5PE )1 1 33
State-of-the-Art Review of
Steamflood Field Projects
Chieh Chu, * SPE, Getty Oil Co.
Summary
Based on reservoir data from 28 selected steamflood proj-
ects, a new screening guide has been developed. Two
regression equations that will allow the prediction of
steam/oil ratio (SOR) using known reservoir character-
istics were developed. Reported values of other perform-
ance variables, such as sweep efficiency, displacement
efficiency, and oil recovery, are discussed. Industry ex-
perience on project design with numerical and physical
models is reviewed. Special well completions needed for
steamflood are reviewed, together with surface facilities
and monitoring devices. Also discussed are operational
problems plaguing the steamflood projects, including
steam-related problems, sanding, hot-well productivity,
emulsion, the production of acid gas and solids, and me-
chanical failures. Remedies for these problems are
outlined.
Introduction
Comprehensive reviews of steam-injection field projects,
including both steamfloods and steam-stimulation proj-
ects, have been given by Farouq Ali 1 and Farouq Ali and
Meldau. 2 This review covers only steamfloods, specifi-
cally screening guides, reservoir performance predictions,
project design, well completions, surface facilities and
monitoring devices, and operational problems and their
remedies.
Screening Guides
When dealing with oil prospects, the very first step is to
find out whether the field in question can be produced
by certain recovery methods. Screening guides are useful
for this purpose.
Screening guides for steamflooding have been proposed
by various authors, including Farouq Ali, 1 Geffen, 3
Lewin and Assocs.,4 and Iyoh0 5 (Table 1). A new set
of screening guides appears as the last entry in Table 1.
The approach used for developing this new screening
guide is similar to that used by Chu 6 in developing a
screening guide for fireflood field projects. As the data
base for the development of the new screening guide, 28
steamflood projects were selected. The reservoir charac-
teristics of these projects are listed in Table 2. Project
design, operating variables, and reservoir performance
of these projects are given in Table 3. Because the eco-
nomic feasibility of a steamflood project is related to the
steam consumption needed for producing the oil, an SOR
of 10.0 was used as the criterion to differentiate between
'Now w~h Texaco Inc.
Copyright 1985 Society of Petroleum Engineers
OCTOBER 1985
successful and unsuccessful projects. As seen in Table 3,
23 projects have an SOR less than 10.0. These are positive
projects. The other five projects, with an SOR of 10.0
or greater, are negative projects.
The frequency distributions of the various key reser-
voir characteristics for the positive and negative projects
are given in Fig. 1. For example, Fig. la shows that there
are four positive projects that have a value of tjJS 0 in an
interval 0.16 to 0.18 and one negative project in the same
interval, resulting in three net positive projects for this
interval. Similarly, for the interval 0.08 to 0.10, there
is one positive project and one negative project, giving
a zero net project for this interval. Following this pro-
cedure for the whole range of values for tjJS 0' frequen-
cy profiles for the net number of projects are obtained,
as given in Fig. la. Because negative projects predominate
in the interval below tjJSo =0.08, it is concluded that the
values of tjJSo should be greater than 0.08 to avoid un-
favorable results. The same process was followed regard-
ing other key reservoir characteristics (Fig. 1), resulting
in a screening guide that specifies desirable ranges for
tjJSo, tjJ, So, 0 API, h, and D. No specification was made
for the other variables because no definite trend can be
detected in their frequency profiles for the net number
of projects.
A perusal of the various screening guides listed in Table
1 shows that some of the earlier screening guides were
quite restrictive when used to select oil prospects. Such
a guide minimizes the risk of including some undesirable
prospects. In so doing, it increases the risk of missing
some desirable prospects. Recent changes in the price
structure of crude oil and improved steamflood technol-
ogy helped widen the range of applicability for the
steamflood process. This is reflected in the less restric-
tive screening guide developed in this work. However,
in minimizing erroneous rejection, the current guide may
possibly increase erroneous acceptance. This should be
remembered when one applies this screening guide to the
oil prospects.
Reservoir Performance Predictions
After an oil prospect passes the preliminary screening,
the next step is to predict reservoir performance a priori
under steamflood. This information will help in the
preliminary design and evaluation of the project.
SOR, The SOR is the most important factor characteriz-
ing the success or failure of a steamflood project. Its
reciprocal, the oil/steam ratio (OSR) is commonly used
also. In projects in which oil is used as fuel for steam
generation, 1 bbl [0.59 m 3 ] of oil normally can gener-
1887
 '~rupu ~ d; ;.~~; 1
Id) ·API
+II

+1

... GROSS

+.
IMHb
1w;,~d; ~":
0 0
0 0
-2 CI
.1 +1

+I NET

£§Hb
o 0.10 O.ZO 0.30 0.40
+4

'" So +2
0
[j 0 0
-z
0 00 ZO 0
oAPI

1
DEPTH, It

Fig. 1-Frequency profiles for key reservoir characteristics in steamflood projects. (Continued next page)

ate 13 to 14 bbl [2.07 to 2.23 m 3 ] of steam. Thus the OSR= -0.011253+0.00002779D+0.0001579h

highest SOR that is tolerable without burning more oil
than that produced is 13 to 14. For steamflood operations, -0.0013579+0.0000072321£
there are other costs than for fuel alone, including drill-
ing, well completion, capital and operating costs for steam kh
generation, produced-fluid demulsification and dehydra- +0.00001043- +0.5120c{>So· ......... (1)
tion, general operating costs, etc. Therefore, steam nor- 1£
mally is terminated when the instantaneous SOR reaches
8 or so. The overall SOR, ideally, should be around 4.
After this, SOR can be obtained by taking the reciprocal
This corresponds to 3 to 4 bbl [0.48 to 0.64 m 3 ] of oil
of OSR.
produced per barrel of oil burned as fuel for steam gener-
2. The following equation is valid for SOR::;;5.0
ation. Unfortunately, this ideal case is not normally
(OSR~0.20).
achievable. As shown in Table 3, the SOR ofthe majori-
ty of the field projects falls in the range of 5 to 7.
The SOR was found to correlate with various reservoir SOR=18.744+0.001453D-0.05088h
and crude properties. Based on data from 28 field proj-
ects listed in Tables 2 and 3, the following equations were -0.0008864k-0.00059151£
developed by regression analysis.
1. For SOR>5.0 (OSR<0.20), the SORcan beevalu- kh
ated by first calculating the OSR with the following -14.79S o -0.0002938-. . ............ (2)
.4
equation. 1£
1888 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 (g) DIP

+" GROSS
+4

-2
(ill'

+1

+4

@
Jh ,"00'

-:~8 '0:0 '",' ~

+2

0 R
= "j -2
0
tJ)
l-
I.) o w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

,§b
UJ +"
..." DIP, DEGREES NET
o tJ)
a:: l- +4
Q. I.)

,0
(h) k
UJ +2
!5 +1
..."
0
a:: 0 R

/ em!::I::1 n
o +" Q. LJ
z GROSS U.
-2
+4 0 10 10 10 104 10'
I',Cp
+2 0
z

T
0

~
l
GROSS
-2

+& -2
NET

~
+4

FR~
~
+2

0
0 CJ -:[ II
NET

10 lOS I 10 10 ,Ot 10 4 10·

k, md !h '(md)(It) /cp

Fig. 1 (Continued) -Frequency profiles for key reservoir characteristics in steamflood projects.

Eq. 1 was developed on the basis of 20 field projects,
and the multiple-correlation coefficient is 0.805. Eq. 2
was based on eight field projects. Its multiple-correlation
coefficient is 0.966. A comparison of field results with
the predicted values of OSR (or SOR) is shown in Fig.
2. An excellent fit has been reached in these two cor-
relations.
Because Eq. 2 has a much higher multiple-correlation
coefficient, it is advisable to use Eq. 2 first for evaluating
prospects. If the calculated SOR is less than or equal to
5.0, no further calculation is needed. Otherwise, use Eq.
1 to obtain the OSR and take its reciprocal to obtain the
SOR. To illustrate the use of these two equations, we con-
sider two prospects. The first prospect has the following
reservoir properties: D=41O ft [125 m], h=29.5 ft [9 m],
8=0° [0 rad] , ¢=0.300, k= 1,722 md, °API= 15.9 [0.96
g/cm 3 ], J!=2,OOO cp [2 Pa·s], So=0.850, khlJ!=28 md-
ftlcp [8.42 md·m/Pa·s], and ¢So=0.272. Substitution
of these quantities into Eq. 2 shows that SOR=2.55, in-
dicating that the reservoir is an excellent prospect for
steamflooding. For the second prospect, D=2,550 ft [777
m], h=125 ft [38 m], 8=25° [0.43 rad] , ¢=0.290,
k=300 md, °API= 22.0 [0.92 g/cm 3 ], J!=20 cp [0.02
Pa's], So=0.539, khlJ!=1,875 md-ft/cp [564
md . m/Pa . s], and ¢S0 = 0.156. Substituting these quan-
tities into Eq. 2 gives SOR=7.29, which is greater than
5.0. Eq. I, which gives OSR=0.145, is needed. Its
reciprocal gives SOR=6.90. The prospect for
steamflooding is marginal.
While these two equations were developed on the
assumption that the SOR depends on reservoir character-
istics only, the series of equations developed by Myhill
and Stegemeier 7 enable one to predict OSR with known
reservoir thermal properties, petrophysical properties, and
injected steam conditions. Based on a simple energy bal-
ance, their mathematical model correlated well with

TABLE 1-SCREENING GUIDES FOR STEAM FLOOD PROJECTS

Reference Density h D k p. kh/p.

Number (OAP)
<PS o <I> ~ (ft) (ft) (md) (cp) (md-ftlcp)
1 0.15 to 0.22 0.30 12 to 15 ~30 <3,000 -1,000 <1,000
3 >0.10 >10 >20 <4,000 >20
4 >0.065 >0.50 >10 >20 <5,000 >100
5 >0.065 >0.30 >0.50 10 to 20 30 to 400 2,500 to 5,000 >1,000 200 to 1,000 >50
6 >0.08 >0.20 >0.40 <36 >10 >400 '"
OCTOBER 1985 1889
 TABLE 2A-STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS-RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS

Pilot(P) Gross Net Pay.

Project Field. Location Year or D Pay h 9 </l
Number (Operator) Started Fieldwide(F) Formation (tt) (tt) (tt) (degrees) (fraction)
- -1 - Smackover. AR
---
1964 P Nacatoch 1.940 15 0.36
(Phillips)
2 Smackover. AR 1971 F Nacatoch 1.920 130 25 o to 5 0.35
(Phillips) (2.5 average)
3 Brea. CA 1964 P Lower "B" 4.600 to 5.000 300 to 800 189 to 504 66 0.22
(Shell) sands east (550 average) (346.5 average)
normal to bedding normal to bedding
4 Coalinga. CA 1977 P Temblor 800 to 1.700 200 150 21 0.30
(Shell) Zone I (1.250 average)
5 E. Coalinga. CA 1963 p. F Temblor 900 to 2.200 300 50 14 0.31 to 0.36
(Shell) Zone I (1.500 average) (0.31 average)
6 Huntington Beach. CA 1965 P Upper Tar 2.000 100 0 0.38
(Socal) Lower Tar 2.400 50 0.38
7 Inglewood. CA 1965 P Upper 1.000 43 0 0.39
(Chevron-Socal) Investment
8 Kern River. CA 1968 p. F Kern River 800 85 70 4 0.35
(Chevron) series
9 Kern River. CA 1971 F Kern River 930 80 70 3 to 6 0.35
(Getty) series (4.5 average)
10 Midway Sunset. CA 1975 P Monarch sand 976 o to 600 o to 500 0.27
(Chevron) (350 average) (260 average)
11 Midway Sunset. CA 1975 P "200" sand. 400 200 150 5 to 15 0.30
(Santa Fe-DOE) Spellacy (10 average)
12 Midway Sunset. CA 1970 F Metson 1.050 120 to 1.050 70 0.34
(Tenneco) (354 average)
13 Mount Poso. CA 1970 F Upper Vedder 1.800 70 55 5 to 15 0.33
(Shell) (10 average)
14 Shiells Canyon. CA 1973 P 203 zone 850 160 35 0.205
(Texaco)
15 S. Belridge. CA 1969 F Tulare. 0 and E 1.009 to 1.197 210 91 7 0.35
(Mobil) zones (1.103 average)
16 Yorba Linda. CA 1971 F Upper 650 325 12 0.30
(Shell) Conglomeration
17 EI Dorado. KA 1965 P EI Dorado 650 10 to 20 0.25 to 0.30
(Cities) 17 0.26
18 Deerfield. MO 1956 P Warner 160 26 0.235
(Esso-Humble)
19 Tatums. OK 1964 F Des Moines 850 to 2.000 66 37 45 0.28
(Shell) Zone VIII (1.425 average)
20 Franklin Heavy Pool. PA 1965 P First Venango 45010600 70 50 0.12
(Pennzoil) (525 average)
21 Charco Redondo. TX 1965 P 200 10 0.30 to 0.35
(Texaco) (0.325 average)
22 Slocum. TX 1967 F Carrizo 520 34 32 o to 5 0.34
(Shell) (2.5 average)
23 Winkleman Dome. WY 1964 F Nugget 1.225 180 57 >25 0.236
(Pan American)
24 Schoonebeek. 1961 P Valanginian 2,450 10 2.650 74 to 90 6.5 0.30
The Netherlands (2.550 average) (82 average)
(Nederlandse)
25 Schoonebeek. 1972 F Middle and Lower 2.900 92 to 154 6 0.32
The Netherlands Bentheim (123 average)
(Nederlandse) sandstone
26 Tia Juana. Venezuela 1961 P Lower U 1,450 U150 U 120 3 0.33
C-31C-4 Langunillas L 1.700 Ll00 L 80
(Shell)
27 Tia Juana. Venezuela 1975 F Lower 1.624 250 125 o to 5 0.381
M-6 L"gunillas (2.5 average)
(Maraven)
28 Georgsdorf. 1975 P Valanginian 2.130 to 2.790 140 125 14 0.25
W. Germany (2,460 average)
(BEB)

1890 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 2B-STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS-RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS

pat DIP
Project k T Start Density JL at T So at khlJL at Start
Number (md) (oF) (psi) (OAPI) (cp) Start (md-ft/cp) ",So (STB/acre-ft)
- -1 -
5,000 110 5 19 75 0.80 1,000 0.288
2 2,000 110 7 20 75 0.50 667 0.175 2,234
3 70 175 110 24 6 0.49 4,042 0.108 1,400
4 1,000 95 147 to 400 12 3,000 0.60 50 0.180 895
5 900 to 10,000 100 16 to 30 10 to 300 0.57 2,737 0.177 1,397
(3,000 average) (23 average) (54.8 average) 1,370
6 2,300 110 600 13 700 0.61 329 0.232
2,300 115 1,200 12 2,000 0.61 58 0.232 1,800
7 5,900 100 120 14.5 1,200 0.64 211 0.250 1,800
8 1,900 85 60 14 2,710 0.50 49 0.175 1,930
9 2,400 90 80 14 4,500 0.47 37 0.165 1,344
10 520 105 75 14 1,500 0.59 90 0.159 1,167
11 1,050 to 3,440 90 100 11 6,500 0.59 52 0.177 1,236
(2,245 average) 1,373
12 2,000 100 o to 130 12 3,000 0.75 236 0.255 1,978
13 24,000 110 100 15 280 0.58 4,714 0.191 1,490
14 140 105 85 34 6 0.45 3,733 0.092 716
15 3,000 95 13.0 1,600 0.69 170 0.241 1,874
(estimated)
16 600 85 12 to 15 6,400 0.46 30 0.138 1,071
(13.5 average)
17 20 to 1,000 70 37 4 0.48 599 0.125 968
(141 average)
18 450 60 50 18 1,000 0.29 12 0.068 535
19 500 75 13 to 15 1,600 0.78 12 0.218 1,694
20 800 58 43.9 47 0.40 851 0.048 372
(estimated)
21 2,500 72 o to 20 18 95 0.15 to 0.45 263 0.098 756
(0.30 average)
22 3,500 80 120 18 to 19 1,000 to 3,000 0.68 56 0.231 1,787
(18.5 average) (2,000 average)
23 481 81 14 800 to 1,000 0.796 30 0.188 1,457
(900 average)
24 1,000 to 10,000 100 120 25 200 0.85 1,296 0.255 1,978
(3,160 average)
25 1,000 to 10,000 104 25 160 0.60 to 0.95 2,429 0.248 1,924
(3,160 average) (0.775 average)
26 1,000 to 3,000 113 U 175 12 U 1,300 0.71 U 185 0.234 1,818
(2,000 average) L 350 L 5,000 L 32
27 2,800 113 100 12 600 to 6,000 0.67 185 0.257 1,992
(1,897 average)
28 1,150 104 465 27 160 0.80 898 0.200 1,551

results of steamflood field projects and laboratory model
experiments.
Because the SOR is an important measure of the eco-
nomic feasibility of a project, both the correlations
developed in this work and the model by Myhill and
Stegemeier can be used as screening tools for evaluating
oil prospects as steamflood candidates.
Sweep Efficiency. The areal and vertical sweep of the
steam front has pronounced influence on the economics
of the project. As shown in Table 4, the reported areal
sweep ranges from 60 to as high as 100%. The vertical
sweep efficiency, however, can be as low as 40%. The
reported volumetric sweep ranges from 24 to 99 %.
The vertical sweep was found to decrease with an in-
crease in sand thickness. To reduce the steam override,
mechanical restriction of the production interval was used
successfully in some projects. Another corrective meas-
ure-the use of steam foam diverter-is still in the ex-
perimental stages. 8
Displacement Efficiency. The displacement efficiency is
defined as (Soi -Sor)IS oi ' The reported displacement ef-
OCTOBER 1985
ficiency, shown in Table 4, ranges from 50 to 91 %.
Oil Recovery. Oil recovery can be calculated as the prod-
uct of sweep efficiency and displacement efficiency. The
reported oil recovery ranges from 47 to 73 % of oil in place
(OIP) at the start of the steamflood project (Table 4).
Project Design
Design of a steamflood field project involves the choice
of pattern type and size, steam injection rates and quali-
ty, and completion intervals of injectors and producers.
Many of the earlier steamflood projects were based on
engineering judgment and experience. Since the advent
of the three-dimensional (3D), three-phase numerical
models,9-11 an increasing number of steamflood projects·
have been designed by numerical simulation. In addition,
physical models were used for the design of steamflood
projects.
Recovery Schemes for Reservoirs With Special Fea-
tures. Reservoirs with special features call for special
recovery schemes. Table 5 lists four fields with dip angles <\
greater than 30 0 [0.52 rad], one field with a gas cap
1891
 TABLE 3A-STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS-DESIGN, OPERATION, AND PERFORMANCE

Pattern Total Steam Injection Average Steam

Project Field, Location Pattern Size Area Number of Wells Rate Rate
Number (Operator) Type * (acre) (acre) Injection Production (BID) (B/D/lnjector)
Smackover, AR 1-5 10 10 1 4 3,086 3,086
(Phillips) 22 22 8
2 Smackover, AR 1-6, 1-9 40 985 9 120 7,179 798
(Phillips) etc.
3 Brea, CA UD 5 1 to 2 13 1,050 1,050
(Shell) estimated along (1969-70)
bedding
4 Coalinga, CA 1-5 2.5 10.0 4 9 3,000 750
(Shell)
5 E. Coalinga, CA 5S 1.3 30 4,000
(Shell) DD (1964-69)
6 Huntington Beach, CA 1-11, 1-14 17 34 2 23 2,220 1,300 to 1,350
(SocaJ) (4/65-4/67)
7 Inglewood, CA 1-6 2.6 2.6 5 1,080 1,080
(Chevron-Socal)
8 Kern River, CA 1-5, 1-7 100 25 50 11,000 440
(Chevron)
9 Kern River, CA 5S 2.7 310 114 85 19,000 167
(Getty) corner
interior 2,900 483
10 Midway Sunset, CA 1-5 3.8 23 6 15
(Chevron) 1,~00 375
11 Midway Sunset, CA 1-7 2.35 9.4 4 10 (6/78-12179)
(Santa Fe-DOE) 6,000 (estimated)
12 Midway Sunset, CA UD 18 (6173-12/75)
(Tenneco)
13 Mount Poso, CA UD+DD 290 41 159 74,000 1,919
(Shell) (7178-12179)
14 Shiells Canyon, CA UD 2 10 760 560+200
(Texaco)
15 S. Belridge, CA DD 204 15 41 6,300 (estimated)
(Mobil) (1170-9/73)
16 Yorba Linda, CA 1-9 16 74 850
(Shell)
17 EI Dorado, KA N5 1.6 6.4 9 4 1,170 130
(Cities)
18 Deerfield, MO 1-5 0.625 5.625 9 16 450 50
(Esso-Humble) (estimated) (estimated)
19 Tatums, OK UD 60 4 20 2,570 643
(Shell)
20 Franklin Heavy Pool, PA N5 4 1,200 300
(Pennzoil)
21 Charco Redondo, TX 1-5 2.5 2.5 4 577 577
(Texaco)
22 Slocum, TX 1-13 5.3 258 49 258 17,000 347
(Shell) (5/75-4176)
23 Winkleman Dome, WY 1-5 10 110 15 21 4,100 273
(Pan American) (1972-74)
24 Schoonebeek, 31-5+ 16.4 65.5 4 8 5,300 1,325
The Netherlands 1 1-4
(Nederlandse)
25 Schoonebeek, DD 2 6(?) 3,010
The Netherlands
(Nederlandse)
26 Tia Juana, Venezuela 1-7 11.42 79.94 7 24 9,405 1,344
C-3/C-4 (1963-66) (1963-66)
(Shell)
27 Tia Juana, Venezuela 1-7 25.2 1,831 19 131** 45,000**
M-6 (1979)
(Maraven)
28 Georgsdorf, IRR 160 2 12 4,600 2,300
W. Germany
(BEB)

"I-S_inverted five-spot; NS-normal five-spot; SS=five-spot; UD=updip. DD=downdip. IRR:irregular.

"Includes steam-soak wells.

1892 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 L

TABLE 3B-STEAMFLOOD FIELD PROJECTS-DESIGN, OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE

Steam Steam Thermal Average Oil Oil/Steam SteamlOil

Project Pressure Quality Oil Production Rate Ratio Ratio
Number (psia) ~ (BID) (B/D/Producer) (bbl/bbl) (bbl/bbl) Remarks References
---
1 405 100 100 12.5 0.24 4.14 IS 18
2 1,167 9.7 0.16 6.2 1975-77 data 19
cumulative 1979,
SOR=5.7
3 2,000 53 to 55 240 0.16 6.3 UD injection 20
(bottom) (1969-70)
4 600 to 900 600 66.7 0.19 5.1 21
5 667 6.0 5S 22
(1964-69) 0.17 DO area only
6 800 to 1,000 440 19.1 0.20 5.0 23
(4/65-4/67)
7 350 to 425 12!i 25.7 0.12 8.4 24
0.27* 3.7*
8 1,800 36 0.16 6.1 25, 26
9 200 70 5,000 59 0.21 4.8 8, 15, 27
10 250 to 550 40 to 80 520 0.16 6.1 28, 29
(cumulative) (cumulative)
11 160 16.0 0.11 9.4 30
(6/79-12179)
12 1,050 total 0.13 8.0 31,32
650 thermal (cumulative) (cumulative)
(6/73-12175)
13 350 18,000 113 0.19 5.3 33
(cumulative 1979)
14 480 to 680 57 to 76 230 23 0.25 4.0 34
15 1,100" (estimated) 0.17 5.7 35
(1/70-9173)
16 200 70 7,000 0.17 5.8 36
17 465 75 20 5 0.04 26.0 37
18 125 6.7 0.4 0.02 50.4 38
19 1,300 60 650 32.5 0.10 10.0 39
20 400 14 14 0.05 21.7 40
21 156 30.0 7.5 0.05 20.0 41
22 500 80 1,400 5.4 0.14 7.1 42, 43
(maximum 0.17) 5.9
23 1,150 850 40.5 0.21 4.8 35, 36
24 600 1,900 237.5 0.38 2.7 46
25 1,233 2,100 0.70 1.43 47
26 U 220 6,338 264 0.62 1.62 48
L350 (1963-66) (1963-66) (cumulative) (cumulative)
27 17,OOOt 0.16 6.3 13,49,50
(1979) (end 1979) (end 1979)
28 1,250 0.19 5.3 51

"Includes postinjection production (1972-74).

" "Steamflood only.
t Includes steam-soak wells.

TABLE 4-SWEEP EFFICIENCY, DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY, AND OIL RECOVERY

Displacement Oil
Project Field, Location Sweep Efficiency (%) Efficiency Recovery
Number (Operator) Areal Vertical Volumetric (%) (%) Remarks
7 Inglewood, CA 60.0 50.0 30.0
(Chevron-Socal)
8 Kern River, CA 80.0 58.7 47.0
(Chevron)
9 Kern River, CA -100.0 62.8 to 98.8 70.4 to 90.0 46.6 to 72.6 Based on five pilots listed
(Getty) in Table 3, Ref. 27

53.0 to 78.0 Based on three pilots

listed in Table 3, Ref. 28
12 Midway Sunset, CA 60.0 to 70.0
(Tenneco)
17 EI Dorado, KA <50 Closer to 0 than to 100%
(Cities)
18 Deerfield, MO 85.0 40.0 34.0 Central pattern only
(Esso-Humble)
20 Franklin Heavy Pool, 65.0 5 oi =0.40; 501'=0.14
PA (Pennzoil)
23 Winkleman Dome, WY >50.0
(Pan American)
24 Schoonebeek, The 24.3 to 41.9 90.6 5 oi =0.85; 501'=0.08
Netherlands
(Nederlandse) "
OCTOBER 1985 1893
 L,

ACTUAL SOR

40 20 10 8 6 5 4 3 2.5 2 1.5

0.7
1.5

211
o
0.6

0.5 2

24
o a::
0
~ 0.4 lJ)

o 0
o ....LLI
LLI 3~
....
6 0.3 0
LLI
a::
LLI Q.
a::
Q. 4

8
0.1 10

20
40

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

ACTUAL OSR

Fig. 2-Comparlson of actual and predicted values of OSR and SOR.

thicker than the oil sand, one field where the oil sand is
underlain by a water sand, and another field with low in-
jectivity.
Updip injection was used in all four steeply dipping
reservoirs. The producers were located either solely or
predominantly downdip.
For a reservoir with a gas cap, steam was injected near
the oil/water contact. Even though steam inevitably would
migrate to the gas cap, the oil sand was heated through
conduction.
In the reservoir with water sand, steam was injected
purposely a few feet into the water sand, moved horizon-
tally through the water layer, rose vertically into the oil
layer, and displaced oil that had been heated and mobi-
lized. The oil then fell down and was swept toward the
producers.
The unconventional steamflood project in Loco field,
OK, operated by Conoco Inc., 12 deserves special atten-
tion. Various previous recovery attempts, including con-
ventional steamflood, met with either limited success or
failure. Hydraulically fracturing the reservoir before
steamflooding led to increased heat input and improved
communication between injectors and producers, and
resulted in higher oil recovery.
The Bolivar Coast reservoirs, west Venezuela, have a
special feature in that the main recovery mechanism is
1894
formation compaction. Even though steamflood projects
show very high OSR's, the best recovery scheme would
be to wait until the exhaustion of the compaction drive
before a steamflood is started. I3
Well Completions. Special well completions are needed
for irtiectors and producers in steamflood projects. Ac-
cording to Gates and Holmes, 14 wells used in steam op-
erations should be completed with due consideration of
heat loss with thermal stresses. In deep wells, tubular
goods of high qualities, such as the normalized and
tempered P-105 tubing and P-110 casing, should be used
if the tubing and the casing are not free to expand. Ther-
mal stress can be minimized by the proper use of expan-
sion joints in the casing, wellhead, liner, tubing, and
packer. Thermal packers should be used on steam injec-
tion wells and deep wells undergoing cyclic steaming to
minimize heat loss and to reduce thermal stresses, the risk
of primary cement failure, and burst casing. The cement
used in steam operations should include a thermal strength
stabilizing agent, an insulating additive, and a bounding
additive. The review by Farouq Ali and Meldau 2 in-
cluded a survey of well completion methods used in rep- .
resentative steamfloods.
The well completion methods for injectors and pro-
ducers as practiced in the various steamfloods listed in
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 L

TABLE 5-RECOVERY SCHEMES FOR RESERVOIRS WITH SPECIAL FEATURES

Project Field, Location Special

Number (Company) Features Recovery Scheme
Steeply Dipping Reservoirs
3 Brea, CA 8=66° Updip injection, with producers predominantly downdip.
(Shell)
12 Midway Sunset, CA 8=70° Same as above.
(Tenneco)
14 Shiells Canyon, CA 8=35° Same as above.
(Texaco)
19 Tatums, OK 8=45° Updip injection, downdip production.
(Shell)
Reservoirs with Gas Cap
1 Smackover, AR Gas cap, 50 ft thick Injection near oil/water contact. Steam moved through the gas
(Phillips) So; =0.04. cap and heat was conducted to the oil sand.
Oil sand, 15 ft thick
So; =0.80
2 Smackover, AR Gas cap, thickness Same as above.
(Phillips) unreported. Oil sand,
25 ft thick
So; =0.50
Reservoirs with Water Sand
22 Slocum, TX Oil sand, 32 ft thick Both injectors and producers were completed a few feet into the
(Shell) So; =0.68. water sand. Steam moves through the water sand and rises
Water sand, 15 ft thick into the oil layer.
Reservoirs with Low Injectivity So; =0.03.
Loco, OK J-shallow at 200 to 220 ft Both injectors and producers were hydraulically fractured with
(Conoco Inc.) k=10 to 5,000 md field salt water to create a horizontal fracture that connects
Jt = 746 cp injectors with producers.
B-shallow at 495 to 510 ft
k=40 to 1,300 md
Jt= 179 cp

Tables 2 and 3 are given in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
At least two projects reported the use of insulating tub-
ing. In Shell's Brea, CA, project, the depth varies from
4,600 to 5,300 ft [1402 to 1615 m]. The tubings were
insulated with I-in. [2.54-cm] -thick Thermobestos™
(asbestos with calcium silicate) and an inner aluminum
radiation shield. In the Nederlandse project in
Schoonebeek, The Netherlands, where the depth is 2,900
ft [884 m], the jacketed tubing was insulated with calcium
silicate.
It is interesting to note that in one steamflood project
in Kern River field, CA, perforated completion in the pro-
ducers was found to perform better than openhole
completion 15 (Table 8).
Although not used in the projects reported here, ten-
sile prestressing is used routinely by Getty Oil Co. and
others for deep steam-stimulation wells to avoid exceeding
the maximum permissible compressive load for the casing.
55 %, the flow rate will be independent of the actual
wellhead injection pressure (Kern River field, CA).15
Water Treatment. Table 9 shows feedwater treatment
for steam generation as practiced in various field proj-
ects. The water in all field projects included in the table
requires softening, mostly through zeolite ion exchange.
Some projects required deaeration and filtration; other
projects used KCI to control clay swelling, chlorine to
combat bacteria, and aeration to remove iron.
In Getty's Kern River field, produced water is used as
the feedwater for steam generation; therefore, water treat-
ment includes facilities for oil removal.
Observation Wells. Observation wells are needed in
steamflood projects to determine the vertical and areal
coverage of the steam flow, the rate of heat front move-
ment, and heat losses.

Surface Facilities and Monitoring Devices
Steam Generation and Injection. The capacity of the
reported steam generators used for steamflooding ranges
from 12 to 50 MMBtu/hr [3.5 to 14.7 MW]. They are
either oil-fired or gas-fired. All surface steam lines usually
are insulated with a standard insulation with aluminum
housings. The steam is split into individual injection wells
through a header system using chokes in critical flow. This
procedure requires that the steam achieve sonic velocity
that, under one field condition, calls for a pressure drop
of about 55 % across the choke. The chokes are sized to
each other to give the desired flow rate into each injec-
tion well. As long as the pressure drop is greater than
OCTOBER 1985
Tracers. The use of tracers helps to monitor fluid move-
ment and to interpret areal coverage in individual
steamflood patterns. According to Wagner,16 the pre-
ferred water and gas tracers include radioisotopes, salts
with detectable cations and anions, fluorescent dyes, and
water-soluble alcohols. Table 10 discusses the tracers used
in various steamflood projects. Radioactive tracers used
include tritium, tritiated water, and 85 krypton. Other
tracers include ammonia, air, sodium nitrite, sodium
bromide, and sodium chloride.
Operational Problems and Their Remedies
It has been recognized generally that operational prob-
1895
 L,

TABLE 6A-WELL COMPLETION FOR INJECTORS

Project Field, Location Openhole Perforated

Number (Operator) Casing Completion Completion
Smackover, AR 5'/2-in .• 17-lbm, N-80 120 shots, bottom 10 It of oil sand.
(Phillips) Hydril CS casing
3 Brea, CA 7-in. casing; 7-in. N-80
(Shell) HCS casing
4 Coalinga, CA Yes.
(Shell)
7 Inglewood. CA Perforated in a 30-1t interval 10 It below top of sand.
(Soca!)
8 Kern River, CA 5'/2 in. Perforated in the bottom 35 It of the 70-1t interval.
(Chevron) Two V.-in. jet holes/It in top 17 It. One 'h-in. bullet
hole/It in bottom 18 It.
More recent completion: More recent completion: jet perforating '/2-in. holes
5'h in., K-55, 17 with selective charges, 1 shotl2 It.
Ibmlft. Thermal
packers used.
9 Kern River, CA 5V2 in. Selectively jet perforated. Earlier practice: 2 shots/It.
(Getty) Kern .. A" project: 1 shotl2 It.
10 Midway Sunset, CA 5'/2-in. N-80 casing Jet perforated below diatomite streak, one V2-in.
(Chevron) hole/2 It. Bottom 40% of the Monarch sand only.
11 Midway Sunset, CA Jet perforation.
(Santa Fe-DOE)
13 Mount Poso, CA Slotted liner.
(Shell)
15 S. Belridge, CA 5'/2 in. in an 8lA1-in.
(Mobil) hole Multizone injection with a limited number of 0.25-in.
jet perforations, shot at desired locations.
17 EI Dorado, KA 4V2 in., 9.5-lbm, J-55
(Cities) ST&C casing
18 Deerfield, MO 4'/2 in.
(Esse-Humble)
19 Tatums, OK
(Shell)
20 Franklin Heavy Pool, PA 4'/2 in. Perforated.
(Pennzoil)
21 Charco Redondo, TX 7 in. 5'/2-in. slotted liner in
(Texaco) 6-in. hole.
22 Slocum, TX 7-in., 22-lbm, K-55 With liner. A Yes. With 8-gauge, stainless steel wire-wrapped
(Shell) 5 in., 15 to 16 Ibm, hydraulically set screen.
K-55 thermal packer or a
friction ring assembly
is used as a liner
hanger. With 8-gauge
stainless steel wire-
wrapped screen.
23 Winkleman Dome, WY Yes.
(Pan American)
24 Schoonebeek, 9% in. Slotted liner.
The Netherlands
(Nederlandse)
25 Schoonebeek, 13% in. from surface to 7·in. liner.
The Netherlands 600 m. 9% in. from
(Nederlandse) 600 m to top of pay
26 Tia Juana, Venezuela 7-in. WSO casing 4'/2·in. saw slotted liner.
C-3/C-4
(Shell)
27 Tia Juana, Venezuela Slotted liner. Special
M·6 liner equipment for
(Maraven) selective steam
injection.
28 Georgsdorf, W. Germany 6% in. Yes.
(BEB) 4'/2·in. N·80 buttress
thread.

18% JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 L

TABLE SB-WELL COMPLETION FOR INJECTORS

Project Type of Gravel

Number Cement Packed Tubing
1 Cement with 20% Diacel D for
surface casing. Cement with
30% silica flour in the
annulus between long string
and surface casing.
3 3V2-in. Hydril CS tubing, 27,1a-in. P 105 CS tubing,
insulated with 1-in.-thick Thermobestos (asbestos with
calcium silicate) and inner aluminum radiation shield.
Sealed from below or above, with other end free to
expand. Future plan: prestressed insulated tubing.
10 2%-in. tubing strings and thermal packers.
13 Yes
15 27,1a-in. tubing set on a packer above the injection
interval.
17 Class A cement with silica
flour.
19 Cement with silica flour.
20 Silica flour cement. J-55, seamless, open-ended 2-in. tubing.
21 High temperature cement.
22 Class H cement, with silica Two joints of tubing are usually hung as a kill string.
flour, Perlite and CaCI 2 •
23 Class G cement, with 60% After injecting dry gas, set thermal packer above
silica flour. perforations and fill annulus with gelled crude.
25 Yes 5-in. jacked tubing, insulated with calcium silicate.
Tubing set in a Thermoseal™ packer with
Bradenheads ™ at the wellhead.
26 Special cement silica powder.
27 Yes. SpeCial plugging
of gravel pack to
prevent communication
outside the liner.
28 Class G, with 40% silica flour. 27,1a-in. I-55, EU tubing.

lems in steamfloods are not as severe as in firefloods. References

Nevertheless, they do exist. These problems are steam- 1. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Current Status of Steam Injection as a Heavy
related problems, sanding. poor productivity in hot wells, Oil Recovery Method," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1974) 1-15.
emulsions, the production of acid gas and solids, and me- 2. Farouq Ali, S.M. and Meldau, R.F.: "Current Steamflood Tech-
chanical failures. The problems and their remedies are nology," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1979) 1332-42.
3. Geffen, T .M.: "Oil Production to Expect from Known Technolo-
detailed in Table 11. It should be noted that a recent de- gy," Oil and Gas J. (May 7, 1973) 66-76.
velopment 17 indicates that phenolic-resin gravel packing 4. Lewin and Assocs. Inc.: "The Potentials and Economics of En-
is an effective method of sand control for steam- hanced Oil Recovery," Federal Energy Admin. Report B76/221
displacement wells. (April 1976).
5. Iyoho, A. W.: "Selecting Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes," World
Oil (Nov. 1978) 61-64.
6. Chu, C.: "State-of-the-Art Review of Fireflood Field Projects,"
Nomenclature J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1982) 19-36.
7. Myhill, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L.: "Steam Drive Correlation and
D = depth, ft [m] Prediction," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 173-82.
h = thickness, ft [m] 8. Greaser, G.R. and Shore, R.A.: "Steamflood Performance in the
k = permeability, md Kern River Field," paper SPE 8834 presented at the 1980 SPEIDOE
Joint Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa. April 20-23.
p = pressure, psia [kPa] 9. Coats, K.H. et aZ.: "Three-Dimensional Simulation of
So = oil saturation at start of project, fraction of Steamflooding." Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1974) 573-92; Trans .•
pore volume AlME, 257 .
10. Coats, K.H.: "Simulation of Steamflooding With Distillation and
So; = initial oil saturation, fraction of pore Solution Gas," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1976) 235-47.
volume 11. Coats, K.H.: "A Highly Implicit Steamflood Model," Soc. Pet.
S or = residual oil saturation, fraction of pore Eng. J. (Oct. 1978) 369-83.
12. Wooten, R.W.: "ease History ofa Successful Steamflood Project-
volume Loco Field." paper SPE 7548 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual
T = temperature, OF [0C] Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3.
e = dip angle, degree [rad] 13. Herrera, A.J.: "Steam-Drive Recovery Being Used on Lake
Maracaibo Coastal Field, " Oil and Gas J. (July 17, 1978) 74-80.
p. = viscosity, cp [Pa' s] 14. Gates, C.F. and Holmes, B.G.: "Thermal Well Completion and
cp = porosity, fraction of bulk volume Operations," hoc., Seventh World Pet. Congo (1967) 11, 135-57.

OCTOBER 1985 1897

 L,

TABLE 7A-WELL COMPLETION FOR PRODUCERS

Project Field, Location Open hole Perforated

Number (Operator) Casing Completion Completion
Smackover, AR Perforated through the oil zone
(Phillips)
4 Coalinga, CA
(Shell)
7 Inglewood, CA 5'12 in. Slotted liners. One well
(Socal) is open for one sand.
Four have multizone
completion.

8 Kern River, CA Use of cap packers to 40-mesh, 6%-in. slotted More recent completion: jet perforating '12-in. holes
(Chevron) place the steam during liner. using selective charges 4 shots/ft.
cycle's steam injection.
More recent completion:
7-in. K-55, 23 Ibm/ft
9 Kern River, CA 8% in. Pre-1966 wells: 6%-in. Post-1966 wells: Selectively jet-perforating oil sand.
(Getty) slotted liner, 60/180 Use of inner liners if sanding is a problem.
mesh.
10 Midway Sunset, CA New well: 7-in. K-55 40-mesh or 60-mesh New well: jet perforated with four 'I2-in. holes/ft.
(Chevron) casing tight-hole slotted liner.
11 Midway Sunset, CA Slotted liner. Jet perforations.
(Santa Fe-DOE)
13 Mount Poso, CA Slotted liner.
(Shell)
15 S. Belridge, CA 8% in. 6%-in. liner with
(Mobil) 60-mesh slots.
17 EI Dorado, KA 7 in.
(Cities)
18 Deerfield, MO 4'12 in.
(Essa-Humble)
19 Tatums, OK
(Shell)
20 Franklin Heavy Pool, PA 7 in.

21
(Pennzoil)
Charco Redondo, TX 5'12-in. Slotted liners with
..
(Texaco) canvas packers.

22 Slocum, TX 7 or 5'12 in. With liner. A Yes. With 8-gauge, stainless steel wire-wrapped
(Shell) hydraulically set screen.
thermal packer or a
friction ring assembly
used as a Irner
hanger. With 8-gauge
stainless steel wire-
wrapped screen.
23 Winkleman Dome, WY Yes.
(Pan American)
24 Schoonebeek, 7 in. Slotted liner.
The Netherlands
(Nederlandse)
26 Tia Juana, Venezuela 7-in. WSO casing 4'/2-in. saw slotted liner.
C-3/C-4
(Shell)
27 Tia Juana, Venezuela Slotted liner.
M-6
(Maraven)
28 Georgsdorf, W. Germany 6% in. 43/4 -in. slotted liner.
(BEB)

1898 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 L

TABLE 7B-WELL COMPLETION FOR PRODUCERS

Project Type of
Number Cement Gravel Packed Tubing
4 --------
Yes
7 Yes
9 Yes
11 Yes
13 Yes
15 Class G cement and Gravel flow packed
silica flour. with 6 x 9 gravel
in a 15-in. hole.
19 Cement with silica flour.
20 Silica flour cement. 2-in. tubing, conventional rod pump.
21 High-temperature 21fa-in. perforated tubing with a mud anchor and a higher-temperature
cement. bottomhole pump.
22 Class H cement, with
silica flour, perlite,
and CaCI 2 •
23 Class G cement with
60% silica flour.
26 Special cement and
silica powder.
27 Yes

TABLE 8-COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION FROM
DIFFERENT WELL COMPLETIONS, KERN STEAM
DISPLACEMENT PROJECT
Oil Production
Number Rate per Well
Type of Well Completion of Wells (SaPO)
Solid string, jet perforated 30 64
Slotted liner 34 54
Gravel pack, slotted liner 10 38
Inner liner 5 33
15. BUTSell, C.G.: "Steam Displacement-Kern River Field," J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1970) 1225-31.
16. Wagner, O.R.: "The Use of Tracers in Diagnosing Interwell
Reservoir Heterogeneities-Field Results," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1977) 1410-16.
17. Saunders, L.W. and McKinzie, H.L.: "Performance Review of
Phenolic-Resin Gravel Packing," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1981) 221-28.
18. Smith, R. V. et al.: "Recovery of Oil by Steam Injection in the
Smackover Field, Arkansas," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1973) 833-89.
19. Slagle, A.T. and Jones, B.L.: "Smackover Field, Smackover
Nacatoch Sand 985 Acre Unit, Phillips Petroleum Company, " En-
hanced Oil-Recovery Field Reports, SPE, Richardson, TX (Sept.
1980) 6, No.1, 31-36.
20. Volek, C.W. and Pryor, J.A.: "Steam Distillation Drive, Brea
Field, California," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1972) 899-902.
21. Taschman, B.M.: "Zone 1 Steam Project, Coalinga Field," paper
SPE 8880 presented at the 1980 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Los Angeles, April 9-11.
22. Afoeju, B.1.: "Conversion of Steam Injection to Waterflood, East
Coalinga Field," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974) 1227-32.
23. Adams, R.H. and Khan, A.M.: "Cyclic Steam Injection Project
Performance Analysis and Some Results of a Continuous Steam
Displacement Pilot," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 95-100; Trans.,
AIME,246.
24. Blevins, T.R., Aseltine, R.J., and Kirk, R.S.: "Analysis ofa Steam
Drive Project, Inglewood Field, California," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1969) 1141-50.
25. Blevins, T .R. and Billingsley, R.H.: "The Ten-Pattern Steamt100d,
Kern River Field, California," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1975) 1505-14;
Trans., AIME, 259.
26. Oglesby, K.D. et al: "Status of the Ten-Pattern Kern River Field,
California," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1982) 2251-57.
27. Bursell, C.G. and Pittman, G.M.: "Performance of Steam Dis-
placement in the Kern River Field," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1975)
977-1004: Trans., AIME, 259.
28. Gomaa, E.E., Duerksen, J.H., and Woo, P.T.: "Designing a
Steamt100d Pilot in the Thick Monarch Sand of the Midway-Sunset
Field," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1977) 1559-68.
29. Duerksen, J.H., Webb, M.G., and Gomaa, E.E.: "Status of the
Section 26C Steamflood, Midway-Sunset Field, California, " paper
SPE 6748 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
30. Alford, W.: "Midway-Sunset Field, Chanslor-Western Oil and De-
velopment Company," Improved Oil-Recovery Field Reports, SPE,
Richardson, TX (Dec. 1976) 2, No.3, 445-54; Enhanced Oil-
Recovery Field Reports, SPE, Richardson, TX (Sept. 1980) 6, No.
1, 129-32.
31. McBean, W.N.: "Attic Oil Recovery by Steam Displacement,"
paper SPE 4170 presented at the 1972 SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, Nov. 8-10
32. Rehkopf, B.L.: "Metson Attic Steam Drive," paper SPE 5855
presented at the 1976 SPE California Regional Meeting, Long
Beach, April 8-9.
33. Stokes, D.D. et al.: "Steam Drive as a Supplemental Recovery
Process' in an Intermediate Viscosity Reservoir, Mount Poso Field,
California," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1978) 125-31.
34. Konopnicki, D. T. et al.: "Design and Evaluation of the Shiells
Canyon Field Steam Distillation Drive Pilot Project," J. Pet. Tech.
(May 1979) 546-52.
35. Gates, C.F. and Brewer, S.W.: "Steam Injection Into the D and
E Zone, Tulare Formation, South Belridge Field, Kern County,
California," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1975) 343-48.
36. Stokes, D.D. and Doscher, T.M.: "Shell Makes a Success of
Steamt100d at Yorba Linda," Oil and Gas J. (Sept. 2, 1972) 71-78.
37. Hearn, C.L.: "The El Dorado Steam Drive-A Pilot Tertiary
Recovery Test," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1972) 1377-84.
38. Valleroy, V.V. et aI.: "Deerfield Pilot Test of Oil Recovery by
Steam Drive," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1967) 956-64; Trans., AIME,
240.
39. French, M.S. and Howard, R.L.: "The Steamflood Job: Hefner
in Sho-Vel-Tum," Oil and Gas J. (July 17, 1967) 64-69.
40. Bleakley, W .B.: "Penn Grade Crude Oil Yields to Steam Drive,"
Oil and Gas J. (March 25, 1974) 89-96.
41. Widmeyer, R.H. et al.: "The Charco Redondo Thermal Recovery
Pilot," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1977) 1522-32.
42. Hall, A.L. and Bowman, R.W.: "Operation of Performance of the
Slocum Thermal Recovery Project," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1973)
402-08.
43. Thurber, J.L.: "Slocum Field, Shell Oil Company," Improved Oil-
Recovery Field Reports, SPE, Richardson, TX (June 1976) 2, No.
1, 119-27.

OCTOBER 1985 1899

 TABLE 9-FEEDWATER TREATMENT FOR STEAM GENERATION

PrOject Field, Location Source Oil

Removal Aeration
-Number
-
7
- (Operator)
Huntington Beach, CA
Water
Fresh water,
(Socal) negligible O.
concentration
9 Kern River, CA Produced water 1. Settling sumps
(Getty) 2. Flotation cell

14 Shiells Canyon, CA Fresh water, 680 to

(Texaco) 1,020 ppm
hardness
17 EI Dorado, KA High quality fresh
(Cities) water
19 Tatums, OK Good quality fresh
(Shell) water
20 Franklin Heavy Pool, PA Fresh water
(Pennzoil)
22 Slocum, TX High quality fresh
(Shell) water, 10 ppm TDS
24 Schoonebeek, The Fresh water Yes, to remove
Netherlands iron
(Nederlandse)
26 Tia Juana, Venez. Fresh water
C-3/C-4
(Shell)
28 Georgsdorf, W. Germany Fresh water
(BEB)

Control
Project Bacteria of Clay
Number Filtration Deaeration Softening Removal Swelling
7 No Yes

9 Diatomaceous- 1. Vacuum system Zeolite ion exchange

earth pressure- 2. Oxygen-scavenging
leaf filters chemical
14 Yes KCL
injection

17 1. Steam deaerator Zeolite ion exchange

2. Sodium sulfite
19 Yes Zeolite ion exchange

20 Yes Yes, to 1 ppm hardness

22 Catalyzed sodium Zeolite ion exchalJge CI.

sulfite
24 Yes, to remove Yes Zeolite ion exchange
iron

26 1. Hot lime/soda process

2. Ion exchange

28 Yes Yes

TABLE 10-USE OF TRACERS

Project Field, Location Quantity or

Number (Operator) Tracer Concentration
3 Brea, CA Tritium 10 Ci
(Shell)
8 Kern River, CA Tritium 0.5 mCi/gal
(Chevron) NaN0 3 500 ppm N0 3
NaBr 150 ppm Br
NaCI 1,000 ppm CI
18 Deerfield, MO NH3
(Esso-Humble)
26 Tia Juana, Venez. Air
(C-3/C-4)
(Shell)
27 Tia· Juana, Venez. 85 krypton 5.1 Ci
M-6 Tritiated 10 Ci ,+
(Maraven) water

1900 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 l.

TABLE 11-0PERATIONAL PROBLEMS AND REMEDIES

Project Field, Location

", ~'" ,
Number (Operator) Problem Description Remedy
Steam-Related Problems
8 Kern River, CA Lack of control of steam placement during
(Chevron) steam stimulation is a major problem in
producers with liner completion.
10 Midway Sunset, CA Uneven splitting in the two-phase flOw caused Layout of steam-line branching system was
(Chevron) significant differences in steam quality. modified.

Sanding
8 Kern River, CA Sanding is a continual problem. Average Perforated completions are cleaned with water
(Chevron) pump life is 3 to 4 months. Liner completions using opposed-cup washers. The
are scratched each time the well is pulled. Hyperclean TM technique has been used to
increase the productivity of problem wells.
10 Midway Sunset, CA Sanding is severe with jet perforations. The use of 6%-in. 50-mesh foamed-in tight-
(Chevron) hole slotted liners minimizes sanding
problems.
13 Mount Poso, CA 1. Severe sanding problem caused by failure 1. The adapter was replaced. In another
(Chevron) of lead-seal adapter at liner top. case, a dual lead-seal adapter was used.
2. Sanding because of inadequate gravel 2. Used sodium aluminate sand consolidation
packing. technique.
19 Tatums, OK Sand production noted.
(Shell)

Hot-Well Productivity
10 Midway Sunset, CA Steam flowing into the annulus lifts some oil, Liner size of 6%-in. or larger is
(Chevron) thus raising backpressure and reducing pump recommended. All producers are hooked to a
efficiency. casing collection system to recover escaped
hydrocarbons.
13 Mount Poso Loss in pump efficiency because of hot Top 80% of the producing interval was
(Shell) produced fluids flashing to steam or direct blanked off.
breakthrough of injected steam.
17 EI Dorado, KA Decrease in pump efficiency noted.
(Cities)
22 Slocum, TX When well exceeds 250°F, pump efficiency Efforts included cycling a portion of the
(Shell) decreases to less than 10%. production down the annulus, injecting cold
water down the annulus, gas lifting, special
insert and casing pumps and steam anchors.
The best way is to plug off the hot zone,
forCing the steam and fluid to pass through
more of the oil section before entering the
wellbore.

Emulsions
7 Inglewood, CA Some emulsion noted.
(Socal)
13 Mount Poso, CA Loss in productivity believed to be caused by
(Shell) buildup of cold oil and/or emulsion bank.
17 EI Dorado, KA Emulsion gradually increased to about 75% of Easily broken by chemical treatment.
(Cities) the produced oil.
19 Tatums, OK Complex emulsions are produced. This, along Demulsifiers for normal and reverse
(Shell) with the solids produced and the constantly emulsions were combined in use.
changing nature of the produced fluids,
makes emulsion treating a severe problem.

Acid Gas Production

7 Inglewood, CA H 2S gas noted.
(Sheli)
22 Slocum, TX Production of large quantity of H 2S. No
(Shell) corrosion damage.
24 Schoonebeek, The Produced water contains H 2S. Gas from separators and storage tanks was
Netherlands collected and flared carefully.
(Nederlandse)
28 Georsdorf, Maximum acid gas production is 31,000 ppm
W. Germany H 2S and 78% CO 2.
(BEB)

"

OCTOBER 1985 1901

 L.

TABLE 11-CONTINUED

Solids Production
19 Tatums, OK Production of solids noted.
(Shell) Selection of chemicals should consider easy
22 Slocum, TX Organic solids have the composition of a low- separation of solids. Solids were removed
(Shell) grade coal. from a settling tank either manually or with a
scraper.

Mechanical Failures
19 Tatums, OK 1. Casing failure.
(Slocum) 2. Steam generator failure.
26 Tia Juana, Venez. 14 of the 24 producers had 21 liner failures.
(Shell)

44. Pollock, C.B. and Buxton, T.S.: "Performance ofa Forward Steam SOR= 18.744 +0.004767D-0.16693h -0.89814k
Drive Project-Nugget Reservoir, Winkleman Dome Field,
Wyoming," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 35-40.
45. Wight, D.G.: "Winklellllln Dome Field, Amoco Production kh
Company," Improved Oil-Recovery Field Reports, SPE, -0.5915~ -14. 79S 0 -0.0009767-. . .. (A-2)
Richardson, TX (June 1975) 1, No.1, 155-62. ~
46. van Dijk, C.: "Steam-Drive Project in the Schoonebeek Field, The
Netherlands," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1968) 295-302; Trans., AlME,
243.
47. Harmsen, G.J.: "Steam Flooding in a Water Drive Reservoir in SI Metric Conversion Factors
the Schoonebeek Field in The Netherlands," Proc., Tenth World acre X 4.046873 E+03 m2
Pet. Congo (1979) 3, 275-82. g/cm 3
48. de Haan, M.J. and Schenk, L.: "Performance Analysis of a Major
°API 141.5/(131.5 + °API)
Steam Drive Project in the Tia Juana Field, Western Venezuela," bbl/acre-ft X 1.288923 E-04 m 3 /m 3
J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 111-19; Trans., AIME, 246. BID X 1.589873 E-01 m 3 /d
49. Herrera, A.J.: "The M6 Steam Drive Project Design and cp X 1.0* E-03 Pa's
Implementation," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1977) 62-83.
50. Munoz, J.D. and Escojido, D.: "Tia Juana Este Field, Maraven,
Ci X 3.7* E+1O = Bq
S.A.," Enhanced Oil-Recovery Field Reports, SPE, Richardson, degrees X 1.745329 E-02 rad
TX (Sept. 1980) 6, No.1, 165-70. ft X 3.048* E-01 m
51. Lillie, W.H.E. and Springer, F.P.: "Status of the Steam Drive Pilot OF (OF-32)/1.8 = °C
in the Georgsdorf Field, Federal Republic of Germany," J. Pet. gal X 3.785412 E-03 m3
Tech. (Jan. 1981) 173-80.
m. X 2.54* E+oo cm
Ibm X 4.535924 E-Ol kg
APPENDIX A Ibm/ft X 1.488 164 E+oo kg/m
Equations in SI Metric Units md-ft X 3.008 142 E-04 md'm
psi X 6.894757 E+oo kPa
OSR = -0.011253 +0.00009117D+0.0005180h

kh
-0.077759 +0.007232~ +0.00003467- 'Conversion factor is exact. JPT
~ Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office March 12.
1983. Paper accepted for publication July 15. 1985. Revised manuscript received May
15. 1985. Paper (SPE 11733) first presented at the 1983 SPE California Regional
+0.5120<t>So' ..................... (A-I) Meeting held in Ventura March 23-25.

1902 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY