SPE 146716

Optimal Soak Time for Cyclic Steam Stimulation of a Horizontal Well in

Gravity Drainage Reservoirs
Z. Wu and S. Vasantharajan, SPE, Blade-Energy Partners

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–11 October 2011.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
In an earlier work, we presented a new, semi-analytical gravity drainage model to predict oil production of a horizontal well
under cyclic steam stimulation. In this paper, the model for the horizontal well is extended from the gravity drainage
representation to more accurately predict performance during the cyclic steam stimulation. The water–vapor equilibrium in
the cylindrical chamber created by injected steam in the vicinity of the well, heat losses to surrounding oil, formation during
the steam soaking stage, and oil production are now included in the modified model. The computation procedure consists of
solving the transient heat conduction equations to obtain the temperatures in the chamber and surrounding oil during the soak
period and determining the temperature decline during the oil production phase. By using the proposed model, one can
optimize the soak time to maximize the cumulative oil production. A case stud is presented to illustrate this capability.

Sensitivity studies have also been conducted to better understand the impact of steam quality and steam injection volumes on
well performance. The proposed model is employed on an example application to enhance cumulative oil production.

Introduction

The cyclic steam stimulation process consists of three main stages: Steam injection, Steam soak, and Production of the heated
oil. Prior to when a stimulated well is put on production, soak time is required to allow the injected steam to heat the oil
around the wellbore. In actual operations the soak time could vary from days to weeks.or even months. Excessive soak time
will cause the well productivity to decline because of the continued heat loss to the formation. On the other hand, large
amounts of steam will still exist and heat in the wet steam will not be transferred to the formation if the soak time is not
sufficient. The heat is removed from the reservoir with the production of steam and condensated water once the well is
switched to production. Thus, it is desirable to determine the optimal soak time that would maximize oil production or net
profit.  

Theoretically, a thermal, numerical reservoir oil simulator can be applied to conduct the optimal soak time study. However,
for a field needs, a computationally efficient analytical model may be desirable for engineers managing cyclic steam
operations, particularly when 3D information on geological features and rock properties is not available. 
Boberg and Lantz1 presented a radial analytical model for the steam injection, which could be solved analytically to obtain
the average reservoir temperature. Their model assumed that the heat loss to the adjacent formation and the heat loss with the
produced fluids can be calculated by solving a heat conduction equation. The well productivity increase due to an increase in
the effective well radius and a reduction in oil viscosity is characterized by an enhanced well index. Jones2 investigated the
impact of gravity drainage for multi-cycle steam stimulation in a vertical well. Since then, many authors have proposed
modified analytical models based on Jones3-7 work for cyclic steam stimulation. Gozde and Aziz3 and Sylvester and Chen5
combined a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) model with the Boberg and Lantz8-9 model to derive a nonlinear
inflow equation in which both the gravity force and pressure drop terms are included. However, the SAGD model cannot be
employed to describe the cyclic steam-soak process in a horizontal well because of significant differences in the physical
mechanisms.
2 SPE 146716

A recent effort by Wu et al10 presented a semi-analytical model for computing the performance of a horizontal well under
cyclic steam injection in a gravity drainage reservoir. The model enables one to better understand the function of gravity-
driven flow in a stimulated horizontal well for improved heavy oil recovery. In all these efforts, for modeling the steam soak
stage an underlying assumption is that heat equilibrium is established between the hot water and the oil once steam is
injected. Hence, the longer the soak time, more heat is lost from the heated formation to the surrounding area. As a result, in
existing models the soak time only has negative impact on well production.

The determination of the best duration to switch a well from steam soak to production is critical for maximizing oil
production. An ideal criterion for optimal soak time would be the time when the all steam is condensed, and the temperature
of heated oil is equal to the temperature of the condensed water. However, in practice with economic considerations, a short
soak time is preferable to a longer one. Irrespective, the soak time has to be sufficiently long to allow the heat to decrease the
viscosity of oil flowing into wellbore. There appears to be sufficient motivation in the field to develop an analytical model
that can be applied to optimize cyclic steam injection for heavy oil reservoirs, particularly operations that require frequent
adjustments.

In the present work, a two-zone model has been developed for quantitatively calculating and optimizing steam soak for a
horizontal well under gravity drainage. The major features of the cyclic steam stimulation process have been included in the
model. Sensitivity studies to illustrate the effect of variations in injection steam quality and steam volume have been
conducted. Case studies are presented that show that using the proposed model, optimal steam soak time and injected steam
volume can be determined for maximizing oil production. The limitations of the current effort, which will be the subject of
our future efforts, are then discussed in this paper.

Physical Model Assumptions

We consider cyclic steam injection in a horizontal well in a homogeneous reservoir of constant permeability and porosity.
The reservoir is initially saturated with oil and irreducible water. A steam-water mixture is then injected at the heel of the
well at a constant rate and is uniformly allocated along the wellbore. A wet steam saturated chamber in the shape of a
cylinder is created during the period of injection and steam-soak.
Figure 1 illustrates the axis-symmetric, cross-sectional, gravity-driven representation of the horizontal well at the end of the
steam injection.

Figure 1- Two-zone model during the period of steam soak

Physically, the steam injection consists of two sequential phases. In the first phase, the latent heat of vaporization heats up
the rock, oil, and irreducible water in the chamber. In the second phase, under the assumption of piston displacement, the
heated oil in the chamber is displaced by the condensated water to form an oil ring around the chamber. The interface
between the chamber and oil ring is established. The two zone model is formed as shown in
Figure 1.

For the steam soak, the heat stored in the condensated water within the chamber is transferred to the oil ring adjacent to the
chamber. If the heat loss through the overburden can be ignored, the chamber and oil ring will reach the same temperature
and thermal equilibrium will be established. Theoretically, it is the appropriate time to open the well to production since the
energy in the condensed water has been transferred to the oil ring. However, it may take months to reach thermal equilibrium,
which is not acceptable in the field.
SPE 146716 3

We assume reservoir parameters in the chamber and oil ring are the same. In operation, the pressures in chamber and oil ring
are changing during the soak period. Exact description of the pressure history requires the numerical solution for multiphase
flow and phase behavior calculation, Here, we assume the pressure throughout the chamber and oil ring are constant and
equal to the saturated vapor pressure which is determined by the system temperature uniquely under the saturated condition.
This assumption may be debatable. However, in this study, we assume low pressure drawdown and consider the gravity
drainage as the primary driving force.

Mathematical Model

Water Saturation in the Chamber It is assumed that the injected steam is converted into hot water during the injection. The
removable oil in the chamber is displaced by the condensated water. The oil saturation in the chamber is residual oil
saturation after the steam injection. Therefore, in the chamber, the material balance equation for water can be written as
M t / ρm
= 1.0 − S or − S wc (1)
Vt φ
where M t is the mass of injected cold water equivalent (CWE), φ is the porosity, ρ S or , S wc denote the density, residual oil
saturation and irreducible water saturation, respectively. From above equation, the chamber size Vt can be easily computed.
Once the well is open to production, the hot water and the heated oil are produced, driven by the gravity. In terms of the
material balance, the water saturation in the chamber is computed from following equation
Wp
S w = 1.0 − S or − (1.0 − S or − S wc ) (2)
M t / ρw

where W p is the accumulative water production during the cycle. Note that proposed two-zone model explains why the oil
saturation increase with oil production because the displaced oil in the ring flows back into the chamber as the oil and water
in chamber are produced from the well.

Chamber and Oil Ring Temperature Two scenarios are considered for calculation of temperatures in the chamber and the
oil ring. One is that the chamber temperature would rise to the temperature of the injected steam if the latent heat of steam is
large enough. The extra latent heat of the steam will be transferred by thermal convection into the oil ring. The other is that
the temperature of the chamber will be lower than the steam temperature if the latent heat of vaporization is not sufficient to
heat up the chamber to the temperature of the steam.

In this section, we present how to calculate the initial temperature after the steam injection is complete. Let H denote the
accumulative heat of irreducible water, removable oil, and rock in the chamber during the period of steam soak. The heat in
the chamber has the following form

H ch = Vt φC w S wc ρ w (Tch − Tre ) + Vt φCo S o ρ o (Tch − Tre ) + Vt C r (1. − φ ) ρ r (Tch − Tre ) (3)

C is the specific heat. The indices w o and r corresponds to water, oil, and rock, respectively, Tch is the chamber
temperature and Tre is the reservoir temperature. During the steam injection, the latent heat of vaporization is given by
Ls = M t x( hg − h f ) (4)

where x stands for the steam quality of injected steam, hg and h f are enthalpy of steam and water at the initial temperature
of injected mixture, respectively. If the inequality Ls > H ch holds, the chamber temperature equals the injected steam
temperature Tch = Tini . Then, the oil ring temperature Tri can be determined by following equation:
Ls − H ch + Vt φCo S o ρ o (Tch − Tri ) = Vt φC w S wc ρ w (Tri − Tre ) + Vt C r (1. − φ ) ρ r (Tri − Tre ) + VtφCo S or ρ o (Tri − Tre ) (5)

As mentioned earlier, the latent heat of vaporization may not heat up the chamber temperature to the steam temperature. This
may happen when the steam quality is low. Thus, the chamber temperature is smaller than the steam temperature after the
steam is completely condensed. From the principle of energy balance, we can use the same assumption as used in the Eq. 3 to
obtain a similar equation for calculation of the temperatures of the chamber:

[ ]
f ) = Vt φC w S wc ρ w (Tch − Tre ) + Vt φC o S o ρ o (Tch − Tre ) + Vt C r (1. − φ ) ρ r (Tch − Tre )
M t x ( hg − h f ) + c w ( h f − h ch (6)
4 SPE 146716

Note that the specific enthalpy of water h is a function of temperature. An iterative calculation procedure is used to compute
the chamber temperature in the Eq (6). The correlations for specific enthalpy are listed in reference 12.

When the oil in the chamber is displaced into the oil ring by the water, the oil ring temperature can be computed based on the
heat balance between the displaced oil and irreducible water, residual oil and rock in the ring. The energy balance is
calculated using the following relationship:

VtφCo So ρ o (Tch − Tri ) = VtφC w S wc ρ w (Tri − Tre ) + Vt C r (1. − φ ) ρ r (Tri − Tre ) + VtφCo Sor ρ o (Tri − Tre ) (7)

Where Tri is the oil ring temperature. Substituting the chamber Tch obtained from Eq. 6 in Eq.7, we can obtain the oil ring
temperature Tri .

Lumped Parameter Model for Steam Soak The lumped parameter model assumes the uniform distribution of mass and
energy in a system, instead of computing the distribution of temperature in the zone model, Thus, the average temperatures
of the chamber and oil ring can be considered as a function of time only. This assumption simplifies the calculation of
transient heat conduction, which can then be characterized by a set of ordinary differential equations.

Under those assumptions, the governing heat conduction equations in the chamber and oil ring with the initial conditions are
as follows:

Governing equation in the chamber

dTch
ρ chVt C ch = −2hπrch L(Tch − Tri ) (8)
dt

Governing equation in the oil ring

dTri
ρ riVt C ri = 2πhrch L(Tch − Tri ) (9)
dt

Initial conditions Tch (t = 0) = Tchi and Tch (t = 0) = Tchi where rch and rri are the chamber radius and oil ring radius,
respectively, L is the length of horizontal well. The overall heat transfer coefficient h is given by13

K ch
hch = (10)
r
2rch ln ri
rch

where K ch is the thermal conductivity of the chamber. It should be noted that Eq. 8 and Eq. 9 are coupled and nonlinear
because the specific heat is temperature dependent. For computational ease, a fully implicit scheme to solve Eq. 8 and Eq. 9
for calculation of the chamber and oil ring temperature simultaneously is not implemented. Instead, an explicit calculation
scheme is adopted to solve these two equations sequentially with no iteration required. The temperature at the previous time
step is used to calculate the specific heat at the current time step, in conjunction with taking small time steps,

The lumped system assumes a uniform temperature distribution throughout the chamber and the oil ring. The inherent
simplification requires the system to meet a criterion which is called Biot number12,
hLc
Bi = (11)
k

where Lc is a characteristic length. It is generally accepted that lumped system is applicable if Bi ≤ 0.1 . We have compared
the average temperature obtained from the lumped parameter system with the values obtained from numerical calculations
The error caused by the lumped simplification appears to be negligible. Once the temperature is determined by solving the
Eq. 8 and Eq. 9, the cyclic stimulation model can be applied to generate the oil production profiles. The details can be found
in Reference 10.
SPE 146716 5

Results
Average Temperature We have compared the average temperature obtained from the proposed two-zone lumped-parameter
model against those from a numerical simulator. The model parameters are shown in Table 1. Saturated steam properties and
specific heat of water and oil are calculated from correlations2,3. For the numerical model, the average temperature in the
chamber can be determined as

∫ 4πr T ( r ) ρ ( r )dr
2

< T >= 0
R
(12)

∫ 4πr ρ ( r )dr
2

The average temperature is computed along radial direction because we assume the temperature is uniform along the
wellbore. Figure 2 shows the initial temperatures in the chamber and oil ring at the time the steam injection is completed. As
we can see, the initial temperature in the chamber is larger than that in the oil ring. The heat transformation from the chamber
to the oil ring is started by transient heat conduction during the soak period. We also assume no heat loss overburden during
the soak period. Therefore, a no-flow boundary condition is specified in the reservoir simulation approach. Figure 3 shows
the comparison of the temperature profile obtained from a lumped parameter model and numerical simulation. For the
chamber and oil ring temperatures, the lumped model solution is very close to that of the numerical model. Compared to the
computational cost for numerical model, the computational time for the solution of lumped system is negligible.

We note from Figure 3 that the energy transformation by heat conduction from the chamber to the oil ring is longer than we
expected. It will take more than 60 days to establish the energy balance between the chamber and the oil ring. Theoretically,
without considering economic limit, the desired time for the well to open production is when the temperature of chamber
equals that of oil ring.

The rate of heat transfer from the chamber to oil ring depends on the temperature difference between the chamber and the oil
ring. Initially, the heat transfer rate is high; as thermal equilibrium is approached and the temperatures between the chamber
and oil ring closes and heat transfer rate decreases. This can be seen clearly in the Figure 3.

Table 1 Reservoir parameters for numerical simulation

Radius of oil ring (ft) 27.57
Radius of chamber (ft) 19.50
Initial chamber temperature (oF) 390
Initial oil ring temperature (oF) 197
Number of gridblocks 100x33x1
Porosity 0.30
Initial reservoir temperature (F0) 125
Reservoir thermal conductivity (BTU/ft D.F) 38
Oil density at stand conditions (lb/ft3) 61.8
Horizontal well length ft 1200
6 SPE 146716

Figure 2-Initial temperature distribution in 3D for numerical simulation.

Figure 3-Comparisons of semi-analytical solution and numerical solution for the temperatures of chamber
and oil ring.

Steam Soak Time Oil rates under gravity drainage are calculated for different soak times. In order to make a comparison, we
keep the injected cold water equivalent steam mass, steam quality and the steam temperature the same in all the cases. For
the three cases shown, we used a short soak cycle, a medium soak cycle and a long soak cycle to check the responses of oil
rate to the soak time. The reservoir and cyclic operation parameters used are shown in Table 2. Figure 4 displays the oil
viscosity decline with the temperature drop which is used in the calculations. Throughout, without specific emphasis, the
gravity is the merely force to drive the oil from the chamber to wellbore.
SPE 146716 7

In the three cases, the horizontal well is injected with 2000 STB/day (CWE) for a period of 10 days followed by a 1 day, 10
days and 30 days soak periods, respectively. The steam quality is held constant at 0.75. Oil production of the stimulated
horizontal well in three cycles are shown in the Figure 5. It is evident that the largest oil rate is realized in the case with the
longest soak time of 30 days. This is because the temperature of oil ring at the end of soak time is highest among the three
cases. The resulting significant cumulative oil production increase can be seen in Figure 6. It must be pointed out that we
assume that the energy transfer is from the chamber to oil ring to heat up the oil ring, and there is no heat loss to overburden.
This conjecture is valid when soak times are much shorter than oil production times, which are often months or years.

Table 2 Reservoir parameters and operation parameters for cyclic steam

Steam injection rate (bbl/day) 2000
Steam quality 0.75
Steam temperature in wellbore (oF) 390
Horizontal well length (ft) 900
Porosity 0.30
Permeability (Darcy) 1.0
Residual oil saturation 0.2
Irreducible water saturation 0.1
Initial reservoir temperature (0 F) 125
Reservoir thermal conductivity (BTU/ft D.F) 38

1000

Oil viscosity

100
Viscosity (cp)

10

0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature (F)

Figure 4-Oil viscosity decline with the increase of temperature.

8 SPE 146716

Figure 5-Comparison of oil production rates with different steam soak time.

Figure 6-Comparison of cumulative oil production rates with different steam soak time.
SPE 146716 9

Steam Quality For saturated steam, compared to the energy stored in hot water, high steam quality means more heat will be
released from latent heat of evaporation as the steam condensates. More heat in the chamber will transfer to the oil ring
during the stages of steam injection and steam soak. If the cost of generating the steam is not considerable, high quality steam
is always preferable to low steam quality. In this case study we are referring to the steam quality at the formation.

The effect of steam quality on oil production was investigated for three scenarios: steam qualities of 0.70, 0.75 and 0.80,
respectively. The results are presented in Figure 7. As expected, oil production is sensitivity to the steam quality. Note that
the oil rate is very low in the first cycle for all three cases. This is caused by the low initial formation temperature. The latent
heat of vaporization is not enough to heat up the chamber temperature to the steam temperature. The energy to heat the oil
ring only comes from the release of the hot water, which is much less than that of latent heat of steam per unit mass. In the
second cycle, the formation temperature becomes higher than the original formation temperature due to the residual heat from
the previous cycle. This indicates that a minimum steam quality should be maintained so that the latent heat of vaporization
can heat the chamber to a desired temperature. Table 3 shows the increasing of the steam quality by 5.0 percent can bring
total around 30% increases in oil production.

Figure 7- Comparison of oil production rates with different steam quality.

10 SPE 146716

Table 3-Cumulative oil production

Steam quality 0.7 0.75 0.8

Cumulative oil rate in one year, STB

9228 11832 13156
Increment of cumulative oil rate in one year (second cycle), STB 0 2604 3928

Increment of cumulative oil production in three cycles, STB 0 1,1135 1,4785

Injection Mass and Steam Quality Reduction in the mass of injected steam can reduce the fuel costs and extend the
economic life of a heavy oil field. Reducing the amount of injected steam and keeping the quality of steam high, or reducing
steam quality while injecting the same amount of steam are two possible options. We compare the well production responses
using three combinations of steam qualities and injection mass. From Figure 8, it can be seen that the case with the lowest
steam quality yields the lowest oil production. As mentioned previously, with same steam mass injection, the latent heat of
steam with a low steam quality is unable to reduce the oil viscosity. Figure 8 also shows the well production rate with high
steam quality and less steam injection, which is not as good as the case with more steam injection and lower steam quality. It
is evident that the oil rate is the largest for the case with the highest steam quality. One the other hand, the oil rate decline is
much quicker for the case with smaller steam quality and more steam injection. Injecting the steam with highest steam quality
will not necessarily lead to the highest cumulative oil production. Simplistically, excessive steam injection with highest steam
quality leads to highest oil production, but clearly the extra cost associated with generating the high steam quality will have
an adverse impact on the cash flow. The proposed model allows us to optimize the steam injection in a systematic and
quantitative manner. The optimization of well performance resulting from the cyclic steam injection will be addressed in
future efforts.

Figure 8-Effects of steam quality and injected steam mass on oil production.
SPE 146716 11

Limitations and Discussion

Two important assumptions that underly this effort need to be highlighted. The first is that we assume the steam condensation
is complete after the steam injection is done. In practice, large amounts of steam may be injected at a very high temperature
and pressure. Superheated steam in the chamber may be formed rather than the condensated water. The proposed model is
not suitable for computing the sizes of the chamber and oil ring for superheated steam. The phase change during the steam
soak especially makes the calculation for the initial temperature very complex. To deal with this situation one has to adjust
the chamber sizes and the initial zone temperature based on the energy and material balance under the superheated condition.
A second premise of this effort is that saturated steam state is assumed. That is, saturation pressure is determined uniquely
from the saturation temperature. In this paper we consider gravity as the only driving force for oil flow. If the reservoir is still
in superheated steam condition when the well starts to produce, then pressure drawdown should also be considered in the
calculations. The proposed model is not valid in that situation.

Conclusions

• Based on material and energy balances, we have proposed a two-zone physical model that can be used to model the
steam injection, steam soak and well production of a cyclic steam stimulation process. The semi-analytical cyclic steam
stimulation model developed in a previous effort is extended to compute the optimal soak time and steam mass injection.
• The average temperature obtained from a lumped parameter model is compared with that calculated from a numerical
simulator. The results show that the lumped parameter simplification for the two-zone model is valid for computing the
temperature change during the period of steam soak.
• Sensitivity studies show that the steam soaks and steam injection rate are two critical parameters affecting oil production.
The proposed model allows one to optimize those two parameters to maximize oil production and/or net profit.
• The case studies presented indicate that the proposed model can offer a computationally efficient and systematic
approach for the optimization of cyclic steam stimulation of a horizontal well under gravity drainage.

Nomenclature

C = specific heat
h = heat transfer coefficient
h f = enthalpy of water
h g = enthalpy of steam
H = heat in chamber
K = heat conductivity
L = latent heat of vaporization or length of horizontal well
Lc = characteristic length
M t = mass of injected cold water equivalent
r = radius
S = saturation
S or = residual water saturation
S wc = irreducible water saturation
T = average temperature
Vt = chamber volume
W p = total produced water
x = steam quality
φ = porosity
ρ = density
Superscripts
ch = chamber
i = initial
12 SPE 146716

Subscripts
ch = chamber
re = reservoir
ri = oil ring
o = oil
w = water
r = rock
s = steam

References
1. Boberg, T.C. and Lantz, R.B.: “Calculation of the Production Rate of a Thermally Stimulated well,” JPT, 1613-1623
Dec. 1966.
2. Jones, J., “Cyclic Steam Reservoir Model for Viscous Oil Pressure Depleted, Gravity Drainage Reservoirs,” paper
SPE 6544 presented at Annual California Regional Meeting of SPE , Bakersfield, California, April 13-15, 1977.
3. Gontijo and Aziz, K. A,:” A Simple Analytical Model for Simulating Heavy Oil Recovery by Cyclic Steam in
Pressure-Depleted Reservoirs”, paper SPE 13037 presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.
4. Gros, R.P., Pope, G.A. and Lake, L.W., “Steam Soak Predictive Model”, paper SPE 14240 presented at the 60th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Las Vegas. September 22-25, 1985.
5. Sylvester, N. B., and Chen, H.L., “An Improved Cyclic Steam Stimulation Model for Pressure-Depleted
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 17420 at the SPE Meeting held in Long Beach, California, March 23-25, 1988.
6. Gozde, S. Chhina, H.S. and Best, D.A., “An Analytical Cyclic Steam Stimulation Model for Heavy Oil Reservoirs”,
the SPE paper 18807 presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, April 5-7,
1989.
7. Jones, J., “Why Cyclic Steam Predictive Models Get No Respect,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, 67-74, February
1992.
8. Butler, R.M., McNab, G.S. and Lo, H.Y.: “Theoretical Studies on the Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil during In-Situ
Steam Heating,” The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol, 59, 455-460, August 1981.
9. Butler,R.M. and Stephens, D.S.,” The Gravity Drainage of Steam-Heated Heavy Oil to Parallel Horizontal Wells”,
paper Petroleum Society of CIM 80-31-31, presented at the 31st Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society
of CIM in Calgary, May 25-28,1980.
10. Wu, Z., Vasantharajan, S., El-Mandouh, M., and Suryanarayana, P.V.: ”Inflow Performance of a Cyclic-Steam-
Stimulated Horizontal Well Under the Influence of Gravity Drainage” , paper SPE 127518-PA, presented at the
2009 Kuwait International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 14-16 December
2009.
11. Chien, S.F.: ”Empirical Correlations of Saturated Steam Properties”, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1992. 295-
303.
12. Ozisik, M.N.,” Heat Conduction”, John Wiley &Sons, Inc. 1993.
13. Hong, K.C.,” Steamflood Reservoir Management”, PennWell Books, 1994.