SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 19659

Cyclic Steam Pilot in Gravity Drainage Reservoir

R.C.S. Chiou* and T.S. Murer, Mobil Producing U.S. Inc.
*SPE Member

Copyright 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

r
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio, TX, October 8-11, 1989.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract sub~itted by the author(s). Contents of t~e paper,
as presented have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented, does not necessanly ref~ect
any position ~f the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE "!leetings are subjec.t to publication review by Edi~orial Co~mittees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. lllustrat1o~s may not be cop1ed. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

of primal:y oil per day· per well. ~e princiJ?Cil

ABSTRAcr producing mechanism has been solut1.on gas dr1.ve
with gravity drainage playing an ~ing. role
'!his paper describes the perfonnance of a cyclic as the pressure was depleted. CUmulat1.ve prl.lllinY
steam pilot project in a steeply dipping (40 production by 1986 was o~y 4%.of ~e original
degrees) heavy oil reservoir in the Sho-Vel-Tl.nn oil-in-place because of high v1.scos1.ty.
Field in southem Oklahoma. Steam injection was
initiated in 1986 and there have been nine cyclic In 1962, an in-situ combustion pilot was
steam stimulations on four new wells to date. initiated in the reseJ:Voir (to the north of the
pilot area) by Mobil. '!his test operated
The cyclic steam response shows a significant through 1968 with only limited success.
increase in oil production, as expected, It is believed that the steep dip of the Fourth
relative to pre-stimulation production. The Deese sand had a detrimental effect on the
cyclic steam operation is quite unique because propagation of the combustion front. OJring. the
of its extremely high injection pressure (up to same period, Shell conducted a steamfood proJect
1900 psi at the surface). In addition, incre- by injecting steam into four up-dip wells in the
mental production from existing offset wells neamy Hefner Unit. Some surface fissures dev-
shows evidence of intel::well cammuriication of eloped with steam eruptions. '!his project
injected steam. Optimization of difficult field lasted for four years and was tenninated when
operating controls has a major inpact on the it became uneconomic to continue operation.
cyclic steam perfonnance in this reservoir.
Techniques developed from the pilot experience A pilot for the Cox~ Un~t to evalua~ the
may be extended to other areas where production thennal potential in th1.s f1.eld was desirable
is limited by problems inherent with high due to high capital and operating costs of, ,
injection pressure, high downhole tenperature, steamflooding. Other reasons were uncertamt1.es
and excessive sand enb:y. Use of analytical about the reseJ:Voir characteristics and the
and numerical models has provided insight in recovery efficiency of cyclic steam andjor
the salient aspect of cyclic steaming and steamflood in this thin, steeply dipping hea':'Y
aids in the evaluation of pilot perfonnance. oil sand. '!he initial plan was to test cycl1.c
steam in a pilot. The conversion to a ~1
INT.ROIX.JcriON steam drive would depend on whether grav1.ty
drainage could provide the continu~ ~ .to
The Cox Penn Sand Unit encompasses five Deese drain the entire pilot area. The fi.rSt. p1.lot
Sand zones and one Hoxbar producing zone. Four well was drilled, cored, and completed m June,
of the producing reservoirs have characteristics 1986 and steam operations began in November,
desirable for thennal recovery. This paper is 1986.
concerned with the Fourth Deese reservoir only.
At the time of unitization in 1961, this heavy This paper describes the reservoir ~ its
oil sand was producing an estimated 2 barrels geology, optimization of field operat1.on under
cyclic steaming, project perfonnance, and the .
results of analytical and numerical model stuches
References and figures at end of paper. to aid in the evaluation of the pilot project.

319
 CYCLIC STEAM PIIDr m GRAVITY DRAINAGE RESERVOIR
2
RESERVOm CHARACI'ERISTICS
Geology
'lhe Cox Penn resenroir is part of of the
Pennsylvanian age Deese Group and was deposited
in a fluvio-del taic enviromnent. 'lhis
depositional envirornnent includes several
sub-enviromnents including distributary channel,
crevasse splay and distributary channel
abandomnent facies (Figure 1). 'lhe resenroir is
dipping to the west-southwest at about 400 and is
truncated on the updip side by an erosional
unconfonnity (Figure 2). The unconfobnity is
overlain by the Pennian age Pontotoc fonnation.
'lhe reset:Voir ranges in depth from 950 1 on the
eastern updip side to 2100 1 at the oil-water
contact on the western downdip edge. 'lhe
thickness of the reservoir ranges from about 30 1
to over 100 1 • An isochore and structure maps
are shown in Figures 3 and 4. 'lhe sand is
vertically and laterally continuous with no shale
breaks or penneability barriers discernible by
logs.
Rock and Fluid Properties
The reset:Voir rock is an unconsolidated, well
sorted, fine to meditnn grained sand. 'lhe sand
contains 85% to 90% quartz with few if any
reactive minerals present. 'lhe porosity from log
and core analysis varies from 25% to 33% with an
average of 28%. '!he penneability from core
analysis ranges from 800 nrl to 9600 nrl with a
geometric average of about 1600 nrl.
'lhe rock is saturated with a 14-16 degrees API
oil which has a viscosity of 2000 cp at reset:Voir
conditions. CUrrent oil saturation as derived
from log analysis is about 80%. 'lhe oil-in-place
is estimated to be 1615 bbljacre-ft. Table 1 is
a summary of rock and fluid properties.
CYCLIC STEAM OPERATIONS
steam operation in the pilot project started in
November, 1986. To date, a total of nine steam
stimulations has been implemented at Cox Penn.
Although the project perfonnance was generally
successful, steam injection and hot fluid
production did cause several operating problems.
'lhe following is a summary of the more relevant
problems.
Tight Emulsion
At the beginning of the project, production
operation was shut down for about two months due
to difficulties in breaking the tight emulsion.
'lhe unit 1 s central tank battery was not
adequately equipped to process the heavy crude to
pipeline specifications. In order to treat the
emulsion successfully, it requires the install-
ation of an additional horizontal heater treater
in conjunction with a fonnaldehyde based de-
mulsifier.
Wellhead EQuignent Failures
Packing on the wellhead failed during the initial
steaming operation and caused downtime of about
320
SPE 19659
20 days. In February, 1989, threaded outlets at
the wellhead were broken off while attenpting to
open the valves to blowdown pressure in
preparation for production. Steam along with
produced fluids blew out for five days before the
well was brought under control. New
specifications for construction of wellhead
valving and piping assemblies for steaming
operations were detennined using design pressure
and temperature of 1950 psi and 600 degrees F,
respectively. No threaded outlets are allowed at
the above conditions and flanged connections are
incorporated piping to pennit disconnection of
items such as instnnnents, valves, etc. A
schematic of wellhead equipment for high pressure
steam injection is shown in Figure 5.
'lhennal Well completions
Originally it was not considered necessary to
gravel pack the steam well, however, after
analyzing the unconsolidated core from Well #66,
a wire-wrapped screen was nm with gravel pack
inside the 7" casing using sintered bauxite - a
relatively expensive inert granular packing
material. 'lhe internal gravel pack results in a
liner ID of only 2.922 11 in comparison to the
tubing OD of 2. 703" . 'lhe small clearance greatly
reduces the pump efficiency. FUrther, only a
lower portion of the pay interval at Well #66 was
perforated. Recent well completions at Cox Penn
use a slotted-liner and gravel pack of
conventional silica sand over the entire Fourth
Deese intet:Val. 'lhis completion has proven
successful in both sand control and cyclic steam
perfonnance.
lDw Steam Injectivitv
Well #77 has experienced extremely high pressure
during steam injection. '!his well was drilled to
a TD of 1610 1 and casing was set at the midpoint
of the Fourth Deese sand. 'lhe lower portion of
the sand was gravel packed with urrlerrearning
slotted liner. It is uncertain whether the
conpletion practice or the poor sand quality or
both leads to low steam injectivity. At a low
steam injection rate of 300 BPD, the surface
injection pressure was as high as 1900 psi.
Wellbore heat loss estimated by computer
models1,2 for this well shows that all steam has
condensed to hot water (that is 0 % sandface
steam quality) . It is likely that the high heat
loss aggravates the injectivity problem because
the injected hot water is much more viscous than
steam, even though its relative penneability may
be higher.
'Ihe problem was solved by the use of insulated
tubing to reduce heat loss3. Model calculations
of heat loss shows that the sandface steam
quality can be increased from 0% to 44% in Well
#77 (surface quality = 50%). canparison of
calculated downhole steam quality vs. depth
between insulated tubing and bare (uninsulated)
tubing at Well #77 injection conditions is shown
in Figure 6.
'Ihennal Stress in Casing
Wellbore heat loss, apart from being a loss. of
 C. S. aiiOU AND A. S. MURER
SPE 19659
energy, also leads to an increase in the casing
temperature. Increased temperature caused casing
to build up stress since cemented casing can not
elongate. The stresses that result when heated
casing cools have been studied by Willhite and
Dietrich4. They showed that if some maximum
allowable temperature is exceeded, the casing is
likely to fail later when it cools. Thennal
stress calculation using the Holiday methods
indicates that the typical casing temperature
during steam injection at cox Penn may exceed the
maximum allowable temperature for K-55 casing.
In new completions it is recormnended that high
grade casing, Ir80, be used in place of K-55
casing. The calculation shows that in existing
wells insulated tubing is needed to protect the
K-55 casing from excessive thennal stress.
Pumping Problems
In the design of gravel pack, several different
sizes of granular packing materials were used for
sand control. The gravel in Well #77 and #89 was
12/20 mesh sand and both wells experienced
sanding problems. Sieve analysis made available
following the completion of Well #89 indicated
that a design of 16/30 or 20/40 gravel should
minimize the sanding problem. In addition to
sanding problems, several wells also experienced
"gas pound" which was identified by production
varying greatly from day to day and showing
constantly changing dynamometer card trace as the
gasjsteam voltnne in the pump changed. Both
sanding and gas pound caused difficulties in
maintaining production rates during the initial
production while the fluids were hot, resulting
in poor perfonnance.
Real progress is being made in the pumping system
design to overcome well problems. Recent
problem-free production operation at Well #92 has
proved that the mechanical top hold down or
RWAC type rod pump equipped with shortened
travelling valve plug and standing valve ·cage
(see Figure 7 for details) effectively reduces
gas (steam) locking and can handle sanding
properly. D.lring the first month of production
at Well #92, the pump was set about 200 feet
above the Fourth Deese sand where dCMilh.ole
temperature was estilllated as high as sooo F. '!he
higher pump setting might also contribute to the
good perfonnance at #92. The pump was lowered to
the midpoint of the sand after the fluid level
dropped and has since been operating nonnally.
CYCLIC STEAM PROJECr PERFORMANCE
The first cycle of steam injection was initiated
in November, 1986 at Well #66. Figure 8 shows
the production responses for three cycles
observed to date. 'lhree .ilnportant features are
indicated by this figure. First, there was a
two-month shut-in during the first cycle
production due to operating problems. Second,
the peak production in the second cycle was
probably caused by interwell connnunication,
because, at the same time the peak production
occurred, steam was injected into Well #77, some
600 feet away (see well locations on Figure 3) •
When #77 was later placed on production,
production at #66 dropped correspondingly.
321
3
Apparently, the high injection pressure at #77
created pressure cornmunition. As #77 was placed
on production, production at #66 reduced as the
reservoir pressure was dissipated. We do not
know if fracturing actually occured in the
unconsolidated sand. The temperature survey at
#66 indicates that the high temperature near the
offset wellbore reenforces the interwell
communication. The third feature involves the
significantly high water production in the third
cycle. A plot of water-oil ratio (VK>R) vs.
cumulative oil production clearly illustrates the
drastic increase on water production (Figure 9).
Possible explanations for the cause of high water
production include (1) reduced pump efficiency as
a result of the internal gravel pack completion
as mentioned in Cyclic Steam Operations, and ( 2)
depletion of steam condensate: while about 55, 000
barrels of steam has been injected into #66, only
8, 600 barrels of water has been produced to date.
Figure 10 shows the two-cycle production
responses for Well #77. As mentioned earlier,
this well experienced severe injectivity problem.
The typical injection behavior is shown in Figure
11, indicating extremely high injection pressure
and low steam quality and injection rate. The
poor perfonnance from the first cycle is related
to insufficient heat input due to low steam
quality and high wellbore heat loss. In the
second cycle, the surface steam quality was
improved from 25 % to 50% while wellhead
equipment was re-designed to withstand operating
pressure at 1900 psi (as corrpared to 1400 psi in
the first cycle). '!he typical oil rate versus
time curve for the second cycle as seen in Figure
10 shows an excellent oil-steam ratio (OSR) at
o. 8. It appears that the injected steam with
extremely high pressure and hence temperature,
even at zero sandface steam quality, is still
capable of perfonning effective stimulation.
Figures 12 and 13 show the cyclic steam
perfonnance for Wells #89 and #92, respectively.
The erratic initial production response at #89
was caused by pumping problems. Using the newly
designed pumping system (Figure 7) and improved
producing procedures, a textbook type steam
perfonnance was obtained at #92. '!he cumulative
oil production in the first two months has
reached 7, 300 barrels. The above production
responses demonstrate the importance of
production operations which include design of
pumping system, sand control, and pump location.
In addition to production responses from the
steamed wells, a m.nnber of existing producers
have shown incremental production as illustrated
in Figure 14. It is obvious that these offset
wells have responded to steam injection into all
four steamed wells. 'Ibis result again indicates
that interwell communication plays an i.n'portant
role in the production behavior at cox Penn. It
appears that the incremental production is
related to the pressure response, since the
offset wells are not hot.
Table 2 lists the details of operating conditions
and perfonnance data for the cyclic steam
project. As mentioned earlier, a quantity that
is indicative of the success of a steam
 CYCLIC STEAM PIIDr m GRAVITY DRAINAGE RESERVOIR
4
stimulation is the OSR. However, the actual
heat injected may vary greatly with the davnhole
steam quality. In Table 2, OSR is detennined
based on volume of steam injected and equivalent
volume of steam at the downhole condition. The
enthalpy of the steam downhole is converted to
the equivalent volume of injected steam based on
a reference enthalpy of 1000 Btujib as suggested
by Myhill and Steigmeier6. Note that the
equivalent volume of steam injected is a measure
of the actual thennal energy injected into the
resel:Voir, which takes into account the effects
of wellbore heat loss, steam quality, and
injection ten-perature/pressure.
The data in Table 2 shows that the variations in
i.ndividual well responses are wide, as discussed
previously. Examination of the operating
conditions and resenroir characteristics provided
the basis for explaining such variations. Figure
15 shows the comparison of cox Penn 1 s cyclic
steam OSRs with those in several fields in
california and the COld I..ak.e field, canada. The
scattered data indicate that such a comparison is
not quite meaningful without an in depth study of
various resenroir and operating parameters in
different fields.
MODEL S'IUDY AND PERFORMANCE PREDICriON
The mechanisms involved in cyclic steam are
tliverse and complex. In addition to operating
conditions, important resenroir factors affecting
the steam stimulation behavior have been reported
in literature 7, 8. There is no doubt that a
reduction in the viscosity of the crude in the
heated zone near the well greatly affects the
production response. Further, the driving forces
present in the rese:rvoir initially, including
resel:Voir pressure, gravity drainage, and
solution-gas drive, are often highly important
during the production phase. IAiring soaking and
production, condensation of steam tends to reduce
the pressure at and near the well, thus promoting
flow.
COnsidering the above complex mechanisms of
cyclic steaming, it is easy to see that the
process is difficult to model. The applicability
of a predictive model depends on the proper
representation of the resenroir fluid properties
and producing mechanism. Several techniques have
been developed to calculate steam stimulation
perfonnance 9-13. In the following we shall
consider first a simplified, analytical model for
calculating steam stimulation behavior.
Boberg and Lantz 1 s9 method uses the Marx-
Iangenheim equation14 to calculate the initial
radius heated to steam ten-perature during the
injection phase of the process. Then an analy-
tical solution of the equations for ten-perature
decline as conduction occurs both vertically and
radially is employed. A block diagram indicating
the steps necessacy to conduct a continuous
energy balance throughout the calculation is
shown in Figure 16.
In this study, the Boberg and Lantz model has
been modified to take into account the effect of
gravity drainage of the steeply dipping
322
SPE 19659
resel:Voir. The schematic of the model is
illulstrated in Figure 17. '!he downdip of oil
flow rate is proportional to the area of
cross-section nonnal to the bedding plane in the
steam zone. An approximate stepwise approach is
used to account for further ten-perature reduction
owing to withdrawal of energy with the produced
fluids.
A comparison of actual versus calculated oil and
water production rates is shown in Figure 18.
The actual perfonnance shown for Well #92 is
considered typical under nonnal operating
conditions at cox Penn. Since the model is
developed about a coupled energy balance, fluid
flow, and time relationship, it is .important to
compare the calculated and obse:rved temperature
histo:ry of the heated zone. The downhole
temperature was measured with a surface-recording
thennocouple tool. The thennocouple is attached
to the exterior of the tubing near the sand. The
measured downhole terrperatures compare fairly
well with wellhead and surface steam temperat-
ures. However, during·the production phase,
the measured temperatures are generally
significantly lower than the calculations as
shown in Figure 19. This discrepancy can be
attributed to the thennocouple tool which
measures only the bottom hole flowing fluid
temperature. Evidence has shown that there is
a difference between the average heated zone
temperature and the flowing fluid temperature at
the wellbore, depending on the operation phases -
injection, soaking, or production. Great care
should be exercised when comparing the measured
temperature data with the analytical model
results.
Although the analytical model offers indispen-
sable insight into the process and can be used
either to make simple sensitivity studies or to
screen prospective projects, there are limitat-
ions to these models. The analytical model used
in this study is not suitable for calculating
producing IDR in later cycles (like the abse:rved
WOR shown in Figure 9) or for cases where
intawell communication can not be neglected.
Neither can the analytical model address the
effects of penneability variations, gravity
segregation, or positions of completion
inte:rvals. Another major limitation of the
analytical model is that it can not calculate
spatial fluid pressure, temperature, and
saturation distributions.
Numerical simulatorsl5-17 that solve
finite-difference equations representing the two-
and three-dimensional differential equations
describing heat transfer and fluid flow in porous
media are capable of addressing nDSt problems
encountered using analytical models. A pre-
limina:ry study when Mobil 1 s thennal simulator
(THERMS) has provided detailed insight into the
mechanism and recove:ry behavior of cyclic steam
stimulation. Figure 20 shows how the pressure
and temperature distributions in the rese:rvoir
change with time during the production phase of a
typical steam stimulation at cox Penn. The
calculated result shows that the pressure
transient propogates nn.tch farther into the cold
resenroir than the temperature variation. It
 c. S. CHIOU AND A. S. MURER
SPE 19659
appears that although the steam zone is quite
small, inflow of oil is still likely due to the
resenroir pressure gradient caused by steam
injection as well as gravity drainage. For
comparison, the corresponding oil saturation
(Figure 21) fonns a spatial distribution between
those for the steam zone (temperature distrib-
ution) and pressure transient. We believe that
the numerical simulator can be a viable engineer-
ing tool for evaluating the effects on recovery
of altered operating conditions and for making a
detailed prediction of future performance.
FUIURE PlANS
Based on the above evaluation of the pilot
project, the following actions are planned or
under consideration:
1. complete the development of the pilot project
with new wells in the up-, mid-, and
low-structure of the ~pping Fourth Deese
sand to evaluate the effects of structure and
sealingjnonsealing unconfonnity.
2. Establish operating guidelin~ such as
optimal time periods per cycle for steam in-
jection, soak, and production based on field
production responses as well as the mnnerical
simulator.
3. Extend the numerical model study to histocy
match the cyclic steam responses using
operating and geologic data to modify previous
simulator input. The histocy match will
establish confidence in calculations
involving predictions of future performance.
4. Conduct a study with the help of the
numerical simulator and future project
performance to address the following issues:
1) whether or not to coiWert to steam drive,
2) how to aCCOITplish it, and 3) when would be
the optimum time.
CONClUSIONS
1. The cyclic steam response shows a significant
increase in oil production relative to pre-
stimulation production. Typical Peak prod-
uction is about 150 OOPD per well. 'Ihe cyclic
steam operation is quite unique because of its
extremely high steam injection pressure.
2. In addition to production responses from the
steamed wells, a number of offsetting producers
have shown incremental production. '!his result
indicates that intel:well conmrunication is an
important productive mechanism in cyclic steaming
this reservoir.
3. The variations in individual well responses to
cyclic steaming were wide. 'Ihe response was
significantly affected by field operations
including well completion, punping system
design, sand production, and steam inject-
ivity.
4. A silrqJlified, analytical model, the modified
Boberg-lantz method has been used successfully
to match the production histocy and downnole
323
5
temperature of a number of steam-stimulated
wells. '!he analytical model, however, is not
capable of predicting producing water-oil ratio
in later cycles or detennining the effect of
intenvell communication, well completion,
etc.
5. Numerical thennal simulation is needed to aid
in the evaluation of the current cyclic steam
pilot and in the decision regarding the
coiWersion from cyclic steam to steam drive.
ACKNOOLEOOEMENTS
we wish to express our appreciation to Mobil
Exploration and Prcrlucing U.S. for allowing
publication of this paper. We also thank the
members of Reservoir Management Team for the cox
Penn Unit for their contributions to the
successful ilrqJlementation of the project.
Special recognition is due B. R. Alameddine of
Mobil Dallas Research Iaboratocy for his help on
the model study using the numerical thennal
sinrulator.
REFERENCES
1. Farouq Ali, s. M. : Thennal Recovery Programs
For HP 41C Calculators, (1981)
2. Enertech computing corp. , wr-STFAM Program,
Rev. 1.1, Advanced Thennal Wellbore Simulation
For Steam Wells, (1988)
3. Aeschliman, D. P., Meldau, R. F., and Noble, .
N. J. , "Thennal Efficiency of a Steam Inj ectJ.on
Test With Insulated '1\lbing," Paper SPE
11735, presented at the California Regional
Meeting, March 23-25, 1983
4. Willhite, G. P. and Dietrich, W. K.:
"Design criteria for Completion of Steam
Injection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1967)
15-17.
5. Holliday, G. H. : "calculation of Allc:Mable.
Maximum casing Temperature 'lb Prevent TensJ.on
Failures in 'lhennal Wells, " Presented at
Petrolemn Engineering conference, Tulsa
(sep. 1969)
6. Myhill, N. A. and Stegemeier, G. L.:
"Steam Drive correlation and Prediction,"
J. Pet. Tech, (Feb. 1978) 173-182
7. Prats, l-:1.: 'lhennal Recovery, SPE Monograph
No. 7 (1986)
8. Meldau, R. F., Shipley, R. G., and coats, K.
H.: "Cyclic Gas/Steam Stinrulation of Heavy
-oil Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (oct. 1981)
1990-1998
9. Boberg, T. c. and Iantz, R. B.: "Calculation
of the Prcrluction Rate of a 'Ihennally
Stinrulated Well, " J. Pet. Tech. ( Dec.
1966) 1613-1623
10. Towson, D. E. and Boberg, T. C.: "Gravity
Drainage in 'lhennally stimulated Wells,"
J. can. Pet. Tech. (oct.-Dec. 1967) 1-6
 6 CYCLIC STEAM PII.Dl' m GRAVITY DRAINAGE RESERVOIR SPE 19659

11. Clbsmann, P. J., :Ratliff, N. W., arrl Truitt, 14. Marx, J. W. arrl Iangenheim, R. N. :
N. E.: "A· Steam-Soak Model for Depletion-type "Reservoir Heating by Hot Fluid Injection,"
Reservoir," J~ Pet. Tech. (June 1970) 757 Trans. AIME, Vol. 216 (1959) 31220.

12. Jones, J.: "Cyclic Steam Reservoir Model for 15. coats, K. H., Geo:rqe, w. D., Cllu, c., arrl
Viscous Oil, Pressure Depleted, Gravity Marcum, B. E.: "Three-Dimensional Simulation
Drainage Reservoirs'" SPE Paper 6544 of Steamflooding, " Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec.
presented at 47th Annual california Regional 1974) 573
Meeting, April 13-15, 1977
16. coats, K. H.: "A Highly Implicit Steamflood
13. Gontijo, J. E. arrl Aziz K.: "A silllple Analy- Model," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1978) 369
tical Model for Simulating Heavy Oil Recovery
by Cyclic Steam in Pressure-Depleted 17. Herrera, J. Q. arrl Hanzlik, E. J.: "Steam
Reservoirs," SPE Paper 13037 presented at Stimulation History Match of Multiwell Pa.ttem
the 59th Amrual Teclmical Conference arrl in the S1-B Zone, Cat canyon Field," SPE
EXhibition, Sep. 16-19, 1984 Paper 7969 presented at the California Regional
Meeting, Apr. 18-20, 1979

TABLE 1. ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES OF

FOURTH DEESE SAND, COX PENN SAND UNIT

GORSS VERTICAL THICKNESS, FT 75.

NET VERTICAL THICKNESS, FT 60
POROSITY, % 26
AREA, ACRE 140
INITIAL OIL SATURATION, % 80
CURRENT OIL SATURATION, % 77
OOIP, MMBO 13.5
PERMEABILITY, MD 750 - 1500
RESERVOIR PRESSURE, PSI 275
RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE, DEGREE F 80
OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR, RB/STB 1.04
OIL GRAVITY, DEGREE API 14 - 16
OIL VISCOSITY AT RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE, CP 2000
OIL VISCOSITY AT 300 DEGREE F, CP 11
DIP ANGLE, DEGREE 40

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF COX PENN CYCLIC STEAM PILOT PROJECT PERFORMANCE

(1)
INJ. INJ. SUR. INJ. HEAT D.H. D.H. EQUIV.
CYCLE STEAM I NJ ECTI ON STEAM PRES. RATE QUAL. TEMP. TUBING TUBING LOSS QUAL ENTHALPY STEAM STEAM SOAK
DURATION DAYS PSI BPD % F FT BTU/HR.FT % MMBTU BBL BBL DAYS

66-1 11/03/66-12/16/66 44 1000 700 76 545 BARE 1479 491 67 4663 16109 13930 47
66-2 10/24/67-11/10/67 16 650 888 80 530 BARE 1479 454 72 5063 15088 14443 26
77-1 12/04/67-01/05/86 33 1400 375 25 586 BARE 1495 563 0 2279 12100 6501 29
77-2 05/23/66-06/21/66 25 1600 240 50 625 BARE 1495 626 0 1475 6831 4210 34
69-1 06/06/68-09/03/66 27 1570 650 75 600 INSU 1776 29 74 5476 16032 15629 8
66-3 09/13/68-10/04/68 22 880 684 74 530 BARE 1479 484 66 6225 19315 17760 14
92-1 10/21/66-11/20/86 26 1190 570 69 567 INSU 1476 44 68 4565 15641 13081 15
69-2 02/01/69-02/20/89

EQUIV. ( 2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

CYCLE OIL WATER OSR OSR SOR WOR PIR TP CDOR H K PE
BBL BBL B/B B/B B/B B/B B/B DAYS BOPD FT MD PSI
=====================================================================================================
66-1 4466 450 0.26 0.32 3.61 0.10 0.31 263 17 81 1500 200
66-2 6712 2064 0.56 0.60 1. 73 0.24 0.72 277 31 81 1500 200
77-1 2526 424 0.21 0.39 4.79 0.17 0.24 101 25 66 919 60
77-2 5431 2052 0.60 1. 29 1. 26 0.36 1.10 133 41 66 1148 270
89-1 5662 2167 0.35 0.36 2.83 0.36 0.49 77 74 66 1000 300
66-3 2236 4369 81 1500 200
92-1 7909 1573 69 834 310
89-2

NOTES:
(1) THE ENTHALPY AT THE DOWNHOLE CONDITION IS CONVERTED TO THE EQUIVALENT VILUME OF INJECTED STEAM
BASED ON A REFERENCE ENTHALPY OF 1000 BTU/IB.
(2) PIR = PRODUCTION-INJECTION RATIO
(3) TP =
TOTAL PRODUCING TIME
(4) CDOR = CALENDAR DAY OIL RECOVERY (OIL RECOVERY/TP)
(5) H = NET PAY
(6) K =
ESTIMATED PERMEABILITY FROM CORE OR WELL TESTS
(7) PE = ESTIMATED RESERVOIR PRESSURE

324
 .-:-: : : ~:~~r~~t~~ ~ ~/~~ ~~~/~ ~~~~~~~/~ ~~~~~ ~~~//~H~\H~\~~~~~~~ \~ \~ \~~ ~~~ ~~H~\~ ~~~ ~ West Permian Pontotoc Fm East

Fig. 1 -Depositional environment of the Cox Penn reservoir. Fig. 2- Schematic cross section of the Cox Penn reservoir.

"'
N
en

I~ • SteamWell
,.• SteamWell

• Existing Well • Existing Well

·············1····
i[J11 t .."'
fJ)
~
u
-
..0
0"-
\.1\
~
Fig. 3 -lsochore of the net sand in the 4th Deese. Fig. 4- Structural contours on top of the 4th Deese sand.
 SPE 19659

Pressure Transducer

PTS Lubricator

Flange
Connection
Wellhead
Thermocouple Flange

L Steam line

Fig. 5 -Wellhead equipment for high pressure steam injection

0
~Bare Tubing I

-- •Insulated Tubing
, I

400
'''
*
'
Li
~
'''
I
800
a
Q) I
I

0 f
I

1200
''I
,'
I
:4:
1600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Steam Quality,%
Fig. 6- Effect of insulated tubing on downhole steam quality.

326
 SPE 19 6 59

Pump Barrel - - - - - - u

Plunger &
Travelling
Valve

Standard Plug

Short Plug

Standard Short
Standing Standing
Valve Cage Valve Cage
Standard Full
Ported Open
Cage Cage

Fig. 7- Improved bottomhole pump design

160 ~----------------------------------------------------~
-Oil Rate
- -Water Rate
0 120
a..
cc I
a) •
w ••
••
CI:
c: 80 '•••
••••
0 I

,.,.••'
~ I
:J
"C
e
a.. 40

Jan 1 May3 Sept2 Jan3 May4 Sep 3 Jan 3

1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1989
Fig. 8 - Production responses for three cycles, Cox Penn Well #66.

10

...J
cc
cc
:::r
cc
cc
0
~
CI:

a!!.. 0.1
Q)
ca
~

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Cumulative Oil Produced, BBL
Fig. 9- Cyclic steam produced water-oil ratio, Cox Penn Well #66.

327
 SPE 19 6 59

120
-Oil Rate
- - - Water Rate
Cl 100
a..
co
a) 80
ca
a:
c: 60
0
~

~
(.)
::::::1
"'0 40
...
0
a..
20

S.•L, ...,,_,,,
0
Jan 1
·- ---
Mar2 May 2 Jul2 Sap 1 Nov 1 Jan 1
1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989

Fig. 10 - Production responses for two steam cycles, Cox Penn Well #77.

Cl 2000
a.. , -
, ..... ___ ,- ... -,
100

-_, ,
\
cc , ... ,
...0 .. Injection Pressure
\

'
\
\
I ' 80
Ci5 1500
I
~
a.. ' I

ca
a) ' \
\I
\
I
I

60
~
a:... .~
0 1000 co::::::1
~ 40
0
::::::1
C/) E
C/) ca
~ Q)
a.. 500 Ci5
~
0
c:
,-, ,_ /
_.,,.,---,
Injection Rate ......., .., --..
20

(.)
Q)
·c- 0
0
I
I

5
' ., /
10 15 20
' 25
0

Days After Steam Injection Started

Fig. 11 - Typical steam injection behavior in low injectivity well, Cox Penn Well #77.

180 --Oil Rate

160 - - -Water Rate
Cl
a.. 140
co
a) 120
ca
a: 100
c:
0 80
~
::::::1
"'0 60
e
a.. 40

20

0
Sep 1 Oct 1 Oct 31 Nov30 Dec30 Jan 29 Feb 28
1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989

Fig. 12- Production responses for cyclic steam, Cox Penn Well #89.

328
 SPE 19659
140 -Oil Rate
- - -Water Rate
120
0
a..
aJ 100
a)
ca
a: 80
c::
0
u;:, 60

'0
e 40
:, __ .. , __ ,
a..
20 :' '- -- --~ -- \
\
'
I
"- ... - ..... ... . . . . . . 1t'\'-'••• • •
0 ·-~'-~-- '
Dace Dec30 Jan 23 Feb 16
1988 1988 1989 1989

Fig. 13 - Production responses for cyclic steam, Cox Penn Well #92.

32 [JJ #39
D #40
~
=tl:
m
=tl:
co
co
=tl:
C\1
0)
=tl:
28 [ill] #45
0 E
ca
E E E
a.. ca ca
sca
0
aJ
24
Q)
Ci5
Q)
Ci5 gs en
a)
ca
a:
c::
20

16
+ + + +
0
u;:, 12
'0
e
a.. 8

0
F M A M J J A s 0 N
1988
Fig. 14 - Effect of cyclic steam on offset wells.

1.2

- • • Cox Penn

1-
* Cold Lake

0 0.8-
- • • California

~
a: - •
*
E
CtS
0.6-
• **
Q)
Ci5
...!...
- ** *
0
0.4-
• *• *
- *
I
*
'tl<
**
** *
• fl** •
*
0.2- • *
* * *

0
- • I
Ai:~

I
'
I
*1<*
* I
*
I

0 10 io 30 '
40
Size of Steam Injection, MBBL
Fig. 15- Comparison of oil-steam ratio In cyclic steam operations.

329
 SPE 1965 9

Steam
Downhole
Injection
Steam
Data
Quality

Steam Zone
Volume

Production Response
Temperature Change in Steam Zone Well Data
Heat Loss Thru Production Properties of
Heat Loss in Reservoir Fluid and Rock

Fig. 16 • Calculation of cyclic steam performance using analytical model.

Steam

Cross-Section Areal

Fig. 17 • Schematic of the modified Boberg-Lantz model for gravity drainage reservoir.

330
 SPE 19 6 59

160 ~oil Rate

- _. -Water Rate
140
ca.
CD
120 ••
a)
1tS
a:
100 •
c:: 80
0
~ 60
::J
'0
e 40
a.
''
.. A
....
\~... _,
20
'' '
~--
.
0 ' ----------------------------------
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Time, Days
Fig. 18 -Comparison of field cyclic steam results with model calculated values .

. ... .....,
u..
e
600-
--
-
. .,.
I
~---~
,,- ... ~
_,
...
\
~
"',
---Model
• Data

::J - I
I ...... ,
"'"'•,

-... _
I • ... ,
1tS
.... 500-
Q)
a.
E
-- I
I
I "'•
"'"'•
•,
...
.........
~
Q)
-- •• •
......... ... ... _

0 400-
•
---
,£;

~
0
•
c
-
300-
• •
•. ' ' . • • . .
-40 ~ 0 ~
' ~ 60
Time, Days Before & After Steam Soak
Fig. 19- Comparison of measured downhole temperatures with model calculated values.

331
 SPE 196'; 9

Ci)
~
...
0

-----------
LL.

...,.....-··-··-··-----
!::::J
~
e .,. ....-··
··-··---...........
_,_ -- --:: -- -··-....................._......._
~
~
0 200 .,.. ......._~

e
::::J
ca... --·
__ ...... --·--·--·-·-·--·-·-.
Q)
a.
E
{!!. 100
·····__···....-!·--
_..__ . ····· .--·---· --·--·
...........................

0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance From Wellbore, Ft
Fig. 20- Temperature and pressure distributions in cycle steamed well (simulated).

90

so - a Days
---5 Days
';fl. 70 •••••• 65 Days
c:
0 ,..l
,..
~
....::s 60 ,..
ca • - -t·
(J) '' ...
50
.
0 '.a··' :
''
40

30
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance From Well bore, Ft
Fig. 21 -Oil saturation in cycle steamed well simulated by numerical model.

332