SPE

-cf’~ Er@merarfAIME

SPE 13037

A Simple Analytical Model for Simulating Heavy Oil Recovery by

Cyclic Steam in Pressure-Depleted Reservoirs
by J.E. Gontijo, Petrobras/DEPRO/DIREV and K. Aziz, Stanford U.
SPE Membsrs

Copyright 19S4 S@ety of Petroleum Engineers of AlME

This paper waa presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Teses, September 16-19, 19S4. The material ia sub
ject to correction by the author. Permission to coPy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway,
Drawer 64706, Dallaa, Texaa 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

a—am

The cyclic injection of steam to stimulate or produce Cyclic injection of steam in heavy oil reservoirs is an
wells in heavy oil reservoira is extensively employed by the import ant stimulation and oil rec every process. The
oil industry. The performance of such wells may be steam is usually injected at a ffxed rate and known well-
predlcted from empirical correlations, simple analytical head quality. After some heat loss in the wellbore the
models or thermal reservoir simulators. Empirical corre- steam enters the reservoir. The bottomhole quality and
Iations can be extremely useful for correlating data within pressure may be predicted from a we
a field and for predicting performance of new wells in that type dkcussed by Fontanilla and Mlz NYe. After‘ode’ofm]ectlon
‘he
and similar fields. However, use of such correlations for for a specified period of time the well is shut-in and the
situations much different from the ones that led to their steam is allowed to “soak” into the reservoir for another
development can be subject to large errors. On the other specified period. To complete the cycle the weLl is pro-
hand one can use a compositional thermal model to duced until the oil production rate reaches some
predict the performance of cyclic steam operations. While minimum economic rate. TMs cyclic process is repeated
thermal models are based on the fundamental laws of con- untll the recovery per cycle drops below some economic
servations, the fluid flow is related to pressure gradient limit. Given the bottomhole conditions during the p@luc-
through the empirical concept of relative permeability. In tion cycle, the wellhead conditions may be predicted .
addition, the in-herent. sophistic at.iofi rrf a therms! mede!
makes it sensitive to rock properties, fluid properties and There are many options available to the engineer for
geological features. Much of this information is often unk- the prediction of reservoir response to cyclic steam.
nown and must be estimated from limited data and experi- These include multicomponent, multiphase thermal simu-
ence in similar situations. Furthermore, because of the lators, analytical models and simple correlations. While, in
complexity of the recovery process - which involves rever- principle, the reservoir simulator should yield the most
sal of flow dh-ections - the equations of a thermal simula- accurate answer, this may not necessarily be always true.
tor are difficult and expensive to solve. All of this means The main reason for this is that the reservoir simulator is
that the use of a sophisticated thermal model may not be sensitive to data that are often not known or unreliable. It
appropriate for routine de eign of cyclic steam operations. is natural then to try to develop simple analytical models
Instead one must consider the development and use of or correlations that account for the important mechan-
simple analytical models which give due consideration to isms involved in this process. This indeed has been the
important mechanisms involved in the process. case and several models and correlations of v
‘@y. ‘e-
In this study existing analytical models for cyclic gree of complexity are available in the literature
steam are reviewed and a new model is proposed. This
model incorporates many of the features of existing Steam injected in a heavy oil reservoir tends to rise
models with some important refinements. The flow rate of to the top, and the oil heated by the steam is produced by
oil in the model is influenced by oil viscosity, effective per- gravity drainage and pressure drawdown. The analytical
meability of the heated zone, porosity, mobile oil satura- models available in the literature for predicting the per-
tion and thermai diffusivity ot tine reservoir. Tiie chariie i~ ----- . . s . ,.l; . =t-.~ QperatiQns am of tWO t.~p= .0)

reservoir temperature with time is also modelled, and it ;;;;~;i~~l~;;;”e;[3-m, and (Z) steam overlay~9-1 7).
results in the expected decline in oil production rate dur- Fiiures (1) and (2) show the assumed dktributin of fluids
ing the cycle. The model accounts for the heat remaining in these models.
in the reservoir from previous cycles. The model equa-
tions are kept as simple as possible and, wherever ap- The objective of thk paper is to present a simple
propriate, correlations are incorporated to minimize data model that predicts the oil and water rates in heavy oil
requirements. pressure depleted reservoirs. Such a model is presented
The results of the model compare well with available and- resum“ are compared with knited fr la ~~.=
~e.~ A.+. -...
.na .ellmp
. ...
field data and another analytical model. The model results results from a thermal simulator. These results provide
are also compared with a thermal simulator. encouragement for further work in this area.

References end illustrations at end of paper.

 A SIMPLE ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR SIMULATING HEAV-Y OIL RECOWRY N
.
L
CYC1.IC
_-—_—— STENl IN ?RESSU~E DEPLETED RESERVOIRS WYU l?n17

Steam Zone Ttdckness:

The FlowEauation: In order to keep the model simple the average steam
10’11’12 presented a zone thickness is calculated ac ~~rding to the approxima-
In 1979 and 1980, Butler e~
tion presented by Van Lookeren .
series of three papers related to gravity drainage of heavy
oil reservoirs subjected to steam injection. In those pa- At = 0.5 ~ ARD (8)
pers atheoretical flowequation was derived and compared
with laboratory results, However, the theory and the ex- where ARD is a dimensionless group for sc sling the radial
periments were directed to linear flow from horizontal steam zone. In practical English units it is written as:
wells. In this paper a similar approach is used for radial ———
flow to vertical wells. Our flow equation aiso considers /—7-3mm.l.%
(9)
both potential andgravityas the driving forces. ‘D = ~ 6.328Tr(P. - P.t)h2&p.t
-. L:--- ;- 1.-” A n }h- ~~v~i~n?nenk Of a The ste- viscosity ~t ) and density (pat) are calcu-
lne n~~ e~-ti6L1U11 .- Ucd% d . ..- =-------

conical steam zone as shown in Figure 3. The following as- lated by correlations given in reference i3:
sumptions are made in the derivation of model equations:
Pot (Zbl f ts) = - , p8 in psia (lo)
1) the reservoir is initially saturated with oil and wa-
teu
k:(cP) = 104(0.2T. + 82), ?’8 in OF (11)
2) after the injection period the steam occupies a
conical volume; Heated Zone Radius
3) there is no heat transfer from steam during the The steam zone radius is calculated by the equation:
injection period, thus the average temperature
T
during this period is the steam temperature; Rh= — (12)
IL ., -ti:,:--~ ~.. d lr&
4) me oil =lUUUIZ=U “Y ..tm.rn
. . ... i=
.. Ln ~ thin iayer below
the steam-oil interface; The steam zone volume is estimated from the equa-
5) heat is transmitted from the steam zone into the tion
oil zone by conductiory
Qs twpw Qi + Htawt
6) a pseudo-steady state flow is assumed inside the (13)
~ = (JX); (T8-TR)
heated zone;
7) as oil is produced steam zone slowly expands T&~~:ation is a modification of the one suggested by
downwards; m that it includes the heat remaining in the reser-
voir from previous cycles.
8) the potential that causes the oil to flow into the
well is a combination of gravity forces and pres- The amo@ of heat injected per unit mass of steam (Qi) is
sure drop; given by :
9) the pressure drawdown is based in the steam
pressure at the average temperature in the heat-
ed zone. The specific heat of water is given by18:
~ . &( T,) -&(TR)
(15)
The following equation results from the above assumptions T, - T~
(see Appendm A):

———
———
— K. IPASOaA@
The water enthalpy correlation
tent heat correlation of Farouq
of
Ah
.l~~~~~~~~ Ste?ml ~a-

90 = 1.87 R=
4 (1)
~=66
[1 &
1.s4
,Tin °F (16)

where, ~ = 94(705 -Ts)Oss , T= in “F (17)

R==~ (2)
The isobaric volumetric ~~at capacity of the bulk,
fluid tilled reservoir is given by :

A@= Ahgsin(@ + ‘s-p’”f) (4) (pC)t = (1-p)M. + p

[
(1-SM)A4
+swim1 (18)
PO
It is assumed that gas saturation is negligible. When data
Sin(lq = * (5)
are not available the bulk volumetri heat capacity can be
s %
approximated as suggested by Jones :
Ah= hi-& (6)
(PC); = 32.5 + (4.6v 0=-2)
(10s4 -1.5) (19)
e is the angle between the interface and the reser-
voir base.

Hli at Rem til in the Re ervoir:

The steam pressure is calculated from the following ap- Before the first cycle starts the amount of heat in the
proximate relationship reservoir is set to zero. For subsequent cycles the calcu-
r.” ]4.404s lation is based on the steam zone volume and the average

‘“”I*I (7) temperature at the end of the previous cycle:

Hkt = K (pC)t (Tq-TR) (20)

The equations presented above are in practical units.
SPE 13037 JULIO E. GONTIJO KHALID AZIZ 3

The average temperature at any ti ~e during the cy- The integral in Eqn. 26 is not easy to compute be-
cle is calculated by the Boberg and Lantz equation cause go and g“ are functions of temperature and tem-
perature is an unknown to be calculated as a function of
Tw = T~ + (T, –TR)
[
f~D fvD (l–/PD) – fPD
1 (21)
fPD . In order to simplify the solution and to avoid trial
and error, the problem can be solved explicitly, this
Since the Boberg and Lantz solution assumes a cylindrical means that the average temperature at the end of the pre-
shape for the heated zone, the above equatilon is just an vious time-step is used during calculations for the current
approximation for the conical shape being considered time-step. Thus the integral is approximated as follows:
(Figure 3).
The dimensionless parameters ~HD, ~W and ~pD are func-
~h = tPi7 + AtPD (34)

tions of time and represent radial loss, vertical loss and where n is the time-step number and AfpD is given by:
energy removed with the produced ~ids, respectively.
5.615(qo Jfo + qwMw)(T&l-7’R)fM
They are defined by Boberg and Lantz m terms of gamma Af PB = (35)
and error functions, and are also presented graphically as 2 Qmax
functions of dimensionless time. For the sake of simplicity
and At is the time step size.
we calculate these parameters by the following expres-
sions:
Oil and Water Viscosities:
(22)
The change in oil viscosity with temperature is corre-
lated by
where,
a(t ‘t*j )
(36)
tDH = (23)
R~
where a and b are constants that can be determined from
-..a;l=kln Vils”m=i}v .-i~~&
a,=LLmw.w ..- W”-..J -

6 is used in our
where, A water viscosity correlation given by Jones
modek
4a(t –ttij) -1.14

[1
tDv= (25)
k’ ~(cp) = 0.66 * , 7’in °F (37)

The term that accounts for the energy removed with

produced fluids is given by:
Fluid Saturations and Relative Pe rmeabilitles:

iPD -- —~t
2Q:= QPdt (26) After the soak period, and before production starts, it
is assumed that the only mobile fluid around the well is wa-
where Q_ represents the maximum amount of heat suP- tec
plied to the reservoir. It is calculated at the end of the
soak period as the amount of heat injected plus the heat
remaining in the reservoir from the previous cycle minus
the losses to the overb rden. Utiilzing the heat loss ex- When the well is opened to production it is assumed that
the oil saturation increases and the water saturation is
pression given by Vogelllwe obtain:
given by:
“T= (27)
Q- = Hi.j + &W - ~RI?KR (T, – TR) d
s. = Sw - (SW-SJ $ (39)

The value of Hw is known from the previous cycle. The

amount of heat injected is given by
where WP is the cumulative water produc~lon during the
Hw = 350Q Q. ttij (28) cycle and FYIP is the amount of mobile water in place at
the beginning of the cycle.
If it is assumed that the amount of heat removed with
the gas or steam produced is negligible, the rate of heat In order to calculate the relative permeabilities a nor-
:w1 from the reservoir with produced fluids is given malized water saturation is calculated as:

(&. = 5.615(qa& + qwMw)(Tw - TR) (29)

(40)
The olumetric heat capacity of oil and water are
given by’d:
The analfitcal expressions presented by Farouq ~~~ for
Ma = (3.065 + 0.00355T) G (30)
the relative permeabilitles suggested by Gomaa are
M. = &pw (31) used:

and the oil and water densities are approximated by %v= -0.002167 S; + 0.024167 Swa (41)

PO = p~~ – ().0214 (T-T~d) (32)

Pw
‘624-11’4’=:
I (33)
km = -0.9416+ --
w
0“:~5’
w
(42)

1
This oil density correlation given above is only recom- with
mended for oils of gravity less than 20°AP1 and tempera-
km = 1.0, if S~sO.2 (43)
ture less than 5000F.
 A SIMPLE ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR SIMULATING HEAVY OIL RECOVERY BY
4 CYCLIC STEAM IN PRESSURE DEPLETED RESERVOIRS SIT 13037

y.rJ&! DescrigtjQn tion thickness. The volume of oil in place also increases
with reservoir thickness and it enhances oil recovery. in
All of the important equations required are presented
in the previous section. Major steps in the ca~culation this study, thicknesses of 40 ft., 80 ft. and 160 ft. were
tested and the results are presented in Figure 13. Again
scheme are given below:
the model response is as expected.
1. Input reservoir, fluid and operat.ional data and ini-
tialize model Effects of Steam Iniection Rate:
In this test the injection time was tied at 7 days.
2. Calculate fluid properties, heated zone geometry
Therefore when the injection rate is changed the volume
(radius, thickness andvohrne), and temperature
injected is also changed. The steam zone thickness is
and saturations at the start of the production cy-
cle. modelled in such a way that it is very sensitive to injection
rate, while the heated zone radius is sensitive to the
3. Calculate oil and water production for smalltime =-m,.nt mf heat i.qj~~t.~~. RIUS were made for injection
u.!. ”.-.,. “. ..”-”
steps within the cycle: Calculate cumulative pro-
rates of 400, 900 and 1500 BPD. The computed oil produc-
duction and check against fluids initially in place.
tion is within expected values as shown in Figure 14.
Print results and calculate average temperature
at the end of the step.
4. Check to see if additional steps are required to E~
complete the cycle. If so go to step 3, otherwise It is expected that above a certain minimum value the
continue. well spacing should not have a strong affect on oil produc-
5. Calculate the amount of water and heat remaining tion response in cyclic steam processes. Figure 15 shows
in the reservoir at the end of the cycle. Calculate results for well spacings of 60 ft. (A = 0.145 acres), 160 ft.
recovery fraction and steam-oil ratio and print (A = 0.566 acres) and 208.7 ft. (A = 1 acre). Notice that
results. the well spacing is more important for later cycles than
for the early cycles. This is because the radius influenced
6. Check to see if calculations are required for a new
by steam increases with time.
cycle. If so go to step 2, otherwise end calcula-
tions.
Effects of Steam Temperature:

COMPARISON WITH FIELD DATA AND WITH ANOTHER MODEL Usually oil production in cyclic steam processes is ex-
pected to increase with temperature. In the examples
The model is validated by comparing its resul s with
k shown in Figure 16 this is the case for 200°F and 3500F, but
field data and also with another analytical model . The
not for 500°. The anomalous behavior at the highest tem-
field data used to test the model are from a seven cycles
perature is probably due to the following reasons:
project in a well located in the Midway Sunset Field in
Western Kern6County, California. These data were also
used by Jones and are taken from hls paper. Figures 4 to 1) the steam quality was kept constant at 0.5. This is
10 comp~e the model results with the results presented not realistic and causes the amount of heat inject-
by Jones . The data for these runs are given in Tables 1 ed to be low for the high temperature case;
and 2. 2) the heat losses are more sensitive to temperature
In order to obtain a good match some adjustments. to than to the amount of heat injected, since for the
model parameters were necessary. This required that the 500” case the temperature is high but the amount
parameter ma be set to 3 and a sealing factor FO be intro- of neat injected is reiatiiv-eiY- iCW, a kiig e fia~ ti.~~
duced as follows: of the injected heat is losb

I ,, 1% 3) h~her temperatures tend to cause higher initial

‘0=ha (44) fluid production and a iot of heat is removed jiist

at the start of the cycle.

The calculated oil production is multiplied by thk! factor. The model requires further validation before it can be
For the example presented here n= = 2.5 was used. used for steam injection at temperatures above 450”F.

Effects of Steam Soak Time:

A set of hypothetical data was selected for a 5 cycles Field data and also results from many simulators have
base run (see Tables 1 and 2) and several sensitivity stu- shown that there is an optimum soak period. This period
dies were conducted. has to be sufficient to allow steam to condense and heat to
be transferred to the oil but it can not be too long because
Since the model is explicit it is expected to be sensi- of heat losses to adjacent formations. The present model
tk-e Lo tine tiie-step size. ‘i%is is Sho-wm irl Figure 11. As d~es not adequately account for steam distillation and
expected, large time steps lead to inaccurate results. transient effects. As shown in FUure 17 it does not prop-
eriy model the soak period since oil production always de-
Effects of Steam Quality clines when soak period is increased. Further work is re-
Other models and field results have shown that oil quired in this area.
production in steam processes is very sensitive to the
quality of injected steam since it determines the amount ~C MP
of energy placed in the reservoir. In our model the pro-
es 6 and 19 compare results from a numerical
duction response is sensitive to steam qudlty, as shown in
mod$fi~ wi~h those from the proposed analytical model.
FMure 12. Runs were made with steam quahty of 0.2, 0.5
The data used are the same as for the first two cycles of
and 1.0. As expected, oil production increases substantial-
the field case, except in this case only a single 60 ft. zone
ly with increase in steam quality.
is considered and the injection rates are divided by 4. In
Effects of Formation Thickness: the numerical model four layers and eleven radkl blocks
In a model where gravity drainage is important the are use d and the steam injected is not constrained. %ce
production response is expected to be sefisitilve to f~iir,&- l-~- Us...
cainp,~.= ~ *. “..
n“ nil
“.. ..nd.. ~o& =. -=-- ---- a~~ no~ avaiiable,
nrnnert.ic+~
SPE 13037 JULIO E. GONTIJO AND KHALID AZIZ 5
the model runs were made in “black-oil’’m ode. In this ap- Combining Eqn. A.? with A.6, substituting into Eqn. A.5 and
proach trapped gas saturation is simulated by a large integrating yields:
value for the rock compressibility (spongy-rock concept).
q=
Znk aA@
As expected the model results are sensitive to the value (A.%)
used. Initial runs gave lower oil production from the nu- v, Ln(Rz/rw)–0.5 mOu
merical model than from the analytical model (which com-
pares well with field data). For this reason a high effective The interface velocity in the above equation is still unk-
rock compressibility of 10–3 was used. The initial reservoir nown. Mass balance on an elementary volume of the
pressure for the field case is also not known but it is ex- mobile oil layer yields:
pected to be low. The numerical model was run with reser-
voir pressures of 75, 150, 200 and 300 psia. The water and Aq = -2npTATASa $ (A.9)
oil production results are shown in Figures 18 and 19. The
numerical model results for a pressure of 150 psia at the In differential terms Eqn. A. 9 becomes:
top of the pay compare well with the analytical model. It
is worth pointing out that no tuning of the analytic at model
u=-Sl&= ~ % (A.1O)
was done to obtain the results shown. A more detailed 2npr ASO dr
comparative study is required to validate the assumptions
made in the analytical model. By substituting for velocity in Eqn. A.8, rearranging,
integrating and assuming R= >> TW we obtain:

k. paASO A@
q = 2nRz (All)
1. A simple model for the cyclic steam process has been
developed. Within the limitations described in the pa-
per, the model provides reasonable results. One set of units that satisfy the above equation is:
2. The model requires further testing and tuning with q + rn9/ day
good field data.
l’w, R= -Bm
3. The predicted response of the reservoir to steam in-
jection by both the analytical and numerical models k.m~
is similar.
a+ m2/ day
A* -Dm2/ dayz

v, * m2/ day
Derivation of the Flow Ea uation:
The potential difference A@ is defined as:
The Darcy’s Law in radial form is:

(Al) A* = ~+g Ah sin(~ (A. 12)

where the potential is defined as: wh~re o is the angle between the tilted hot oil zone and
the formation bed. Thus:
(A.2)
sin(8) = * @ 13)
z
the area &l is:
and
dA = Znrdf (A.3)
R==~ (A. 14)
Using the kinematic viscosity, Eqn. A. 1 can be written as:
In customary English units the flow equation may be
(A.4) written as:

Integrating Eqn. A.4 with the assumptions of pseudo k. (#d@

q = 1.87RZ (144*+ Ah>
steady-state flow in the hot oil zone and a steady-state ma v. in (R=/ rw )-o.5 z
heat conduction we obtain:
Znk A@ (A. 15)
JO- + (A.5)
q = ln(R=/rW)–0.5
A similar equation was assumed to be also valid for
~ ;d~~,~lt@ a simple expression for the integral, Butler the water phase:
use the following correlation for oil viscosi- kw QaASw
~ qw = L87R= (144++ Ah>
~vw ln(R=/TW)-0.5 z
+= (*m”
8-
(A.6)
(A. 16)

The exponent w is usually between 3 and 4 for heavy oils. When production begins the viscosity is calculated as
If the velocity of the steam - oil interface is u and if a functilon of the average temperature. Thus u@V~ rather
the heat transfer across the interface is assumed to be than v= is used in Equation (A. 15).
only by conduction, the temperature ahead of the inter- .
fac for a steady state advance may be approximated
byl%.
Mr. Gontijo was supported by Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.
T-TR
— = ~ -u(I a
(A.7) during this study. Other financial support was provided by
T. - TR Stanford Reservoir Simulation Industrial Affiliates and
 A SIMPLE ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR SIMULATING HEAVY OIL RECOVERY BY
) CYCLIC STEAM IN PRESSU :DEPLETED RESERVOIRS SPE 13037
Chevron Oil Field Research Company. CMG provided ac- = radial distance f t (m )
cess to its thermal simulator and Mr. Barry Rubin assisted = well radius, ~t (m)
with the use of that simulator.
= heated zone radius, ft (m)
= radial distance along the hot oil zone, f t (m)

= parameters used in the oil viscosity correla- = residual oil saturation in the presence of steam
tions = residual oil saturation in the presence of water
= cross sectional area (cmz) = initial water saturation
= dimensionless factor for radial flow = average water saturation
= specific heat of water, Btu / lb. “F (kJ/ kg ‘K) = normalized water maturation
= dimensionless factor that accounts for radial = dimensionless time for radial heat losses
heat losses = dimensionless time for vertical heat losses
= dimensionless factor that accounts for vertical = injection period, days
heat losses = Soa’k Vlnw, days
= dimensionless factor that accounts for heat = average temperature of the heated zone, “F
rem.~ved with ~..——-
nrnduced fluids (“c)

= steam quality at downhole conditions, = original reservoir temperature, “F (w)

(mass fraction)
= downhole steam temperature, “F (“C)

= gravitational acceleration = = temperature at standard conditions, ‘F (“C)

= velocity of the steam-oil interface growth
32.17 ft/secz or 9.t31m/sec2
downwards, f t / sec (cm/ sec )
= steam zone thickness,~t (m)
= Darcy velocity (cm/ sec )
= formation thickness, ~t (m)
= steam zone volume, fts (ma)
= enthalpy of liquid water, Btu / lb, (kJ/ kg )
= volume of water in place, Bbl (mg)
= amount of heat injected during a cycle,
= cumulative water production, BPD (m3/ d)
Btu (kJ)
= -111””...
.-n,.m} n$ h~. t .arn~ininu in th~ reservo~r ah = reservoir thermal dlffueivity, f t2/ D (mz/ d)
“. . . . . . . “... . . . ...= . . . ----- - -----
= pressure drawdown, psi (kPa )
the end of a cycle, Btu (kJ)
= time step size, days
= reservoir thermal conductivity,
= porosity, (fraction)
Btu/ f t.D. “F (kJ/m.tt, “K)
= potential, f t2/ secz (mz/ secz)
= effective permeability to oil, Darcy
= oil viscosity (cp )
= effective permeability to steam, Darcy
= steam viscosity (cp )
= effective permeability to water, Darcy
= water viscosity (cp )
= relative permeability to oil, (fraction)
= kinematic oil viscosity, (CS )
= relative permeability to water, (fraction)
= kinematic oil viscosity at average temperature,
= latent heat of vaporization at downhoie concii-
(Cs )
tions, lftu/ lb (kJ/ kg )
= kinematic viscosity of oil at steam tempera-
= exponent in the oil viscosity correlation
ture, (cs )
= empirical factor to adjust water production
= kinematic viscosity of water at steam tempera-
volumetric oil heat cap ac it y, ture, (cs )
;tu/ft3.‘F (kJ/ ms”K)
= oil density, lb/ jtg (gin/ ml)
volumetric water heat capacity,
at standard conditions,
&u/ ftg.‘F (kJ/ m=. “K)
;b / f?: (g:/n;t~
volumetric rock heat capacity,
k/ fts.” F (kJ/ ms. OK) Pst = steam density, lb/ ft 3 (gin/ml)

= empirical exponent to adjust oil production Pw = water density, lb/f t ‘(gin/ ml)

= cumulative oil production, Bbl (mS) (pC), = volumetric heat capacity of reservoir material,
Btu/ f ts. OF (kJ/ mg.OC)
= volume of oil in place, Bbl (ms)
e = angle between eteam-oil interface and reser-
= downhole steam pressure, psia (kPa) voir bed, Degrees
= bottom hole flowing pressure, peia (kPa ) f = hot oil zone thickness, (cm)
= oil production rate, BPD (mg/ d)
= water production rate, BPD (m3/ d)
= amount of heat injected per unit mass of
1. Fontanilla, J.P. and Aziz, K.: “Prediction of Bottom-
eteam, Btu / lb. (kJ/ kg )
Hole Condltione for Wet Steam Injection Welle, ” J. Can.
= maximum heat entering in the reservoir in one Pet. Tech., March-April 1982, 82-88.
cycle, 13tw (kJ)
= eteam injection rate (cold water volume), 2. Jurinak, J.J.: “The Performance Characteristics of Hot
BPD (mg/ d) Flowing Steamflood Production Well”, SPE 12749, 1984
= rate of heat withdrawal from re eervoir wit h California Regional Meeting, April 11-13, 1984, Long
produced fluids, Btu/ D (kJ/ d) Beach, California.
SPE 13037 JULIO E. GONTIJ( Wl KHALID AZIZ 7

3. Boberg, T.C. and Lantz, R.B: “Calculation of the pro- 12. Butler, R. M., Stephens, D.J. and Weiss, M.: “The Verti-
duction Rate of a Thermally Stimulated Well”, cal Growth of Steam Chambers in the In-Situ Thermal
-k In.?.?.
~.PeLTe~i~. ,U=u. la~fl) RI !3-1 t32?:
.- -, 1---- --—.-L Recovery of Heavy Oils”, Research Department, Esso
Resources Canada Limited, Calgary, Aiberta, 1980.
4. Seba,R.D. and Perry, G.E.: “A Mathematical Model of
Repeated steam Soaks of Thick Gravity Drainage 13. Farouq Ali, S.M.: “Steam Injection Theories - A Unified
Reservoirs”, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 87-94. Approach’, paper SPE 10746 presented at the Califor-
nia Regional Meeting of the SPE, San Francisco, March
5. Kuo, C.H., Shain, S.A. and Phocas, D.M.: “A Gravity 24-26, 1982.
Drainage Model for the Steam Soak Process”, SPEJ
(Jan. 1970) 119-126. 14. Vogel, V.: “Simplified Heat Calculations of
Steamflood”, paper SPE 11219 presented at the 5fih
e“. lm”~a T . IICYCN-C steam Reservoir Model for Viscous SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhlbitlon,
““.. -s, e..
New 0~1-”rQ
. .“- .-, 1A-
—-, September
— 26-29, 1982.
Oil, Pressure Depleted, Gravity Drainage Reservoirs”,
SPE 6544, 47* Annual California Regional Meeting of
the SPE of AIME, Bakersfield, April 13-15, 1977. 15. Van Lookeren: “Calculation Methods for Linear and
Radial Steam Flow in Oil Reservoirs”, J.Pet. Tech. (Jun.,
1963) 427-439. Paper SPE 6788 originally presented
l’. Myhi’11, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L.: “Steam Drive Corre-
!eti~n and prediction”, at SPE 52nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 173-
~i~n, ~~~Ver, Oct. 9-12,1977.
182.

8. Ershaghl, 1., A1-Adawiya, M.S. and Kagawan, V. D.: “A 16. Aydellote, S.R. and Pope, G-A.: “A Simplified Pretilctive
Graphical Method for Estimation of Production Model for Steam Performance”, J.Pet. Tech. (May,
Response from Cyclic Steam Stimulation Using Past 1983) 991-1002.
Performance Data”, paper SPE 11954 presented at
the 58* SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi- 17. Yortsos, Y.C. and Gavalas, G.R.: “Analytical Modeling of
tion, San Francisco, CA, October 5-8, 1963. Oil Recovery by Steam Injection: Part 1 - Upper
Bounds; Part 2- Asymptotic and Approximate Solu-
.:---.!! @IJ17TfA-Al 1 WI) 1 s2-~76 and 179-190.
9. Newman, C. H.: “A Mathematical Model of the Steam LIUIIS , 01 UII \ PI.., ----, - -

Drive Process - Applications”, SPE 4757, 1975, Califor-

nia Regional Meeting SPE of AIME, Ventura, April 1975. 18. Prats, M.: “Thermal Recovery”, Monograph - Volume 7,
SPE of AIME, Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of
10. Butler, R. M., Mctiab, G.S. and Lo, H. Y.: “’?’heOieti.Ca! AIME, 1982.
Studies on the Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil Durin
in-Situ Steam Heating”, paper presented at the 29t f 19. Gomaa, E. E.: “Correlations for Predicting Oil Recovery
Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference, Samia, by Steamflood’, J.Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1980) 325-332.
Ontario, Oct. 1-3, 1979.
20. Rubin, B. and Buchanan, W.L.: “A General Purpose
11. Butler, R.M. and Stephens, D.J.: “The Gravity Drainage Thermal Model”, SPE 11713, Proceedin@ of 1983 Cali-
of Steam-Heated Heavy Oil to Parallel Horizontal fornia Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, March
Wells”, paper presented at the 31* Annual ‘i’echnicai 23-25, 1983.
Meeting of The Petroleum Society of CIM in Calgary,
May 25-28, 1980.
 Table 1 Table 2

Input Data for F]eld and Base Cases Operational Data

Variable Value FIELD CASE - CYCLE No. BASE

CASE
Reservoir permeability 1.5 1 2 345 6 7 CYCLE
Porosity .32 —— . . — -—
Initial water saturation .25
OH viscosity at 1000F (cp) 5000. Steam injection rate (BPD) 647 905 953 972 954 1042 106,7 900
Oil viscosity at 3000F (cp) 12. Injection time (D) 6 9 866 7 7 7
Well radius (ft)l .31 Soalc Time (D) 5 2 10 12 9 10 11 7
Residual oil saturation to steam .05 Dowmhole st-m temperature ( F) 360 330 330 300 300 300 300 350
Residual oil saturation to water .25 Dowmhole steam quality .7 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 5
● .5
Initial reservoir temperature ~F) 110. Production time (D) 55 146 79 98 135 136 148 120
Mhimurn oil rate allowed (BPD) 1.
Maximum liquid production (BPO) 800.
Reservoir thermal conductivity #3tu/ft D.°F) 24.
Reservoir thermal diffusivity (ft /D) .48
011density at :standard conditions (lb/ft3) 61.0
Water density at standard conditions (lb/ft3) 62.4
Time step size (D) 1.
Pattern araa (acras) .508
Pay thickness (ft) 80.
Zones (layers) 4.

.... ......
T lk=’=-’’’’’~
z
...’.. .. ,... ... .. ”,..:
.. ...... .,..,.,’.
____ ____ ___ ___ -.. .,..,. .,..”.”... :.’. .. .. . . . . .’.”.’., , . !. .’:...‘.;.’;..
. . . . ..c. ,..,...:: .
,, ..-,., . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .
. . . . . .. —---- --——- -— —--, - .,. ,. ..”,’.
.... ... . .. .. .. . .. ... .. ... . .. ... . Sbwn
. mm ”::’.:
:::”, ‘,.’.::::”,“;; : :::::;,,:;;;::..:..:
.. . .. . .. :,....” .“. . . ....> “...-..::,;.’ . .”’...:,”.. .4 . ...’. .:. .
Oo@oooo*

-.---—
---————
—--—
————
——
—--
—-—
? . .. .
. ..
Cofdd __________ 0 ● f) OoOo

—.-——-—-—
-——--——-—
——-——
—
: oif 00,%- — zone ---————- --- 0.O:OOO‘“ooo:o*hof &/a 0’ 0. 3*o~04~
0 o_ lL9-JLJLLJL_A_A

——
—-2:% Al_2A-O:_oL”&bA0
_—_— —— --—- —— --
:.: ,’..” h
E
. . . . .. .
,,, . . . —- —— -—-—-- -— —-—
.,. ---- ———- -. —-—
.’ .,.,
4--––*IT*I ––———-–--– I —.-——— -— cofd oil zone -———— —- —.- ___
;.;.,., R ___- _-–-,—
I I F–--––––––––––-––––– –--–—
—————— —— —-- -———.
J_ &.::.. _----_---_n..:.
n
.
Fig. l—Frontal displacement model (Refs. 3-8). Fig. 2-3team overlay model (Refs. 9-14).
 m - meosumd

!40-

I
$aa I
~ 40 I
& 30. I model

20 !

I
1a.

: ;

~0204060 mmol~l~ IW lco

tiina (doya)

Fig.6-Comparison with field data and Jones model — ttwd cycle

Fig. 3-Conceptual modal pmpossd in this study.

Data from Midway Sunset Fieid

Western Kern County - California

1
XO>$
Fig.7-Comparison with fiiid dala and Joned model — fourth cycle.
$-f nresent

Fig. ~mpariaon with fiild data and JoneS model — first cycle

L!lm&’i
~0w--
timm (doya)
,44 160

F@. EkCompariaon with field data and Jcmea’model — fifth cycle.

‘t u

s~E13037
 0,

“\.
~,
\.
\
\
“\
‘\
‘-l
i
\..
\
‘\
‘\
‘\

~ .

4
\ I
“\ \ I
“\ i

\
‘\ m \:
e
‘\ 6 \
-i
“\
“
II \.
I
‘\.
-., g .*s ‘)..
i, km
‘\l
“\
+: I
!
\
“\
“\ \
/
=..=
‘\
-\
‘\,
\ .i

L.
‘\
‘1 I
I
I
\

i
\\

,,,,,,
=.\-
-1 )
I
‘\ \
\
“\ \
“\ \
“\ \
“% I
----

-\
‘)\
‘\ \

“\ \
\
“\
\
“\
‘\
k. ‘\
0
A
. i
(IW ~r} ‘N

SP E13037
 ----
./
/
/’
/
./

,/

time (dot’s)
fig. lS-Effsct of pattern arsa or well spscing on cumulative production.
fqg.14-Hfect& steam injection rsfe of volume Injected on cumulsfiw prdw~~

“i t = 2 days ./
40- soak

m-
----
/
/“
s

●a
90-

w
e m
0 time (dws)

Fig. 17—Effecf 01 steam soak time on Cumulefim Pti~~

Fig. 16-Effscf ot steem Iemperstum on cumuldiw pmductiOn
:

I
~ 5000 I ++ I
z
L I
*
L

: 4000 -
0
c
.—
+
c *
.—
0 3000 - *
+ 0
0

-i +
4

: 2000 - / #
** J+: ;1
a)
.—
> +
0 ;: #
(analytical Madel
u
LUmerical Model
* 300 psia
* + 200 psia
3
E *+ o 150 psia
# 75 psia
2
I
n
u

o 100 200 300

flil
-. Production Time in Bays
Flg.lE-COmpmiSOn ofpmdicttisby anumericalnwdel andthepx anatyticaltiel. i%~mWlues9@ am
intial ~=~ir pressures at the top cdpay, Cumulative production oi oil is slum’n for e=h bm~sw dunw me
computation.

*
*

c 3000
.—
c
0
.— *+ t #

I
+ J
*: #
:0
$ 2000 .
u *+: #
o t: #
k &# Rnaigt ical Model
a)
~ ~umep i Ca I Mode I
-: 1000 * 300
u
— /?
A
+ 200
psia

psia
* :d
3
o 150 psia
E
# ?5 psio
2 I I
0
o 100 200 300

seEi3037