Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2021 October 2003.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

Steam injection EOR began in California forty years ago,
and has been highly successful. As a consequence,
Californias thermal recovery operations represent a leading
source of EOR production in the world.
The understanding of most early thermal recovery
operators was limited to the concept of heat reduces heavy oil
viscosity, and reduced viscosity means more production.
Steam injection was attempted in almost any reservoir having
viscous oil with little appreciation of other recovery process
considerations. Although several early pilot projects were
steamfloods, most early applications were cyclic stimulation.
During the late 1970s, steamflooding became predominant,
and many people considered steamflooding to be a
displacement process (hence the term steam drive). With
this paradigm and high oil prices, there was little impetus to
understand efficient use of heat. The predominant philosophy
was If you want more oil, inject more steam. With the later
collapse of oil prices, operators returned to review process
fundamentals and to determine how to more efficiently
operate steam projects. This paper discusses the shift to an
override, or gravity drainage, model concept. This helped lead
to reduced steam injection and improved thermal efficiency
through the use of heat management. This paper discusses the
shift to the concept of steam override and gravity drainage as
steamflood recovery mechanisms and the subsequent use of
heat management practices that improved thermal
recovery efficiency.

Thermal Recovery in California

Early Days: 1960-1966

Early efforts to improve heavy oil productivity in
California used bottomhole heaters or in-situ combustion.
Bottomhole heaters did improve well productivity
1
, but their
success was limited by both relatively small heat input rates
and the fact that they depend upon conductive heat transfer
from the wellbore to the formation. Although some success
was obtained with in-situ combustion projects, the high fuel
(coke) deposition from the heavy crudes resulted in high air
requirements. This, coupled with the difficulty in operating
and controlling the in-situ process, limited its application.
The first official mention of steam injection in California
was cyclic steam injection in the Yorba Linda Field in 1960.
2

In 1961, cyclic injection began in the Kern River Field, and in
1962 two additional fields started cyclic steam (Coalinga and
McKittrick), and steamflooding began in Kern River.
Although companies were beginning to test steam injection,
in-situ combustion was still popular, as five new combustion
projects were begun in 1962.
3
Secrecy surrounded the early
steam tests as noted in this reference to testing in the Coalinga
Field in 1962, In other portions of the field, recovery of oil
by various means of production stimulation appears to be on
an increasing trend. The degree of success by these methods
is a secret closely guarded by the operators, and little
information has been made available to the public.
2

However, neighboring operators were observant, and steam
generators were difficult to hide. A dramatic expansion of
steam injection projects was soon to follow.

Cyclic Injection
In the three years 1960-1962, cyclic steam injection was
tested in four fields. In 1963, cyclic injection was tested in
five additional fields, more than doubling the number of fields.
However as evidence of success became apparent, there was
an amazing increase in the number of applications. Cyclic
steam injection was tested in thirty-two additional fields in
1964, and in eighteen more in 1965. Thus, in only six years
cyclic steam injection went from a single field test to testing or
application in 59 separate fields. Although the earliest tests
were generally carefully selected (seven of the first nine fields
tested went on to long-lived highly successful steam
operations), many of the tests in 1964-1967 were the result of
enthusiasm to test the process. Much of this enthusiasm came
from the potential to obtain a rapid increase in cash flow and
the ability to conduct a test with minimal permitting
requirements and the use of rental steam generation
equipment. The effects of high temperatures on casing and
cement were poorly understood, as were the range of desirable
reservoir properties. Thus, a number of tests were short-lived
and unsuccessful. However, in only seven years, cyclic steam
injection was essentially a full-grown process in California. In

SPE 84848
Forty Years of Steam Injection in California - The Evolution of Heat Management
E.J. Hanzlik and D.S. Mims, Members SPE, ChevronTexaco
2 SPE 84848
1966, the first year for which data is available in California
DOG annual Reports, cyclic injection totaled 262,000 BSPD
(barrels of steam per day, cold water equivalent) injected into
6621 wells in 38 fields (Note: all injection and well count data
were taken from California Division of Oil and Gas annual
reports, 1966-2001). This volume of steam is very close to the
average rate of 279,000 BSPD injected over the last 35 years.

Steamflood
For the first several years of steam experimentation,
interest in steamflooding nearly matched that in cyclic
stimulation. By the end of 1963, there were steamflood tests
in six fields compared to the nine fields with cyclic tests.
However, greater capital requirements and slower production
response led to a much slower rate of expansion. By 1966,
there were steamflood projects in seventeen fields, injecting
43,000 BSPD using 135 injectors. Steamfloods accounted for
only 14% of total steam injection, a very low value compared
to the 80-85% values common in later years.

Growth Years: 1967-1986

Cyclic Injection
As noted above, and shown in Figure 1, the volume of
steam used in cyclic projects had reached 262,000 BSPD by
1966. This rate would remain nearly constant until 1981. The
number of fields in which cyclic steam was tested would
continue to increase at a slow rate until 1981, but the number
of fields with active projects would actually decrease until the
first oil price shock of 1973 (Figure 2). This decrease was a
natural consequence of the exuberant experimentation of
1964-1966. Operators determined the reservoir conditions
under which cyclic steam succeeded or failed. As oil prices
increased after 1973, the number of active cyclic projects
showed a generally increasing trend until 1983. However, it is
interesting to note that there was relatively little change in the
amount of steam used, or in the number of wells receiving
cyclic stimulations (Figures 1 and 3). Some of the larger
stimulation projects were now being converted to steamfloods,
and the new projects tended to be smaller. Although some of
these projects were in fields which had not previously had
steam injection, others were in fields which had seen
prior testing.

Steamflood
The volume of steamflood injection began to rapidly
increase from 1967 to 1973, but the number of fields with
active steamfloods remained essentially constant at 10-14
(Figures 1 and 2). The injection rates increased by a factor of
8.5 from 48,000 BSPD to 411,000 BSPD - in this six-year
period. The success of early pilot projects was being followed
by project expansions and a steady, but slow rate of
experimentation in additional fields. Following the price
increases of 1973, there was a rapid expansion of the number
of fields with steamflood projects. A peak of 24 fields with
active steamfloods was reached in 1977, and the number
would range between 19 and 23 for the next ten years.
However, the number of steam injectors and the volume of
steam being injected would continue to grow dramatically
from 1973 through 1985. Steamflood injection volumes
increased by another factor of 4.4, to nearly 1.9 million BSPD,
and the number of steam injectors increased from 1136 to
5001 (Figures 1 and 3).

Total Steam Injection
During these growth years, oil prices increased greatly.
There was a small price drop in 1982, but prices were stable in
1983-1985. This high price environment encouraged rapid
expansion. Steam injection grew at a rate of nearly 11% per
year during this period, essentially all in the form of increased
steamflood injection. The percentage of steam used in
steamflood projects grew from 15% to 85% during this period,
and steamflooding continues to account for 80% of steam
injection (Figure 4). California reached its peak steam
injection rate in 1985. Combined cyclic and steamflood
injection that year was 2.07 million BSPD into 13,798 wells.
There were 8794 cyclic stimulation wells and 5001
steamflood injectors.

Achieving Maturity

In 1986 California heavy oil prices collapsed from a value
of $20/barrel to less than $9/barrel. Steam injection rates
began a general downward trend which has continued to the
present. There was not an immediate drop in thermal oil
production, as recently expanded steamflood areas were in the
early stages of production response. Maximum thermal
recovery oil production was reached in 1988 at 511,000
BOPD, after which it began a steady decline (Figure 5). This
combination of stable or declining production and lower prices
forced operators to more closely examine their operating
procedures. Although Californias average steam/oil ratio
(SOR) had dropped somewhat from its peak due to production
response from immature steamfloods, it was still nearly 4.5
when the 1986 price collapse began. Since generating steam
is the largest operating expense item in a steamflood, efficient
use of steam began to receive much more attention. This
emphasis has continued to the present, and has become even
more critical as larger numbers of projects pass their peak
production period.

Heat Management

Optimization of heat use in a steamflood requires an
understanding of the physics which govern the process and
having methods in place to adequately monitor and analyze
those factors. The early analytical tools available to
steamflood designers for estimating heat losses and the growth
of the steamchest were based upon frontal advance theory,
e.g., Marx and Langenheim
4
, and Myhill and Stegemeier
5
.
With the frontal advance concept, higher steam injection rates
both reduce ultimate heat losses to the underburden and
overburden, and result in a more rapid recovery of oil.
Thermal observation wells were drilled in early projects to
provide verification of the rate of advance of the steam as
predicted by the frontal advance models. However, post-flood
cores taken to evaluate early pilots showed that gravity
override was a significant factor
6
. Thus, there was significant
inconsistency between the analytical models and the physics
of the process (Figure 6). However, many engineers still
SPE 84848 3
perceived steam injection in terms of a displacement process
in which higher injection rates equated to higher oil
production rates. This intuitive belief in the benefits of high
injection rates was reinforced by the belief that high injection
rates would heat more oil faster with a consequent increase
in production rate. Also during the field expansion of the
process, steam would migrate to adjacent unheated vertical
and horizontal areas of the field causing oil production there to
increase, thus reinforcing this belief.
Thermal reservoir simulation became widely available in
the mid-1970s. These simulators included the required
physics, and showed the effect of gravity override. However,
they were relatively difficult and expensive to use. In
addition, limited computer power required studies to use
relatively small number of grid cells, which tends to smear
fluid interfaces and results. Although the simulation results
were generally directionally correct, many operating unit
personnel had limited faith in the results.
In the mid-1980s, two new analytical methods (Vogel
7

and Neuman
8
) became available which are based upon the
gravity override effects. Some key conceptual differences are
that: (1) the dominant production mechanism for viscous oil
steamfloods is gravity drainage of the heated oil, (2) oil rates
are largely unaffected by steam rates higher than the minimum
required to maintain the steamchest, (3) injection rates should
be proportional to project area (not project volume), and (4)
decreasing injection rates with time minimizes heat losses to
produced fluids and casing blow. Figure 7 shows an example
of the difference in heat requirements to maintain a steam
chest at year one versus year five of a typical California
steamflood pattern. The heat requirement in the fifth year is
less than half the requirement in year one. The publication of
these two analytical methods (1984 and 1985) was timely,
given the price collapse which would occur in 1986.

Early Monitoring and Management Examples
Monitoring the use of injected heat in steam projects is not
a new concept. The Deerfield steamflood pilot conducted by
Carter Oil Company (now part of Exxon) in the 1950s
included thermal observation wells. As cited in the SPE paper
reporting on the pilot, Temperature data obtained from the
thermal observation wells installed in the center five-spot
enabled us: (1) to write energy balances on the reservoir and to
determine the energy distribution, (2) to correlate energy
requirements with steam front advance and (3) to form a
picture of fluid movement through the oil sand.
9
Their
analysis included energy lost to produced fluids and fluids
which migrated outside the pattern.
Similarly, the concept of varying steam injection rates
during the life of a steamflood was independently shown by
both reservoir simulation and field testing in the early 1970s.
Conclusions of reservoir simulation studies by Chu and
Trimble
10
included: (1) the optimal constant steam rate is
proportional to pattern size rather than sand thickness, (2)
economics of a project can be improved over the constant rate
case by using higher steam rates in the initial stages and then
decreasing the rate with time, (3) decreasing rate in a
hyperbolic fashion appeared superior to a linear decrease.
Bursell and Pittman
6
reported that rate reductions late in the
life of three pilots in the Kern River Field resulted in improved
steam/oil ratios. All of these observations are consistent with
our current understanding of the steamflood process.

Recognition of Heat Management by California Operators
As noted in the preceding section, by 1975 there were
examples of how to conduct heat balances and evidence
supporting the steam over-ride/gravity drainage model,
including the principle of reducing injection rates in mature
projects. However, rapidly increasing oil prices and a mental
analogue of a displacement mechanism for the steamflood
process led to a common belief that higher injection rates
automatically resulted in increased oil production rates.
Figure 8 shows the average injection rate per well and average
SOR for steamflood operations in four of the largest California
thermal fields (Coalinga, Kern River, Midway-Sunset, and
South Belridge). It shows that in the late 1960s, and with
current heat management concepts, average injection rates for
steamfloods were about 225 BSPD/well. From Figure 7 we
see that early life steam chest heat minimum requirements at
60 psig are about 70 MMBTU/day, or approximately 200
BSPD. Thus the rates used in the first steamflood projects
were quite reasonable. However, we also see that average
rates per well increased to more than 300 BSPD/well during
the 1970s, and did not drop below 300 BSPD/well until 1992.
It appears that most operators did not carefully review overall
heat and mass balances for their steamflood projects during
this period, and they generally appear to have had too high a
rate of heat injection. During the 1990s an increasing amount
of effort was applied to heat management
11
, which resulted in
a general decrease in the amount of steam injected in each
pattern. The significant consolidation which occurred in the
thermal industry in the past seven years (from six major
operators to two) has also resulted in more rigorous
application of heat management. Besides the emphasis placed
on heat management by the surviving operators, control of
larger contiguous field areas has made coordination and
optimization of injection operations easier.
Despite the present maturity of many projects and the
accompanying production declines, Figure 8 shows that it has
been possible to maintain a nearly constant average SOR for
the four large fields, despite significant production declines.
In fact the SOR for the Kern River field was at an historic low
in 2001.

Heat Management Tools
As shown in Figure 9, heat management is a basic energy
balance. Note that only a few key parameters can be
measured on the surface steam in, production and casing
venting out. Some parameters can be directly measured
subsurface using logs temperatures of the overburden,
underburden and reservoir. Other information can only be
inferred. There are three approaches for calculating energy
requirements: analytical methods and reservoir simulation
which require assumptions to estimate heat requirements, or
direct methods which account only for energy components
that can be measured on the surface or by sub-surface logging
tools. In this paper we will not discuss reservoir simulation
heat management tools.


4 SPE 84848
Analytical Methods
The basic analytical methods are those of Vogel, and
Neuman. Neuman is generally used prior to steam
breakthrough. After the steamchest has expanded across the
project area, heat requirements can be set based upon
extensions of the basic concepts expounded by Vogel. The
computations are a function of:

Initial reservoir conditions/properties,
Mass and heat content of injected and
produced fluids,
Steamchest temperature and pressure (from
temperature observation wells).
Time on injection, and
Area of the project/control volume.

Unknown variables are influx and efflux from the control
volume. However, simultaneous solution of the mass and
energy equations may allow estimates of steam migration,
water encroachment, heat scavenging, or steam chest collapse.
Although the analytical methods use an overly simple
conceptual model (do not account for Darcy flow, no geologic
detail), and require high quality input data, they have the
advantage of emphasizing energy control for
operational decisions.

Direct Methods
Direct methods have been developed for use where there
are significant numbers of temperature observation (TO)
wells. They provide simple and fast interpretation to account
for reservoir heat accumulation and losses to the
overburden/underburden. The techniques also are easily
exportable to 3D/4D visualization, which assists with analysis
of large data sets and project areas.
Conductive heat loss to the overburden/underburden can
be easily calculated by taking the dT/dz value directly from a
temperature log. The rate of heat loss is then quickly
determined by the function:
Q
ob
= kA dT/dz,
where k is the overburden heat conductivity, A is the project
area, and dT/dz is the vertical temperature gradient. Similarly,
the heat accumulation rate can be estimated by taking the
difference in the average heated zone temperature between
successive time-lapse temperature logs and calculating the rate
of heat input required to heat the formation in the
control volume:
Q
r
=

M
r
V
r
dT
avg
/dt,
where M
r
is volumetric heat capacity, V
r
is the project volume,
and dT
avg
is the change in the average project temperature over
the time period dt. This simple formulation assumes no
changes in volumetric heat capacity or project volume
with time.
Where there are sufficient TO wells, the direct method
offers the advantage of simplicity and fewer assumptions
when determining the required injection during routine
monitoring after establishing a steamchest. However, the
direct methods do not take into account heat losses that occur
beyond the area being analyzed (e.g., production wellbore,
surface lines, influx and efflux).
Application of Heat Management
Figure 10

shows the heat injection history of a project

along with a comparison of the heat calculated by several
analytical methods and the TO well direct method. One can
see that there is general agreement between the two analytical
methods which include heat losses from production, and the
data from the direct TO well method. The Vogel method
without consideration of production losses under-predicted
heat requirements. It is also evident that there was a period in
1994 during which this project was over-injected. This was
followed by a period of slight under-injection, and then
balanced injection.
Figure 11 demonstrates how decreasing the injection rate
does not necessarily translate to a loss in oil production rate.
This project was being greatly over-injected in 1992-1993.
Heat injection was reduced by approximately 60% in two
steps, yet we see that oil production was not adversely
affected. Similarly, Figure 12 shows another project in which
reduction from 15,000 BSPD to 4,000 BSPD in two steps over
a period of two years resulted in no change in the well-
established production decline behavior of the reservoir.
Finally, Figure 13 shows a case where a project which had
adequate injection and well density showed no response to
increased steam injection and increased well count. If a
project is receiving sufficient heat and has sufficient well
density, the rate is fixed by the rate of gravity drainage
increased heat and well density will not accelerate
oil recovery.
Heat management is an interactive reservoir management
process. It should involve production monitoring, temperature
surveillance, an integrated reservoir model, and surface steam
measurement/control. Although this paper has concentrated
on the subsurface aspects, measurement and control of steam
distribution (including liquid/vapor phase splitting) in surface
facilities and the wellbore is also very important.

Conclusions

Thermal recovery in California is at mature stage in its
life cycle.
Widespread adoption of demonstrated technical principles
(e.g., heat management) may not occur until forced by
commercial circumstances.
Increased efficiency has come from both and improved
understanding of the steamflood process and
consolidation of the industry.
Modern heat management techniques are improving
process performance and extending field life.



1
Summary of Operations, California Oil Fields, Vol. 46, No.
2, California Division of Oil and Gas, San Francisco, 1961.
2
Summary of Operations, California Oil Fields, Vol. 52, No.
2, Part 1, California Division of Oil and Gas,
Sacramento, 1967.
3
Summary of Operations, California Oil Fields, Vol. 48, No.

Taken from slide presented by M. R. Guzman, ChevronTexaco,

personal communication.
SPE 84848 5

2, California Division of Oil and Gas, San Francisco, 1963.
4
Marx, J. W. and Langenheim, R. H.: Reservoir Heating by
Hot Fluid Injection, Trans AIME (1959), 216, 312-314.
5
Myhill, N. A. and Stegemeier, G. L.: Steam Drive
Correlation and Prediction, SPE 5572 presented at SPE 50th
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Sept. 28- Oct. 1, 1975; J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb. 1978), 173-182.
6
Bursell, C. G. and Pittman, G. M.; Performance of Steam
Displacement in the Kern River Field, J. Pet. Tech., (August
1975), 997-1004.
7
Vogel, J. V.: Simplified Heat Calculations for
Steamfloods, J. Pet. Tech., (July 1984), 1127-1136.
8
Neuman, C. H.: A Gravity Override Model of Steamdrive,
J. Pet. Tech., (January 1985), 163-169.
9
Valleroy, V. V., Willman, B. T., Campbell, J. B., and
Powers, L. W.: Deerfield Pilot Test of Recovery by Steam
Drive, J. Pet. Tech., (July 1967), 956-964.
10
Chu, C., and Trimble, A. E.: Numerical Simulation of
Steam Displacement Field Performance Applications, J.
Pet. Tech., (June 1975), 765-776.
11
Ziegler, V. M., Crookston, R. B., and Sanford, S. J.:
Recommended Practices for Heat Management of
Steamflood Projects, SPE 25808, presented at International
Thermal Operations Symposium, Bakersfield, Feb. 8-10,
1993.
__________________________________________________



Year
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
S
t
e
a
m

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
B
S
P
D
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Stimulation
Total

Figure 1 California Annual Steam Injection







Year
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
F
i
e
l
d
s

0
20
40
60
80
100
Cum. Cyclic
Cum. Steamflood
Active Cyclic
Act. Steamflood
Figure 2 Number of Fields With Steam Projects





Year
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
e
d

W
e
l
l
s
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Stimulation
Steamflood
1977 Data Missing
Figure 3 Wells on Injection






6 SPE 84848

Year
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
e
a
m

I
n
j
e
c
t
e
d
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

Figure 4 - Growth of Steamflood Injection





Year
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
M
B
O
P
D
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
S
O
R
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
MBOPD
SOR

Figure 5 Thermal Production and Steam/Oil Ratio











Frontal
Displacement
Gravity
Drainage
Oil Rate Most
Dependent On
Injection Rate
Oil Rate Most
Dependent On
Reservoir Parameters
Steam Oil
Oil
Steam



Figure 6 Mechanistic Concepts




Steamchest Pressure (PSIG)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
M
M
B
T
U
/
D
a
y
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
t= 1 Year
t= 5 Years
Assumptions:
Static aquifer
2.5 Acres
Overburden & reservoir
conduction and convection
T
i
= 90F


Figure 7 Heat Required to Maintain a Steamchest









SPE 84848 7

Year
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
B
b
l
s

S
t
e
a
m
/
D
a
y
/
I
n
j
e
c
t
o
r
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
S
t
e
a
m
/
O
i
l

R
a
t
i
o
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
BSPD/Injector
Steam/Oil Ratio
Note: Data not available to calculate SOR
prior to 1975. No wellcount for 1977.

Figure 8 Largest Four Fields Performance








q
S Injection
+ q
i Water Influx
= q
(o,w) Prod.
+ q
CB
+ q
e Efflux
+ q
ob
+ q
z (Process)
m
Injection
+ m
Water Influx
= m
(o,w)Prod.
+ m
CB
+ m
Efflux
+ m
Z(Accumulation)

Input - Output = Accumulation
Produced
Liquids &
Gases
m
o
q
f

m
w
q
w

m
cb
q
cb

Overburden
Losses,
o
Fluid
Efflux
m
e
q
e
Injected
Steam
m
s
q
s

Fluid
Influx
m
i
q
i

Liquid
Region
Steam



Figure 9 Heat and Mass Balance











Date
4/1/1993 4/1/1994 4/1/1995 4/1/1996 4/1/1997 4/1/1998 4/1/1999
M
M
B
T
U
/
D
a
y
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Calc. w/TO Wells
Vogel (no prod losses)
Vogel (w/prod losses)
ChevronTexaco Template
Injection

Figure 10 Comparison of Analysis Methods




Date
1/1/92 7/1/92 1/1/93 7/1/93 1/1/94 7/1/94 1/1/95 7/1/95 1/1/96 7/1/96 1/1/97
B
O
P
D
/
A
c
t
i
v
e

W
e
l
l
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

T
o
t
a
l

B
S
P
D
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
BOPD/Active Well
Project BSPD
Heat Requirement

Figure 11 Example Reduction in Excessive Steam Rate











8 SPE 84848

Date
1/1/99 7/1/99 1/1/00 7/1/00 1/1/01 7/1/01
B
O
P
D
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
B
S
P
D
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
First Reduction: 15,000 to 8,000 BSPD
Second Reduction: 8,000 to
4,000 BSPD
Figure 12 Impact of Heat Management





Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
B
b
l
/
D
a
y
1000
10000
A
c
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
BOPD
BSPD
Active Prod.

Figure 13 No Response to Increased Steam and Well Count