Steam-Drive Correlation and Prediction

N. A. Myhill, SPE-AIME, Shell Oil Co.

G. L. Stegemeier, SPE-AIME, Shell Development Co.

Introduction
During the past 15 years, steam-injection processes have
become an important means of exploiting heavy oil reserves. Traditionally, these processes have been classified as either steam soaksor steam drives. With combinations, such as presoaking drive wells and partially
driving steam soaks, the distinction is not always applicable. Furthermore, our experience suggests that
oil/steam ratios from most mature processes converge to
a value determined only by reservoir and steam properties
and time.
To date, the steam-soak process has proven the more
attractive, partly because the immediate response allows
an early evaluation of a reservoir and partly because oil
rates from initial soak cycles tend to be better than later
cycles. Successful steam soaks are limited to reservoirs
where natural recovery mechanisms (gravity drainage,
pressure depletion, and solution gas drive) are ineffective
because of the low oil mobilities.
Successful steam drives require (1) good conformance, (2) a means of starting the process because high
oil saturations can limit injectivity severely and prevent
effective initial reservoir heating, and (3) sustained high
injectivity throughout the process life. Unlike steam
soaks, steam drives do not respond until built-up oil
banks and heat reach the production wells. Because peak
production rates may not be observed for several years
after the start of injection, piloting is expensive and
expansion to full scale is somewhat hazardous. For these
0149-2136/78/0002-5572$00.25
1978 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

reasons, screening methods that predict ultimate

oil/steam ratio are useful in planning new projects or in
modifying existing ones.
In the past, steam injection has been applied to a wide
spectrum of reservoir conditions, many of which have
proven unsuitable. In retrospect, we can explain the varied response with a simple mathematical model that
incorporates reservoir and steam properties in the prediction. This paper describes the model and compares
predictions from it with laboratory and field results.

Comparison of Model and Field Results

With a Theoretical Model
At this time, we have experience from many field
steam-drive projects 1- 11 and laboratory physical model
experiments to help screen and design new projects.
From these results, there appears to be a unifying principle that applies to long-term, fieldwide, steam-injection
processes. That is, the oil ultimately produced from
steam soaks and steam drives is proportional to the
steam-zone volume that in turn is a function of reservoir
and steam properties and injection policies. Maximum
deviation from this behavior occurs when a small amount
of heat is applied to reservoirs in which a substantial
amount of primary oil remains, or when initial oil saturation is low and banked oil is not recovered efficiently. 12
To compare our past experience with physical models,
a simple energy balance (described later) is used to estimate the oil/steam ratio. Parameters used are given in
Table 1, and comparisons of physical model values with

A mathematical model based on a simple energy balance is developed to predict ultimate

oil/steam ratio for field steam-injection projects _Data includes basic reservoir fluid and
rock properties and injected steam conditions. The model correlates well with results of
field steam-drive projects and laboratory model experiments.
FEBRUARY, 1978

173

TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF MODEL RESULTS

Model
Calculated
Quantity of Steam- Equivalent Equivalent
Steam
Zone Oil/Steam Oil/Steam
Injected
Ratio
Size
Ratio
(vol/vol)
(vol/vol)
(VpD)
(VpsD)

Model

......

~IU)
ctS~

~~

U)
(\J

0)

co

0>

U)

Coalinga

2.6

1.20

0.175'

0.15

Midway-Sunset

1.0

0.75

0.459

0.40

Mt. Poso
(Low pressure)

0.72

0.88

0.535

0.57

Mt. Poso
(High pressure)

1.02

0.76

0.323

0.29

Schoonebeek

0.8

0.57

0.418

0.32

'"":.

Slocum

1.8

1.77

0.181 *

0.18

2.8

1.07

0.225*

0.16

co
(\J

~
(\J

~I

f?

=ai3:
<Ui
Q)

U)
ex:)

U)
0

-<i

a..

~IO
.~~
~

~IO
0..[
g

al

U)

-<i

(\J

(\J

co

co

U)

al

-<i
(\J

<ci

Iri

I'-

0
0

I'-

C\!.

co

U)
0

0>

(\J

(')

0
0

Q)

Cii

en
Z

(\J

co

(')

co
0

0
U)
0

U)

Tatums

(\J

*Corrected for steam-zone volume greater than 1 PV.

co
0

0
0

. .:-1 ci

Q
Z

0
0

(J)

""0
>

.!!!

00(

a..

1::

Q)

a:

0.

~
~

(ij
0

::;)

en

'iii

.c

>.
0.

en
e
~
Qi
z a..
w
~

ii:

w
0

co

;::.

0
~

co

~I~

gj

(')

(')

(')

co
0

co
0

~I~

N~

-21 U)

N ~ (')

~
N.c

U)

co

U)

U)

0>

I'-

I'-

co

0>

(\J
~

0
0

0>

co

(')

co
(\J
0

(')

co

(')

co

co

co

co

U) U)
I'-

calculated values are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1. As

might be expected, the calculated values are usually
higher than model results because other factors that reduce steam-zone size (such as extreme steam overlay) are
not treated by the simple model. When calculated steam
zones are greater than 1 PV, the steam is assumed to
be produced or otherwise lost. In this case, calculated
oil/steam ratios are reduced to account for the limited
amount of oil available for recovery from the designated
volume.
In addition, oil/steam ratios for field steam-drive projects also are calculated, using the reported or estimated
field conditions given in Table 3. These calculated values
are compared with actual oil/steam ratios from the field
projects in Table 4 and Fig. 2. Comparisons are based on
the additional oil production above an estimated "primary" production.
Oil saturation at the start of the steam drive has been
corrected for the estimated primary oil that would have
been produced during the steam drive. Cases in which oil
production from primary or other mechanisms are sig-

I'-

co

...I

.::.i=
(J)

.!!!

0.

(ij

....I

.c

a:

co
0

~t co

><
w

U)
U)

<110

~I

Q,

Cl)1~

I'-

1::

"':J
@.

I'-

"!

I'-

"!

I'-

C'?

I'-

(')
(')

(')
(')

"!

Q)

e
::E
a..
00(

:::.

N:J

en Q) Eo
"':J
~

f-

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

(\J
~

@.

1.0

...I

m
00(
~

(J)

fL

I-

z
w
!;

U)

:::.

-:J

Eo ~

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

(')
(')

a:

(')

"':J
@.

0.8

Q.

W
~

2
Q)

Q)

Qi

"~0

~
:J
(J)
(J)

(J)

:J

al
01

c
a;
0
<.)

en

:>,
al
3:

"

00.
(J)

3:

00
0.....1

~~

~
:J
~

00.
(J).c

001

a.. I

~~

E
~

Ii)
~

Q)

Q)

~
Q)
c

'0
~

E
:J

.c

C/)

CiS

al
0.

(J) (J)

1ii~

f-

0
:I::

ci

MT POSO

(LOW PRESS. I

a:

a:
:I::

a:
w 0.4

'0

I-

0'0
Q)
0-

'~

(J)

0.6

I-

o MIDIIAY-SUNSET

(J)

o..jjj

~~

I-

w
~
a:
>

:;

SCHOONEBEEK
MT.POSO
(HIGH PRESS. I

0.2

SLOCUM

00

TATUMS
COALINGA

(3

1.0
EQUIVALENT OIL/STEAM RATIO.

CALCULATED

Fig. 1-Comparison of experimental model results with

calculated values.
174

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 3-STEAM DRIVE FIELD PROJECTS - SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS

Thermal
Properties'

Number
of
Injections

Brea
("B" sand)

10

Tf
("F)
175

Coalinga
(Section 27,
Zone 1)

40

96

EI Dorado
(Northwest pattem)

70

Field

Reference

----

Petrophysical Properties

Steam Parameters

z,

J!!L z./z,

~S

i,

P
(psig)

0.63

0.22

0.40

0.75

35

1.0

0.31

0.37

0.7

0.55

400

500

9.2

20

0.85

0.26

0.20

0.75

0.45

500

200

1.6

300

'"

(B/O) (acres/well) (years)

f,d
0.54

2,000

500

10

8
4

Inglewood

100

43

1.0

0.37

0.40

0.75

0.7

400

1,100

2.6

KemRiver

85

90

55

1.0

0.32

0.40

0.7

0.5

100

360

2.5

Schoonebeek

100

83

1.0

0.30

0.70

0.85

0.7

600

1,250

Slocum
(Phase 1)

75

40

1.0

0.37

0.34

0.8

0.7

200

1,000

Smackover

110

50

0.5

0.36

0.55

1.0

0.8

390

2,500

10

Tatums
(Hefner steam
drive)

70

66

0.56

0.28

0.55

0.7

0.6

1,300

685

10

TiaJuana

113

200

1.0

0.33

0.50

1.0

0.8

300

1,400

12

5.3

110

32

1.0

0.30

0.31

0.8

0.7

200

850

35

4.5

Yorba Linda
("F"sand)

'M,
"ilS

35 Btu/eu ft-"F, M,

42 Btu/eu ft_oF,k,,,

15
5.65

6
2.5

1.2 Btu/ft-hr-oF.

~ (oil saturation at start of steaming change in oil saturation from estimated primary during steam-drive period) -

nificant compared with production from steam drive are

not described adequately by this simple model and should
be applied with caution. Total and additional oil/steam
ratios are shown in the correlation offield results in Fig. 2
because primary oil often is not well defined. This correlation demonstrates lower recoveries in the field compared
with calculated values, except for cases such as Coalinga,
where the amount of steam injected results in a steam
zone considerably less than the pore volume, and where a
sizeable amount of "primary" production has occurred.
Because pattern boundaries are not well defined in field
cases, the correction for calculated steam-zone volumes
greater than 1.0 PV has not been applied. Therefore, calculated oil/steam ratios for Kern River, Inglewood, and
Slocum fields could be reduced as much as 20 percent.

(So after steam drive" 0.15 average)

With these exceptions, the correlation indicates that the

oil/steam ratios from the field projects range from 70 to
100 percent of the calculated values. Less than the calculated maximum efficiency results from reduced sweep
and other operating problems associated with field projects. Techniques for improving steam drives, such as
conversion to waterflood, use of plugging agents, etc.,
can increase the field performance toward the expected
maximum oil-steam ratio.

Physical Model Experiments

Physical model experiments of steam soaks, drives, and
combination processes indicate that the recovery efficiency of these thermal processes is controlled largely by
the growth of the steam zones. One can conclude that oil

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF FIELD RESULTS

Quantity
of Steam
Injected
Field

(VpD)

SteamZone
Size

JV

PSD )

Calculated
Additional
Equivalent
Oil/Steam
Ratio
(vol/vol)

Field
Additional
Equivalent
Oil/Steam
Ratio
(vol/vol)

Field Total
Equivalent
Oil/Steam
Ratio
(vol/vol)

Brea

0.5

0.15

0.13

0.14

0.21

Coalinga

0.94

0.45

0.16

0.18

0.37'

EI Dorado

1.6

0.315

0.05

0.02

0.02

Inglewood

1.26

1.256

0.41

0.28

0.36

Kern River

1.92

1.139

0.32

0.26

0.26

Schoonebeek

0.95

0.617

0.43

0.35

0.35

Slocum

1.41

1.202

0.29

0.18

0.18

Smackover

1.23

0.756

0.27

0.21

0.28

Tatums

1.54

0.397

0.13

0.10

0.13

TiaJuana

0.47

0.551

0.59

0.37

0.53

Yorba Linda "F"

0.54

0.280

0.16

0.17

0.21

*Includes waterflood after steam drive.

FEBRUARY, 1978

175

r-------------------------------------,

1.0

ADDITIONAL OIL/STEAM RATIO

6 TOTAL OIL/STEAM RATIO

>
">

ci
I-

0.8

1f
lI::

a:

LIJ

:;;
:J

0.6

o
IZ
LIJ
.J

a:

;:: 0.<4
::>

LIJ

I-

0.2

CALCULATED ADDITIONAL EQUIVALENT OIL/STEAM RATIO. (v/v)

Fig. 2-Comparison of field steam-drive results with calculated
values.

r----------------------------------------,

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

production can be accelerated significantly by increasing

the steam-injection rate.
Selected model experiments on the steeply dipping
Midway-Sunset field, where steam soaking is being successfully applied, illustrate the possibility for such an
acceleration in oil production. Fig. 3 shows that continuous steam injection allows higher heating rates than
steam soak with 2Vz-acre spacing, or even steam soak
with complete infilling to 1lJ! acres. In all steam-soak
experiments, each well received one 1O,OOO-bbl steam
soak per year; therefore, the infill case, with twice as
many wells, received double the heat per pore volume
each year. Fig. 4 indicates that the oil recovery is related
closely to these heating rates. Steam soaks in highly
oil-saturated reservoirs begin with high oil/steam ratios,
but decline with time as thermal efficiencies decrease,
and the development of large hot-oil banks becomes more
difficult. In contrast, steam drives exhibit low oil/steam
ratios initially while oil is being banked, but the oil/steam
ratio increases when the oil banks arrive at the production
wells. A significant observation from these model studies
is that over long times, oil/steam ratios converge to the
same values for both processes. (See Fig. 5.)
For a full pore-volume steam drive applied to a given
reservoir, the oil/steam ratio is determined primarily by
injection pressure and rate and by hot-fluid production
after heat breakthrough. Factors are so interrelated that
the improvement in performance resulting from a change
in one parameter often is offset by opposing changes in
other parameters. For example, although increased injection rates might be expected to improve thermal efficiencies, this advantage can be offset by increased injection
pressures and larger heat-production losses. Because of
these interactions, interpretation of model experiments is
\.0

0.2

0.9

,_~

______

________

_ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

10

TIME.

________

15

20

Yf.

Fig. 3-Cumulative steam injection - Midway-Sunset model

experiments.
ci
I-

a:

0.5

/STEAM SOAK

0.6

a:
I:

a:
w

I(f)

..J

:::

S
....

0.4

I-

60

0.5

"-

~ O. 4

a:

0.3

..J

::>
::>

I:

0:

a.

0.3

(J

-'
0

w 0.2

::....

0.2

cr

-'

::J

I:

::J
U

0-1

0.1

0.0

COLD GRRY lTY ORA 1NAGE

0.0
0

10

TIME.

15
yrs.

Fig. 4-Cumulative oil production - Midway-Sunset model

experiments.
176

20

10

15

TIME. yn.

Fig. 5-Cumulative oil/ steam ratio as a function of time from start

of steam drive (t = 0 at 4.5 years) - Midway-Sunset model
experiments.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

complex. Nevertheless, it appears that many experiments

follow a regular pattern. At first, high pressures are
required to inject the steam as oil is being banked up.
After water and heat breakthrough at production wells,
the pressure drops sharply. At this time injection at high
rates results in excessive heat production with attendant
low thermal efficiency. Often, a more-or-Iess continuous
steam layer then spreads across the reservoir, and heated
oil flows to the wells as a result of gravity drainage and
steam drag. In high-permeability reservoirs, little dip or
sand thickness is required to make gravity drainage the
dominant mechanism.
The early pressure level is determined by the mobility
of the cold oil, and the later pressure level by the
mobilities of the hot oil, water, and steam. For all practical purposes, cold-oil mobility is determined largely by
cold-oil viscosity and hot-oil mobility by reservoir permeability. If the reservoir is sufficiently permeable, a
low-pressure process is possible after heat breakthrough.
Thus, heat can be stored in the reservoir at high pressures
and redistributed later to indude more of the reservoir by
blowing the pressure down. Because of this redistribution
and because heat can be recovered from cap and base
rock, it appears that the final process pressure largely
determines the heat requirements.

Mathematical Model Studies

Description and Assumptions
The mathematical model used to predict oil/steam ratios
is the commonly accepted energy balance between injected heat, heat loss to cap and base rock, heat stored in
the steam zone, and heat produced through the condensation front. The steam-zone growth is calculated using a
slightly modified version of Eq. 56 of Mandl and
VolekP The oil/steam ratio is calculated assuming oil
produced is equal to steam-zone pore volume times the
change in oil saturation. An additional correction for oil
displaced from a heated region not at steam temperature
is available; however, it was not used because its effect is
negligible at the end of a steam-drive process where the
steam zone occupies most of the reservoir volume. In
addition, the delay resulting from oil-bank formation 10
and the effects of allowing steam injection rates to vary14
are not induded in this simple model.
Fig. 6 shows schematically the geometric configuration
assumed and the reservoir and steam properties used.
Although the steam zone is presumed vertical, the assumptions made in the heat-balance equations of Mandl
and Volek are not so restrictive. Two unknowns in these
equations are the steam-zone volume and the combined
contact area of cap and base rock. For vertical fronts, the
volume is equal to the product of the height and the
combined areas divided by a factor of 2. (V = Ah/2.)
However, other geometrical shapes also give an identical
relationship. Examples are (1) a linearly advancing indined linear front, (2) an inclined linear front advancing
only at the top, and (3) cylindrical fronts. For conical
shapes the volume varies, depending on the amount of
truncation, from Ah/3 (cone) to Ah/2 (cylinder). The
squares of these proportionality constants determine the
values of dimensionless time so that tD for the conical
shapes differs by a factor of 4:9. Inspection of Fig. 7
reveals that for this uncertainty in dimensionless time, the
steam-zone thermal efficiencies seldom differ by more
FEBRUARY, 1978

than 25 percent. Even curved shapes, representative of

severe steam layover, will not introduce significantly
greater differences. It is likely that the relative insensitiv-.
ity of the calculation to the shape of the steam front
accounts for the good correlation observed between actual and predicted results.
In summary, the basic assumptions for the calculation
are as follow.
1. The reservoir contains a uniform amount of oil per
unit bulk volume as defined by the product of porosity,
net to gross thickness, and oil saturation in the net pay.
Gross thickness and area per injector are also constant
throughout the reservoir.
2. Thermal properties, induding initial formation
temperature, heat capacity of reservoir rock, and heat
capacity and conductivity of cap and base rock, are assumed constant throughout the zone.
3. Steam is injected at a constant pressure, quality,
and rate per injector.
4. Vertical temperature gradients in the reservoir are
zero.
5. Heat losses from the steam zone are by conduction
only and occur normal to the reservoir into the cap and
base rock. Heat is transferred in the reservoir by convection only, and heat passes through the condensation front
only after Mandl and Volek's critical time.

~
p,

v"

STEAM
ZO NE

---~ - -- -----

----------j~
Son

Fig. 6- Geometrical configuration for energy balance

calculations .

0.'

o.
o.

0. 0

L-L-L'-'-'--'-'-*'L,---'-L----Li~_===:E~~~~~

0.01

10

l OG

'0

Fig. 7- Steam-zone thermal efficiency as a funct ion of

dimensionless parameters.

177

Applicable equations for the calculations are given in

the Appendix. Fig. 7 is a graphical representation of the
steam- zone heat efficiency functions .15 The ratio of heat
in the steam zone to total heat injection is plotted vs a
dimensionless function of time (tD) for various values of a
dimensionless function of steam quality (hD). The function hD is the ratio of the latent heat content of the steam
divided by the sensible heat. The magnitude of the difference between solutions with and without heat flow
through the condensation front is shown in Fig. S. As
shown in Fig. 9 for a typical formation temperature and
steam-zone heat capacity/unit volume, the value of hD for
most steam drives ranges from 1.0 to 2.5.
Also, the oil/steam ratio divided by the moveable oil

o. ,

o.s

no

0.1

0.5

o. ,

'"

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.2

o.

t.o

0.0

0.01

'0
Fig. 8-Upper-minus-lower bound efficiency as a function of
dimensionless parameters.
4

per bulk volume is only a function of the dimensionless

terms tD and hD (Fig. 10). This oil/steam ratio is the
volume of oil displaced from the steam zone per volume
of water used to generate steam. It is our practice to
stanqardize oil/steam ratio to equivalent steam with a heat
content of 1,000 Btu/lb above average boiler inlet temperature. For field pressures from 200 to 1,000 psi, this
is approximately SO-percent quality steam.

Effect of Reservoir and Steam Properties on

Oil/Steam Ratio
The effect of individual parameters, including reservoir
thermal, reservoir petrophysical, and steam properties on
equivalent oiVsteam ratio, was calculated from Eqs. A-2,
A-4, A-7, A-12, and A-13. Assumed conditions are
listed in Table 1 under "Mount Poso, Effect of Parameters." In this study, all values (except the one being
examined) were held constant. Results are shown in Figs.
11, 12, and 13. Thermal reservoir properties do not
strongly affect oil/steam ratios in the range of possible
values. As might be expected, the gross reservoir thickness is one of the most important parameters. Other
petrophysical properties, including porosity, net- to-gross
thickness, and change in oil saturation, would have had a
linear effect, except that the quantity of steam was expressed on a constant total pore- volume basis, so that the
actual amount of steam varied somewhat. Steam properties greatly affect oil/steam ratio; however, defining
oil/steam ratio as equivalent steam suppresses the quality
effect. The very large dependence on pressure, especially
at low values, is demonstrated. Low pressure may even
be the significant factor contributing to good efficiencies
of steam soaks. The steam-injection rate per unit area
determines the length of time and then the thermal efficiency of the process; however, for long times, the efficiency function changes slowly and injection rates become less important. Pressure and maximum injection
rates are interrelated and constrained by reservoir mobility and by minimum injection-well density.

Conclusions

1. Oil/steam ratios calculated with a simple mathematical model correlate well with experience from field
steam-drive projects and laboratory physical-model
experiments. The model, which predicts oil/steam ratio
from average reservoir and steam properties and project
2

.e. o
I S
1.

0.5

\.0
'0

f5

Fig. 9-Typical dimensionless quality values.

178

Fig. 10-0illsteam ratio as a function of dimensionless

parameters.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

life, is a fairly accurate screening tool for evaluation of

steam-injection projects.
2. Conversion from steam soak to steam drive offers
the advantage of increasing the heating rate of the reservoir and decreasing over-all project life.
3. Improved steam-drive efficiency often can be attained initially by heating the reservoir rapidly, by distributing steam over most of the reservoir to avoid leaving
cold-oil banks, and then by reducing injection once heat
breakthrough occurs.
4. Model and field studies indicate that eventually all
types of field-wide steam-injection processes are limited
by attainable thermal efficiences. Thus, late in project
life, oil/steam ratios from continuous steam injection and
from steam soaking can approach similar values.

Nomenclature

0.4

0.3

0.2 3~0-----------------4~10~--------------~SO
HERT CAPAC lTV. BTU/ cu. fr, F
0

0.4

>:

a:

w-

>- >

"",

>

--1-

#.

>-

FEBRUARY, 1978

0.3

ZlL
W
--10

a:>>-a:

:::>0:

'"
W

0.20.~8~--~IL.0~--~I~.~2----~I.L4----~IL.6~------1I.B
THERMRL CONDUCT! VlTV. BTU If t - h, , F

>:

0.4

A = area/injector, acres/well

As = area of steam zone, sq ft

C = specific heat, Btu/lb;oF
Eb = boiler efficiency, dimensionless
ED = ratio of energy displaced from steam
zone to energy required to generate
steam (as defined in Eq. A-14),
dimensionless
E hs = thermal efficiency of steam zone (as
defined by Eq. A-2), dimensionless
Ehs = average thermal efficiency of steam
zone (as defined by Eq. A-7),
dimensionless
Fos = ratio of oil displaced from steam zone
to water as steam injected (as
defined in Eq. A-12),
dimensionless
Fose = ratio of oil displaced from steam zone
to water as steam injected, 1,000
Btu/lb (as defined in Eq. A-13),
dimensionless
iSb = steam quality, boiler outlet
isd = steam quality, injector bottom-hole,
dimensionless
hD = ratio of enthalpy of vaporization to
liquid enthalpy (as defined in Eq.
A-6), dimensionless
Ho = heating value of oil, Btu/lb
i,. = injection rate of water injected as
steam, bbl/D
kh2 = thermal conductivity of cap and base
rock (Btu/ft-hr-OF)
~ = heat of vaporization of steam, Btu/lb
M 1 = PIC I = average heat capacity of steam zone,
Btu/cu ft- OF
M2 = P2C 2 = average heat capacity of cap and base
rock, Btu/cu ft- OF
N p = volume of oil displaced from steam
zone, cu ft
NpD = pore volume of oil displaced =
N p /43,560Az n 1>, dimensionless
p = steam zone pressure, psia
Q = rate of heat injection, Btu/hr
!1S = average change in oil saturation
during steam process,
dimensionless
t = time of steam injection, hours

MI

~-;

>-,

~~

>-

0.3

~ u..

cfo
>5b:
",0:
w

0.2

90

100

110
120
130
FORMRTION TEMPERRTURE. OF

140

Fig. 11-Effect of reservoir thermal properties on equivalent

oil/steam ratio.

0.4

"-

'"
3....

0.3

a:
a:

~"

0.2

;:!
0

....z

0.1

.J

g:

::>
0

0.0

100

50
FORMATION THICKNESS.

(fT)

0.4

"-

",0

0.3

ci

....a:
a:

"

0.2

;:!
0

....

z
'j

0.1

g:

::>

:'.l

0.0
0

0.5

1.0

Fig. 12-Effect of reservoir petrophysical properties on

equivalent oil/steam ratio.
179

Ttl = temperature of boiler feed water, of

= time of steam injection at onset of
convective heat transport through
the condensation front (as defined
by Eq. A-5), dimensionless
tD = time of steam injection (as defined by
Eq. A-3), dimensionless
Tr = temperature of original formation, of
Ts = temperature of injected steam, of
Ts = TI = temperature of steam zone, of
tJ.T = steam/zone temperature - original
formation temperature, of
u = integration variable
VI = bulk volume of steam zone, cu ft
Vs = volume of water having a mass equal
to that of injected steam, cu ft
VpD = pore volume of steam injection =
Vs /43,560Az n 1>, dimensionless
Zn = net thickness of reservoir, ft
Zt = gross thickness of reservoir, ft
Yo = specific gravity of oil, dimensionless
1> = porosity, dimensionless
Pl,2 = bulk density of formation, lb/cu ft
Pw = density of water = 62.4, lb/cu ft

Subscripts

tCD

1 = steam zone
2 = cap and base rock
b = boiler
D = dimensionless
d = bottom-hole
e = equivalent
f= formation, original conditions
0= oil
s = steam
w = water

Acknowledgments
We wish to express our appreciation to Shell Development Co. and Shell Oil Co. for permission to publish this
paper. We also acknowledge the contribution of P. van
Meurs and C. W. Volek, who developed scaling rules
and supervised the laboratory experimental work.

References
I. Blevins, T. R., Aseltine, R. J., and Kirk, R. S.: "Analysis ofa
Steam Drive Project, Inglewood Field, California," 1. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1969) 1141-1150.
.
.
2. Hearn, C. L.: "The EI Dorado Steam Drive - A Pilot Tertiary

..
~

-> O. 5

>

>

a: 0.3
a:

a:

cr

a:

f-

I-

a:
w

(JJ

O. 2

"-'

...J

f-

I-

1000

500
PRESSURE.

(JJ

"-

a
w 0.0
0.0

->

0.5

0.5

ID

.. 0.4
0

l.J..

c:i
I-

cr O. 3

0:
a: 0.3

I:
IT

1:
0:

W
f-

I(JJ

O. 2

"- 0.2
-'

-"

;;

f-

I-

Z
w 0.1
-'
0:
>

01

.J

IT

_.

>

::>

=>
a

C)

L.I

0.5

;;

O. 4

a:

...J

0.0
1.0

"-

f-

STEAM QUALITY

L.,

1:
0:
I-

(pslgl

"-

0.1

:;

w 0.0

0
0:

>

0
l.J..

a:

a:

:;

->.

I-

...J

>

U1

O. 2

O. 2

z
w 01

z
w 0.1
...J
a:

0.3

1:

1:

I-

f-

>
"-

- O. 3

>
"~

0.4

L.,0

L.,

"-

~
0

: O. 4

O. 4

c:i

U1

0.5

"~

"-

0.5

w 0.0

8. 0

00

1.0
CUMULAT I VE STEAM INJECTED

2.0
IVpOI

2000

1000
I NJECT I ON RATE.

(BID I \JELl!

Fig. 13-Effect of steam parameters on equivalent oil/steam

ratio.
180

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Recovery Test," l. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1972) 1377-1384.

3. Smith, R. V., Bertuzzi, A. F., Templeton, E. E., and Clampitt,
R. L.: "Recovery of Oil by Steam Injection in the Smackover
Field, Arkansas," l. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1973) 883-889.
4. Afoeju, B.I.: "Conversion of Steam Injection to Waterflood, East
Coalinga Field," l. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974) 1227-1232.
5. Bursell, C. G. :"Steam Displacement - Kern River Field."
l. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1970) 1225-1231.
6. de Haan, H. J. and Schenk, L.: "Performance Analysis ofa Major
Steam Drive Project in the Tia Juana Field, Western Venezuela,"
l.Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 111-119; Trans., AIME,246.
7. French, M. S. and Howard, R. L.: "The Steamflood Job, Hefner
Sho-Vel-Tum," Oil andGasl. (July 17, 1967) No. 29, 65, 64.
8. Hall, A. L. and Bowman, R. W.: "Operation and Performance of
the Slocum Thermal Recovery Project," l. Pet. Tech. (April 1973)
402-408.
9. van Dijk, C.: "Steam-Drive Project in the Schoonebeek Field, The
Netherlands," l. Pet. Tech. (March 1968) 295-302; Trans.,
AIME,243.
10. Volek, C. W. and Pryor, J. A.: "Steam Distillation Drive - Brea
Field, California," l. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1972) 899-906.
II. Harmsen, G. J.: "Oil Recovery by Hot Water and Steam Injection," Proc., Eighth World Pet. Cong., Moscow (1971) 3,
243-251.
12. Niko, H. and Troost, P.J.P.M.: "Experimental Investigation of
Steam Soaking in a Depletion-Type Reservoir," l. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. 1971) 1006-1014; Trans., AIME, 251.
13. Mandl, G. and Volek, C. W.: "Heat and Mass Transport in
Steam-Drive Processes," Soc. Pet. Eng. l. (March 1969) 59-79;
Trans., AIME, 246.
14. Prats, M.: "The Heat Efficiency of Thermal Recovery Processes," l. Pet. Tech. (March 1969) 323-332; Trans., AIME,

246.
15. Walsh, J. W.: Unpublished correspondence, Shell Development
Co., Houston.
16. Prats, M. and Vogiatzis, J. P.: Personal communication, Shell
Development Co., Houston.
17. Zaba, J. and Doherty, W. T.: Practical Petroleum Engineers
Handbook, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1951) 55.
18. Keenan, J. H. and Keyes, F. G.: Thermodynamic Properties of
Steam, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London (1936).
19. Ramey, H. J.: "How to Calculate Heat Transmission in Hot
Fluid," Pet. Eng. (Nov. 1964) 110.

APPENDIX

Thermal Efficiency Function

The thennal efficiency of a steam-injection process in a
reservoir is defined as the ratio of heat remaining in the
steam zone to the total heat injected.
E hs = VIMILlT ....................... (A-I)
Qt

Combining Eq. A-I and Eqs. 53 and 54 of Mandl and

Volekl3 results in an expression for the thennal efficiency
of the steam zone before the critical time, teD' at which
heat begins to pass through the condensation front.
E hs

= _1_

fetD erfc
tD \:

Vt;; + 2 ~

1), ... (A-2)

7T"

where

condensation front, but no preheating of the cap and base

rock (see Ref. 13, Eq. 56). Because Mandl and Volek's
solution neglected higher-order tenns, a slight inaccuracy was introduced. Prats and Vogiatzis l6 have included
these tenns and obtained the more exact solution for the
lower bound,
E lower bound --

tcD

FEBRUARY, 1978

eU erfcVu

Vt D

dU), ... (A-4)

where
__
1_ = etcD erfc'VlcD,
~t ..... .......... (A -5)
1 +hD
and
hD = fSdLV .................... (A-6)
CwLlT

(Note that the denominator in Eq. A-6 presumes a constant value for the heat capacity of water, C w , over the
temperature range. For a more precise calculation, the
differences in enthalpies of liquids at steam and at the
reference temperature should be used.) Prats and Vogiatzis also suggested a new weighting factor for the average
steam-zone thermal efficiency:
- _
( I+hD
1 ) LlE, ...... (A-7)
Ehs-Eupperbound-

where Eupper bound is E hs from Eq. A-2 and

LlE =

Eupper bound -

Elower bound'

.....

(A-8)

These relationshigs, shown in Figs. 7 and 8, fulfill the

requirement that E hs approach zero as the steam quality
becomes small. Although this formulation is arbitrary, it
is expected to give reasonable estimates of steam-zone
thermal efficiency for steam qualities greater than about
0.2. Calculation of oil/steam ratio for low-quality steam
processes, however, is not recommended because the
model described in the next section does not account for
the hot-water drive that would predominate in a lowquality steam drive.
Oil/Steam Ratio Function
The maximum oil/steam ratio (Fos) is defined as the ratio
of volume of oil displaced from the steam zone to the
volume of water having a mass equal to that of the
injected steam. The volume of oil displaced is
N p = AsZncPLlS . ....................... (A-9)

The volume of steam required can be calculated from the

heat in the steam zone, the heat efficiency, and the heat
content of the steam:

tD = 4kh2M2t . . ..................... (A-3)

zlMI2

For times greater than the critical time (tCD) , an approximate solution for average steam-zone thermal efficiency
has been given,13 using the arithmetic average of two
thermal efficiencies representing the upper and lower
bounds of steam-zone growth. The upper bound is calculated by assuming no heat flow across the condensation
front, which is the solution given in Eq. A-2. The lower
bound is calculated by assuming heat flow across the

1
2'V rttD _(2VtD - tCD
V-:;t D
1 + hD

~~~

VI =

MIAsztLlT(l/Ehs)
Pw(CwLlT + fSdLV)

, ............ (A-lO)

since
Fos

= Np/VI'

(A-ll)

Fos
= PwCw .(1 + h ). (t h ).
cPLlS(zn/Zt)
MID
hs D, D

............................. (A-I2)
If the ratio of heat capacities of water and the bulk steam
181

zone are constant, the oil/steam ratio divided by the

dimensionless petrophysical properties is a function of
only tD and hD.
Equivalent Oil/Steam Ratio
To standardize oil/steam ratio to an equivalent 1,000Btu/lb steam at boiler outlet, the following correction
is required.
Fose =

Cw(T l

1,000
Fos . ......... (A-13)
Tb) + ISbLv

Over-All Energy Balance

The equivalent oil/steam ratio can be modified to define
the ratio of energy recovered from the process to energy
required to generate steam.
E =
D

oil heating value/volume oil

heat requirement/volume oil '

ED = YoH(;;SO'Eb ................... (A-14)

A simple relationship between specific gravity and heating value of the oip7 is
Ho = 13,100 + 5,600/yo, .............. (A-15)
which further simplifies Eq. 14 to
ED = (l3.1yo +5.6)EbFose. .......... (A-16)

35,040kh2M2tyrs , ............. (A-17)

Z?(M12)
35,040( 1.2)(42)(4.5)
(32)2(35)2

tD =

= 6.33.
Alternatively, tD can be calculated from steam-injection
rate and pore volume of steam injected:
744,750M
2kh2 (Zn/Zt) cpAVpD
tD = _---'-_
_-=-c~....:.::........:..:....-'---------"=-(Mlf Ztis
............................. (A-18)
2. Calculate hD from Eq. A-6 (or read approximately
from Fig. 9). Bottom-hole steam quality, Isd, can be
estimated by subtracting surface-line and injection-well
heat losses1 9 from boiler-exit quality. In this example,
fsd ;;; 0.7.

=
D

3. Using tD andhD , determineE hs from Eqs. A-2, A-4,

andA-7(orFig.7).
E hs

= 0.313.

4. CalculateFos fromEq. A-12.

Fos = (0.3)(0.31)(1.0) (1.022' 6is4 )

Example Calculation
Yorba Linda "F" Sand Drive
Given the parameters listed in Table 3 and values from
standard steam tables,18
Lv

837.4 Btu/lb(at 215 psia, 387.9F)

CwTs

361.91 Btu/lb (at 215 psia, 387.9F)

CwTr = 77.94 Btu/lb (at 110F)

CwTb = 38 Btu/lb (at 70F)
C

=
w

Isb

CwD.T

---;yr-

361.91 - 77.94
387.9 - 110

= 0.8.

1. CalculatetD from Eq. A-3.

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroteum Engineers office Sept. 12.1975.
Paper accepted for publication Feb. 2, 1976. Revised manuscript received Dec. 1,
1977. Paper (SPE 5572) was presented althe SPE-AIME 50th Annual Fall Meeting,
held in Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 1975.

182

(l
=

+ 2.064)(0.313)

0.162.

(Alternatively, Fos could have been obtained using values

of tD and hD in Fig. 10).
5. Calculate Fose from Eq. A-13.
F =
1,000(0.162)
ose
(361.91 - 38) + 0.8(837.4)
=

1.022,

(0.7)(837.4)
- 2.064
(361.91 - 77.94)

0.163.

6. Calculate ED from Eq. A-16, assuming Yo = 0.94

andEb = 0.8.
E D = [13.1(0.94)

+ 5.6](0.8)(0.163)

= 2.3.
That is, even for this case of a fairly low oil/steam ratio,
the oil-heating value equal to 2.3 times the injected heat is
displaced from the steam zone.
JPT

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY