SPE 54078
Recent Advances in Steamflood Technology
K. C. Hong, SPE, KCH Consulting Inc.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, 17-19 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 8333836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Worldwide heavy oil production has undergone phenomenal
growth since the first known application of steam in the late
1950s. This growth, especially during the past decade, resulted
primarily from technological advances made in the areas of
steamflooding that include the process itself, steam generation
and distribution, injection and production facilities, and
performance prediction. These advances helped increase oil
recovery, extend the process application to wider ranges of
reservoirs and fluids, and improve the process efficiency (e.g.,
reduce operating costs). This paper describes some of the more
important technological advances made during the past
decade.
Introduction
Steam injection processes are used worldwide to recover
heavy oil and bitumen. Since the first known application of
steam in a Venezuelan oil field in the late 1950's, worldwide
heavy oil production has undergone phenomenal growth, and
1
is currently estimated at 2 million B/D. This growth,
especially since the oil price collapse of the mid-1980s, is
attributed primarily to three factors: (1) higher and more stable
oil prices, (2) lower capital and operating costs, and (3)
technological advances. The first two factors provided greater
operating margins, which in turn allowed more projects to be
installed on properties previously thought to be marginal, thus
increasing production attributable to steam application.
Technological advances that include geological, geophysical,
reservoir, facilities, and production engineering disciplines
helped reduce costs and improved recovery, thereby
stimulating investment in heavy oil and bitumen.
Important engineering advances made during the past decade
include:
• Horizontal well methods;
• Processing steeply dipping reservoirs;
• Steam injection followed by, or alternating with, water
injection;
• Steam conformance control;
• Cogeneration of steam and power;
• Surface distribution and metering of two-phase steam;
• Separation and treatment of produced water;
• Downhole steam generation;
• Insulated tubing;
• Multi-zone steam injection and profiling;
• Computer simulation for analyzing and predicting
steamflood performance.
This paper describes and reviews each of these advances
and discusses how each contributed to the worldwide growth
of heavy oil production. The paper also lists future
technological advances that are needed to further increase the
worldwide heavy oil production.
Process Improvements
Steamflood Process. The basic process concept, as envisioned
in the early years of application, is shown schematically in
Figure 1. In applying the process, steam generated on the
surface is injected through an injection wellbore into an oil-
bearing formation. Steam heats and displaces oil toward the
producing well where it is pumped to the surface, treated, and
finally sent to the market.
Because the principal recovery mechanism in steamflooding
2
is viscosity reduction, application of this EOR method in the
60’s was limited mostly to high-viscosity, low-gravity oils. Also,
because the needed technology and field experience were
limited, the primary targets for steam EOR were reservoirs that
2 K. C. Hong
occur at shallow depths and are known to have high remaining
oil saturations and relatively uncomplicated geology.
Discussed below are major engineering advances that made
the process more effective and efficient. These advances
extended the process to lighter (API gravity higher than 20°) as
well as heavier oils (API gravity lower than 10°; e.g., tar sands)
and to reservoirs that are deeper or have more complex geology
and hence were previously thought to be marginal candidates for
steam application.
Horizontal Well Methods. Bitumen or tar is defined as oils
heavier than 10° API. The world resource in this form of hydro-
carbon is said to be about 4 trillion barrels. Because bitumen is
nearly immobile at reservoir temperature and steam cannot be
injected at significant rates, steamflood has not been very
effective in recovering this resource. Most bitumen production to
date has come from surface mining and cyclic steaming opera-
3
tions.
A horizontal well method, called “Steam-Assisted Gravity
Drainage (SAGD),” is currently used to tap this huge
hydrocarbon resource, and has become extremely popular,
especially in Canada. It involves either (a) a pair of horizontal
wells with one used as a steam injector overlying the other used
as a producer or (b) vertical wells overlying a horizontal
4
producer. This method, the concept of which is shown in
Figure 2, is aimed at overcoming the difficulty of introducing
steam into the otherwise immobile tar sand body and thereafter
optimizing gravity drainage of the heated oil. This concept was
first tested with an 820 ft long horizontal well in the Leming
4
pilot at the Cold Lake bitumen deposit, Canada. Many
horizontal wells are currently in operation at Cold Lake and
elsewhere in Canada. Horizontal well application is growing
5
rapidly in the San Joaquin Valley of California (Huff, 1995).
One variation of the SAGD process uses a single horizontal
6 9
well to inject steam and produce oil. The process, illustrated
with Figure 3, involves an insulated, concentric coiled tubing
(ICCT) inside a casing to introduce steam to the farthest end of a
horizontal well. Steam heats the wellbore region and helps drain
the heated oil into the annulus between the wellbore and the
tubing. The heated oil is then gravity-drained to the heel of the
horizontal well near the vertical axis of the well where it is
pumped to the surface along with steam condensate. ELAN
Energy Inc., which developed the process and calls it the
“Single-Well SAGD (SW-SAGD),” reported an early oil
production response to steam injection that is several times
greater than that obtainable by the conventional, two-well SAGD
process.
Steeply Dipping Reservoirs. Pattern drive methods (e.g., 5-
spot, inverted 9-spot) are commonly used for steamflooding
reservoirs with little or no dip. When the reservoir dips signifi-
cantly (>10°), the line drive method is preferred. The reason for
this is evident from Figure 4. When a reservoir has no dip, the
heated zone propagates in all directions controlled mainly by
steam gravity-override and hot water underrunning in the
SPE 54078
reservoir. In a reservoir with a significant dip, on the other hand,
steam tends to move up dip due to gravity while condensed
hotwater runs downdip. As a result, the heat arrives at the updip
producer early and results in oil production that is primarily from
the updip section of the reservoir.
Because of the steam gravity override, oil production from
this type of reservoir is strongly affected by injector and
7
producer location. The following strategies are used for
maximizing steamflood efficiency and ultimate recovery from
such reservoirs:
1. Initiate the steamflood as a line drive, injecting steam into
the midsection or lower portion of the reservoir;
2. Shut in the updip line of producers as steam breaks
through to them;
3. Subsequently reduce the steam injection rate while
driving oil toward the downdip line of producers.
Furthermore, if the reservoir is connected to an updip gas cap
and a downdip edgewater, the gas-oil or water-oil contact can
move closer to or away from the initial oil zone depending on
the pressure of the gas cap or the edgewater. This interface
movement strongly affects the steamflood oil recovery. A study
showed that this type of reservoir can best be exploited by using
a line drive with steam injection into the oil zone but away from
8
the gas cap or edgewater. Steam breakthrough to the non-
productive zones can be delayed by injecting steam away from
them, resulting in more efficient use of steam.
Five-spot pattern is most commonly used for steamflooding
reservoirs with significant dip because it becomes a middle-
staggered line drive if one side of the pattern is parallel to the
direction of dip. In this situation, the injector should be placed
off-center of a pattern, preferably halfway between the injector
and the downdip row of producers, to distribute steam more
evenly between updip and downdip directions. The off-center
steam injection both accelerates and maximizes steamflood oil
recovery from steeply dipping reservoirs. This variation of the
conventional steamflood technology has been successfully used
at various locations in the San Joaquin Valley of California.
Steamflood Followed by Waterflood. As steamflood matures,
oil production rate decreases and the steam-oil ratio (SOR)
eventually becomes uneconomically high. It then becomes
necessary to decide whether to continue or terminate steam
injection. The high SOR generally signals that a large amount of
heat is retained in the reservoir rock and fluids and that some of
this heat is cycled through the reservoir without affecting oil
recovery. Hence, a method must be found to utilize this heat for
optimum operation of a steamflood project. The recent trend has
10,11
been to convert a maturing steamflood to a waterflood. This
action serves the following purposes:
1. To prolong the economic life of a steamflood project;
2. To reduce fuel consumption and free steam generators for
use in project expansion;
3. To resaturate the steam zone with liquid water to reduce
subsidence and eliminate the possibility of a reverse
migration of oil to the flooded-out areas after cooling;
SPE 54078 Recent Advances in Steamflood Technology
4. To redistribute heat in the reservoir, producing additional
oil from zones that have been bypassed by injected steam.
Guidelines have been developed for converting steamflood to
waterflood as well as for determining optimum temperature and
11,12
injection rate of water for post-steam waterflood. This
process modification has been used successfully in a number of
10,13 14
mature projects in California and Germany.
Water-Alternating-Steam Process (WASP). Water-
alternating-gas injection is known to reduce gas fingering,
improve vertical sweep, and thereby increase recovery efficiency
in gasfloods. The same concept has been used for steamflood,
which is basically an immiscible gasflood with thermal and
condensing effects added. As illustrated in Figure 5, the main
advantage of WASP over continuous steam injection is to delay
15
or eliminate premature steam breakthrough. When steam
breaks through to the producing well, it creates high temperature
problems that include wasted steam heat and reduced well
productivity. WASP can eliminate these problems and improve
sweep and recovery efficiencies.
The Russians used this method successfully in their heavy oil
fields, and oil production from its use reportedly increased 25-
16
30% annually from 1981 to 1984. In several California
applications, WASP eliminated steam breakthrough problems
13,17
and improved sweep and recovery efficiencies.
Steam Conformance Control. Despite the success of steam in
improving the recovery of viscous oil, there are characteristic
problems associated with its use. These problems are poor
vertical or areal sweep efficiency in the reservoir and reduced
displacement efficiency in the hotwater zone. As shown
schematically in Figure 6, gravity override of the injected steam
severely reduces the reservoir vertical conformance and leads to
early steam breakthrough at the producing well. At the same
time, the hotwater zone produced by the liquid separated from
the two-phase steam grows as the injected steam loses its heat to
the formation and surrounding strata. Hotwater is not as effective
as steam in displacing oil from an unheated formation, resulting
in lower oil recovery than possible with steam.
Methods for improving steamflood performance have
concentrated on the problem of reservoir conformance. These
methods rely on the use of surfactants to form steam-foam in situ
that reduce steam mobility, thereby modifying the injection
18
profile. A majority of field tests have reported technical
success in decreasing steam mobility and improving reservoir
conformance by the injected steam. However, poor economics
resulted due to the large quantity and high cost of chemicals
19,20
required.
Recent developments involve use of inexpensive chemicals
such as high temperature polymer or lignosulfonate gels to
improve reservoir conformance. A polymer gel system was used
to divert steam from pre-existing channels, thus improving areal
21
sweep efficiency. A lignosulfonate gel system was used to
improve steam injection profiles in injection wellbores to cover
larger portions of the target interval in a West Coalinga
3
22
steamdrive project. These chemicals are becoming increasingly
popular in use to mitigate steam conformance problems in
mature steamflood projects in California.
Surface Equipment and Methods
Steam used in thermal EOR operations is provided mainly by the
single-pass oilfield steam generators which produce high-
23
pressure wet steam of typically 80% quality. Steam generators
typically use oil, gas, or LPG as fuel. The wet steam, originating
from a bank of generators, is distributed through a manifold to
individual wells. During the past 10 years, important engineering
advances were made to provide an efficient steam and power
source and to deliver the desired rate and quality of steam to
individual wells. These advances are discussed below.
Cogeneration. Steam for thermal EOR can also be provided by
cogeneration plants that generate both electric power and steam
from a common heat source. Cogeneration has proven to be a
cost effective alternative to conventional steam generation where
electric power requirements (e.g., pumping and oil treating) are
high, and a long-term, economical and uninterruptible supply of
fuel gas is available. This method of generating steam and power
has been used widely since the early 80s in the heavy oil fields
of the San Joaquin Valley, California and elsewhere.
Figure 7 shows a typical gas turbine-based, topping cycle
cogeneration plant. Natural gas is combusted with compressed
air to drive a turbine that in turn drives an electrical generator.
The exhaust from the gas turbine is duct-connected to a waste
heat recovery steam generator to generate steam.
A key benefit of cogeneration is its efficiency in producing
useful energy. A gas turbine typically has a thermal efficiency
(defined as useful energy output divided by the fuel energy in-
put) of 25-30% when the turbine exhaust heat is discharged into
the atmosphere. However, in a cogeneration plant, the exhaust is
used to make steam which increases the overall thermal
efficiency to about 80%. Because of this advantage, use of
cogeneration in steam EOR has grown rapidly during the past 15
24
years and will likely continue to grow.
Steam Distribution. In steam distribution networks, steam is
divided through tees. Until the late 70's, the tee configuration
shown by Figure 8(A) was used. In this configuration, steam is
introduced into one of the straight-through arms of a tee and
divided into a sidearm and the remaining straight-through arm. It
was commonly assumed that steam delivered to the distributing
manifold would, after traveling through the various branching
points, arrive at each wellhead with approximately the same
quality as the steam input to the manifold.
In reality, though, the liquid and vapor phases of steam tend
to divide unevenly at the tee juncture, causing widely different
25
steam qualities arriving at the wellheads. A research paper in
1978 recommended the use of tees in the dead-end configuration
as shown by Figure 8(B). This recommendation has been widely
accepted and practiced until the early 1990s.
4 K. C. Hong
In the early 1990s, it was learned that if the ratio of split
volumes at a dead-end tee is much greater than 2, qualities of the
26,27
split streams can differ by as much as 20%. Insert devices
were developed and used to mitigate this phase-splitting problem
28
with impacting tees. One such device, nozzle reducers placed
at the exit arms of an impacting tee (Figure 9), splits the liquid
and vapor phases of steam proportionately, providing equal-
quality steam to the downstream arms for wide ranges of vapor
phase split at the tee. This tee insert device is widely employed
in new steamflood projects in California.
Steam Flow Measurement and Control. It is important to
maintain both the quality and rate of steam injected into the
formation at certain specified values for the optimum operation
29
of a steamflood. Also, proper evaluation and management of
the steamflood require an accurate determination of the net heat
30
entering the formation.
The quality and rate of steam once it leaves the generator are
difficult to measure or control. Currently, orifice plates are used
to measure the rate, and fixed or variable chokes operating at
critical flow conditions are used to control the rate of injection
31-33
into each well. Recent engineering advances in this area have
been limited to improving the accuracy of correlations used for
34,35
converting orifice or choke readings into rates.
Steam quality is even more difficult to measure. If one
generator serves a single well, the method generally used is
chloride titration or conductivity test. This method compares
chloride content or conductivity of the feedwater with that of the
liquid phase of two-phase steam to determine its quality. When a
generator serves more than one well, a separator tank is used
which separates and measures vapor and liquid phases of steam
at individual wells (Figure 10). The divided streams from each
separator are recombined into an injection well. Because the
phases are measured separately, the method produces both rate
and quality data. This method, however, can be expensive and
time consuming if frequent measurements are required.
Fortunately, periodic measurements are adequate for heating
30
analysis that is conducted perhaps once or twice a year.
New devices for measuring in-line steam quality or steam
quality and rate simultaneously have been field-tested. One such
device measures steam quality based on dielectric properties of
36
steam and another device measures steam quality and rate
37
simultaneously based on Newton’s second law. However, these
devices measure the liquid holdup, not the flowing quality, and
therefore, are not totally accurate. More tests are needed with
these devices before they can be used in place of the separator
tank method that has been the standard of steam flow
30
measurement up to now.
Separation and Treatment of Produced Water. Large
amounts of water are produced with oil in steamflood projects. A
portion of this produced water, typically about one-third, is
treated and recycled as steam generator feedwater, while the rest
is disposed of by injecting into deep aquifers or sending to
evaporation ponds. This disposal practice is, however, becoming
SPE 54078
increasingly difficult because the aquifers are filling up and
environmental restrictions make use of evaporation ponds costly.
The excess produced water is now separated and treated by
some operators for sale to farmers. In the Texaco/Cawelo Water
District Conservation Project in Kern County, California, the
water is de-oiled, filtered, and softened before discharge to the
38
canal water supply network. Innovative approaches and
technical research efforts resulted in producing water qualities
acceptable to farmers and economical water sales. Revenue from
the sales is said to pay at least for preparing the water for sales.
Subsurface Equipment and Methods
New or improved subsurface equipment and methods have
appeared in recent years. Significant achievements in this
technology include downhole steam generation, insulated tubing,
multizone injection, slimhole injection well, and injection
profiling. These are briefly discussed below.
Downhole Steam Generation. After the oil embargo of 1973,
the U.S. set out to fund an initiative called “Project Deep
39
Steam.” This project evolved on the premise that significant
reserves of heavy oil were beyond the reach of surface-generated
steam. The goal of this project was therefore to develop a means
to deliver steam to depths greater than 2,500 ft, which was at the
time thought to be the limit of effectively delivering surface-
generated steam without the use of insulated tubing.
Two approaches to generating steam downhole were
39
pursued: a direct and an indirect contact steam generation. In
the first, steam is generated in direct contact with combustion
heat and flue gasses, and both the steam and flue gasses are
pushed into the formation. In the latter, steam is generated by
heat exchange with combustion gasses within the combustion
unit, and the generated steam is pushed into the formation while
the cooled flue gasses were exhausted up the tubing-casing
annulus and eventually to the atmosphere.
Several of such devices were developed and tested in
California, New Mexico, and Texas in the 1980s. All the field
tests resulted in failure for one reason or another, the main
reason being that none of these devices had operated trouble-free
for extended periods of time. Also, with the direct contact steam
generator, limited injectivity of flue gasses in the formation
caused considerable difficulty and expense of operating the
generator.
Within the past few years, however, a renewed effort has
reportedly been under way to develop a reliable downhole steam
generator. This device is known to use an electrical heat source
downhole to turn saline water into near saturated steam. Both
laboratory development and field tests are under way to perfect
the device. If successful, this device will add heavy oil reserves
in areas outside the current limit of conventional steam delivery
systems, which include offshore, permafrost, and
environmentally sensitive urban areas. The device, being
portable in nature, will also open up reserves in areas considered
to be too small to justify a conventional steam delivery system.
SPE 54078 Recent Advances in Steamflood Technology
Insulated Tubing. Insulated tubing is normally used for
injecting steam to depths greater than 2500 ft. Commercially
available insulated pipe consists of two concentric API tubulars
welded together at the ends. In the past, the annular space
between the tubulars was filled with a low-conducting gas, such
as Krypton. Now, the annular space is evacuated of all gas for
added insulation effects. Other necessary elements of the injec-
tion equipment are not normally insulated, which has become a
40
matter of concern for the users. Teflon elements are now added
to the coupling joints to reduce heat losses through them.
Multizone Steam Injection. It is often necessary to inject
steam simultaneously into two or more independent target sands
using a common injection wellbore, with steam divided into
those sands at desired rates and qualities. The parallel tubing
method developed in the mid-1980s has been used to deliver
41
steam into two separate target zones.
The parallel tubing method uses two tubing strings placed
side by side in the wellbore as shown in Figure 11. A dual-string
thermal packer is used above the upper oil zone, and a
single-string packer is placed between the two target oil zones.
Insulated tubing is used between the upper and lower packers to
reduce heat transfer between the single string and steam going
into the upper oil zone. This method has been used in over 1,500
injection wells in California and several hundred wells in
Indonesia.
Slimhole Injection Well. Recent advances in slimhole drilling
techniques allowed drilling and completing steam injection wells
at a fraction of costs required for a conventional steam injector
42
with multiple strings or other zonal segregation methods. In
some shallow steam injection situations, two independent
slimhole injectors can be drilled and completed for about half
the cost required to drill a conventional well with dual injection
strings. Also, drilling two independent injectors instead of one
conventional well allows access to two separate target horizons
that are not necessarily at the same areal location. This method
has been used to process a steeply dipping reservoir with
43
multiple horizons.
Injection Profiling. Critical to efficient operation of a
steamflood project is the proper identification of steam over the
target sand. This is done by injection profile surveys.
A new method has been developed and tested that increases
44
the reliability of profile survey data. This method uses
radioactive inert gases (e.g., Kr-85) to trace the vapor phase and
water-soluble radioactive compounds (e.g., iodide 131) to trace
the liquid phase.
A diagram of the survey apparatus used with this method is
shown in Figure 12. Two downhole gamma ray detectors
separated by a known distance are used to measure tracer
velocity between two detection points within the well. A surface
detector is used to determine when the tracer entered the well.
By measuring the velocities of the vapor phase at various points
and combining this information with the liquid tracer survey
5
data, it is possible to construct a steam quality profile over the
injection interval. Current efforts are aimed at improving the
survey procedures and data analysis methods so that injection
45
profiles may be determined reliably and accurately.
Performance Prediction
Performance prediction for both cyclic and continuous steam
injection began with analytical heating models of the 50s and
46,47
60s. For single homogeneous steam injection targets, these
models provide a relatively rigorous treatment of the heat trans-
fer process. However, they incorporate very little of the physics
or mechanisms for the simultaneous flow of steam, oil, and
water. As such, these models generally over-predict the recovery
potential and can not be used for reservoirs with complex
geometry or heterogeneity.
Advances in reservoir simulation in the past 20 years have
made it possible to model virtually all important reservoir phe-
48,49
nomena. Developments in high-speed computing during the
same period have allowed use of more detailed and accurate
reservoir description in the simulation models at reasonable cost
and computing time. Numerical simulation has slowly replaced
the analytical models and is now used with increasing
confidence as experience and accuracy of simulation increase.
Numerical Simulation. Several thermal simulators have been
developed during the past 15 years. They include: (1) THERM
developed by SSI-Intercomp, (2) STARS by CMG of Calgary,
Canada, (3) VIP-THERM by Landmark (Halliburton), (4)
CHEARS by Chevron, and (5) a host of in-house simulators
50
owned and used by U.S. oil companies. These simulators are
similar in their mathematical formulations (i.e., heat and material
balance equations) but differ in their solution techniques and
simulation capabilities.
The simulators are all capable of simulating cold waterflood,
hot waterflood, steamflood, and cyclic steam operations. In addi-
tion, STARS and THERM are also capable of simulating in situ
combustion. Capabilities to handle process complexities
continue to be added to these simulators. For instance, STARS
and THERM can now simulate injection of gaseous or chemical
additives with steam. Modifications in CHEARS allowed a
relatively rigorous simulation of steam-foam flow in porous
51
media. Shell used a simple foam flow mechanism in their
52
simulator to history match a field performance.
Until now, most simulation studies were made with models
of repeating patterns (e.g., 1/8 of 5-spot or inverted 9-spot, 1/12
of inverted 7-spot) or rectangular models having a limited
7, 53-55
number of layers. As the memory capacity and speed of
modern computers increased, conducting complex fieldwide
history-match simulation became possible. History matched
models are necessary for rigorous management of large-scale
56
steamflood projects as demonstrated by Blunschi and Hong et
57
al (1992).
Simulation on Personal Computers. Recent advances in
computing technology (e.g., speed and memory) also allowed
6 K. C. Hong
introduction of thermal simulation software on personal
computers (PC’s). This in turn allowed deployment of thermal
simulation technology to field offices to enable the staff
responsible for operating steamfloods to conduct on-site studies
58
of their projects. Field engineers now routinely use this
technology to evaluate investment decisions and development
alternatives, manage steamflood reservoirs, and optimize project
operations.
Future Technological Needs
Many technological advances are needed in the future to extend
the application of steamflooding and make the process more
efficient. Short and long-term research and development efforts
are under way at universities and oil company laboratories to
advance the technologies listed below.
Process improvements:
• More effective use of thermal horizontal wells
• More effective use of Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD) process
• Steamflooding in carbonate, fractured, or diatomite reser-
voirs
• Improved steamflood strategies for steeply dipping
reservoirs
• Low-cost, steam mobility control methods
Surface equipment and methods:
• Use of coal or nuclear energy for steam generation
• Improved method for splitting steam uniformly at pipe
tees
• Accurate measurement of steam quality and flow rate
Subsurface equipment and methods:
• Downhole steam generation for offshore or deep
reservoirs
• Cost effective insulation for deep steam
• Steam injection profiling and control methods
• Horizontal well completion, sand control, etc.
Performance prediction:
• Fieldwide simulation capabilities on PC’s
• Model scale-up for adverse mobility-ratio floods
• Streamtube-fractal models for thermal processes
References
"30"1),"5RGEKCN<" Q7050" &GOCPF" HQT" 1KN." )CU" 5GV" VQ" )TQY" #ICKP" KP
N;8R."1KN"(")CU",QWTPCN"*,CPWCT["4;."3;;8+<"73/830
2. Wu, C. H.: “A Critical Review of Steamflood Mechanisms," paper
SPE 6550 presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, April 13-5, 1977.
"50" %CTTKI[." /0" #0<" Q6JGTOCN" 4GEQXGT[" HTQO" 6CT" 5CPFU.$" ,0" 2GV0
6GEJ0"*&GEGODGT"3;:5+<"436;/790
"60" /CKPNCPF." )0" )0" CPF" .Q." *0" ;0<" Q6GEJPQNQIKECN" $CUKU" HQT
%QOOGTEKCN" +P/5KVW" 4GEQXGT[" QH" %QNF" .CMG" $KVWOGP.$" 2TQEGGF
SPE 54078
KPIU"QH"VJG"33VJ"9QTNF"2GVTQNGWO"%QPITGUU.",QJP"9KNG["CPF"5QPU.
3;:6."8QN0"5."RR0"457/640
5. Huff, B. D.: “Coalinga Horizontal Well Applications: Present and
Future,” paper SPE 30283 presented at the International Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary Alberta, Canada, June 19-21, 1995.
"80".WHV."*0"$0"GV"CN0<"Q6JGTOCN"2GTHQTOCPEG"QH"+PUWNCVGF"%QPEGPVTKE
%QKNGF" 6WDKPI" *+%%6+" HQT" %QPVKPWQWU" 5VGCO" +PLGEVKQP" KP" *GCX[
1KN" 2TQFWEVKQP.R" RCRGT" 52'" 59756" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 6JGTOCN
1RGTCVKQPU"CPF"*GCX["1KN"5[ORQUKWO."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."(GDTWCT[
32/4."3;;90
"90" *QPI." -0" %0<" Q5VGCOHNQQF" 5VTCVGIKGU" HQT" C" 5VGGRN[" &KRRKPI
4GUGTXQKT.$"52'"4GUGTXQKT"'PIKPGGTKPI"*/C["3;::+<"653/;0
":0"*QPI."-0"%0<"Q'HHGEVU"QH")CU"%CR"CPF"'FIGYCVGT"QP"1KN"4GEQXGT[
D[" 5VGCOHNQQFKPI" KP" C" 5VGGRN[" &KRRKPI" 4GUGTXQKT.R" RCRGT" 52'
42243"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'"%CNKHQTPKC"4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI."8GPVWTC.
%#."#RTKN"6/8."3;;20"
";0"*QPI."-0"%0<"Q1RVKOWO"9GNN".QECVKQP"HQT"5VGCOHNQQFKPI"5VGGRN[
&KRRKPI" 4GUGTXQKTU.$" RCRGT" 52'" 43993" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 52'
%CNKHQTPKC" 4GIKQPCN" /GGVKPI." .QPI" $GCEJ." %#." /CTEJ" 42/4.
3;;30
10. Ault, J. W., Johnson, W. M., and Kamilos, G. N.: “Conversion of
Steamfloods to Low-Quality Steam and/or Hot-Water Injection Pro-
jects," paper SPE 13604 presented at the SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March 27-9, 1985.
330" *QPI." -0" %0<" Q)WKFGNKPGU" HQT" %QPXGTVKPI" 5VGCOHNQQF" VQ" 9CVGT/
HNQQF.$"52'"4GUGTXQKT"'PIKPGGTKPI"*(GDTWCT["3;:9+<"89/980
340" *QPI." -0" %0<" Q1RVKOWO" 6GORGTCVWTG" CPF" +PLGEVKQP" 4CVG" HQT
2QUVUVGCO" 9CVGTHNQQF.$" RCRGT" 5GEVKQP" 35" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 3;:7
'PJCPEGF"4GEQXGT["9GGM"%QPHGTGPEG"QP"*GCX["1KN"("6CT"5CPFU.
.QU"#PIGNGU."%#."&GEGODGT";/32."3;:70
350"&G(TCPEKUEQ."50"60"GV"CN0<"Q7VKNK\KPI"9#52"CPF"*QV"9CVGTHNQQF
VQ"/CZKOK\G"VJG"8CNWG"QH"C"6JGTOCNN["/CVWTG"5VGCO"&TKXG"KP"VJG
9GUV"%QCNKPIC"(KGNF.$"RCRGT"52'"4;887"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"9GUVGTP
4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI"QH"52'."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."/CTEJ":/32."3;;70
360"/CUVOCPP."/0<"Q5WEEGUUHWN"%QORNGVKQP" QH" C" 5VGCOHNQQF" 2TQLGEV
KP"VJG"'ONKEJJGKO"1KNHKGNF.R"C"RCRGT"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"9VJ"'WTQRGCP
+14"5[ORQUKWO."/QUEQY."4WUUKC."1EVQDGT"49/;."3;;50
370" *QPI." -0" %0" CPF" 5VGXGPU." %0" '0<" Q9CVGT/#NVGTPCVKPI/5VGCO
2TQEGUU" +ORTQXGU" 2TQLGEV" 'EQPQOKEU" CV" 9GUV" %QCNKPIC" (KGNF.R
52'"4GUGTXQKT"'PIKPGGTKPI"*0QXGODGT"3;;4+<"629/350
16. Bokserman, A. A. et al.: “Application of Heat Carriers Upon
Development of High-Viscous Heavy Oil Fields in the U.S.S.R.,"
paper No. 214 presented at the 4th UNITAR/UNDP Conference on
Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Edmondton, Alberta, Canada, August
7-12, 1988.
390" $CWVKUVC." .0" CPF" (TKGFOCPP." (0<" Q9CVGT/#NVGTPCVKPI/5VGCO
2TQEGUU" *9#52+" #NNGXKCVGU" 5VGCO" /KITCVKQP" KP" %[OTKE" (KGNF.$
RCRGT"52'"499;6"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'1&1'"0KPVJ"5[ORQUKWO"QP
+ORTQXGF"1KN"4GEQXGT[."6WNUC."1-."#RTKN"39/42."3;;60
3:0"(TKGFOCPP."(0"GV"CN0<"Q5VGCO"(QCO"/GEJCPKUVKE"(KGNF"6TKCN"KP"VJG
/KFYC[/5WPUGV" (KGNF.$" RCRGT" 52'" 439:2" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG
%CNKHQTPKC"4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI"QH"52'.".QPI"$GCEJ."%#"/CTEJ"42/
4."3;;30
3;0" 2CV\GM." 60" 90" CPF" -QKPKU." /0" 60<" Q-GTP" 4KXGT" 5VGCO" (QCO
2KNQVU.$",0"2GV0"6GEJ0"*#RTKN"3;;2+<"6;8/7250
420"/QJCOOCFK."50"50."8CP"5N[MG."&0"%0."CPF")CPQPI."$0<"Q5VGCO/
(QCO" 2KNQV" 2TQLGEV" KP" &QOG/6WODCFQT." /KFYC[" 5WPUGV" (KGNF.$
52'"4GUGTXQKT"'PIKPGGTKPI"*(GDTWCT["3;:;+<"9/380
SPE 54078 Recent Advances in Steamflood Technology
430" *WPVGT." $0" .0" GV" CN0<" Q#RRNKECVKQP" QH" C" 2QN[OGT" )GN" 5[UVGO" VQ
%QPVTQN" 5VGCO" $TGCMVJTQWIJ" CPF" %JCPPGNKPI.R" RCRGT" 52'" 46253
RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'"9GUVGTP"4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#.
/CTEJ"52/#RTKN"3."3;;40
440" *GLN." -0" #0" GV" CN0<" Q%QCNKPIC" .KIPQUWNHQPCVG" )GN" 6TKCN.R" RCRGT
52'"5976:"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'"+PVGTPCVKQPCN"6JGTOCN"1RGTCVKQPU
CPF"*GCX["1KN"5[ORQUKWO."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#"(GDTWCT["32/4."3;;90
450" (CPCTKVKU." ,0" 20" CPF" -KOOGN." ,0" &0<" Q4GXKGY" QH" 1PEG/6JTQWIJ
5VGCO")GPGTCVQTU.$",0"2GV0"6GEJ0"*#RTKN"3;87+<"62;/380
24. “Kern County to Get Four Cogeneration Plants”: Enhanced
Recovery Week, January 18, 1988.
470"*QPI."-0"%0<"Q6YQ/2JCUG"(NQY/5RNKVVKPI"CV"C"2KRG"6GGR.",0"2GV0
6GEJ0"*(GDTWCT["3;9:+<"4;2/80
480" ,QPGU." ,0" CPF" 9KNNKCOU." 40" .0<" Q#" 6YQ/2JCUG" (NQY/5RNKVVKPI
&GXKEG" 6JCV" 9QTMU.$" RCRGT" 52'" 43754" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" +PVGT/
PCVKQPCN" 6JGTOCN" 1RGTCVKQPU" 5[ORQUKWO." $CMGTUHKGNF." %#.
(GDTWCT["9/:."3;;30"
490"%JKGP."50/(0"CPF"4WDGN."/0"60<"$2JCUG"5RNKVVKPI"QH"9GV"5VGCO"KP
#PPWNCT" (NQY" 6JTQWIJ" C" *QTK\QPVCN" +ORCEVKPI" 6GG.$" 52'
2TQFWEVKQP"'PIKPGGTKPI"*0QXGODGT"3;;4+<"58:/960
4:0" *QPI." -0" %0" CPF" )TKUVQP." 50<" Q6YQ/2JCUG" (NQY" 5RNKVVKPI" CV" CP
+ORCEVKPI" 6GG.$" 52'" 2TQFWEVKQP" CPF" (CEKNKVKGU" *#WIWUV" 3;;7+<
3:6/;20
4;0" *QPI." -0" %0<" Q'HHGEVU" QH" 5VGCO" 3WCNKV[" CPF" +PLGEVKQP" 4CVG" QP
5VGCOHNQQF"2GTHQTOCPEG.R"52'"4GUGTXQKT"'PIKPGGTKPI"*0QXGODGT
3;;6+<"4;2/80
30. Hong, K. C. and Griston, S.: “Best Practice for the Distribution and
Metering of Two-Phase Steam,” SPE Production and Facilities
(August 1997): 173-80.
31. Redus, C. L. et al.: “Kern River Field Test of a Steam Quality
Measurement Technique," paper SPE 17445 presented at the SPE
California Regional Meeting, Long Beach, CA, March 23-5, 1988.
540" *QNEGM." 40" )0<" Q#" 2CRGT" QP" 5VGCO" &KUVTKDWVKQP." %QPVTQN" CPF
/GVGTKPI" 5[UVGOU.$" RCRGT" 0Q0" 5;" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 6VJ
70+6#4170&2" %QPHGTGPEG" QP" *GCX[" %TWFG" CPF" 6CT" 5CPFU.
'FOQPVQP."#NDGTVC."%CPCFC."#WIWUV"9/34."3;::0
550" )TKUVQP." 50<" Q'XCNWCVKQP" QH" 6YQ/2JCUG" 5VGCO" (NQY" 6JTQWIJ" CP
1TKHKEG.$"RCRGT"52'"3;922"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'"#PPWCN"6GEJPKECN
%QPHGTGPEG."5CP"#PVQPKQ."6:."1EVQDGT":/33."3;:;0
560" 5WTDG[." &0" 90." -GNMCT." $0" )0." CPF" $TKNN." ,0" 20<" Q5VWF[" QH
/WNVKRJCUG" %TKVKECN" (NQY" 6JTQWIJ" 9GNNJGCF" %JQMGU.$" *7PUQ/
NKEKVGF+"2CRGT"52'"37362."3;:80
570" 5WTDG[." &0" 90." -GNMCT." $0" )0." CPF" $TKNN." ,0" 20<" Q5VWF[" QH
5WDETKVKECN" (NQY" 6JTQWIJ" /WNVKRNG" 1TKHKEG" 8CNXGU.$" 52'
2TQFWEVKQP"'PIKPGGTKPI"*(GDTWCT["3;::+<"325/:0"
580" 5KOU." ,0" %0" CPF" *WVEJKPUQP." &0" *0<" Q6JG" &KGNGEVTKE" 5VGCO
3WCNKV[" 5GPUQT." .CDQTCVQT[" &GXGNQROGPV" CPF" (KGNF" 'XCNWCVKQP.R
RCRGT"52'"59736"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"6JGTOCN"1RGTCVKQPU"CPF"*GCX[
1KN"5[ORQUKWO."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."(GDTWCT["32/4."3;;90
590"*WHH."$0"&0"GV"CN0<"Q1RVKOK\KPI"5VGCOHNQQF"2GTHQTOCPEG"7VKNK\KPI
C" 0GY" CPF" *KIJN[" #EEWTCVG" 6YQ/2JCUG" 5VGCO" /GCUWTGOGPV
5[UVGO.R"RCRGT"52'"4;849"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'"9GUVGTP"4GIKQPCN
/GGVKPI."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."/CTEJ":/32."3;;70
5:0" 9TKIJV." &0" '0<" Q2TQFWEGF" 9CVGT" 5CNGU" CV" -GTP" 4KXGT" L" CP
1XGTXKGY.$" RCRGT" 52'" )'//5;" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 52'" 9GUVGTP
4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI.".QPI"$GCEJ."%#.",WPG47/9."3;;90
5;0"&QPCNFUQP."#0"$0<"Q4GHNGEVKQPU"QP"C"&QYPJQNG"5VGCO")GPGTCVQT
2TQITCO.R" RCRGT" 52'" 5:498" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 9GUVGTP" 4GIKQPCN
/GGVKPI"QH"52'.".QPI"$GCEJ."%#.",WPG"47/9."3;;90
7
40. Willhite, G. P. and Griston, S.: “Wellbore Refluxing in Steam
Injection Wells," paper SPE 15056 presented at the SPE California
Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA, April 2-4, 1986.
630" *QPI." -0" %0." )TKUVQP." 50." CPF" %QQM." 50" &0<" Q/QTG" 'HHGEVKXG
/GCPU" HQT" %QPVTQNNGF" +PLGEVKQP" QH" 5VGCO" KPVQ" /WNVKRNG" 5CPFU.$
2TQEGGFKPIU" QH" VJG" 38VJ" #PPWCN" %QPXGPVKQP" QH" VJG" +PFQPGUKCP
2GVTQNGWO" #UUQEKCVKQP." ,CMCTVC." +PFQPGUKC." 1EVQDGT" 42/43." 3;:9.
RR0"449/670
640" )TQXG." )0" #0" CPF" 8GTXNQGV." #0" 90<" Q5NKOJQNG" &TKNNKPI" 5CXGU
&QNNCTU"KP"6JGTOCN"+PLGEVQTU.R"RCRGT"52'"479:2"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG
52'"+PVGTPCVKQPCN"6JGTOCN"1RGTCVKQPU"CPF"*GCX["1KN"5[ORQUKWO.
$CMGTUHKGNF."%#"(GDTWCT["32/4."3;;90""
650" &GPPKU." '0" .0<" Q2TQLGEV" &GUKIP" HQT" 5NKOJQNG" 5VGCO" +PLGEVQTU" KP
6JGTOCN" 4GEQXGT[" 2TQLGEVU" CU" %QORCTGF" VQ" %QPXGPVKQPCN" 5VGCO
+PLGEVQTU.R" RCRGT" 52'" 4;84;" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 9GUVGTP" 4GIKQPCN
/GGVKPI"QH"52'."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."/CTEJ":/32."3;;70
44. Nguyen, T. V. and Stevens, C. E.: “The Use of Inert Gas
Radioactive Tracers for Steam Injection Profiling," paper SPE
17419 presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Long
Beach, CA, March 23-5, 1988.
670")TKUVQP."50<"Q'XCNWCVKQP"QH"4CFKQCEVKXG"6TCEGT"5WTXG[U"HQT"5VGCO
+PLGEVKQP"9GNNU.$"RCRGT"52'"42253"RTGUGPVGF"CV"VJG"52'"%CNKHQTPKC
4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI."8GPVWTC."%#."#RTKN"6/8."3;;20
680"/CTZ.",0"90"CPF".CPIGPJGKO."40"*0<"Q4GUGTXQKT"*GCVKPI"D["*QV
(NWKF"+PLGEVKQP.$"6TCPU0."#+/'"*8QN0"438."3;7;+<"534/70
690" /CPFN." )0" CPF" 8QNGM." %0" 90<" Q*GCV" CPF" /CUU" 6TCPURQTV" KP
5VGCO/&TKXG"2TQEGUUGU.$"6TCPU0."#+/'"*8QN0"468."3;8;+<"7;/9;0
6:0"%QCVU."-0"*0.")GQTIG."90"&0." CPF" /CTEWO." $0" '0<" Q6JTGG/&K/
OGPUKQPCN"5KOWNCVKQP"QH"5VGCOHNQQFKPI.$"52'",QWTPCN"*&GEGODGT
3;96+<"795/;40
6;0" 4WDKP." $0" CPF" $WEJCPCP." 90" .0<" Q#" )GPGTCN" 2WTRQUG" 6JGTOCN
/QFGN.$" RCRGT" 52'" 33935" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 52'" %CNKHQTPKC
4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI."8GPVWTC."%#."/CTEJ"45/7."3;:50"
720"#\K\."-0."4COGUJ."#0"$0."CPF"9QQ."20"60<"Q(QWTVJ"52'"%QORCT/
CVKXG" 5QNWVKQP" 2TQLGEV<" %QORCTKUQP" QH" 5VGCO" +PLGEVKQP" 5KOW/
NCVQTU.R",0"2GV0"6GEJ0"*&GEGODGT"3;:9+<"3798/:60
730"(TKGFOCPP."(0."%JGP."90"*0."CPF")CWINKV\."20"#0<"Q'ZRGTKOGPVCN
CPF"5KOWNCVKQP"5VWF["QH"*KIJ/6GORGTCVWTG"(QCO"&KURNCEGOGPV"KP
2QTQWU"/GFKC.$"52'"4GUGTXQKT"'PIKPGGTKPI"*(GDTWCT["3;;3+<"59/
670
740" 2CV\GM." 60" 90" CPF" /[JKNN." 00" #0<" Q5KOWNCVKQP" QH" 6JG" $KUJQR
5VGCO" (QCO" 2KNQV.$" RCRGT" 52'" 3:9:8" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 52'
%CNKHQTPKC"4GIKQPCN"/GGVKPI."$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."#RTKN"7/9."3;:;0
750" %JW." %0" CPF" 6TKODNG." #0" '0." 3;97<" Q0WOGTKECN" 5KOWNCVKQP" QH
5VGCO" &KURNCEGOGPV" /" (KGNF" 2GTHQTOCPEG" #RRNKECVKQPU.$" ,0" 2GV0
6GEJ0"*,WPG+<"987/980
760"*QPI."-0"%0<"Q0WOGTKECN"5KOWNCVKQP"QH".KIJV"1KN"5VGCOHNQQFKPI
KP" VJG" $WGPC" 8KUVC" *KNNU" (KGNF." %CNKHQTPKC.$" 2TQEGGFKPIU" QH" VJG
52'" +PVGTPCVKQPCN" /GGVKPI" QP" 2GVTQNGWO" 'PIKPGGTKPI." $GKLKPI.
%JKPC."/CTEJ"39/42."3;:8."RR0"547/560
770" ,QJPUQP." 40" 50" GV" CN0<" Q*KUVQT[" /CVEJKPI" QH" *KIJ/" CPF" .QY/
3WCNKV["5VGCOHNQQFU"KP"-GTP"4KXGT"(KGNF."%CNKHQTPKC.$"RCRGT"52'
3:98:" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 52'" %CNKHQTPKC" 4GIKQPCN" /GGVKPI.
$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."#RTKN"7/9."3;:;0
780"$NWPUEJK.",0"*0<"Q5KOWNCVKQP"QH"C"34/2CVVGTP"(KGNF"6TKCN"QH".KIJV
1KN" 5VGCOHNQQFKPI.$" RCRGT" 52'" 38957" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" #PPWCN
6GEJPKECN" %QPHGTGPEG" QH" 52'." &CNNCU." 6:." 5GRVGODGT" 49/52.
3;:90
8 K. C. Hong SPE 54078

790" *QPI." -0" %0" GV" CN0<" Q4GUGTXQKT" /CPCIGOGPV" QH" C" .KIJV" 1KN
5VGCOHNQQF"2KNQV"KP"VJG"51<"(CWNV"$NQEM."'NM"*KNNU"(KGNF.R"RCRGT
52'" 46259" RTGUGPVGF" CV" VJG" 9GUVGTP" 4GIKQPCN" /GGVKPI" QH" 52'.
$CMGTUHKGNF."%#."/CTEJ"52/#RTKN"3."3;;40
7:0" *QPI." -0" %0" CPF" %QQM." )0" 90<" Q5WEEGUUHWN" &GRNQ[OGPV" QH
6JGTOCN"5KOWNCVKQP"6GEJPQNQI["VQ"(KGNF"1HHKEG.R" 52'" %QORWVGT
#RRNKECVKQPU"*(GDTWCT["3;;8+<"37/;0"

SI Metric Conversion Factors

3
bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 =m
Btu x 1.055 056 E+00 = kJ
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s
3 3
ft x 2.831 685 E-02 =m
(°F-32) x 5.555555 E-01 = °C
ft x 3.048* E-01 =m
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact