and core
flushing.
It can be seen that steam is a very efficient displacement process, with 87 percent of the oil in place being
displaced. However, the steam zone was relatively thin
at this location and time, with a thickness of 18 ft in the

Core Analysis Results

The oil displacement efficiency of steam was measured
by comparing the saturations in cores taken in Injection
Wells 9-6 and 12-6 with cores taken behind the steam

front in Wells C6-9 and C5-7.

Fig, 7 compares the oil saturations in the presteam
cores with the post-steam cores by depth for Pattern
,*< -1-. . . .. .-..
7n?le
wc .S,otmm
tmimmvn
1,&o. 1n~ SLW1l 8XJ11e,h-t
data zone are marked to emphasize the different residual
oil saturations found in these intervals. This figure also
shows the gravity override of the steam zone. Even
though steam is restricted at the injection point to the
bottom 35 ft of the 70-ft zone, the cored steam zone is
at the top, at a lateral distance of only 150 ft from the
injection well.
Since the vertical coverage improves with time, these
core data represent only the conditions in Dec. 1970 for
Pattern 12-6. By correlating the core results with neutron logs run in all observation wells at the time the
post-steam cores were cut. and then correlating the
neutron logs with temperature profiles run in aii obWa.W

TABLE 2 OIL DISPLACED

CORES,

PAHERN

stem Zone
Thickness, ft
Average oil saturation, percent
Average oil content, bbl/acre-ft
Oil displaced, bbl/acre-ft
Stock-tank oil in place, percent

&w.

w, .~n~
...

Fig. 6 Typical temperature

PRE- AND POST-STEAM

12-6, DEC. 1970
Well
12-6

Well
~

<1

18
53
1,377

18
8
188

1,191
87

:/
L

Hot Water Zone

Thickness, ft
Average oil saturation, percent
Average oil content, bbl /acre-ft
Oil displaced, bbl/acre-ft
Stock-tank oil in place, percent

39
47
1,235

39

24
590

720 ?1

845
52

--b
730 :1
:
733
~

DECEMBER, 1975

~?
49
1,278
814
64

MOTW&TfR

INTERVAL

-1 m
,,

UMXNOWN

.,

Total Cored Zone

Thickness, ft
Average oil saturation, percent
Average oil content, bbl/acre-ft
Oil displaced, bbl/acre-ft
Stock-tank oil in place, percent

profile (Well T6-4).

;J

LEGEND

WELL 12-6 PRE mEw

---

WELL C&9 POST STEAM [727701

(1/08)

Fig. 7 Comparison of core analyais of Well C6-9

with Well 12-6.
1509

cored interval. The 39-ft condensed hot water zone had

displaced 52 percent of the oil in place but was twice as

thick as the steam zone.

Laboratory floods performed on Kern River cores before the field project indicated residual oil saturations of
8 and 20 percent for the steam and hot water zones, respectively. The two field cores averaged 6.3 and 23.2
percent residual oil for the respective zones, which
compares favorably with the laboratory floods. This
good agreement between laboratory and field results
was also noted in the Inglewood pilot steam drive. 1
Displacement Analyses
To analyze the fluid displacement of the steamflood
process, it is necessary to define the two heated zones
involved the steam zone and the hot water or condensed steam zone. The steam zone is relatively easy to
identify because it has a uniform peak temperature interval that appears as a vertical line in the profiles of
temperature vs depth.
The hot water zone is not as easy to identify because
the minimum temperatures above which oil is being
displaced may vary from iocation to i~eati~fi. A ~eiieiation technique using the core results, the pre- and poststeam neutron logs, and temperature profiles was de-

,Mt4

,!

!,7,

OUJSO

!,7 !

.lsO.lsO.

!s71

!,71

>s0

LOG TM

Fig. 8 Vertical

heat-zone

veloped to define the cutoff temperature for the hot

water zone. This technique leads to the use of the temperature profiles alone to analyze the growth of both the
steam and hot water zones.
Plots of three temperature regimes of + 150F,
+ 230F, and the steam zone from the temperature profiles vs time were constructed on semilog paper to show
.,.
.=--h
rihcarvatimn
the verucal cnanges m heated zmies iii eae,,
.-.,
-..-..
well. One of these plots is shown in Fig. 8.
This plot clearly demonstrates the gravity override of
the steam zone and its location immediately below the
siltstone overlying the steamflooded zone.
Well T6-4 in Fig. 8 is also an example of the vertical
heterogeneities in the reservoir (probably siltstone
lenses) that can retard the gravity override of the steam
zone. As can be seen, there was no gravity override
initially, but after 4 months the steam zone appeared at
the top of the formation and dissipated at the bottom.
There is no evidence of a siltstone lens on logs run in
either Injection Well 12-6 or Well T6-4, but there is
apparently some barrier to vertical heat flow between
the wells,
The growth of Ihe heated zones was highly nonradial,
and heat arrival time for individual observation wells
located the same distance from the injection well varied
from 2 weeks to 2 years. An areal plot of the steamzone front progression with time is shown in Fig. 9
for Pattern 12-6.
The areal control beyond the point of heat breakthrough in individual producing wells or observation
wells was estimated by constructing an isopach map of
a 15(YFtemperature zone to serve as an areal bound for
the steam and hot water zone maps prepared individually. Thus, the maximum areal coverage is controlled
by our best estimate of a 15(YF contour line that encompasses both the steam and hot water zones.
It was further felt that the estimated areal coverage of
a steam drive should not significantly exceed that of a
waterflood with a mobility ratio of unity in a seven-spot
configuration. This value is 74.5 percent at water breakthrough. The maximum areal coverage estimated for the
hot water zone in either key pattern is 77 percent, which
. ..
~r~ie of th~rnmb

---:-.--I
is siignuy better than the clllplll~ai
.
. .
mentioned above.
Isopach maps for all observation-well steam and
hot water zones as a function of time were drawn and
planimetered. The acre-feet of heated zone, steam zone,
and hot water zones for Pattern 12-6 are shown in
Fig. 10.

growth vs log time.

10-b
117

zoo,

TOTALNET
ZTEAW
ZONE
+ HOTWATERZONE

153

F@. 9 Steam front

1510

progression,

Pattern 12-6.

Fig. 10

Heated zones volume and percent vs time.

JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

Oil Recovery Factors

Vertical and Areal Coverage
Table 3 summarizes the vertical, areal, and volumetric
coverage of the steam and hot water zones, and displacement calculations for the two key patterns and
for the total project. It should be noted that the 10pattem project totals are simply arithmetic averages of
the two key pattern coverages; and because of heat
leakage to an upper zone in Pattern 9-6, the totals may
be conservative.
The average vertical coverage of the total heated-oil
displacing zone is 88 percent, the average areal coverage is 68 percent, and the volumetric efficiency is 60
percent. This means that more than one-half the reservoir pore volume has been contacted by sufficient heat
to reduce the residual oil saturation to less than 23 percent. This is an excellent combination of volumetric
coverage and displacement efficiency.
The displacement data given in Table 3 are based on
core results shown in Table 2 and heated zone volumes
shown for Pattern 12-6 in Fig. 10, but include data from
Pattern 9-6. If all the displaced oil were produced, the
recoveries of the stock-tank oil originally in place
would be between 45 and 54 percent, respectively, in
the two key patterns, with the 10-pattern project total
estimated at 50 percent. Therefore, in repeated pattern
steamflood with high capture factors, recoveries up to
S5 percent of the stock-tank oil originally in place appear reasonable and attainable.
The summary of the oil recovery factors of the key
patterns and the project as of Oct. 1, 1973, given in
Table 4, shows that recovery is now more than 45 percent of the stock-tank oil originality in piace for the t~tai
project. The type of production acceleration possible
with steamflooding can be appreciated even more when
it is noted that only 13 percent of the stock-tank oil

TABLE 3 STEAMFLOOD

originally in place was produced over the first 69 years

of this reservoirs producing life.
It should be noted that the producing wells are open
to all the zones indicated on the log in Fig. 1. This
means that decline curves could not be used to estimate
primary recovery from the injection interval; instead,
this number was estimated at 15 percent, which is
reasonable for this type of field and is consistent with
past history. In addition, any contribution to 10-pattem
project production from the new injectors to the south
has not been accounted for because the expansion came
late in the life of the test. The combined effect of these
approximations is probably within the error of production allocation to individual wells.
Capture Factor
The capture factor is defined as the ratio of the total
production minus primary oil produced to 1968, to the
total oil displaced since 1968 by steam drive. To accurately analyze the capture factor, the production from
hot wells outside the original project area must be considered. These outside responding wells have a cumulative gain of 218,200 bbl of oil, which is included in the
total oil production attibuted to the steam drive project
for the capture-factor calculation in Table 4.
The calculated capture factors for Patterns 9-6 and
i2-6 aie 74 and ! !3 percent, respectively. These capture factors are subject to errors in production allocation, as well as in the assumptions made in using displacement voiumes based on iimkd core data.
If one-half the patterns had heated volumes similar to
Pattern 9-6 and the other one-half was similar to Pattern 12-6, the oil displaced since 1968 would be
ad
the
~ CAs Jqy u hbl
L,JVJ,
a u..
...- rmture
--~- factor for incremental oil
to Ott. 1, 1973, would be 98.3 percent. The capture
factors for each key pattern were calculated at 6-month
intervals, and their average was applied to the total

COVERAGE

Steam zone
Areal sweep
3.1
Vertical sweep
21.4
Volumetric sweep
66.6
Displacement, STB/acre-ft
res bbl
Hot water zone
Areal sweep
4.6
Vertical sweep
21.4
Volumetric sweep
98.0
Di&x#ent,
STB/acre-ft
.-.. --Heat leak zone (Pattern 9-6 only)
Displacement, STB/acre-ft
res bbl
Total heated zones
Areal sweep
3.8
Vertical sweep
42.8
Volumetric sweep
164.6
Total displacement since Sept. 1968, bbl
Primary production to Sept. 1968, bbl
Total primary + diaplac.ement, bbl
Total primary + displacement,
percent stock-tank oil originally in place

DECEMBER. 1975

AT 1.18 PVI

Pattern 12-6

Pattern 9-6
1973)

(Oct. 1,
Units

AND DWPLACEMENT

Estimated

(Oct. 1, 1973)

Percent
of Total

Units

Percent
of Total

52
36
19

3.7 acres
32.5 ff
121.2 acre-ft

60
51
31

acres
ft
acre-ft
1,523
101,400
acres
ft
acre-ft

Units

83%
734
14,700
acres
64
72
ft
acre-ft
47
199,300
82,200
281,500

4.7 acres
35.1 ft
165.6 acre-ft

30.0

56
43
25

1,059.3 acre-ft
1,357
1,437,500

77
55
42

46.6 acres
31.4 ff
1,483.0 acre-ft

645
106,800

4.2 acres
68
100+
67.6 ft
73
286.8 acre-n
251,100
81,300
332,400

77
45
35
747 1,107,800

54.4

Totals

Average Percent
of Total

34.0 acres

1,191
I 4A
mn
-,---77
36
26

45.5

10-Pattern

(Oct. 1, 1973)

41.4 acres
61.4ft
2,542.3 acre-ft

67
86
60
2,545,300
934,000
3,479,300
49.5
1511

TABLE

4 STEAMFLOOD

RECOVERY

FACTORS

Pattern 9-6

ha,

awes
Thickness, average, ff
Acre-feet
Stock-tank oil originally in place
(at discovery), bbl
Primary recovery to Sept. 1968, bbl
Primary recovery to Sept. 1966,
percent stock-tafik oil originally in place
Stock-tank oil in place at Sept. 1968, bbl
Remaining primary (ultimate recovery
txircent}.
1~ ~------,. bbl
--Total production, bbl
Production gain over primary, bbl
Production gain over prima~,
percent stock-tank oil originally in place
Total recovery,
percent stock-tank oil originally in place
Capture factors (Oct. 1, 1973)
Total production-primary
to 1968
iTabie 41. biii
Total displacement
(Table 3), bbl

10-Pattern

Total

60,74

64.3
392

69.8
4,237

618,200
82,200

611,300
81,300

7,023,000
934,000

13.3
536,000

13.3
530,000

13.3
6,089,000

10,600
230,400
137,600

10,400
365,300
273,600

119,000
3,219,100
2,166,100

22.2

44.8

30.5

37.2

59.8

45.8

I-cc m-m .-Lw unl, ,..?!.?,

m-m\
\iw3,G4uv

to Wx)tl)

(230,400

since 1968

TO OCT. 1, 1973

Pattern 12-6
~.~~

199,300
= 74.3 percent

251,100
= 113.1 percent

IQ Aa7

{-.

---,

mn
.-

tfi
.

afiA
--.

nnm
-,

2,545,300
= 98.3 percent
(inc!udes
218,200-bbl gain
from first-line
responding wells)

steam drive project. These data are plotted in Fig. 1I,

and were used as the correction factor in Fig. 13. The
total project capture factor improved with time as fillup
was reached, and the ability to keep responding wells
operating at maximum capacity was improved. Unfortunately, the capture factor usually must be estimated in
most displacement processes, in lieu of the actual data
available from this field trial.

Project Performance

vs Theory

One of the objectives of this field trial was to test the

validity of present theoretical methods for heat-loss calculations after relatively long injection periods. Another
objective was to gather data from a controlled field test

and incorporate these data into a general prediction

method for steamflood performance. These objectives
are related in the sense that heat-loss models or heat10SScalculation procedures are basic to any prediction
method for steamflood performance.
Before this field trial, it was recognized that existing heat-loss models, such as the Marx-Langenheimq
model, were not completely satisfactory for steamflood
predictions. The Marx-Langenheim model of areas
heated checked the early field results of the Inglewood
pilot test fairly well; but thickness-heated and displacement predictions were not satisfactory. None of the
existing heat-loss models consider gravity override.
which is a fact of life in gas-phase injection systems. In
f

105
100
10 PAITERN

~EAM

FLOOD

KERN RIVER

90

S-

1512

TOTAL 10PAmERN PROJECT

JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

a recent experimental study of gravity-overnde effects,

Bake# concluded that gravity override primarily depends on the injection rate and is less severe at higher
rates, and that heat losses to overburden and substratum
are functions of time alone. Recent theoretical work by
Neuman2 has resulted in a mathematical model of the
steamflood process that incorporates gravity override
and downward st$am-zone growth in the performance
prediction.
The Neuman Model
Figs. 12 and 13 show the Neuman2 predictions vs Pattern 12-6 and total project performance. This theoretical
model agrees reasonably well with field measurements
of total steam and hot water volumes, as shown in Fig.
12, and with total cumulative production after capturefactor correction, as shown in Fig. 13. Complete details
of the Neuman model are included in his paper.z
The most important difference in parameters used by
Neuman and those used in the displacement analyses of
this field trial is the critical or cutoff temperature in
the hot water zone. Neumans critical temperature is
that below which water fiow is preferential to oil, baaed
temperature
-- I--.-n -~ *-.*.
UII
IIU1 ....+
Wcd%llo
,*OK., am~
. ... the
. . .. field
. . . . . ~~~~ff
is that below which no further oil is displaced from the
reservoir, based on cores and logs. The field correlations gave a temperature cutoff as low as 14&F.
The Marx-Langenheim Model
A Marx-Langenheim4 prediction was also made to
compare with Pattern 12-6, and is shown in Fig. 14.
The parameters comparable with Neumans model, such
as British thermal units injected (Q), volumetric heat
capacity @4), and difference in temperature (AT), are
identical in both predictions. The Marx-Langenheim
prediction
models can be used for area or volumeheated or oil-displacement volumes as functions of
time, but normally are used only for area calculations
because the displacement

ues are also based on field temperature profiles.

The original intent of the Marx-Langenheim fielddata comparison was to test the datas validity for long
injection periods. The data are not satisfactory, as can
be seen from the comparison of the predicted with actual steam-zone volumes. However, it was noted that
the Marx-Langenheim uniform temperature-zone prediction overlies the total steam and hot-water zone field
curve. This is probably accidental because the thickness
of the steam zone and the ratio of the steam zone thickness to hot water zones change with time. There is no
way to test this observation against other steamflood
because of lack of data on hot water zones.
Reservoir Heat-Loss Parameters
The thermal conductivity and diffusivity values used for
Baker,3 Marx- Langenheim4 and other
the Neuman,z
heat-loss prediction methods are usually taken from the
literature.
For the 10-pattem project steamflood, it was possible to derive the values for diffusivity from the shape of
the temperature profiles as described in Neumans
p~pei. ~ ~lffidS~v:ty ~aiue of 0=87 sq f~D gave a good
match to measured temperature profiles in most
cases.
The average value of the expression for the ratio of

. .
?

..

. -

.mr

y.y

s~

/A+.&

* /

!Wi

g - -

rates are quite optimistic.

that the steam zone has a constant

in the Marx-Langenheim model, but the

Neuman model does not require this assumption. The
Marx-Langenheim thickness of 32.5 ft used in the Fig.
14 comparison is the average steam zone, or uniform
frnm Pattern. 12-6 data as Of OCt.
. -~-..t.s-s thicbmecc
The thermal diffusivity and conductivity val-

1,

C..

*r.-,

. . .

. . .

---

mu

,.

., -mm
.

.-m

/
,. ~

thickness

lelllpac.

.
-.

%
i

/
.-.

,.

..

h must be assumed

.Mm
/

*-

/ ,.

,/.

F@. 13 Neuman predicted oil production vs actual oil

production, 10-pattern steamflood.

1973.

/,

,!,

.1

/ ..

./

,.,

..Q

/0

_
009

.0?6

..mcm.
/---3!!s

..O: .
0 ,.mmn.

-H,%%%-

*.-!

. .

%
0

../
.. / /
. .

,/

,,.
,,

,--,.

.@

lcalw.l...l

,/

,.

..=

--

,.

6;0;00000

. ..O
=-

..OO
0

.00.0

.*M =

v=-

#-d

//
1~
i:lilii
.

Fig. 12 Neuman

DECEMBER. 1975

predieted heat zone vs actual,

Pattern 12-6.

ll!!iil

liliillll?

t511iii

ildl!i!

ililiil
w!

di!15il

ii\i

IdJ!~iilil

iii

,,,,

Fig. 14 Marx-Langenheim
predicted steam zone vs
actual, Pattern 12-6.
1513

conductivity and diffusivity, 2Kh/m,

which is used
in many heat-loss calculations, is 67.5 Btu/sq ft-F-Dl2
for most observation wells at Kern River. Most published Vahtes give a range of .54 to 88 for 2&/w.
Since the average Kern River value of 67.5 is also near
the average of the published values, it can be used with
some confidence for thermal studies in other areas.

Conclusions

Analysis of the 10-pattem project steamflood data to

Ott. 1, 1973, leads to the following conclusions.
1. Steamflooding is a very efficient oil displacement
process, and ultimate recoveries up to 55 percent of the
stock-tank oil originally in place appear attainable in
multipattem steamflood. Current recovery in the 10pattem project steamflood interval is more than 45 percent, compared with an estimated 15 percent ultimate
recovery by primary means.
2. Steamflooding is rate sensitive, but there is
an economic-optimum injection rate that results in
the highest oil production per dollar cost for steam
injection.
3. As of Ott. 1, 1973, three of the original 32 project
wells were cold. This is because of reservoir heterogeneities that seem to prevent a few wells from receiving heat, regardless of the stimulation efforts.
4. The use of radioactive tridutn mid three d~ff~iefil
salt tracers has been successful in this steamflood.
5. The heat equivalent of produced surface fluids is
nearly 15 percent of injected heat and should be subtracted from the injected heat for theoretical predictions.
6. Surface producing-well flowline temperatures are
important data to monitor to help analyze individual
well performance in steamflood operations.
7. Values of hot water and steitmflood residual oil
saturations measured in the laboratory agreed closely
with field derived values.

1514

8. Current vertical coverage of the total heated zones

(steam and hot water) is 88 percent and areal coverage
is 68 percent, resulting in a volumetric sweep at 1.18
PV input of 60 percent.
9. The capture efficiency has improved with time in
the 10-pattem project steamflood, and is currently approaching 100 percent.
10. A new steamflood prediction model developed
by Neuman2 has given a reasonable match for the
10-pattem project steamflood field data.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank all those employees of Standard Oil
Co. of California who contributed to the success of the
field trial since it was conceived in 1967. We especial] y
c-=b~d
T: A. Edthank D. G-. ~lllJu
w , G. W. h?pe!j
mondson, B. L. Evans, A. E. Pinson, W. G. Paulsen,
F. I. Walker, the late E. A. Erlewine, C. D. Fiddler,
G. W. Rooney, L. W. Glazier, J. W. Hatcher, J. C.
Harrod, W. M. Johnson, and D. W. Ambrose.
References
1.

Blevins,
T. R., Aaeltine,
R. J., and Kirk, R. S.: Anatysisof a
Steam Drive Project, InglewoodField, Califomiii, J. Per. Tech.

(Sept. 1969) 1141-1150.

Model of Steamflooding
2. Neuman, C. H.: A Mathematical
Applications,
paper SPE 4757, presentedat the SPE-AIME45th
Awwa!CaliforniaRegionalMeeting, Ventura, April 2-4, 1975.
3. Baker, P. E.: Effects of Pressure-and Rate on Steam Zone DeSot. Pef. Eng. J. (Oct.
1973)
velopment in Steamflooding,
274-284; Trans., AlME, 255.
4. Marx. J. W. and LanQenheim. R. H.: Reservoir Heating by Hot
Fluid Injection, Tra~s., AIME (1959) 216, 312-315.
- fiT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers offke Feb. 18,
1975. Revised manuscript
received Oct. 28, t 975. Paper (SPE 4756) was first
pra.samad at tfse SPE-AIME
45th Annual California
Regional Meeting, held in
Ventura, April 2-4, 1975. @ Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Th!s paper will be included

in the 19757r.snsacbons

VOIWIW.

JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY