THERMAL FLOODING EOR

Department of Chemical Engineering UPN “Veteran” Yogyakarta

I GUSTI S. BUDIAMAN
Pembahasan Materi Kuliah
Definisi EOR, konsep dasar fluida dan batuan reservoir
Jenis dan sifat minyak bumi, kelakuan fasa minyak dan gas
bumi
Eksplorasi minyak bumi dan eksploitasi minyak bumi
Mekanisme recovery minyak bumi dan Klasifikasi recovery
minyak bumi
Implementasi water flooding, pressure maintenance, pattern/
pola injeksi/ produksi, Neraca massa air dan minyak
Chemical flooding (alkalin, surfaktan, dan polimer)
Gas/ solvent flooding (HC, CO2, N2, dan flue gas)
Thermal flooding (steam, udara, dan insitu combustion)

Microbial injection & others

THERMAL FLOODING EOR
 Steam flooding
 Insitu combustion
THERMAL EOR PROCESSES
SCREENING CRITERIA FOR EOR
THERMAL METHODS
Important Factors in Steamlood

 Main mechanisms
 Heat losses
 Gravity override effects
 Optimum steam quality
 Steam generation and fuel required
 Recovery factor
 Process optimization
Thermodynamics of Steam
Saturation conditions

Pressure

Temperature
Thermodynamics of Steam
Steam Table
T P Vw Vv Uw Uv Hw Hv
C kPa 10-3 m3/kg 10-3m3/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg kJ/kg

20 2.34 1.002 57840 84 2402 84 2538

30 4.23 1.004 32900 126 2417 126 2556

100 101.3 1.044 1673 419 2507 419 2676

150 476.0 1.091 393 632 2561 632 2745

200 1555 1.157 127 850 2795 852 2791

250 3978 1.251 50 1081 2602 1086 2800

300 8593 1.404 21.7 1333 2563 1345 2751

350 16540 1.741 8.8 1643 2418 1672 2568

374.2 22120 3.17 3.17 2014 2014 2099 2099

Thermodynamics of Steam
Wet Steam Mixture
1 kg wet steam = x kg sat. vapor + (1-x) kg sat.
water
Heat Losses in Steam Injection Processes

Steam
Surface Heat Loss Generator
Ground
Surface
Flow Line
Wellbore
Heat Loss

Vertical Heat Loss

Reservoir Heat Loss Reservoir

Shale
Lenses
Shale Break

ASP
Slug
Vertical Heat Loss
Heat Loss from Steam Flow Lines
25
Heat Loss, kW/m2 of Outer Pipe Area
Heat Loss from Steam Flow Lines
Bare 0 C Amb 40 km/hr Wind
Bare 40 C Amb 40 km/h

20 Bare 0 C Amb No Wind

Bare 40 C Amb No Wind
Insulated 0 C Amb with Wind
Insulated 40 C Amb with Wind
15

10

0
100 150 200 250 300 350

Steam Temperature, C

Wellhead steam quality xwh = xg - (QHLAo / Is Lv)

 Heat Loss from Steam Injection Wells
Decrease in Steam Quality with Depth
1.6
Bare Tubing
1.4 Insulated Tubing
For P=10 Mpa
Quality Gradient, /1000 m

1.2 T= 310 C

0.8
-0.91
y = 0.8088x
0.6
-1.504
y = 0.2286x
0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Injection Rate, kg/s

dx T  T0 1328
xbh  x wh  0.001 D( )( )( )
dD 310  T0 Lv
Vertical Heat Loss in Steam Injection Processes
Vertical Heat Loss in Steam Injection Processes

a1  a2 h  a3 h 2  a4 ln(qh )  a5 (ln(qh )) 2  a6 (ln(qh ))3

f hv 
1 a7 h  a8 h 2  a9 h 3  a10 ln(qh )

Where: fhv = vertical heat loss, fraction of input

h = gross reservoir thickness, m
qh = heat injection rate, W/gross m3
a1,…a10 = constants

Constant Value
a1 102.67658608169
a2 -1.97830062969
a3 0.03040755318
a4 -21.37031233874
a5 2.45754531082
a6 -1.88016299494
a7 0.02420481600
a8 -0.00016525462
a9 0.00001495411
a10 -0.188460691902
Mass and Heat Injection Rates
 Mass injection rate
Steam injection rate is q BCWE/day:
Mass injection rate Is = 0.00184 q in kg/s

 Total heat injection rate

Mixture enthalpy Hm = xbh Hv + (1 - xbh) Hw in kJ/kg
Total heat injection rate qh = Is Hm in kJ/s or kW

 Useful heat injection rate

Reference enthalpy H0 = Hw at initial reservoir temperature
Useful heat injection rate qhu = Is (Hm – H0) in kJ/s or kW

 Net, useful heat injection rate

Vertical heat loss from reservoir = fhv in % of input
Net useful heat injection rate qhunet = qhu (1 - fhv) in kJ/s or kW
Steam Quality

 Usually, a wet steam mixture is used for injection

to avoid salt precipitation

 Wet steam is beneficial in thick reservoirs to

reduce effect of gravity override

 Maximum heat utilization factor occurs at about

40% steam quality

 Heat losses should be considered when

determining optimum steam quality
Steamflood Mechanisms

Injector Producer

Hydrocarbon
Saturated Vapors
Steam
Light Oil Bank
Original
Reservoi
Residual Oil r Fluids

Saturated Hot Water

Water Warm Water
Steamflood Mechanisms
1. Reducing oil viscosity

10000

Medium Gravity
Low gravity
1000
Very Low Gravity
Oil Viscosity, cp

100

10

0.1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature, C
 Steamflood Mechanisms

2. Reducing residual oil saturation

Oil Saturation, %
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
120 C Steam Temp
20 210
Residual Oil Saturation, %

150 C Steam temp.

200 C Steam Temp After Steam Injection
300 C Steam Temp. 215
15

10
220 Before Steam Injection

Depth, m
5
225

230
0
100 1000 10000 100000
Crude Oil Viscosity, cp 235

Laboratory
240

Field
 Steamflood Mechanisms
3. High displacement efficiency

100

90

80

70
Oil Recovery; %

60

50

40
Cold Water
30 Hot Water
20 Steam

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Produced Liquid, PV
 Steamflood Mechanisms
4. In-situ steam distillation
60

50
Percent Volume Yield

40

30 25 API 0.04% Wax

22.2 API 0.02% Wax

20 37 API 38.1 Wax

14.4 API 0.04% Wax
13.6 API 0.05% Wax
10 22.7 API 24.4% Wax
8.8 API 4.3% Wax
0
100 150 200 250 300 350

Temperature, C
 Steamflood Mechanisms
5. Favorable changes in relative permeability

Imbibition Oil-Water Set Drainage Gas-Oil Set

LowTemperature LowTemperature
HighTemperature HighTemperature

kr Oil kr Oil

Water Gas

Sw Sg
Steamflood Mechanisms
6. Oil Swelling due to thermal expansion
Bor = Boi [1 + o(Ts – Ti)] o = 1.03x10-5(43 + API)

Example
Initial oil formation volume factor = 1.06 RB/STB
Oil gravity = 19 API
Initial reservoir temperature = 57 C
Steam temperature = 255 C
Initial oil saturation = 67%
Residual oil saturation = 16%

If oil swelling is ignored: Ed = 1 – (0.16x1.06) / (0.67x1.06) = 76.1%

If oil swelling is considered: o = 1.03x10-5(43 + 19) = 6.41x10-4 C-1

Bor = 1.06[1 + 6.41x10-4 (255 - 57)] = 1.195 RB/STB
Ed = 1 – (0.16x1.06) / (0.67x1.195) = 78.8%
Steamflood Mechanisms
7. Large specific volume
vm = xvs + (1 – x)vw >> vw

Example
Compare dimensionless volumes injected for cold water and wet steam
using the following data:

Pattern size = 10 acre Gross reservoir thickness = 30 m

Net-to-gross ratio = 0.88 Porosity = 25%
Swc for cold water = 26% Swc for wet steam = 30%
Sor for cold water = 32% Sor for wet steam = 15%
Initial reservoir temperature = 50 C Steam temperature = 290 C
Steam quality in reservoir = 24% Injection rate = 1100 BCWE/day
Injection period = 6 years 1 BCWE = 159 kg
 Steamflood Mechanisms
7. Large specific volume Example, continued

From steam tables: at 50 C vw = 1.012x10-3 m3/kg

at 290  vw = 1.366x10-3 m3/kg
vs = 25x10-3 m3/kg
Hence; vm = [0.24x25 + (1 – 0.24)x1.366]x10-3 = 7.03 m3/kg

Cumulative mass injection = 6x365x1100x159 = 383x106 kg

Vinjcold water = 383x106x1.012x10-3 = 387600 m3
Vinjwet steam = 383x106x7.03x10-3 = 2695800 m3
Pore volume = 10x4047x30x0.88x0.25 = 267102 m3/pattern
Dimensionless injected volume - cold water:
Vinjcold water = 387600 / [267102(1 - 0.26 - 0.32)] = 3.46 DPV
Dimensionless injected volume - wet steam:
Vinjwet steam = 2695800 / [267102(1 – 0.30 – 0.150] = 18.35 DPV
 Steamflood Mechanisms
8. Enhanced vertical sweep due to gravity effects

Injector

hnet Velocity Velocity ush

usv

Due to viscous force

ush = Is vs / (2  r hnet)

Due to gravity force

usv = krs kv g (o - s) / s
Steamflood Mechanisms
8. Enhanced vertical sweep due to gravity effects

Injector Producer Injector Producer

usv Steam
usv Vapor

ush ush
Oil Oil
Steam
Vapor

(a) Viscous forces dominant (b) Gravity forces dominant

 Steamflood Mechanisms
8. Enhanced vertical sweep due to gravity effects

Steam Producer
Injector
Gravity override of vapor

Vapor

Oil Reservoir

Liquid

Gravity under-running of liquid

Some Practical
Considerations in
Steamflood Operations
Steam Generation

Steam generators are available in two sizes:

Portable size
22 MMBtu/Hr, 6.5 MW, 240 m3/d or 2.77 kg/s
normally used in cyclic steam stimulation operations

Stationary size
50 MMBtu/Hr, 14.8 MW, 540 m3/d or 6.3 kg/s
normally used in steamflood operations
 Steam Generation
Flue Gases

Feed Water Wet Steam

Enthalpy Hwi kJ/kg Quality x
Temperature Tin C Steam Generator Enthalpy Hm kJ/kg
Density = w kg/m3 Temperature Ts C
Rate qw m3/day Rate Is kg/s
Air

Fuel
Rate qf m3/day
Heat of combustion Qhc kJ/m3

86400 Is (Hm – Hwi) = ETg qf Qhc

Steam Generation
Example
Calculate the fuel consumption rate for a steam generator that has the following
data:
Steam temperature = 300 C Discharge steam quality = 83%
Feed water temperature = 30 C Feed water rate = 530 m3/day
Heat of combustion = 4.7x107 kJ/m3 Overall Thermal efficiency = 77%

From steam tables;At 30 C Hwi = 126 kJ/kg and vwi = 0.001004 m3/kg
At 300 C Hw = 1345 kJ/kg and Hv = 2751 kJ/kg
Hence; wi = 1 / 0.001004 = 996 kg/m3
Hm = 0.83x2751 + (1 – 0.83)x1345 = 2512 kJ/kg
Is = 530x996 / (24x3600) = 6.11 kg/s

Fuel consumption qf = 86400x6.11x(2512–126) / (0.77x4.7x107) = 34.8 m3/day

This value corresponds to 34.8/530 = 0.0657 m3 fuel per m3 feed water
Steam Generation
Feed Water
Minimum specifications required for feed water include:
Total dissolved solids less than 2500 ppm in order to allow
generating high quality steam
Silicate content less than 35 ppm in order to avoid formation of
hard porcelain-like scale in the generator
Suspended solids and impurities less than 110 ppm because these
solids decrease the efficiency of heat transfer and can plug flow
lines
Oxygen content less than 1 ppm in order to avoid corrosion and
generator fouling
No oil, fat, or wax in order to avoid formation of foam within the
generated wet steam. This foam generation becomes more serious
if alkaline concentration in feed water is high
 Cogeneration of Steam

Fuel

Electricity
Turbine
Generator
Burner

Electricity
Feed Water Turbine
Generator

Heat Wet Steam

Exchanger
Separator
Wet Steam for
Steamflood
 Phase Splitting in Steam
Distribution System

Branch A Branch B
Rate qA Quality xA Rate qB Quality xB

or Impact Tee

Branch A
Main Pipe Rate qA Quality xA
Rate (qA + qB) Quality x

Dead-end or Impact Tee

Main Pipe
 Phase Splitting in Steam
Distribution System
Branch A Branch A
Rate qA Quality xA Rate qA Quality xA

Branch B
Rate qB Quality xB

Branch B
nch or Y Tee Rate qB Quality xB B
Branch A
Rate qA Quality xA R

Main Pipe Main Pipe

Rate (qA + qB) Quality x Rate (qA + qB) Quality x

Branch B
Branch or Y Tee Rate qB Quality xB
 Phase Splitting in Steam
Distribution System
Branch A Branch A
Rate qA Quality xA Rate qA Quality xA

Branch B
Rate qB Quality xB
g Branch B
Rate qB Quality xB
r Y Tee

Main Pipe Main Pipe

Rate (qA + qB) Quality x Rate (qA + qB) Quality x

Reducing Branch or Y Tee

Phase Splitting in Steam
Distribution System
Reducing Y Type

Y Type

(xB – xA)

T Type

1
Mass Flow Rate Ratio qB / (qA + qB)

xB - xA For all Y types; (xB) > (xA)

-------------- For T types; if qB > qA then (xB) > (xA)
Dead-end Tee small if qB < qA then (xB) < (xA)
Branch Tee moderate Absolute value of (xB - xA) depends on:
Reducing Branch Tee significant qB/(qA + qB) and (DB/DA)
Use of Splitigator
Installed at branching points in distribution system (especially in
reducing branch Tee of the Y type)
Main purpose of is to control and monitor quality of wet steam to each
injector

Saturated Steam Orifice Wet Steam to

branch B

Globe Valve

Recorder

Separator

Saturated Water

Orifice
Wet Steam to
branch A
Wet Steam from
main pipe
Use of Splitigator
Two splitigators are used for sequential pipe branching:

A large capacity unit at branching point from large to medium size pipes
A smaller capacity unit at branching point from medium to small size pipes

Small size pipes

Small capacity
splitigator

Medium size pipe

Large size
main pipe

Large capacity
splitigator
Steam Quality Measurements

Key points where steam quality is frequently measured:

Steam generator discharge

Main pipe from the steam station
Branches of main pipe delivering steam to various
areas
Steam flow lines to individual injectors

Measurement methods depend on:

Point of measurement
Mass flow rate is known or not
Steam Quality Measurements
At generator discharge using dissolved solids balance

si in kg/m3 so in ppm
vwi m3/kg Quality xg

xg = 1 – 106 si vwi / so

Example
Calculate steam quality at generator discharge using feed water
temperature of 30 C, feed water salinity of 9.8 g/liter and salinity of
discharge saturated water of 76500 ppm by wt

From steam tables; at 30 C: vwi = 0.001004 m3/kg

Hence; steam quality xg = 1 - 106x9.8x0.001004 / 76500 = 87.1%
Steam Quality Measurements
At generator discharge using energy balance
so in ppm
qw in m3/day
Quality xg
vwi m3/kg ETg Hw in kJ/kg
Hwi in kJ/kg
Hv in kJ/kg
qf in m3/day
Qhc kJ/m3

xg = [Hwi + (qf Qhc ETg vwi / qw) - Hw] / (Hv – Hw)

Example
Calculate steam quality at generator discharge using the following data:
Feed water temperature = 30 C Feed water rate = 530 m3 CWE/day
Steam temperature = 300 C Fuel consumption = 34.8 m3/day
Heat of combustion of fuel = 4.7x107 kJ/m3 Overall Thermal efficiency = 77%
From steam tables; at 30 C Hwi = 126 kJ/kg and vwi = 0.001004 m3/kg
at 300 C Hw = 1345 kJ/kg and Hv = 2751 kJ/kg
xg = [126 + (34.8x4.7x107x0.77x0.001004 / 530) - 1345] / (2751 – 1345) = 83%
Steam Quality Measurements
In a pipe with known mass flow rate
Compare P & T values with saturation conditions (Ps & Ts) from steam
tables:

If T > Ts superheated steam

If P > Ps hot water
If T = Ts & P = Ps wet steam with quality:
x = [(q / Is) – vw] / (vv - vw)
Example
Temperature T = 280 C Pressure P = 931 psia
Flow rate q = 3197 m3/day Mass flow rate = 1.75 kg/s

From steam tables; at T = 280 C: Ps = 6420 kPa (930.4 psia)

This value is very close to P, hence; wet steam

vw = 0.001332 m3/kg vv = 0.03 m3/kg

q = 3197 / (24x3600) = 0.037 m3/s
x = [(0.037 / 1.75) – 0.001332] / (0.03 – 0.001332) = 69.1%
Steam Quality Measurements
In a pipe with unknown mass flow rate
(a) Mechanical Phase Separation
Variable Choke
Saturated Steam Orifice

Demister Wet
Steam
Vapor Computer
Choke
Wet
Steam Level control

Orifice
Saturated Water
Separator

Liquid Computer

Stabilized values of P, T, qv and qw are recorded

Steam quality x = (qv/vv) / [(qv/vv) + (qw/vw)]
Steam Quality Measurements
In a pipe with unknown mass flow rate
(a) Mechanical Phase Separation

Example
Temperature T = 270 C
Pressure P = 797 psia
Vapor flow rate = 0.0219 m3/s
Liquid flow rate = 0.00047 m3/s

From steam tables; at T = 270 C: Ps = 5506 kPa (798 psia)

This value is very close to P
Hence; wet steam
vw = 0.001302 m3/kg vv = 0.035 m3/kg

x = (0.0219/0.035)/(0.0219/0.035+0.00047/0.001302) = 63.4%
 Steam Quality Measurements
In a pipe with unknown mass flow rate
(b) Use of Dielectric Steam Quality Sensor (DSQS)

Outer
Electrode
Dielectric
Capacitance

Insulation
Inner Electrode

Pressure

Wet Steam

Stabilized values of P, T, and liquid fraction (Fw) are recorded

Steam quality x = 1 / [1 + (Fw vv)/{(1-Fw) vw)}]
Steam Quality Measurements
In a pipe with unknown mass flow rate
(b) Use of Dielectric Steam Quality Sensor (DSQS)

Example
Pressure P = 4340 kPa
Liquid volume fraction = 0.012

From steam tables; at P = 4340 kPa:

vw = 0.001264 m3/kg
vv = 0.046 m3/kg

Hence;
x = 1/[1+(0.012x0.046)/{(1 – 0.012)x0.001264}] = 69.3%
Casing Vapor Collection System (CVCS)

Producing Casing
well

Steam

Reservoi
r

Vapors fill casing annulus and cause back pressure on reservoir

Vapors can cause gas-lock of pump
Venting is usually disallowed due to:
Valuable hydrocarbons
Harmful to environment
Fire hazard
Casing Vapor Collection System
To CVC
Vent Stack

Vent Tank
Producing Well

Production
To Condensate
Vent Stack Cooler

Producing Well

Production

CVC Separator

Condensate
Producing Well
Separator
Production

To Gathering To Condensate To Gathering

Line Line Line
Casing Vapor Collection System

Benefits of CVCS
Collecting vapors from casing annulus to reduce back pressure on reservoir
Recovering light hydrocarbon vapors
Avoiding venting of environmentally-undesirable gases into atmosphere

CVCS facilities include a number of automatically-operated control valves to:

Maintain safe operation
Maintain fixed liquid levels in separators
Provide emergency shut-in
Allow vapor by-pass (direct venting of incoming vapors)
Injection Profiles
Non-uniform (poor) injection profiles are directly related to
permeability distribution and effectiveness of perforations

Non-uniformity in injection profile can be illustrated by:

Theoretical calculations using available core and log data

Actual measurements using spinner surveys

Non-uniform injection profiles lead to:

Early breakthrough
Poor vertical sweep efficiency
Inefficient utilization of heat energy
Injection Profiles - Example
Reservoirs without vertical barriers

GR or SP Resistivity Permeability, md Spinner Survey, %

10 100 1000 10000 0 25 50 75 100

Interval A

Interval B

Thief zones A and B represent about 25% of reservoir

thickness but take over 75% of injected steam
Injection Profiles - Example
Reservoirs without vertical barriers
Steam entering thief zone A will stay at the top and lead to early
breakthrough

Efforts should be made to reduce the steam entering this interval

such as:
Use of polymers or foam
Decreasing the number of perforations
Squeezing cement into this interval

Steam entering thief zone B will move toward the top after gravity
forces become dominant

This situation is not as harmful as thief zone A since significant oil

displacement will take place before steam breakthrough

Some efforts could be made to reduce the steam entering this

interval but no cement squeezing
Injection Profiles - Example
Reservoirs with vertical barriers

GR or SP Resistivity Permeability, md Spinner Survey, %

10 100 1000 10000 0 25 50 75 100

Layer I
Impermeable Streak

Layer II
Shale Break

Layer III
Impermeable Streak

Layer IV

Thief zone in layer III represents about 25% of reservoir

thickness but takes over 60% of injected steam
Injection Profiles - Example
Reservoirs with vertical barriers
Steam entering thief zone will stay in the bottom due to vertical barriers
Some remedial steps should be made to improve injection profile
If remedial results are unacceptable, the following options could be used:

Individual treatment of thief zone layer

Continue steamflood as is until steam breakthrough in layer III occurs
Re-complete injection wells with dual tubing strings or drill twin injectors
Injection in layer III may be low quality steam, hot water or even cold water
Layer III may be abandoned by squeezing cement into injection wells (if justified)

Using limited entry technique

Constant steam flow rate per perforated hole at critical velocity
Constant flow rate depends on bottom-hole injection pressure and hole diameter
Number of perforations in various layers depend on gross thickness
Field tests can define constant flow rate per hole under given conditions of Pinj and xbh
Limited Entry Technique - Example
Injection Well

Layer I 12 m

Layer II 10 m

52 m

15 m
Layer III

Layer IV 8 m

flood pattern area = 42000 m2

Desired wet steam injection rate = 0.15 kg/day/gross m3
Field tests indicate constant rate per perforation hole = 2.2 ton/day/hole
Determine the number of perforation holes for various reservoir layers
Limited Entry Technique - Example

Total wet steam injection rate

Is = 0.15x42000x52/1000 = 327.6 ton/day/pattern

Gross Fraction of Injection Rate Number of

c
Thickness m Total Layers ton/day Perf. Holes
I 12 0.2667 87.4 40
II 10 0.2222 72.8 33
III 15 0.3333 109.2 50
IV 8 0.1778 58.2 26
Total 45 1 327.6 149
Steamflood Optimization
Steamflood optimization requires:
Reliable geologic and simulation models
Full account of available resources
Knowledge of existing field conditions and contract or environmental
considerations
Optimization Parameters
Well completion intervals and completion methods
Steam injection rate and steam quality
Steam generation
Pattern shape and size and flood life per pattern
Conversion to waterflood
Vertical stages and areal expansion phases
Equipment utilization
Injection tubing size and insulation
Favorable Reservoirs for Steamflood

General conditions
Minimum reservoir heterogeneity (especially in
vertical direction)
Good reservoir continuity
High permeability and porosity
High oil saturation at flood start
Low capillary forces
Favorable Reservoirs for Steamflood
Reservoir Depth
Refers to drilled depth
Shallow reservoirs are preferred to minimize well-bore heat losses
Steam thermodynamic properties are more favorable at low pressure
In reservoirs deeper than 1000 m, bottom-hole quality can be very low
Shallow reservoirs allow utilization of low pressure steam generators and
steam from co-generation power plants

Gross Reservoir Thickness

Fraction of heat lost to overburden and underburden strata is inversely
proportional to gross reservoir thickness
Thick reservoirs contain more oil in place per flood pattern
Gravity override/under-running effects are related to gross reservoir thickness
A reasonable range of gross reservoir thickness for steamflood is 15 – 80 m
Favorable Reservoirs for Steamflood
Net-to-Gross Ratio
Part of injected heat is lost in heating-up discontinuous and dispersed shales
Low net-to-gross ratios are considered un-favorable for steamflood
A reasonable limit on this ratio is about 60%

Porosity
Fraction of heat used to heat-up rock solid is inversely proportional to porosity
A reasonable limit on porosity is about 10 - 15% depending on net-to-gross ratio
and initial oil saturations

Distillation Characteristics of Reservoir Oil

Play an important role in steamflood performance and oil gain
Good distillation characteristics are indicated by at least 50% volume yield at
temperatures around 250 C
Reservoirs with good distillation characteristics exhibit recovery factors over
70% and the gravity of produced oil can improve by about 2 – 5 API
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection
Interval
For thick reservoirs or several moderate thickness reservoirs, evaluation
studies include determining optimum injection intervals and number of
vertical flood stages
If no vertical barriers exist, steam injection interval is in the bottom one
third to one half of reservoir thickness

Producer

Injector

Shale Lenses
Steam
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval

Injector Producer

Example Reservoir D

4 reservoirs in one field

Reservoir C

Reservoir B

Reservoir A
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval

1. Each Reservoir as one Vertical Stage

Develop the deepest reservoir (A) using an optimum flood pattern

When reservoir A is ready for abandonment, plug back all wells and flood
reservoir B

Repeat till all reservoirs are flooded and abandoned

It is recommended to shut-in upper reservoirs if their reservoir pressures are

too low compared to steam pressure in order to avoid cross-flow

This option requires long project life, allows re-utilization of wells and surface
facilities and taking advantage of reservoir heating by vertical heat loss to
overburden during each stage
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval
Injector
Injector
Injector Producer
Injector Producer
Producer
Producer Injector
Injector Producer
Injector Producer
Producer
Producer Injector
Injector Producer
Injector Producer
Producer
Producer Injector
Injector Producer
Injector Producer
Producer
Producer
Injector Injector Injector

Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir DDD
ReservoirD Reservoir
Reservoir DDD
ReservoirD
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir DDD
ReservoirD
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir DDD
ReservoirD
Reservoir

Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir CCC
ReservoirC Reservoir
Reservoir CCC
ReservoirC
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir CCC
ReservoirC
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir CCC
ReservoirC
Reservoir

Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir BBB
ReservoirB Reservoir
Reservoir BBB
ReservoirB
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir BBB
ReservoirB
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir BBB
ReservoirB
Reservoir

Reservoir
Reservoir
Reservoir AAA
ReservoirA Reservoir
Reservoir AAA
ReservoirA
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir AAA
ReservoirA
Reservoir Reservoir
Reservoir AAA
ReservoirA
Reservoir
Stage
Stage
Stage 111
Stage1 Stage
Stage 222
Stage2
Stage Stage
Stage
Stage3
Stage 333 Stage
Stage 444
Stage4
Stage
Sequential
Sequential
Sequential Vertical
SequentialVertical
Vertical Steamflood
VerticalSteamflood
Steamflood Stages
SteamfloodStages
Stages
Stages
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval
2. Each Reservoir as one Vertical Stage (Simultaneous
Steam and Water Injection)
Similar to option 1 but start-up of steam injection in a given stage is done
immediately at time of conversion to waterflood in previous stage

Water injection for the previous stage can be done through concentric tubing
annulus (for small casing size) or dual tubing strings (for large casing size)

This option shortens project life but requires more expenditure for
concentric tubing or large size casing with dual tubing strings

Simultaneous injection of steam and water in concentric tubing strings leads

to steam quality loss due to heat transfer from steam to water
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval

Water Water
Wet Steam Wet Steam

Injector Producer Injector Producer

Reservoir D Reservoir D

Reservoir C Reservoir C

Reservoir B Reservoir B

Reservoir A Reservoir A

Using Dual Tubing Strings Using Concentric Tubing Strings

Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval

3. Combine Reservoirs into a Number of Vertical Stages

Consideration is given to shorten project life by combining some
reservoirs into a fewer number of vertical stages

If feasible, all reservoirs may be flooded at the same time in one

stage

Use of concentric or dual tubing strings may be required

In some cases, twin injection wells may be utilized in the same

flood pattern
Vertical Flood-Stages and Injection Interval

Injector
InjectorProducer
Producer Injector
InjectorProducer
Producer Injector
InjectorProducer
Producer Injector
InjectorProducer
Producer

Reservoir
ReservoirDD Reservoir
ReservoirDD Reservoir
ReservoirDD Reservoir
ReservoirDD

Reservoir
ReservoirCC Reservoir
ReservoirCC

Reservoir
ReservoirCC Reservoir
ReservoirCC
Reservoir
ReservoirBB Reservoir
ReservoirBB

Reservoir
ReservoirBB Reservoir
ReservoirBB

Reservoir
ReservoirAA Reservoir
ReservoirAA

Reservoir
ReservoirAA Reservoir
ReservoirAA

Stage
Stage1 1 Stage
Stage2 2 Stage
Stage1 1 Stage
Stage2 2
Sequential
SequentialVertical
VerticalSteamflood
SteamfloodStages
Stages
Optimum Flood Pattern
flood pattern has significant effect on required steam injection rate, flood life and
expected performance
If most of existing and planned new wells are vertical, optimization is focused on
selecting pattern shape and size
If most of existing wells are horizontal or multilateral, and drilling cost is
significant; optimization is focused on how many horizontal well legs to include in
a flood pattern and location and type of injection wells
Feasibility of utilizing some or all of existing wells as producers or injectors should
be evaluated
Reservoir thickness (both gross and net), desired injection rate, desired flood life,
fracturing pressure, steam injectivity and lifting capacity per producing well
should be considered in the optimization process
Reservoir simulation based on reliable geologic models, accurate rock & fluid
properties and representative operating conditions provide an excellent tool for
conducting the optimization process
 Optimum Flood Pattern

Flood Patterns for Vertical Wells

Inverted Four-spot
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted Four-spot
Four-spot
Four-spot Inverted Five-spot
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted Five-spot
Five-spot
Five-spot Inverted Seven-spot
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted Seven-spot
Seven-spot
Seven-spot Inverted Nine-spot
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted Nine-spot
Nine-spot
Nine-spot
0.50.5
Producer
0.5
0.5 : 1 :Injector
Producer
Producer
Producer 1::Injector
11Injector1 Producer
Injector : 1 Injector
11Producer
Producer
1 Producer Injector2 Producer
: 1::Injector
11 Injector : 1 Injector
22 Producer
Producer
2 Producer Injector 3 Producer
: 1::Injector
11 Injector : 1 Injector
33 Producer
Producer
3 Producer : 1::Injector
11 Injector
Injector

Inverted patterns are preferred over normal patterns in order to

capture all displaced hot oil
Patterns with producer to injector ratios < 1 (four spot) are generally
used for floods where productivity > injectivity.
Patterns with producer to injector ratios > 1 (seven and nine spot) are
generally used for floods where injectivity < productivity
Optimum Flood Pattern
In steamflood operations, it is recommended to maintain fluid lifting-to-
injection ratio of at least 1.25 (on CWE basis) in order to achieve a
relatively constant reservoir pressure during oil displacement

Example
Gross reservoir thickness = 32 m Net pay = 25 m
Average reservoir pressure = 6400 kPa Lifting capacity = 180 m3/day/well
Wet steam injectivity = 1.68 kg/day-m-kPa Desired steam rate = 0.18 kg/day/gross m3
Maximum bottom-hole injection pressure = 13500 kPa (to avoid fracturing)

Maximum injection rate = 1.68x(13500–6400)x25/103 = 298.2 m3 CWE/day

Assume that the flood pattern area = A m2
Hence; Desired injection rate = (0.18x32/103) A = 0.00576A m3 CWE/day
Therefore: A = 51770 m2 (12.8 acre)
Required lifting capacity = 1.25x298.2 = 373 m3 /day/pattern
Required producers = 373 / 180 = 2.07 producers/pattern
The seven-spot pattern should be selected since it has producer-to-injector ratio of 2
Optimum Flood Pattern
Side Producers in Nine-spot Pattern
Side Producer
Corner Producer

Injector

Steam
Side Producer

Hot Water

Breakthrough ocurs earlier in side producers due to their shorter distance

from injector
Optimum Flood Pattern
Side Producers inShut-in
Nine-spot
side producers
Shut-in
side producers ConvertConvert
Shut-in side producers
Continue as large five-spots
Pattern
side producers to injectors
side producers to injectors
Old injectors may be used as producers
Continue as largeas
Continue five-spots
large five-spots Old injectors may be used as producers
Shut-in side producers Convert side producer
Continue as large five-spots Old injectors may be u
Shut-in sideside
Convert producers Convert side producers to injectors
producers to injectors
Continue as large
Old injectors mayfive-spots Old injectors may be used as producers
be used as producers
Shut-in side producers Convert side producers to injectors
Continue as large five-spots Old injectors may be used as producers
Optimum Flood Pattern
After steam production from side producers become
significant:
Squeeze cement (or inject any plugging agent) in steam breakthrough zone to provide
temporary decrease in steam production
Shut-in side producers
Pattern becomes a large five-spot pattern
Temporary decrease in oil rate and prolonged flood life
May require adjusting injection rate
Convert side producers to injectors
Pattern becomes normal small-size five-spot
May shut-in old injectors with the risk of some un-displaced. Reservoir oil
May continue using old injectors at reduced rate
May shut-in old injectors for a period of time then put them on production
Reservoir simulation models can be used to compare all options and alternatives
Optimum Flood Pattern
Flood Patterns for Horizontal Wells

Flood patterns for horizontal wells are relatively undefined

and little industry practice is available
If most existing and planned wells are horizontal, engineers
may define appropriate configurations and use simulation
models to compare their performance
Flood patterns could include combinations of vertical and
horizontal wells
Selected flood pattern and well combinations should be tested
in a small-scale field pilot to confirm simulation results and
obtain reliable data for process optimization or modification
Optimum Flood Pattern
Flood Patterns for Horizontal Wells
Injectors
Injectors
Producer Producer
Producer Producer Injectors
Injectors
Producer
Producer Producer
Producer

Injectors
Injectors Producer
Producer Producer
Injectors
Injectors Producer Producer
Producer
Producer
Producer

Injector
Injector Producer Producer
Injector
Injector Producer Producer
Producer
Producer Producer
Producer

Producer Injector
Producer Producer Injector
Producer Producer
Producer Injector
Injector
Producer
Producer
Steamflood Optimization
Conversion from Steam to Water Flood
It is a recommended practice to convert steamflood operations into
waterflood during the last part of flood life
Helps in extracting and benefiting from heat energy absorbed by reservoir
rock and fluids around injection wells
Saves expensive fuel
Fills-up reservoir pore spaces with liquid before abandonment to avoid
ground subsidence
Reservoir simulation is used to determine optimum conversion time
Results from several simulation runs are used to plot net oil recovery
versus conversion time
Net oil recovery = Gross oil recovery – Cumulative fuel
Cumulative fuel = Fsg Vinj
Optimum conversion time corresponds to maximum net oil recovery
Steamflood Optimization
Example Conversion from Steam to Water Flood
Results from sensitivity analysis using simulation model for a
steamflood pattern and other key data are given below. All
simulation runs have the same total injection volume (steam followed
by water) in CWE (Cool Water Equivalent)
Steam Injected Mm3 CWE 176 266 365 429 534 699 848 997 1178 1315 1455 1578
Gross Oil Recovery MSTm3 34 60 95 132 166 203 221 227 231 233 234 235

Flood pattern area = 51450 m2

Net reservoir thickness = 42 m
Porosity = 28%
Injection rate = 390 m3 CWE/day/pattern
Fuel consumption for steam generation = 0.07 m3 fuel/m3 CWE wet steam

Use the given data to determine optimum time for conversion from steam
to water flood and corresponding pore volumes steam injected
Steamflood Optimization
Example Conversion from Steam to Water
Flood
Optimum steam injection = 850Mm3 CWE
This is equivalent to:
850000/(51450x42x0.28) = 1.37 PVI
Optimum time for conversion:
830000/(390x30.4) = 70 month after start-up

Steam Injected Mm3 CWE 176 266 365 429 534 699 848 997 1178 1315 1455 1578
Gross Oil Recovery MSTm3 34 60 95 132 166 203 221 227 231 233 234 235
Fuel, m3 12.3 18.6 25.6 30 37.4 48.9 59.4 69.8 82.5 92.1 101.9 110.5
Net Oil recovery, MSTm3 21.7 41.4 69.4 102 128.6 154.1 161.6 157.2 148.5 140.9 132.1 124.5
 Steamflood Optimization
Example Conversion from Steam to Water Flood
Steam Injected Mm3 CWE 176 266 365 429 534 699 848 997 1178 1315 1455 1578
Gross Oil Recovery MSTm3 34 60 95 132 166 203 221 227 231 233 234 235
Fuel, m3 12.3 18.6 25.6 30 37.4 48.9 59.4 69.8 82.5 92.1 101.9 110.5
Net Oil recovery, MSTm3 21.7 41.4 69.4 102 128.6 154.1 161.6 157.2 148.5 140.9 132.1 124.5

180
Net oil recovery values are 160
calculated for various

Net Oil Recovery, MSTm3

140
simulation runs and plotted
120
versus injected steam mass
100

Optimum steam injection = 850Mm3 CWE 80

This is equivalent to: 60

850000/(51450x42x0.28) = 1.37 PVI 40

Optimum Value
Optimum time for conversion: 20 830 Mm3
830000/(390x30.4) = 70 month after 0

start-up 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cumulative Steam injected, Mm3 CWE

Performance Prediction

Reservoir simulation is the most elaborate

and complete method due to:

Capability of including all important variables such as geologic

features, heterogeneity, thief zones, oil in place distribution, relative
permeability effects, oil distillation, oil composition, oil swelling,
thermal properties, changes in injection rate, steam quality, injection
interval, well injectivity, well productivity, flood pattern shape and
heat loss variation with time

Capability for predicting all performance characteristics such as oil

rate, water cut, breakthrough time, breakthrough interval, steam
production, heat loss, reservoir temperature distribution, pressure
distribution, well work-over effects, etc
Performance Prediction
Reservoir simulation studies:
Are time consuming and require large efforts to generate acceptable
results
Require significant amount of input data
Engineers often need simple methods that allow:
Predicting few performance characteristics (such as oil recovery, flood
life and steam requirements)
Using average values for a minimum number of input parameters (such as
oil in place, residual oil saturation, steam quality, injection rate,
reservoir thickness, net-to-gross ratio, etc)
Simple methods can only be used in preliminary evaluation and
screening studies
Final process design and optimization should be based on
reservoir simulation models
Performance Prediction
Marx and Langenheim method
Based on piston-like displacement in a uniform reservoir
Assumes constant steam zone temperature and negligible heat transfer
Does not take into account reservoir heterogeneity or gravity effects
Vertical heat loss and heated area are calculated as functions of dimensionless
time for a given constant injection rate
Oil rate is calculated from heated area

Myhill and Stegemeier method

A mathematical model for predicting steam-oil ratio based an energy balance of
injected heat, vertical heat loss, heat stored in steam zone and heat lost at
condensation front
Heat transfer in reservoir is assumed to be by convection only and no heat flow
is considered across condensation front till a critical time
Assumes homogeneous reservoir without layer heterogeneity, uniform vertical
distribution of temperature and no gravity effects
Steam zone volume is calculated (as a function of dimensionless time) then used
to calculate oil production based on (Soi – Sor)
Performance Prediction
Gomaa’s method
A set of correlations for estimating oil recovery and steam requirements for
steamflood processes
Correlations are based on results from sensitivity analysis using reservoir
simulation models covering a wide range of key geologic and reservoir
parameters
Variables selected for developing oil recovery correlation are those that
indicate significant effects on steamflood performance:

Gross reservoir thickness (hgross in m)

Net reservoir thickness (hnet in m)
Flood pattern area (A in m2)
Porosity ()
Initial oil formation volume factor (Boi in Rm3/STm3)
Initial oil saturation (Soi)
Residual oil saturation to steam (Sors)
Bottom-hole quality of injected steam (xbh)
Wet steam injection rate (Is in kg/s/flood pattern)
Initial reservoir temperature (T0)
Steam temperature (Ts)
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method
Gravity effects are included in this method and represented by a heat
utilization factor (Y) expressed as a function of injected steam quality (xbh)
Heat Utilization Factor in Steam Injection
1
Heat Utilization Factor, Y

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8
y = 1.1402x 6 - 4.9979x 5 + 8.0062x 4 - 5.3422x 3 + 0.2975x 2 + 0.89x + 0.7771
0.75

0.7
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Bottomhole Steam Quality
 Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method
Vertical Heat losses to overburden and underburden are combined and
expressed as a percent of useful heat input (fhv) and presented as a
function of gross thickness (hgross in m) and useful heat injection rate
(qh in W/Gross m3)
80

70
Vertical Heat Loss, % of Input

60
Constant Value
50
Useful heat injection rate,
a1 102.67658608169
W/Gross m3 a2 -1.97830062969
40
0.5 a3 0.03040755318
1
2
30 4 a4 -21.37031233874
6
8 a5 2.45754531082
20
a6 -1.88016299494
10 a7 0.02420481600
a8 -0.00016525462
0 a9 0.00001495411
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
a10 -0.188460691902
Gross Reservoir Thickness, m

a1  a2 h  a3 h 2  a4 ln(qh )  a5 (ln(qh )) 2  a6 (ln(qh ))3

f hv 
1 a7 h  a8 h  a9 h  a10 ln(qh )
2 3
 Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method
Cumulative oil recovery (expressed as percent of mobile oil in place Nom) is
presented as a function of cumulative effective heat injected (Qeff in billion
J/Gross m3) and mobile oil saturation (Som)
Som = Soi - Sors
Nom = A hnet  Som / Boi
Hm = xbh Hv + (1 – xbh)Hw
qh = 103 Is (Hm – H0) / (A hgross)
Qeff = 8.64x10-5[qh Y (1 – fhv)]t
H0 = water enthalpy at initial reservoir temperature in kJ/kg
Hw = saturated water enthalpy at steam temperature in kJ/kg
Hv = vapor enthalpy at steam temperature in kJ/kg
t = time increment in day
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method
100

90 Mobile oil
Oil Recovery, % of Mobile Oil in Place

Saturation, Som
80

70 70
60
60 50
40
50
30
20
40 10

30
5
20

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Effective Heat Injected, Billion J/Gross m3

Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method
Oil production rates are calculated from oil recovery values, mobile
oil in place and time increments
An adjustment factor is applied to both injection and oil production
to account for operating days per month (for example 29 days/month
to allow for down time or well work-over)
Another adjustment factor is applied to calculated oil recovery values
to account for reservoir heterogeneity:
0.85 for heterogeneous reservoirs
0.90 for moderate heterogeneity reservoirs
0.95 for low heterogeneity reservoirs
Consider conversion to waterflood during the last part of flood life:
(a) Determine when net oil gain (oil production – fuel) becomes
negative and use as time for conversion to waterflood
(b) Assume that the last 20% of flood life is for water injection
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method - Example

Estimate steam injection, oil production and fuel requirements

for the following steamflood:

Number of flood patterns = 66 Flood pattern area = 40000 m2

Gross reservoir thickness = 38 m Net-to-gross ratio = 0.85
Bottom-hole steam quality = 70% Porosity = 28%
Initial oil saturation = 65% Residual oil saturation = 15%
Steam injection rate = 2.6 kg/s/pattern Steam temperature = 270 C
Initial reservoir temperature = 50 C Initial oil FVF = 1.04 Rm3/STm3
Operating days per month = 29
Adjustment factor for heterogeneity = 0.9
Fuel consumption = 0.068 m3 fuel/m3 CWE wet steam (feed water)
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method - Example
From steam tables; at 50 C: H0 = 209 kJ/kg
at 270 C: Hw = 1136 kJ/kg Hv = 2796 kJ/kg
Hence; Hm = 0.7x2796+(1 – 0.7)x1136 = 2298 kJ/kg
Useful heat injection rate
qh = 103x2.6x(2298 – 209)/(40000x38) = 3.573 W/Gross m3
Vertical heat loss fhv = 19.6 % of input
Heat utilization factor correlation Y = 0.96
Mobile oil saturation Som = 65 – 15 = 50%
Mobile oil in place Nom = 66x40000x38x0.85x0.28x0.50/1.04 = 11479 MSTm3

Using time increment of 3 month

Steam injected per time increment = 66x2.6x24x3600x3x29/1000 = 1289883 tons
Feed water volume per time increment = 1289883 m3
Effective heat injected per increment:
Qeff = 8.64x10-5x3.573x0.96x(1 – 0.196)x3x29 = 0.02073 Billion J/Gross m3
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method - Example
Adjusted
Time, Cum. Steam Cumulative Qeff Oil Rec., % of Nom Rate, STm3/day
Cum Oil
month Mm3 CWE 109 J/Gross m3
Actual Adjusted MSTm3 Oil Prod Fuel Net Oil
0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3 1290 0.02073 0 0 0.0 0 962 -962
6 2580 0.04146 0 0 0.0 0 962 -962
9 3870 0.06219 0.0028 0.0025 28.7 315 962 -647
12 5160 0.08292 0.0189 0.017 195.1 1825 962 863
15 6449 0.10365 0.042 0.0378 433.9 2618 961 1657
18 7739 0.12438 0.0712 0.0641 735.8 3310 962 2348
21 9029 0.14511 0.1056 0.095 1090.5 3889 962 2927
24 10319 0.16584 0.1445 0.1301 1493.4 4418 962 3456
27 11609 0.18657 0.1869 0.1682 1930.8 4796 962 3834
30 12899 0.2073 0.232 0.2088 2396.8 5110 962 4148
33 14189 0.22803 0.2788 0.2509 2880.1 5299 962 4337
36 15479 0.24876 0.3266 0.2939 3373.7 5412 962 4450
39 16768 0.26949 0.3746 0.3371 3869.6 5438 961 4477
42 18058 0.29022 0.4221 0.3799 4360.9 5387 962 4425
45 19348 0.31095 0.4684 0.4216 4839.5 5248 962 4286
48 20638 0.33168 0.513 0.4617 5299.9 5048 962 4086
51 21928 0.35241 0.5553 0.4998 5737.2 4795 962 3833
54 23218 0.37313 0.595 0.5355 6147.0 4493 962 3531
57 24508 0.39386 0.6317 0.5685 6525.8 4154 962 3192
60 25798 0.41459 0.6651 0.5986 6871.3 3788 962 2826
63 27088 0.43532 0.6951 0.6256 7181.3 3399 962 2437
66 28377 0.45605 0.7217 0.6495 7455.6 3008 961 2047
69 29667 0.47678 0.7448 0.6703 7694.4 2618 962 1656
 39 16768 0.26949 0.3746 0.3371 3869.6 5438 961 4477

Performance Prediction using

42 18058 0.29022 0.4221 0.3799 4360.9 5387 962 4425
45 19348 0.31095 0.4684 0.4216 4839.5 5248 962 4286

Gomaa’s Method -Example

48 20638 0.33168 0.513 0.4617 5299.9 5048 962 4086
51 21928 0.35241 0.5553 0.4998 5737.2 4795 962 3833
54 23218 0.37313 0.595 0.5355 6147.0 4493 962 3531
57 24508 0.39386 0.6317 0.5685 6525.8 4154 962 3192
60 25798 0.41459 Q 0.6651 Adjusted
Time, Cum. Steam Cumulative eff Oil Rec., %0.5986
of Nom 6871.3 3788 962 3/day2826
Rate, STm
63 27088 Cum Oil
month 3
Mm CWE 109 0.43532
J/Gross m3 0.6951 0.6256 7181.3
3
3399 962 2437
66 28377 0.45605 Actual
0.7217 Adjusted
0.6495 MSTm
7455.6 Oil3008
Prod Fuel 961 Net Oil
2047
0
69 0
29667 0
0.47678 0
0.7448 0
0.6703 0.0
7694.4 26180 0
962 0
1656
3
72 1290
30957 0.02073
0.49751 0
0.7646 0
0.6881 0.0
7898.7 22400 962 -962
1278
6
75 2580
32247 0.04146
0.51824 0
0.7811 0
0.703 0.0
8069.7 18750 962 -962
913
9
78 3870
33537 0.06219
0.53897 0.0028
0.7947 0.0025
0.7152 28.7
8209.8 315
1536 962 -647
574
12
81 5160
34827 0.08292
0.5597 0.0189
0.8056 0.017
0.725 195.1
8322.3 1825
1234 962 863
272
15
84 6449
36117 0.10365
0.58043 0.042
0.8141 0.0378
0.7327 433.9
8410.7 2618
969 961
962 1657
7
18
87 7739
37407 0.12438
0.60116 0.0712
0.8207 0.0641
0.7386 735.8
8478.4 3310
742 962 2348
-220
21
90 9029
38696 0.14511
0.62189 0.1056
0.8256 0.095
0.743 1090.5
8528.9 3889
554 962
961 2927
-407
24
93 10319
39986 0.16584
0.64262 0.1445
0.8294 0.1301
0.7465 1493.4
8569.1 4418
441 962 3456
-521
27
96 11609
41276 0.18657
0.66335 0.1869
0.8324 0.1682
0.7492 1930.8
8600.1 4796
340 962 3834
-622
30
99 12899
42566 0.2073
0.68408 0.232
0.835 0.2088
0.7515 2396.8
8626.5 5110
289 962 4148
-673
33
102 14189
43856 0.22803
0.70481 0.2788
0.8373 0.2509
0.7536 2880.1
8650.6 5299
264 962 4337
-698
36
105 15479
45146 0.24876
0.72554 0.3266
0.8393 0.2939
0.7554 3373.7
8671.2 5412
226 962 4450
-736
39
108 16768
46436 0.26949
0.74627 0.3746
0.841 0.3371
0.7569 3869.6
8688.5 5438
190 961
962 4477
-772
42
111 18058
47726 0.29022
0.767 0.4221
0.8424 0.3799
0.7582 4360.9
8703.4 5387
163 962 4425
-799
45
114 19348
49016 0.31095
0.78773 0.4684
0.8435 0.4216
0.7592 4839.5
8714.9 5248
126 962 4286
-836
48
117 20638
50305 0.33168
0.80846 0.513
0.8444 0.4617
0.76 5299.9
8724.0 5048
100 962
961 4086
-861
51
120 21928
51595 0.35241
0.82919 0.5553
0.8451 0.4998
0.7606 5737.2
8730.9 4795
76 962 3833
-886
54
123 23218
52885 0.37313
0.84992 0.595
0.8456 0.5355
0.761 6147.0
8735.5 4493
50 962 3531
-912
57
126 24508
54175 0.39386
0.87065 0.6317
0.8459 0.5685
0.7613 6525.8
8739.0 4154
38 962 3192
-924
60
129 25798
55465 0.41459
0.89138 0.6651
0.846 0.5986
0.7614 6871.3
8740.1 3788
12 962 2826
-950
63 27088 0.43532 0.6951 0.6256 7181.3 3399 962 2437
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method - Example
7000
Gross Oil rate
Net Oil rate - No conversion to waterflood
6000 Net Oil rate - With conversion to waterflood

5000
Oil Rate, STm3/day

4000

3000

2000

1000

-1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time in Month
Performance Prediction using
Gomaa’s Method - Example
Negative net oil rate values start to appear at time of 85 month
This will be assumed as time for conversion from steam to water injection
Steamflood performance parameters are:
Oil in place at start of steamflood
N = 66x40000x38x0.85x0.28x0.65/1.04 = 14923 MSTm3
Cumulative oil recovery = 8839 MSTm3
Oil recovery factor = 8839 / 14923 = 59.2 % of OIP
Cumulative fuel used = 2456 MSTm3
Cumulative net oil recovery = 8839 – 2456 = 6383 MSTm3
Net oil recovery factor = 6383 / 14923 = 42.8% of OIP
Cumulative wet steam injected = 36117 Mm3 CWE
Cumulative steam-oil ratio = 4.09 m3 CWE/STm3
Cumulative fuel-oil ratio = 2456 / 8839 = 0.278
Steamflood Field Cases
There are many successful field applications of steamflood oil recovery
throughout the world
During the 1960’s and 1970’s several pilot field tests were implemented using
few flood patterns to test process applicability and optimize operating
parameters
Results from pilot tests were very encouraging and provided required
justification for full-field steamflood applications
Several full-field steamflood projects have been concluded and reported gross
oil recovery in the range of 50 – 75% of oil in place at flood start-up
Reported fuel consumption values (expressed as fuel-oil ratio) are in the
range of 0.2 – 0.5
Kern River and Midway-Sunset fields (California, USA) and Duri field (Sumatra,
Indonesia) are among the largest fields where steamflood applications are
extensive and considered very successful
Ten-Pattern Steamflood Field Test
Operated by Chevron Corporation in Kern River field, California, USA
Includes 10 inverted seven-spot flood patterns with an average area of 6.1
acre (24690 m2) per pattern
Main lithology of reservoir rock is unconsolidated sand
Average reservoir depth = 215 m Gross thickness = 28 m
Net-to-gross ratio = 0.75 Permeability = 1600 md
Porosity = 35% Oil gravity = 14 API
Oil saturation at flood start = 52% Sors = 10% Sorw = 18%
Initial res temperature Ti = 27 C
Reservoir pressure = 414 kPa Oil viscosity at Ti = 2700 cp
Oil viscosity at 177 C = 4 cp Bottom-hole steam quality = 60%
Injection rate = 0.142 kg/day/gross m3
Ten-Pattern Steamflood Field Test
All producing wells received several cycles of steam stimulation
until their temperatures and oil rates indicated response to
steamflood
Steam-oil ratio started at around 10 but continued to decline and
stabilized at about 5 (corresponds to a fuel-oil ratio of 0.33)
Evaluated in 1975 and it was recommended to convert to
waterflood
After conversion to waterflood, oil production slightly declined but
stabilized again
Cumulative oil recovery at time of conversion to waterflood is
about 55% of the oil in place at steamflood start-up
It is reported that by abandonment, oil recovery exceeded 70%
Ten-Pattern Steamflood Field Test
10000 1000

Steam Rate, BCWE/D

Oil Production and Steam Injection, B/D

Oil Rate, BOPD

1000 100

100 10

Steam-Oil Ratio
Steam-Oil Ratio

10 1
1-65 1-66 1-67 1-68 1-69 1-70 1-71 1-72 1-73 1-74 1-75 1-76 1-77

Time
Ten-Pattern Steamflood Field Test
Several observation wells are used to provide monitoring data
Measured vertical distribution of oil saturation (from well logs) in one
observation well before and after steam injection confirms:
Response to steamflood in displacing reservoir oil
Gravity override of vapor and under-running of water in the
reservoir
Oil saturations near reservoir top indicate values very close to
residual oil saturation to steam
Oil saturations near the middle interval indicate residual oil
saturation to saturated water
Oil saturation values within the bottom interval are close to
residual oil saturation with hot water (lower temperature than
steam)
Ten-Pattern Steamflood Field Test
Oil Saturation, %
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
210
After Steam Injection

215

220 Before Steam Injection

Depth, m

225

230

235

240
Duri Steamflood Field Test
Pilot steamflood test was conducted in the giant Duri field located in Central
Sumatra, Indonesia starting in 1975 and operated by Caltex Pacific Indonesia
Consists of 16 inverted five-spot flood patterns with an average area of 15.5 acre
(62730 m2) per flood pattern These flood patterns could also be viewed as 9
normal (or confined) patterns

16 Inverted
Flood Patterns

9 Normal
Flood Patterns
 Duri Steamflood Field Test
Main objectives of the Duri pilot include:
Test the applicability of steamflood as an EOR method for increasing oil
reserves from the large Duri resource
Gain familiarity with steam injection operations and provide on-site
training for staff and operators
Determine operational measures and design criteria that assure
maximum economical oil recovery for field wide expansion
After monitoring pilot performance for four years, an evaluation study was
conducted followed by steamflood expansion starting in 1986
Due to field size, the steamflood project is carried out as 15 areal expansions of
about 1000 acre each with 2 – 4 vertical stages within each area
All areal expansions utilized seven-spot flood pattern to provide adequate
balance between injected steam and produced fluids
Five-spot patterns in pilot area are converted to nine-spot patterns
Duri steamflood project marks the largest single-field steamflood application in
the world
Duri Steamflood Field Test

Key geologic and reservoir parameters:

Main lithology is unconsolidated sand Average reservoir depth = 213 m
Gross thickness = 70 m Net-to-gross ratio = 0.74
Permeability = 1930 md Porosity = 36%
Oil saturation at flood start = 60% Oil gravity = 22.7 API
Sors = 12% Sorw = 19%
Initial reservoir temperature = 38 C Reservoir pressure = 1690 kPa
Bottom-hole steam quality = 65%

Injection rate = 0.042 kg/day/gross m3 based on 16 inverted flood patterns

Injection rate = 0.075 kg/day/gross m3 based on 9 normal flood patterns

Temperature, C 38 66 93 121 149 204

Oil viscosity, cp 120 21 6.7 3.1 1.7 0.8
Duri Steamflood Field Test
100000 10

Steam-Oil Ratio
Steam-Oil Ratio
Oil Production and Steam Injection, B/D

Steam Rate, BCWE/D

10000 1

1000 0.1

A - Estimated primary oil rate

B – Estimated cyclic steam oil rate
C - Steamflood oil rate (pattern)
D – Steamflood oil rate (pattern+ext. wells)
100 0.01
1-73 1-74 1-75 1-76 1-77 1-78 1-79 1-80

Time
 Duri Steamflood Field Test

All producing wells continued to receive cyclic steam stimulation to

improve productivity and reduce skin factor due to asphaltene deposits
and high wax content

Evaluation of Duri pilot steamflood indicated some key considerations and

required modifications in design for the project expansion:

Steam injection rate (per gross m3) is quite low compared to values
normally used in other steamflood applications due to large flood
pattern area
Even with this low injection rate, the five-spot pattern producing wells
could not provide adequate lifting capacity to balance the injected
volumes
Some displaced oil moved outside the pilot area and got captured by
surrounding wells
 Duri Steamflood Field Test
Capture factor =  allocated liquid production for pattern wells/
injection
18

16 Inverted Patterns

Cumulative Steam-Oil ratio

Normal (Confined) Patterns
14

12

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Capture Factor

This plot indicates:

High capture factor values are more advantageous for steamflood performance
Inverted patterns give lower cumulative steam-oil ratios compared to normal
(confined) patterns
Duri Steamflood Field Test
Based on the indicated effect of capture factor, steamflood expansion is designed
with 11.6 acre (47050 m2) seven-spot
Smaller pattern area (relative to the pilot) and selecting seven-spot instead of
five-spot; should provide enough balance between lifting capacity and injection
Existing pilot area (large five-spot patterns) is converted to nine-spot due to
pattern geometry and to avoid drilling many new wells
Pilot test (in spite of poor design) proved that steamflood is applicable in Duri
reservoirs and should significantly increase oil recovery
Steam-oil ratio started at about 8 then decreased due to steamflood response.
Stabilized value is about 4.5 (corresponds to a fuel-oil ratio of 0.306)
Results from reservoir simulation models of various Duri reservoirs indicate that
optimum time to convert to waterflood is after 1.0 pore volume cumulative steam
injection
Optimum time for abandonment is after 0.5 pore volume cumulative water
injection
Sekian