Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ten Pattern Steamflood - Ken River Field PDF
Ten Pattern Steamflood - Ken River Field PDF
River Field,
Kern
California
Introduction
The 10-pattem steamflood field trial was initiated in the
Kern River field, Calif., in Sept. 1968. This field was
selected for a commercial test after the technical success
of the steamflood process was confirmed by the Inglewood field test. 1 The Kern River field properties
of high oil viscosity, low reservoir pressure, shallow
depth, and high oil saturation are all favorable for thermal recovery techniques. Chevron Oil Field Research
Co. and Standard Oil Co. of California, Western Operations Inc., designed and operated the test to measure
vertical and areal coverages, displacement efficiencies,
and residual oil saturations with data from several
temperature observation wells and core holes.
This paper contains a description of the reservoir, the
project facilities, and the performance to Oct. 1, 1973.
The project is analyzed in detail and the performance is
compared with theory. Results of a new steamflood
prediction methodz are also included.
Project Description
Field Area and Background
The 10-pattern steamflood is being conducted in Sec.r AL.
v- D:.,,s. +Zal,-l ma
r Ralc-rcfield
~~!~f,
tlon 3 u]
mc IVGIII N VGI Ile,u,
,,&a
amw..,..-.~,
The field was discovered in 1899 and was largely developed by 1915. The reservoir is 300 to 500 ft thick
and is first encountered in Section 3 from 200 to 300 ft
below the surface. The Kern River Sand Series productive limits are defined by the downdip China Grade
Loop fault and by updip outcropping.
The steamflood project at Kern River j7eld consists of10 inverted seven-spot injection
patterns, with 32 producing wells covering 61 acres. Steam injection is confined to a 70-ft
sand. Extensive data analyses confirm that steam flooding is a most eflicient displacement
mechanism, with a volumetric sweep of more than 60 percent.
DECEMBER, 1975
1505
., ...
.11.
Fig.
--...---l.-..a,l
191
4.2
+=
122
81
175
2-2
992
200
65
I
7s(
*..
~,s.
67
201
#*
ZJ2
g
,7
1%
40+
A.
LEGENO
~~g~.Q*~~~y&?!Qu
lmd
KLL
INJECTION WELL
l&-__
PROOUCING WILL
-+F_
ABANOONEO WELL
SHUT-IN WELL
1971 EXPANSION AREA
11.11
Fig. 2 Ten-pattern
1506
steamflood,
JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY
700 to
psig
770
14
225
80
70
80
2,710
4
7,800
1,4E
52
with T prefixes, were located to give maximum information on areal sweep, rate of advance of the heat
front, and vertical coverage of the steam drive. The observation wells were completed with 31h-in. tubing
cemented to the surface.
Project Facilities
A bank of six steam generators, each rated at 18 million
Btu/hr and 1,200 psi, was instaiied to initiate the pi~ject. A seventh generator was placed in June 1969 and
an eighth generator was added in April 1970 to bring
total steam-generating capacity to 10,400 BWPD.
Most wells in the project area formerly were produced by central-power rod lines and jack pumps.
These wells aIl have been equipped with modem pumping units ranging from WI *25to AFI i60 in SkR,
with elecrnc motor drive and lifting capacity from 200
to 1,000 B/D.
Production is routed through the gauge settings at the
injection manifold sites to the central treating plant in
Section 3. The plant uses horizontal water knock-outs
and heater treaters for separation and cleaning before
shipment through an LACT unit to the pipeline. All
production from Section 3 is metered by the LACT unit
this provides a check against daily production by
gauges. Gauging frequency ranges from once a week on
the 10 inside key-pattern wells to once a month for the
first line of wells outside the project area.
Project Performance
injection Hkitliy
The total project injection and production history is
shown in Fig. 3.
Injection rates have varied from 6,000 to 10,000
BWPD, and are currently near 6,000 BWPD. Wellhead
pressures were as high as 620 psig initially, but decreased to 200 psig w~thin 3 months as the area around
the welIbore became hot and there was less resistance to
flow because of reduced reservoir fluid viscosity. The
surface pressures and temperatures are directly related
to rates but, in general, there has been a significant increase in the injectivityy index with time.
Pressure and temperature surveys made in injection
wells indicate that most pressure losses occur in the injection tubing and not in the formation.
The project as a whole appears to be rate-sensitive;
that is, the higher the injection rate, the higher the
oil production. However, there is also an econornicoptimum injection rate that results in the most oil production
per dollar invested for steam injection. The
DECEMBER. 1975
12
90
D
6
4
2
10.000
~~
5.000
CW.
,:.>.
-.,>~,> . .
... .... . . .
. . . ..
.. . ..
. ..-.
..-..6
F-._-__-&
m.+
- ...
10 ;
z
10
lS9S)661@7168
Fig. 3 Ten-pattern
f6S
)70
steamflood
711721
?317475
total performance.
1507
1,
In.
---mm
mm
!,,
HI
NJ
,, *
t
ml
,,,
,!*
injected liquids unaccounted for, either by fillup or because they were lost outside the project area. This was
before the expansion to the south, which has apparently
contributed to production since Aug. 1971.
Of the maximum of 824,000 bbl over-injected to
Aug. 1971, it is estimated that about 600,000 bbl were
required for fillup inside the project area. This is 5.3
percent of the pore volume of the flooded zone.
.1
*
;
,,
i
,,
t,
u
,,
F@.
ml!
IV*
Heat Balance
A heat balance in a large injection project like the 10pattem is more difficult to calculate than the liquid
balance. Estimates of surface heat losses, down-hole
losses in the injection and production wells, losses in
the formation based on observation well data, and heat
content of the produced fluids must be made. A complete heat balance had not been made at the time of
this report. However, in this paper the produced heat
is subtracted from the injected heat (as though it
never entered the reservoir) for calculation purposes.
Fig. 5 shows that the cumulative heat produced at
the surface has reached 15 percent of the total surface
injected heat. It is slowly increasing and may ultimately
reach 18 percent. None of the published heat-loss
theory accounts for the heat produced at the surface
with produced fluids.
Tracer Data
Four tracers were injected at the beginning of the project:
Well
12-6
10-4
10-8
9-6
Tracer
Tritium
NaN03
NaBr
NaCl
Concentration
0.5 millicuries/gal
500 ppm N03
150 ppm Br
1,000 ppm Cl
40
40
3E
JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY
Project Analysis
Te.mperdureData
Surface flowline temperatures have been monitored
throughout the project and have proved useful in several
ways. The data are necessary for produced-heat calculations and can reveal whether a well is responding,
whether the liner is plugging, and whether larger pumping equipment should be considered.
More than 600 temperature profiles taken in the 14
observation wells have been used in analyzing the vertical and areal coverage, the rate of heat-front movement,
and heat losses within the reservoir. A typical temperature profile depicting the steam zone, hot water zone,
and equivalent injection interval is shown in Fig. 6.
PAHERN
stem Zone
Thickness, ft
Average oil saturation, percent
Average oil content, bbl/acre-ft
Oil displaced, bbl/acre-ft
Stock-tank oil in place, percent
&w.
w, .~n~
...
Well
~
<1
18
53
1,377
18
8
188
1,191
87
:/
L
39
47
1,235
39
24
590
720 ?1
845
52
--b
730 :1
:
733
~
DECEMBER, 1975
~?
49
1,278
814
64
MOTW&TfR
INTERVAL
-1 m
,,
UMXNOWN
.,
;J
LEGEND
---
(1/08)
,Mt4
,!
!,7,
OUJSO
!,7 !
.lsO.lsO.
!s71
!,71
>s0
LOG TM
Fig. 8 Vertical
heat-zone
---:-.--I
is siignuy better than the clllplll~ai
.
. .
mentioned above.
Isopach maps for all observation-well steam and
hot water zones as a function of time were drawn and
planimetered. The acre-feet of heated zone, steam zone,
and hot water zones for Pattern 12-6 are shown in
Fig. 10.
10-b
117
zoo,
TOTALNET
ZTEAW
ZONE
+ HOTWATERZONE
153
progression,
Pattern 12-6.
Fig. 10
JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY
TABLE 3 STEAMFLOOD
COVERAGE
Steam zone
Areal sweep
3.1
Vertical sweep
21.4
Volumetric sweep
66.6
Displacement, STB/acre-ft
res bbl
Hot water zone
Areal sweep
4.6
Vertical sweep
21.4
Volumetric sweep
98.0
Di&x#ent,
STB/acre-ft
.-.. --Heat leak zone (Pattern 9-6 only)
Displacement, STB/acre-ft
res bbl
Total heated zones
Areal sweep
3.8
Vertical sweep
42.8
Volumetric sweep
164.6
Total displacement since Sept. 1968, bbl
Primary production to Sept. 1968, bbl
Total primary + diaplac.ement, bbl
Total primary + displacement,
percent stock-tank oil originally in place
DECEMBER. 1975
AT 1.18 PVI
Pattern 12-6
Pattern 9-6
1973)
(Oct. 1,
Units
AND DWPLACEMENT
Estimated
(Oct. 1, 1973)
Percent
of Total
Units
Percent
of Total
52
36
19
3.7 acres
32.5 ff
121.2 acre-ft
60
51
31
acres
ft
acre-ft
1,523
101,400
acres
ft
acre-ft
Units
83%
734
14,700
acres
64
72
ft
acre-ft
47
199,300
82,200
281,500
4.7 acres
35.1 ft
165.6 acre-ft
30.0
56
43
25
1,059.3 acre-ft
1,357
1,437,500
77
55
42
46.6 acres
31.4 ff
1,483.0 acre-ft
645
106,800
4.2 acres
68
100+
67.6 ft
73
286.8 acre-n
251,100
81,300
332,400
77
45
35
747 1,107,800
54.4
Totals
Average Percent
of Total
34.0 acres
1,191
I 4A
mn
-,---77
36
26
45.5
10-Pattern
(Oct. 1, 1973)
41.4 acres
61.4ft
2,542.3 acre-ft
67
86
60
2,545,300
934,000
3,479,300
49.5
1511
TABLE
4 STEAMFLOOD
RECOVERY
FACTORS
Pattern 9-6
ha,
awes
Thickness, average, ff
Acre-feet
Stock-tank oil originally in place
(at discovery), bbl
Primary recovery to Sept. 1968, bbl
Primary recovery to Sept. 1966,
percent stock-tafik oil originally in place
Stock-tank oil in place at Sept. 1968, bbl
Remaining primary (ultimate recovery
txircent}.
1~ ~------,. bbl
--Total production, bbl
Production gain over primary, bbl
Production gain over prima~,
percent stock-tank oil originally in place
Total recovery,
percent stock-tank oil originally in place
Capture factors (Oct. 1, 1973)
Total production-primary
to 1968
iTabie 41. biii
Total displacement
(Table 3), bbl
10-Pattern
Total
60,74
64.3
392
69.8
4,237
618,200
82,200
611,300
81,300
7,023,000
934,000
13.3
536,000
13.3
530,000
13.3
6,089,000
10,600
230,400
137,600
10,400
365,300
273,600
119,000
3,219,100
2,166,100
22.2
44.8
30.5
37.2
59.8
45.8
to Wx)tl)
(230,400
since 1968
TO OCT. 1, 1973
Pattern 12-6
~.~~
199,300
= 74.3 percent
251,100
= 113.1 percent
IQ Aa7
{-.
---,
mn
.-
tfi
.
afiA
--.
nnm
-,
2,545,300
= 98.3 percent
(inc!udes
218,200-bbl gain
from first-line
responding wells)
Project Performance
vs Theory
105
100
10 PAITERN
~EAM
FLOOD
KERN RIVER
90
S-
1512
JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY
The original intent of the Marx-Langenheim fielddata comparison was to test the datas validity for long
injection periods. The data are not satisfactory, as can
be seen from the comparison of the predicted with actual steam-zone volumes. However, it was noted that
the Marx-Langenheim uniform temperature-zone prediction overlies the total steam and hot-water zone field
curve. This is probably accidental because the thickness
of the steam zone and the ratio of the steam zone thickness to hot water zones change with time. There is no
way to test this observation against other steamflood
because of lack of data on hot water zones.
Reservoir Heat-Loss Parameters
The thermal conductivity and diffusivity values used for
Baker,3 Marx- Langenheim4 and other
the Neuman,z
heat-loss prediction methods are usually taken from the
literature.
For the 10-pattem project steamflood, it was possible to derive the values for diffusivity from the shape of
the temperature profiles as described in Neumans
p~pei. ~ ~lffidS~v:ty ~aiue of 0=87 sq f~D gave a good
match to measured temperature profiles in most
cases.
The average value of the expression for the ratio of
. .
?
..
. -
.mr
y.y
s~
/A+.&
* /
!Wi
g - -
1,
C..
*r.-,
. . .
. . .
---
mu
,.
., -mm
.
.-m
/
,. ~
thickness
lelllpac.
.
-.
%
i
/
.-.
,.
..
h must be assumed
.Mm
/
*-
/ ,.
,/.
1973.
/,
,!,
.1
/ ..
./
,.,
..Q
/0
_
009
.0?6
..mcm.
/---3!!s
..O: .
0 ,.mmn.
-H,%%%-
*.-!
. .
%
0
../
.. / /
. .
,/
,,.
,,
,--,.
.@
lcalw.l...l
,/
,.
..=
--
,.
6;0;00000
. ..O
=-
..OO
0
.00.0
.*M =
v=-
#-d
//
1~
i:lilii
.
Fig. 12 Neuman
DECEMBER. 1975
ll!!iil
liliillll?
t511iii
ildl!i!
ililiil
w!
di!15il
ii\i
IdJ!~iilil
iii
,,,,
Fig. 14 Marx-Langenheim
predicted steam zone vs
actual, Pattern 12-6.
1513
Conclusions
1514
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank all those employees of Standard Oil
Co. of California who contributed to the success of the
field trial since it was conceived in 1967. We especial] y
c-=b~d
T: A. Edthank D. G-. ~lllJu
w , G. W. h?pe!j
mondson, B. L. Evans, A. E. Pinson, W. G. Paulsen,
F. I. Walker, the late E. A. Erlewine, C. D. Fiddler,
G. W. Rooney, L. W. Glazier, J. W. Hatcher, J. C.
Harrod, W. M. Johnson, and D. W. Ambrose.
References
1.
Blevins,
T. R., Aaeltine,
R. J., and Kirk, R. S.: Anatysisof a
Steam Drive Project, InglewoodField, Califomiii, J. Per. Tech.
Model of Steamflooding
2. Neuman, C. H.: A Mathematical
Applications,
paper SPE 4757, presentedat the SPE-AIME45th
Awwa!CaliforniaRegionalMeeting, Ventura, April 2-4, 1975.
3. Baker, P. E.: Effects of Pressure-and Rate on Steam Zone DeSot. Pef. Eng. J. (Oct.
1973)
velopment in Steamflooding,
274-284; Trans., AlME, 255.
4. Marx. J. W. and LanQenheim. R. H.: Reservoir Heating by Hot
Fluid Injection, Tra~s., AIME (1959) 216, 312-315.
- fiT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers offke Feb. 18,
1975. Revised manuscript
received Oct. 28, t 975. Paper (SPE 4756) was first
pra.samad at tfse SPE-AIME
45th Annual California
Regional Meeting, held in
Ventura, April 2-4, 1975. @ Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Th!s paper will be included
in the 19757r.snsacbons
VOIWIW.
JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY