SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
SPE 10746
Steam Injection Theories - A Unified Approach
by S. M. Farouq Ali, University of Alberta
Member SPEAIME
Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper was presented at the 1982 California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Francisco, CA,
March 24-26, 1982. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, TX 75206.
ABSTRACT
Formation heating and oil displacement by stearn
injection is a multi-faceted process, which can take
several forms. A number of theories have been pro-
posed over the years to explain the mechanics of stearn
advance in an oil-bearing formation. These range from
stearn frontal advance to frontal-vertical advance to
vertical advance. The premises of these theories vary
considerably, but they often give the same ultimate
recovery - as shown in this paper. The reasons for
this apparent insensitivity are examined. The situa-
tion becomes more complicated when bottom water or for-
mation parting is involved, inducing preferential move-
ment of stearn in still other directions than those
mentioned above.
The paper provides a comparative examination of
the above theories, in the light of field experience,
numerical simulation and physical model results. The
objective is to develop criteria for judging the appli-
cability of one or the other -or, even more than one -
theory. A simplified steamflood calculation method is
also suggested.
The paper also discusses the principal mechanism
of oil displacement by stearn, both for light and vis-
cous oils. It seems that the temperature dependence
of relative permeabilities is an important factor in
the gas drive effect of stearn, and should be included
to represent the oil recovery process properly.
Application of the above theories to cyclic stearn
stimulation is problematic, partly because resaturation
of the depleted zone may occur.
INTRODUCTION
Stearn injection is the major enhanced oil recovery
method today, and accounts for over 90% of the oil
produced by such methods. The main thrust is toward
steamflooding, with cyclic stearn stimulation remaining
References and illustrations at end of paper.
309
an important adjunct. In very viscous oil reservoirs
(e.g. Cold Lake, Alberta and Paris Valley, California)
cyclic steaming is the principal recovery method.
Currently, there is increasing interest in the use of
stearn in light oil reservoirs; research on this pro-
cess was started by the author and others in the early
sixties. The use of additives (gases, solvents, sur-
factants, foam, etc.) with stearn is also attracting
attention, sometimes out of necessity, as in the case
of downhole steam generators, where the injected stenm
consists of a mixture of stearn and flue gas. A recent
paper by Farouq Ali and Meldau (1) summarized these
and other field-related developments.
Concurrently, with advances in the operational
technology of stearn injection, much has been accomp-
lished toward oil recovery prediction techniques. At
the present time, a variety of steamflood performance
prediction models are available, ranging from relativ-
ely simple mathematical approaches to formation heat-
ing by stearn, to comprehensiv~ numerical simulators,
to scaled physical models. The main purpose of this
paper is to consider steamflood mechanisms, in the
light of various mathematical models, as well as field
experience, and attempt to arrive at guidelines for
choosing the proper model for a given situation. Most
of the discussion will be confined to analytical modelE.
Additionally, a simple performance prediction method
is also suggested, which might be useful before under-
taking a detailed numerical simulation study.
STEAMFLOOD MECHANISMS
It is well-established that in continuous stearn
injection into an oil-bearing porous medium, a "stearn
zone" is formed, virtually at a constant temperature,
Ts ' being the stearn temperature, within which the ini-
tial oil saturation is reduced to a low value, Sorst'
the steamflood residual oil saturation, on the order
of 10% pore volume. This is well below the usual water
flood, or even hot waterflood residual oil saturation.
At the stearn temperature, the viscosity of even the
most viscous oil is reduced to a few centipoises, as
Fig. I, given by Buckles (2) shows. The highly mobil-
ized oil is subjected to a vaporizing gas drive by the
injected stearn, as a result of which the oil saturation
is lowered to an immobile, undistillable fraction.
Typically, the oil is subjected to hundreds of pore
 STEAM INJECTION THEORIES - A UNIFIED APPROACH SPE 10746

volumes of gas in the form of steam, without the dis- irable effects of high injection pressures possibly
advantage of having to produce this gas in view of sub- responsible for the lack of success in "deep" steam-
sequent condensation of steam. The distillation effect floods (over 3000 ft.)
is the primary oil transport mechanism in light oils,
although it is important even in the case of the most The presence of nitrogen in a steam drive may
viscous oils. make the process unstable up to about 650F, according
to Krueger, whereas the reverse is true at higher tem-
The steamflood residual oil saturation is appro- peratures. It can be speculated that the presence of
ximately constant within the steam zone. Numerical a gas, such as carbon dioxide, if soluble in oil at
simulations, based upon a compositional formulation, the prevailing conditions, may not make the front un-
by the author and others, show the gradual development stable, in view of its ability to "condense" much like
of this saturation in the steam zone as a result of steam.
mass transfer considerations. Nevertheless, it is a
useful number for simplified steam calculations, and STEAM ZOME DEV~OPMENT
can be determined for a given porous medium, oil, and
steam injection temperature and rate. Figure 2 gives The manner of development of the steam zone in
selected values of Sorst' as reported for various a steamflood is of great importance from the oil reco-
fields, based upon a work by the author and Alvarez very standpoint. It is a complex process, but to a
(3). The plot shows Sorst as a function of oil vis- first approximation, it may be assumed that the inject-
cosity at the reservoir temperature. The individual ed heat is retained by the formation within a constant
points give the steam temperature and the literature emperature steam zone, and is lost to the overlying and
reference cited. the underlying rocks by conduction. There is no heat
flow ahead of the steam front. This is the basis of
The reduction of oil saturation is the principal the Marx-Langenheim (6) approach, which continues to be
mechanism among several others, which include hot applicable under many conditions (thick formations,
waterflood, cold waterflood, miscible drive, thermal high steam quality, low pressure, high rates). Mandl
expansion, and fluid mobility changes due to tempera- and Volek (7) improved upon this model, on the basis
ture dependence of relative permeabilities to oil and that at a particular "critical" time, the latent heat
water - which are in favor of oil. It is well-esta- content of the injected steam is not large enough to
blished that the irreducible water saturation increases supply the heat loss in the previously heated formation
with an increase in temperature, causing a shift in and also to raise the preheated rock ahead to the steam
the water relative permeability toward decreasing temperature. As a result, convective heat transfer at
values. Numerical simulations of viscous oil (Cold the front dominates. They give equations for the steam
Lake, Alberta) steamfloods by the author show that zone volume and the critical time. Myhill and Stege-
temperature dependence of oil and water relative perme- meier (8) improved the Mandl-Volek solution. The most
abilities, and to a lesser extent hysteresis, should comprehensive mathematical treatment of the problem to
be accounted for, otherwise the calculated oil pro- date is due to Yortsos and Gavalas (9, 10). They have
duction rates are often far below the observed rates. derived more precise bounds, removed the discontinuity,
and satisfactorily solved the problem of receding steam
The role of hot water (condensate) is apparently fronts. Their results show that the Myhill-Stegemeier
more in the nature of pre-stimulation of the cold form- solution is in good agreement with theirs, while the
ation, ahead of the advancing steam front, than as a Mandl-Volek solution should be satisfactory for most
Buckley-Leverett type hot waterflood, because it is conditions, where the ratio of the latent heat content
well-known that this is a highly unstable process. of steam to the total heat is greater than 0.4.
Numerical simulations show this in the form of gravity
override, whereas experimental studies show viscous Apart from the above models, a number of numer-
fingering in addition. Neuman (4) attributes as much ical models of steam zone development, encompassing
as one-third of the total oil recovery (Kern River ) to three-phase flow (not considered in the above models)
the hot water flow below a downward and laterally ex- have been reported. These were reviewed in a recent
panding steam zone. (This is discussed in greater article by Farouq Ali and Ferrer (11).
detail below).
GRAVITY SEGREGATION OF STEAM
A crucial factor in steam zone development is
the manner and location of the steam zone with respect An important aspect of steamflooding is the gra-
to the oil-bearing formation, which will be considered vity segregation of steam under most conditions, given
further. the buoyancy of steam and the very high mobility of oil
in the steam zone. Such segregation may occur even in
STEAM FRONT STABILITY formations of limited vertical permeability. For ex-
ample, Cook (12) notes formation of localized steam
Steamflooding is basically a stable process, at zones underneath silt lenses. The rate of segregation
least on a microscopic basis. The t'endency to would depend ~n oil viscosity, vertical permeability,
"fingering" of steam beyond the front is suppressed by and steam temperature. Numerical simulator results
condensation. Even on a macroscopic scale, the gravity quoted by Neuman (4) show that steam segregation is
overlay of steam would tend to overcome viscous fing- quite rapid for Kern River type conditions (oil visco-
ering. Krueger (5) gives an excellent review of steam- sity 4000 cp, permeability 2 darcies), with the oil
flood stability, and develops criteria for steam injec- saturation reduced to about 10% in a lS-ft steam zone
tion together with a non-condensible gas (nitrogen). at the top of the formation. Recent work by the author
He notes that up to 329F (165C) the large volume shows that such segregation may be rather slow for very
change accompanying condensation has a stabilizing viscous oils. For example, for a 100,000 cp Cold Lake
effect; however, above 450F (230C) the steam front oil, steam saturation in the upper parts of the forma-
becomes unstable. This may be among the other undes- tion was less than one percent, even after two years,

310
 SPE 10746 S.M. PAROUQ ALI
starting with zero gas saturation. On the other hand,
if a 10% gas saturation is assumed to be present, com-
plete segregation of steam occurred in just over one
year.
Gravity segregation of steam was observed in
the early days of steam stimulation in Venezuela.
Laboratory studies in linear cylindrical sand packs,
using the' 20,000 cp Morichal crude, by the author
and Avendano (13), showed clean swept sand along the
top of the pack, while the oil in the lower part was
denuded of its lighter fraction and turned into a sol-
id mass. Such behavior was also observed in the field
Many laboratory experiements, using steam, have been
reported, e.g. those by Baker (14), Huygen (15),
Ehrlich (16), Prats (17), Stegemeier, Laumbach and
Volek (18), Doscher and Huang (19), Pujol and Boberg
(21), and others. Ehrlich used the Wabascs oil (5 x
10 6 cp at 55p reservoir temperature), while Pujol
and Boberg used a Cold Lake oil (100,000 cp at 70F
in scaled high pressure type models. In both cases,
segregation of steam occurred. Ehrlich noted that whe
steam was injected near the base of the formation, an
"important part" (over 40%) of the oil was recovered
prior to steam override. Model results reported by
Butler and Stephens (23) were also based upon a Cold
Lake crude oil in a glass bead pack. Introduction
of steam at the base led to segregation of oil and
steam. It can be concluded that segregation of steam
would occur in nearly all cases, although it may be
slow in very viscous oils.
THEORIES OF STEAMFLOODING WITH SEGREGATION
In 1969, de Haan and van Lookeren (20) presented c mote a vertical drive.
cyclic steam stimulation performance prediction method
based upon steam override. In 1975, Neuman (4) des-
cribed a mathematical approach to steam zone growth
both laterally and vertically downward. Although the
mathematical treatment (22) has certain non-rigorous
aspects, nevertheless, the model satisfactorily
described the dominant aspects of a segregated steam-
flood,and in particular, it was successfully applied
to Chevron's 10-pattern steamflood in Kern River,
California. Two important aspects of this model are,
first, it requires relative permeabilities to oil and
and water as functions of temperature, and second, it
emphasizes the hot water drive below the downward
moving steam zone, which is shown to yield an oil
recovery that is a constant fraction (0.52 for Kern
River) of oil recovery by steam. The latter is sup-
ported by field results as well.
An important contribution on steam override is
due to van Lookeren (24), who considered gravity
segregation of steam and oil, and derived a group,
AR, which can be used to calculate the thickness swept (whereas Gomaa's simulations allowed for gravity seg-
by steam. It is seen that the vertical sweep would
decrease with a decrease in steam injection rate, an
increase in pressure, and/or a decrease in steam qua-
lity. It is not unexpected that the vertical sweep
is independent of formation thickness. In other words however, it is still very high for the small thick-
so long as the steam zone has not reached the base of
the formation, it makes little difference - to a first
approximation - as to how thick the formation is.
Table 1 lists values of AR for selected field projects
together with comments regarding observed behavior,
where applicable.
If it can be assumed that the injected steam
immediately spreads on top of the formation, and there steam ratios are quite similar although a segregated
after the steam zone grows downward, then formation
thickness should make little difference to oil-steam
ratio. This is the basis of the theory advanced by
Doscher and Ghassemi (25), whose experiments, designed
to simulate such a condition, showed that there was
little difference in p~rformance for a 26-ft or a 70-
ft formation'. If it is indeed possible to create a
steam zone over the formation, an efficient steam dis-
placement would result. Good examples of this type
are the Smackover field in Arkansas, and Yorba Linda in
California. The former has a gas cap thicker than the
oil zone (15 ft), while the latter had a gas ("air")
zone.
On the other hand, if a segregated steam zone
develops as a result of steam buoyancy, and not due to
an existing gas saturation, the zone thickness deter-
mined by the methods of van Lookeren or Neuman, then
the vertical conformance (steam zone thickness divided
by pay thickness) would be higher in thinner than in
thicker formations, and heat losses would become the
same sort of serious drawback that they are in frontal
drives in thin formations.
It is interesting to note that if we apply van
Lookeren's method to Doscher and Ghassemi's second
experiment (Table 2 in their paper: permeability 1
darcy, steam pressure 200 psia, quality 0.65, injec-
tion rate 720 B/D, thickness 26.9 ft; assumed steam
viscosity 0.02 cp and oil gravity 20 API), the cal-
culated steam zone thickness is 26.2 ft, viz. almost
100% vertical sweep. In other words, a frontal drive
would have been feasible under the experimental con-
ditions, whereas the experiment was designed to pro-
EFFECT OF FORMATION THICKNESS
As noted above, under the premise of immediate
steam segregation, and subsequent steam zone advance
in the downward direction (Ref~25 ), the oil-steam
ratio would be relatively independent of formation
thickness, whereas in a frontal drive there is a stron
dependence between the two in view of the heat losses,
which increase rapidly with a decrease in thickness.
The actual behavior is between the two extremes, per-
haps closer to the frontal drive case. This is best
evidenced by Gomaa's (26) numerical simulations of
steamf100ds in California-type (low pressure) reser-
voirs, under a wide variety of conditions. Figure 3,
taken from this work is remarkable: the oil recovery
is independent of formation thickness, when plotted
on the basis of net heat injected. Figure 4 shows
heat loss as a f~tion of formation thickness, for
various heat injection rates. The dashed line has
been added to show heat loss for a frontal steamf100d
regation), for a five-year period, which corresponds
approximately to a heat injection rate of 0.5 MMBtu/
day/ac-ft. It is clear that the heat loss shown by
simulations is less than that for a frontal drive,
nesses, which tends to support van Lookeren's theory.
FRONTAL STEAM DRIVE vs. SEGREGATED DRIVE
Table 2 compares the oil-steam ratios reported
by Myhill and Stegemeier (8) and Neuman (4) for the
same steamf100ds, employing widely differing theories,
discussed in a previous section. The values of oi1-
311
 STEAM INJECTION THEORIES - A UNIFIED APPROACH
steamflood is assumed in Neuman's method as opposed
to a frontal drive in Myhill and Stegemeier's model.
The respective values of porosity times movable oil
((Soi-Sorst are not identical in all cases; how-
ever, it is interesting that both models are claimed
to represent the field performance. It is noteworthy
that the two models are essentially comparing the
cumulative oil-steam ratios, which tend to average
out the prevailing effects. On the other hand, either
model can give oil-steam ratio as a function of time.
Neuman shows good agreement between prediction and
the actual performance for Kern River. One could
also conclude that the "effective" steam zone volume
based upon a frontal steamflood provides a fairly
reliable estimate of cumulative oil recovery.
STEAM INJECTION INTO FRACTURES
In very high viscosity oil formations, such as
those of Cold Lake, steam injection at a.satisfactory
rate is possible only under fracture pressures, as
discussed by Buckles (2). Performance prediction
under such conditions is difficult using any type
of models, even if the dimensions and locations of
the fractures were known. Numerical simulation
studies of fractured formation and subsequent fluid
production, in cyclic steam stimulation are underway
(27). The analytical models presented by Wheeler
(28) and Hearn (29) are quite useful for determining
areal coverage by the injected steam as well as the
temperature distribution in the surrounding formations
An important application of Wheeler's models would be
detection of a fracture on the basis of temperature
measurements in its vicinity. Other applications of
these models include steam injection into thin or
"thief" zones, bottom water sands, etc. The latter
topic is of considerable interest in Alberta, and is
the subject of another paper to be published this
year.
PERFORMANCE PREDICTION - RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the complexities of steamflooding
discussed above, oil production predictions by use of
analytical models are rather tentative. Nevertheless,
sud' predictions are often within 10-15% of numerical
simulation results, at least in the case of cumulative
oil recovery. As such, analytical models provide a
rapid means of delineating the ranges of variables
for more comprehensive studies.
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended
that for engineering calculations, van Lookeren's
(24) method should be used for calculating steam
zone thickness, while Mandl and Volek's (7) model be
used for steam zone volume. Myhill and Stegemeier's
(8) and Yortsos and Gavalas' (10) treatments are more
accurate, but not as simple to use. The same is true
of Neuman's (4) method, which has further complexi-
ties.
In the past, a number of simplified approaches
to steamflood predictions have been proposed, which
are more complex than the aforesaid models, but less
demanding than numerical simulators. Examples are
the work of Rincon, Diaz-Munoz, and Farouq Ali (38),
utilizing the well-known Higgins-Leighton method of
division of stream tubes into cells. Recently, Rhee
and Doscher (39) presented an improved version of
this type of model. Their concept of assigning an
average temperature to the hot condensate zone ahead
SPE 10746
of the steam zone was used by the author in a simpli-
fied graphical method for steamflood performance pre-
diction (40, 41). The following section presents a
simple model for steamflood performance prediction.
A SIMPLIFIED MODEL
One of the difficulties in predicting oil
production by a steamflood, employing a Myhill-Stege-
meier type approach is that such methods of necessity
require that the oil displaced by the steam front is
immediately produced. Thus, there is no lag in oil
production due to fill-up of any gas volume, or due
to development of an oil bank. Also, in the later
stages, reduction in the oil mobility cannot be
accounted for. Recently, Jones (42) presented a sim-
plified approach, which essentially uses Myhill and
Stegemeier's oil production prediction, with the oil
production rate mUltiplied by empirical factors based
upon field performance, in order to correct for the
above effects.
An alternative model is described in the
Appendix, which does not employ empirical factors,
and furthermore purports to simulate the dominant
mechanistic features. The general calculation proce-
dure is as follows, for determining oil production
rate at some time, t:
1. At the start, calculate the vertical
sweep by steam, i.e. the steam zone
thickness, hst, for the given operating
conditions.
2. Calculate the steam zone volume, using
h st Calculate the heat content of the
steam zone; assume that one-half of the
balance of the heat injected is in the
unswept oil sand. Use it to calculate
the average temperature Tavg.
3. Calculate the oil displaced from the stean
zone, assuming that it increases the oil
saturation in the balance of the sand.
Repeat for water. Calculate average oil
and water saturations in the sand, and
produce the fluids in accordance with
relative permeabilities. Calculate new
saturations.
4. When the steam zone arrives at the pro-
ducer (based upon a suitable areal sweep
- close to 100%), assume that subsequently
the steam zone grows downward. (It is
assumed that steam production is restri-
cted. The downward movement can be deter
mined by a treatment such as that in Ref.
(25). A simpler, though less precise,
method is given in the Appendix).
5. Terminate the computations, when the stean
zone reaches the base of the sand.
The above procedure is rather approximate, but it tends
to encompass the dominant features of a steamflood. It
is more likely to be applicable to viscous oils rather
than light oils, where a frontal steamflood is often
possible. Figure 5 shows the performance prediction
for Kern River, using the above procedure. For com-
parison, the predictions using Myhill and Stegemeier's
method, Jones' method, and Intercomp's numerical simu-
lation are also shown.
312
 SPE 10746 S.M. FAROUQ ALI

CONCLUSIONS Sorst= steamflood residual oil saturation, frac

Sorw = residual oil saturation in oil-water system,frac
The following conclusions are reached based upon
a comparative discussion of steamflood performance Sst = steam saturation in the steam zone, frac
prediction theories, in the light of laboratory and Sw = water saturation, frac
field experience:
S: = (Sw-Swir)/(l-Swir-Sorw)
1. It is clear that gravity segregation of = irreducible water saturation, frac
steam occurs under most conditions. Such
segregation may be too slow in highly vis- oil or water saturation at the end of time step
cous oils. In some cases, the segregated = as above, at the beginning of the time step
steam may provide an efficient vertical
drive. t = time, hours
tBT = steam breakthrough time, hours
2. In some instances, widely differing steam
zone growth theories have provided similar tc = critical time, hours
predictions of field performance. It t = dimensionless critical time
appears that even the frontal advance theory Dc
provides a reasonable estimate of the T = temperature, of
"effective" steam zone volume, given reliabl( T = average temperature of unsteamed volume, of
values of steamflood residual oil satura- avg
tions, a compilation of which is pres.ented T = steam temperature, of
s
in this paper. = original formation temperature, of
TR
3
3.
It is recommended that for commonly encoun- Vb
= bulk volume of the pattern, ft
tered situations, van Lookeren's method (24) Vs(t)= steam zone volume at time t, ft 3
should be used for vertical conformance of
steam, and Mandl and Volek's method (7) for = steam zone volume at breakthrough,
calculating the steam zone volume. The sim-
plified calculation procedure presented in ex = thermal diffusivity of overburden,
this paper (Appendix) additionally accounts = oil viscosity, cp
for preheating of the unswept formation and
relative permeability effects, with both = water viscosity, cp
lateral and vertical advance of the steam = steam viscosity, cp
zone.
3
= steam density, lb/ft
3
= oil density, lb/ft
. NOMENCLATURE
= porosity, frac
A = pattern area, acres
c = specific heat of water, Btu/lb-oF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
w
E = areal sweep efficiency for steam, frac
a The author is indebted to Mr. Robert F. Meldau
f = steam quality, frac for many discussions of steam injection theory and
st
h = net pay, ft field experience.
n
h = gross sand, ft
t REFERENCES
h = steam zone thickness, ft
st
h = enthalpy of saturated water, Btu/lb-oF
w
i = steam injection rate, B/D (cold water) Farouq Ali, S.M. and Meldau, R.F.: "Current
st 1.
k = overburden thermal conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-OF Steamflood Technology", J. Pet. Tech.
hob (Oct. 1979) 1332-1341.
k = relative permeability to oil, frac
ro
k = relative permeability to water, frac 2. Buckles, R.S. : "Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil
rw Recovery at Cold Lake, Alberta", paper SPE
k = effective permeability to steam, darcy 7994 presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Calif.
st
L = latent heat of steam, Btu/lb Regi~nal Meeting, Ventura, April 18-20, 1979.
v
3
M = heat capacity of overburden, Btu/ft _OF Alvarez, S. : "Steamflood Residual Oil .
ob 3.
M = heat capacity of sand, Btu/ft 3 _OF Saturation", M. S. Thesis, The Pennsylvan~a
s State University (May 1978).
qo = oil production rate, B/D
= water production rate, B/D 4. Neuman, C.H. : "A Mathematical Model of the
qw
Steam Drive Process", Paper SPE 4757, pres-
Qi = heat injection rate, Btu/hr ented at the SPE Calif. Reg. Meeting, Ventura,
S = initial gas saturation, frac April 1975.
g
S = initial oil saturation, frac
oi

313
 STEAM INJECTION THEORIES - A UNIFIED APPROACH
5. Krueger, D.A. : "Stability of Crude Oil
Displacements", Final Report, Contract
46-8784, Sandia Labs., Albuquerque, Sept.
1980.
6. Marx, J., and Langenheim, R.N.: "Reservoir
Heating by Hot Fluid Injection", Trans.
AlME (1959) 312-315.
7. Mandl, G., and Volek, C. W. : "Heat and
Mass Transport in Steam Drive Processes",
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1969) 59-79.
8. Myhill, N.A., and Stegemeier, G.L.: "Steam-
Drive Correlation and Prediction", J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb. 1978) 173-182.
9. Yortsos, Y.C.: "Analytical Modelling of
Oil Recovery by Steam Injection", Ph.D.
Thesis, Calif. Inst. of Tech., Pasadena
(1979).
10. Yortsos, Y.C., and Gavalas, G.R.: "Analytical
Modeling of Oil Recovery by Steam Injection:
Part 1 - Upper Bounds & Part 2 - Asymptotic
and Approxim?te Solutions", Soc. Pet. Eng.
~. (April 1981) 162-190.
11. Farouq Ali, S.M., and Ferrer, J.: "State-of-
the Art of Thermal Recovery Models", J.
Energy Res. Techn., Trans. ASME (December
1981) 296-300.
12. Cook, D.L.: "Influence of Silt Zones on Steam
Drive Performance Upper Conglomerate Zone,
Yorba Linda Field, California", J. Pet.
Tech. (Nov. 1977) 13971404. ---
13. Avendano, H.: "Recovery of Crude Oils by
Steamflooding and Mathematical Simulation"
M.S. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State Univ. '
(December 1968) p. 73.
14. Baker, P.E.: "Effect of Pressure and Rate
on Steam Zone Development in Steamflooding",
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1973) 274-284.
15. Huygen, H.H.A.: "Laboratory Steamfloods in
Half of a Five-Spot", Paper SPE 6171 pre-
sented at SPE 51st Annual Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976.
16. Ehrlich, R.: "Laboratory Investigation of
Steam Displacement in the Wabasca Grand
Rapids "A" Sand", Oil Sands of Canada -
Venezuela, Can. Inst. Min. & Metall. (1977)
364-379.
17. Prats, M.: "Peace River Steam Drive Scale
Model Experiments", Oil Sands of Canada -
Venezuela, Cdn. Inst. Mining. Metallurgy
(1977) 346-363.
18. Stegemeier, G.L., Laumbach, D.D., and Volek,
C.W.: "Representing Steam Processes with
Vacuum Models", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1980)
151-174.
19. Doscher, T.M., and Huang, W.: "Steam-Drive
Performance Judged Quickly from Use of
314
SPE 10746
Physical Models", Oil & Gas J. (Oct. 22,
1979) 52-57.
20. de Haan, H.J., and van Lookeren, J.: "Early
Results of the First Large-Scale Steam Soak
Project in the Tia Juana Field, Western
Venezuela", J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1970) 101.
21. Pujol, L., and Boberg, T.C.: "Scaling
Accuracy of Laboratory Steam Flooding Models",
Paper SPE 4191 presented at the Calif.
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, Nov.8-l0, 1972.
22. Neuman, C.H.: "Personal Communication" 1975.
23. Butler, R.M., and Stephens, D.J.: "The
Gravity Drainage of Steam-Heated Heavy Oil
to Parallel Horizontal Wells", CIM Paper
803131, presented at the 31st Annual Meeting
of Pet. Soc., Calgary, May 1980.
24. van Lookeren, J.: "Calculation Methods for
Linear and Radial Steam Flow in Oil Reservoirs"
Paper SPE 6788, presented at the 52nd SPE
Fall Meeting, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
25. Doscher, T.M., and Ghassemi, F.: "The Effect
of Reservoir Thickness and Low Viscosity
Fluid on the Steam Drag Process", Paper SPE
9897, presented at the 51st SPE Calif.
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, March 27-29,
1981.
26. Gomaa, E.E.: "Simplified Method for Predicting
Oil Recovery by Steamflood", J. Pet. Tech.
(Feb. 1980).
27. Blunschi, J., and Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Effect
of Formation Parting on Cyclic Steam Stimu-
lation Response", presented at the 4th
AOSTRA University Seminar, Lake Louise,
Sept. 28-30, 1980.
28. Wheeler, J.A.: "Analytical Calculations for
Heat Transfer from Fractures", Paper SPE
2494 presented at the Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa 1969.
29. Hearn, C.L.: "Effect of Latent Heat Content
of Injected Steam in a Steam Drive", J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1969) 374-375.
30. Alikhan, A. A. "Oil Recovery by Steam-Driven
Hydrocarbon Slugs, in a Linear Porous Medium",
Ph.D. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, (1973).
31. Blevins,
11
T.R., Aseltine, R.J., and Kirk ' RS .
Analys~s of a Steam Drive Project, Inglewood
Field, California", J. Pet. Tech. (September
1969), 1141-1150.
32. Bursell, C.G.: "Steam Displacement - Kern River
Field", J. Pet. Tech. (October 1970), 1225-1231.
33. Bursell, C.G. and Pittman, G.M.: "Performance
of Steam Displacement in the Kern River Field",
J. Pet. Tech. (August 1975), 997-1004.
34. Ozen, A.S. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: "An Investi-
gation of the Recovery of the Bradford Crude by
Steam Injection", J. Pet. Tech. (June 1969)
692-698. . ,
 SPE 10746 S.M. FAROUQ ALI

35. Valleroy, V.V., Willman, B.T., Campbell, J.B., Vb = 43560A h ;

and Powers, L.W.: "Deerfield Pilot Test of t
Recovery by Steam-Drive", J. Pet. Tech. VSBT=43560AEahst
(July 1967), 956-964.
3. At given time, t, calculate the steam zone volume:
36. Volek, C.W. and Pryor, J.A.: "Steam Distillation
Drive Brea Field, California", J. Pet. Tech.
(August 1972), 899-906.

37. Widmyer, R.H., Howard, C.W., Fontaine, M.F., and

Haynes, S., Jr. "The Charco Redondo Thermal Reco- where
very Pilot", J. Pet. Tech., (December 1977),
1522-1532.

38. Rincon, A.C., Diaz-Munoz, J., and Farouq Ali,

S.M.: "Sweep Efficiency in Steamflooding",
J. Can. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1970). 4. Calculate the average temperature of the un-
swept formation, by subtracting the heat content
39. Rhee, S.W., and Doscher, T.M.: "A Method for of the steam zone from the total heat injected, and
Predicting Oil Recovery by Steamflooding dividing by 2 (to account for heat loss to over-
Including the Effects of Distillation and burden), and by the bulk heat capacity of unswept
Gravity Override", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1980) rock. This would give a higher estimate for T
249-266. but on the other hand, heat in the condensate rg
not accounted for.
40. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Graphical Determination of
Oil Recovery in a Five-Spot Steamflood", T =(Q.t-V (t)(T -TR)M )/2M (Vb-V (t.
avg ~ s s s s s
Paper SPE 2900 presented at the Rocky Mountain
Meeting, Casper, June 8-9, 1970. 5. Using T ,calculate oil viscosity and water
viscosity:av g
41. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Steam Injection", Chapter b/ (T+460)
in Secondary and Tertiary Oil Recovery, pub- )l =ae
o
lished by Interstate Oil Compact Commission, )l =(1776-T)/(26.5T-89).
w
Oklahoma City (1970).
6. Calculate k and k . The following are the
42. Jones, J.: "Steam Drive Model for Hand-Held generalized eqfr~tions f8r California reservoirs,
Programmable Calculator", J. Pet. Tech. as given by Gomaa:
(Sept. 1981) 1583-1598.
k. = -0.002l67S* + 0.024l67S*2;
A P PEN D I X rw w w
k =-0.94l6+l.0808/S*-0.13856/S*2;
ro w w
A SIMPLIFIED MODEL FOR STEAMFLOOD PREDICTION with k =1 if S* fO.2.
ro w
The following prediction method was programm- n n+l
7. Over a time step ~t (t to t ), calculate oil
ed on an HP4lCV calculator. The method predicts oil and water displaced from the steam zone due to
production rate, water production rate, as well as expansion, and displacement of .fluids:
other quantities of interest. The underlying prin-
ciples of the method were considered in the text. ~V =Vn+l _ Vn .
Symbols and units are defined in the Nomenclature. s s s'
Equations given are approximate. The treatment Q =~V (Sn -S ).
of temperature of the unsteamed formation could be o s 0 orst'
refined; however, there are compensating features. o =~V (Sn -l+S +S t);
The calculation steps are as follows: IN s w st ors
Q +0 =(q +q )~t, with
OlN 0 w
1. For the given conditions, calculate the steam
zone thickness, and critical time: q /q =[Q -Vb'(Sn+l_Sn)]/[O -Vb'(Sn+l_Swn)]
o woo 0 IN w
=k )l /k )l =f(S ).
ro w rw 0 0

where The above equation is used to solve for

1
h
]L
2 '
Son+ , t h e o~1 sa t ura t~on ~n
. th e uswep t zone .
n
8. When V >V ,there is the option of either
. s sBT .. 1
produc~ng steam over a g~ven ~nterva , or 0
f shu t -
ting off the steam producing interval, and allow-
ing the steam to expand downward. A simplified
treatment gives the following expression for V (t)
. s
where after breakthrough at any t~me t:
-1
eric~D =[l+f tL /c (T -T )] ,
c s v w s R vs (t)=V sBT +[Q.(t-t )-2k bA(43560)E (T -T )
~ BT h0 a s R
with L 94(705-T )0.38.
v s .(/t-~BT)/;;;-;;:]/M (T -T
s s avg ).
2. Calculate oil, water, and gas in place, pattern
volume, and formation volume at breakthrou~h: Fluid production is zero until gas volume is filled up.

315
 TABLE 1
COMPARISON. OF ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL
VERTICAL CONFORMANCES FOR SELECTED STEAMFLOODS

><
.
H
INJECTION H VERTICAL VERTICAL
HU
API THICKNESS RATE PERMEABILITY PRESSURE CONFORMANCE CONFORMANCE
FIELD GRAVITY FT. BiD 23~ DARCY PSIA (CALCULATED) (ACTUAL)
a~ ~
("pprC'x)
Deerfield, MO 18 26 170 0.6 0.45 125 1.52 0.76 0.45 (?)

Inglewood, CA 14.5 43 1080 0.7 5.90 390 0.55 0.28 0.28

Schoonebeek, 25 80 1250 0.7 2.0 680 0.32 0.16 0.22

Netherlands

Tia Juana, 15 200 1400 0.8 2.0 300 0.28 0.14 <0.30
Venezuela

El Dorado, KS 37 17 200 0.45 0.5 500 0.91 0.45 0.20

TABLE 2

COMPARISON OF OIL-STEAM RATIOS

PREDICTED BY
NEUMAN (4) AND MYHILL & STEGEMEIER (8)

FIELD MYHILL & STEGEMEIER NEUMAN

Actual Field
Oil-Steam Oil-Steam Oil-Steam
(Soi - Sorsr) Ratio (Soi - Sorst) Ratio Ratio

Brea, CA 0.09 0.l3 0.09 0.17 0.21

Inglewood, CA 0.18 0.55 0.16 0.31 0.49

Kern River, CA 0.13 0.35 0.18 0.29 0.25

Schoonebeek, 0.21 0.50 0.23 0.45 0.37

Netherlands

Slocum, TX 0.13 0.27 0.19 0.37 0.18

Tatums, OK 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.12

Tia Juana, 0.20 0.85 0.20 0.37 0.85

Venezuela
 TEMPERATURE, C
a 50 .100 150 200 250
10,000,000
IG] I I I
1,000,000

"'-

,
100,000

10,000 ~RESEfv~~ ,,_ATTHABASCA

1,000
CONDITIONS
G ~(~
1'...", ~ :-<
~ IT
UJ ,JOBO
(J)
(5
Q.
~ 100

~~
~
Z
UJ

~~
()
I LLOYDMINSTEt
>-
t::
(J)
0
()
I t'-
PILON
,COLD LAKE
(J) 10
:>

3.0 r
kERN RIVER , (

" '"
~REDiATERI
2.0
a 100 200 300 400 500
TEMPERA TURE, OF

Fig. 1 - Viscosity-temperature relationships for typical

heavy oils (After Buckles)
 25

REFERENCE(STEAM TEMPERATURE)
o EXPERIMENTAL DATA (TEMPERATURE) ~H450)

0(332)
20
33(240)
35(385) ......
......
>
a. o
(327)
(430)
...................
.......
......

34(380)
0~
15
(328) 0
0(340)

.............
...... ..... ~3(240)
33{300)
,0(355) ~(240) ___
(5
33(300) _ --2(338)
"6 33(300) __ -e
::l
"'0 10 31(395L. _ . - -
"in
-.,
CD
30(305).!. - -
33(400)
0:

._---13(400) -- -
5
33(400)

o ~~~~~~--~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~--..~~
I 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000
Oil Viscosity, (cit Original Reservoir Temperature)cp

Fig. 2 - Steamflood residual oil saturation as function of temperature and oil viscosity"
 100
I I I
INJECTION RATE
STEAM QUALITY
= 1.1 BID/Acre Ft.
= 0.6 I
80 f-- MOBILE OIL SATURATION = 042 - l--
:
X
X
0
xC
60
0
~
I ~
/---------"-- --- J---
",X
RESERVOIR
THICKNESS, Ft.
o X 300
0 100 _
40
20
'"
AI>
10
o .",."oX
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
NET HEAT INJECTED MMBfu./Acre Ff.

Fig. 3 - Oil recovery as a function of net

heat injected, for various
thicknesses (Gomaa)

100r-----.-----~----~----~----~----~----~----~

HEAT INJECT/ON RATE

MMBfu. /D/Acre Ff.

____ F ONTA DRIV

"~ - ......... .15 YRS.)
j:::
20 f------+------+">
---
~
~

OL-____L -____L -____ ____ ____ ____ ~ _____L_ _ _ _

~ ~ ~ ~

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320

RESERVOIR THICKNESS, FEET

Fig. 4 - Correlation of vertical heat loss as function of

thickness for gravity override, and comparison
with heat loss for frontal steam drive.
 /000

~ ~
~ t

"

100 .lXJ . ,
".
Il
'--"'" , ..
-~.
"
'
' .. ' .. ..
"
, V. . iI.. ------.
1/: PRE~ EN...!:: ~
-"-
.......
-.. ---J,!!:~ p

MOl: EL ....... """15'5 .......

i ~
Vl\ ~\f~'
.A
,"-- D 1'fll0000CTI0H

0
It.

I
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

Fig. 5 - Actual steamflood production

history, numerical Simulation,
Jones's model, and the
present steamflood model
(Data used for Kern River A,
Table 1 in Ref. 42).