Distinguished Author Series

Steamflooding
by C.S. Matthews, SPE

C.S. Matthews is senior petroleum engineering consultant with Shell Oil Co. in Houston. After
receiving a as degree in chemical engineering and a PhD degree in chemistry from Rice u., Mat-
thews joined Shell Development Co. in 1944 as an engineer in San Francisco. He transferred to
Houston 4 years later to work on production research and became chief reservoir engineer for
Shell's Technical Services Div. in 1956. In 1965 he became manager of exploitation engineering in
New York City. Later he served as director of production research with Shell Development and as
manager of engineering in the Production Dept. Matthews, with D.G. Russell, wrote SPE's first
Monograph, Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells. They were 1967-68 Distinguished Lec-
turers on that topic. Matthews also chaired the Reservoir Engineering Technical Program Commit-
tee for the 1969 Annual Meeting and the Lucas Gold Medal Committee during 1972-73. He
received the Lester C. Uren Award in 1975 for distinguished achievement in petroleum engineering
technology. His current interests include enhanced recovery of oil and gas, tar sands, and
geothermal energy.

Introduction
Steamflooding has become an established recovery
technique within the last 20 years. This overview
discusses its evolution, methods for selecting and
designing steamfloods, constraints, and possible
improvements.
The tenn steamflooding is used here in a general
sense. The discussion includes steam soak (cyclic
steam injection) and steam drive. For additional
infonnation the reader should refer to Farouq Ali and
Meldau. I
Early Developments: Steam Soak
There are records of steam injection into a Texas oil
reservoir as far back as 1931 .2 Steam drive on a sus-
tained basis, however, did not begin until 1959-60
when Shell affiliates undertook steam flood pilots in
Schoonebeek, the Netherlands,3 Mene Grande ,
Venezuela,4 and Yorba Linda, CA.5 Steaming
operations still under way at Schoonebeek and Yorba
Linda are discussed later.
Venezuela. The steamdrive pilot in Mene Grande led
to development of the steamsoak process. 4 While
attempting to relieve the fonnation pressure by
opening a steam injector to production, oil was
produced surprisingly at a rate of 100 to 200 BID.
This was the first steamsoak well. This process
underwent considerable development in both
0149·213618310003·9993$00.25
Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
MARCH 1983
Venezuela and the U.S. Most of the oil produced by
steam from 1960 to 1970 was by this process.
Typically , steam is injected for several weeks and then
the well is closed in (soaked) until the steam has
condensed. A pump then is run and the well is placed
on production. When oil production falls to a low
level, the cycle is repeated.
Thennal production in Venezuela is still almost
entirely (95 %) from steam soak. Compaction of these
thick, unconsolidated sands together with solution-gas
drive is leading to satisfactory oil recovery at very
high ratios of oil recovered per barrel of steam used.
The Netherlands. One of the first large-scale steam
drives began at the Schoonebeek field in The
Netherlands in 1960. 3 Recovery of the moderately
viscous oil (180 cp) was quite successful. This
encouraged additional field trials of steam drive in the
U.S. and in Venezuela. Coring showed that steam was
achieving low residual oil saturations of the order of
8 %. The residual oil in the zone swept only by hot
water was about 35 %. Later tests at Schoonebeek were
carried out at high pressure and high temperature.
Under these conditions C02 and H 2S are generated in
situ . Consequently, new alloys had to be developed.
Thus, Schoonebeek led to pioneering along both
reservoir and metallurgical lines.
u.S. Commercial steamflooding began in the U .S. in
1960 in the Yorba Linda field, CA. 6 Prior production
in this field had been achieved only through use of
465
TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF TYPICAL WELL PERFORMANCE FOR STEAMSOAK OPERATIONS IN VARIOUS CALIFORNIA FIELDS

Additional
Oil
Net Oil Recovered Recovered
Production (BID)
Sand Steam Cycle Per per
Before After Rate hot Open Injected Period Total Barrel of Barrel of
Field Zone Steam Steam' Rate cold (ft) (bbl) (months) (bbl) Steam Steam
--
Huntington Beach TM 15 160 11 40 4,500 15 29,000 6.5 5.0
San Ardo Lombardy 25 360 14 220 14,000 18 50,000 3.6 2.8
Kern River China 3 140 47 22 4,400 6 11,600 2.62 2.5
Midway-Sunset Potter A 10 110 11 250 6,000 5 9,240 1.54 1.29
Kern River Kern River 14 65 4.6 220 6,500 5 4,730 0.73 0.43
Coalinga Temblor 3 52 17.3 107 9,000 5 4,300 0.48 0.40
Midway-Sunset Tulare 5 56 11 240 12,000 6 4,640 0.38 0.31
Midway-Sunset Potter B 5 35 7 250 7,700 4 3,000 0.39 0.29
White Wolf Reef Ridge 30 85 2.4 75 14,000 4 6,750 0.48 0.23
Poso Creek Etchegoin 7 20 3 80 6,700 6 2,660 0.40 0.21

• Average of first 30 days.

downhole heaters. Primary production had been
estimated to be 5 % of the 100 million bbl in place.
After the success of steam soak in this field became
known, the process spread rapidly throughout the
state. By 1963 there were 29 steamsoak projects in the
state,5 and by 1965 there were 267. Steam injection of
15,000 to 25,000 bbl per well led to peak oil rates of
100 to 200 BID per well and to declining but still
commercial production for a period of about I year.
The injection cycle then would be repeated. It was
relatively inexpensive to try steam soak, and a number
of operators tried. By 1967 the estimated additional oil
production in California from steam soak had reached
120,000 BID. Some 408 steam generators were in use
at that time. 5
Steam soaking also was tried widely outside
California. Although success was obtained in a few
cases, the additional production obtained was very
small in comparison with California. In the U.S.
outside California, oils are normally of low viscosity.
Waterflooding proved the most economical method of
supplemental recovery, and steam could not compete.
For the thick, viscous oils in California, waterflooding
gave poor recoveries. This opened the door to steam.
Early attempts to apply steamflooding to U.S. tar
sands were singularly unsuccessful. This was largely
due to unfavorable reservoir characteristics such as low
oil saturation, thief zones, fractures, or extremely high
oil viscosity that kept the steam injectivity rate very
low.
Canada. One of the first sustained steamsoak projects
in Canada began in the Cold Lake tar sand in 1964.
After many years of experimentation, production had
reached a level of 7,000 BID in 1980.
Steam soak is not as successful in the more viscous
(1 million cp) Athabasca tar sands. The viscosity at
Cold Lake is some ten times lower than at Athabasca.
Cold Lake tar also apparently has enough gas in
solution to drive cold oil into steam-stimulated wells.
466
Other. Steam soaks are also under way in France and
the Congo. Soaks probably will be used in connection
with steam drives under way or planned for West
Germany, Trinidad, Sumatra, Argentina, and Brazil.
Methods for Analyzing Steam Soak
Steam soak was a process for which field application
outstripped theory and laboratory research. It was
more economical in many cases to apply steam soak in
a particular case than to conduct research to determine
whether it would be applicable. The main expense was
that of moving in and connecting a portable steam
generator.
Empirical observations were the first guides to
applicability. Some of these are:
1. Thick homogeneous sand reservoirs give the best
response, particularly when gravity drainage is
effective.
2. Thin (20- to 40-ft) permeable reservoirs also
respond well for a few cycles until the pressure is
depleted; they also respond well if gravity can provide
cold oil inflow.
3. Thin reservoirs or thick reservoirs composed of
several sand members respond poorly if pressures
are low.
4. Reservoirs producing at high water rate and high
water cut respond poorly.
5. Reservoirs with low permeability or containing
oils of high viscosity (> 10,000 cp) respond poorly.
These observations led to several methods for
mathematically analyzing a steam soak. Boberg 7
related the improvement in oil production to the radial
distance heated from the wellbore. His analytical
method allowed the heated zone to cool by conduction
and by removal of hot fluids. For a typical heavy-oil
field his method predicts a maximum rate enhancement
of 3 to 4 times.
Boberg's analysis generally underestimated the rate
achieved in a steam soak, probably because his
analysis did not account for the increased solution gas
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
driven out of the crude by the steam and the effect of
low-level heating beyond the very hot zone. Boberg's
method seems to work best when the reservoir
pressure is still relatively high. In such cases the
increased drive due to gas release will be small.
Owens and Suter 8 presented a very simple model
for calculating the response to steam soak. They
proposed:
Rate hot Viscosity hot
Rate cold Viscosity cold
In general, this method tends to overestimate the effect
of steam stimulation. In a typical case an enhancement
of 20 to 50 times will be predicted. Oil production rate
enhancement in partially depleted fields ranges from
about 6 times in some thick Venezuela reservoirs to 10 to
20 times in many California reservoirs (Table 1).
A number of additional models for steam soak have
been presented. These are generally similar to the
Boberg model. All allow an estimate to be made of oil
recovered per barrel of steam. Some early field results
are shown in Table 1.5
Generally speaking, steam soak does not lead to
high recovery. Recoveries in the range of 10 to 20%
of OOIP are normal. However, for certain reservoir
conditions, particularly where gravity drainage can
provide economic production rates, recovery can be
high. In the Yorba Linda Upper Conglomerate zone, a
recovery of 35 % of OOlP was reported. This excellent
recovery was a result of gravity drainage in a thick
(325-ft) shallow zone where wells could be drilled on
very close spacing (0.8 acre). Thus, the wells were
much closer laterally than the pay thickness. Reservoir
compaction has given good recovery at main Tia
Juana, Venezuela. Total recovery by steam soak
through reservoir compaction and solution-gas drive in
this reservoir is 25 to 30 % .
Steam soak continues to be important, accounting
for almost half of current steam-induced production
throughout the world. It will remain important as an
initiating mechanism for drive projects where initial
injectivity is low, and as the major mechanism in
reservoirs with poor continuity. It also will remain
important in reservoirs with good gravity drainage or
reservoir compaction drive.
Methods of Predicting Steam Drives
Steam drive began to gain importance in the U.S. in
about 1970. (Outside the U.S., it is still relatively
unimportant.) At that time, steamdrive production in
California was about 30,000 BID. Some 12 years
later, production by steam drive had increased to more
than 150,000 BID. This section traces the rise of that
production, beginning with a discussion of predictive
methods.
In contrast with the lesser value of steamsoak
performance prediction, steamdrive performance
prediction is very important. Much time and money
are required to conduct a drive pilot. Furthermore,
MARCH 1983
scaling up results of a pilot to full scale is difficult
without some sort of mathematical or physical
reservoir model. Thus, development of predictive
methods for steam drive went hand-in-hand with field
development.
Early Prediction Methods. Laboratory studies such as
those of Willman et al. 9 or Volek and Pryor lO were
useful in showing the potentially high displacement
obtainable with steam. Distillation by steam of the
crude left as residual oil at the steam condensation
front results in very low residual oil saturation in the
steam-swept zone. For most viscous crudes of interest,
the residual oil saturation is 5 to 15 % of PV, well
below the residual saturation attainable by waterflood.
These early laboratory studies also showed that steam
displacement was a highly stable process. Although
steam is of low viscosity, it cannot "finger" through
an oil bank as can a noncondensible gas. Fingers of
steam lose heat rapidly and condense, heating the
surrounding rock and fluids. This stability of the steam
front is an important advantage of steamflooding.
Laboratory measurements of residual oil left by
steam are one element in the design of a field project.
Prediction methods in the early 1960's made use of
these measurements, together with analytical solutions
of heat flow and heat loss, to estimate temperature
distribution, thermal efficiency, and recovery. The
work of Lauwerier ll and Marx and Langenheim 12
were among the earliest analytical heat flow solutions
to be used.
To use these methods, the rate of steam injection
had to be determined from an injection test. The
amount of oil displaced by steam then could be
calculated for the case of a homogeneous reservoir
with a vertical displacement front (no gravity override
of steam).
Myhill and Stegemeier 13 extended these earlier
analytical methods and presented a simple method for
estimating the oil/steam ratio for a field project.
Scaled Physical Models. These models came into use
for steamfloods in the late 1960's. They accounted for
reservoir heterogeneity and gravity override of steam,
and thus were superior to the previous analytical
methods. In addition, they showed where additional
wells were needed or where changes in operating
policy could improve results.
Early scaled models required use of heavy pressure
vessels around the model to allow an overburden
pressure to be applied to the flow chamber.
Consequently, the models were bulky. Much time was
required to pack them with sand, to saturate them with
water and oil, and to deplete them to conditions
prevailing at the beginning of steam drive. In these
early models, steam temperatures equivalent to field
conditions often were used.
A significant breakthrough in modeling steamfloods
in the laboratory occurred when it was shown that
properly scaled results could be obtained at low
467
 TABLE 2-SUCCESSFUL STEAM FLOODS
Oill
Reservoir Oil Perme- Oil Steam Recovery
Depth Pressure Net PayViscosity ability khll'o Saturation, Porosity, Ratio (%
Field (tt) (psig) _(_ft)_ ~ (md) (md-tt/cp)" % % (bbl/bbl) OIP)
---
Kern River, CA 900 35 60 4,000 4,000 60 50 35 0.25 68
Inglewood, CA 1,000 120 43 1,200 6,000 220 64 39 0.50 50
Brea B, CA 4,600 110 189 6 70 2,200 49 24 0.21
Coalinga, CA 1,500 300 50 100 1,000 500 57 31 0.36 39
Yorba Linda, CA 2,100 200 32 85 500 188 49 30 0.21 62
San Ardo Auginac, CA 2,350 250 150 2,000 3,000 225 39
Mt. Poso, CA 1,800 100 60 280 15,000 3,210 58 33 0.21 65
Yorba Linda, CA 650 325 6,400 600 30 63 30 0.49 55
South Belridge, CA 1,100 180 91 1,600 3,000 170 75 33 0.28 60
Midway-Sunset, CA 1,600 50 350 4,000 4,000 350 60 32 0.60 65
Schoonebeek, The Netherlands 2,600 120 83 180 5,000 2,300 85 30 0.37 50
Slocum, TX 535 110 40 1,300 3,500 1,080 60 38 0.18 57
Smackover, AR 2,000 5 20 75 5,000 1,330 80 36 0.33
Tia Juana, Venezuela 1,600 300 125 5,000 2,800 70 85 38 0.83 45
Winkleman Dome, WY 1,200 210 73 900 600 50 75 25 0.20 50

• k ~ permeability; h ~ net pay; ~, ~ oil viscosity.

TABLE 3-FACTORS UNFAVORABLE FOR
STEAM FLOODING
1. Oil saturation less than 40%.
2. Porosity less than 20%.
3. Oil-zone thickness less than 30 ft.
4. Permeability less than 100 md.
5. Ratio of net to gross pay less than 50%.
6. Layers of very low oil saturation and high permeability in
the oil zone that act as thief zones.
7. Extremely high oil viscosity.
8. Fractures.
9. Large permeability variations in the oil zone.
10. Poor reservoir continuity between injectors and producers.
11. Deep, high-pressure reservoirs and shallow reservoirs with
insufficient overburden to permit steam injection without
fracturing.
temperatures with subatmospheric-pressure steam. 14
This enabled the packed-bed models to be enclosed by
thin plastic sheets, which, upon imposition of a
vacuum, became rigid containers. This technique made
the heavy pressure vessels unnecessary. Furthermore,
it allowed researchers to see where displacement was
and was not occurring.
Although scaled physical models can be used to
portray most mechanisms of a steamflood accurately,
they are still time-consuming to pack and operate and
often are limited by availability of materials and fluids
to achieve proper scaling for particular oils and sands.
Considerable time and care are required to pack the
model with the proper sizes of sand or glass beads, to
saturate it properly with oil and water, and to carry out
the steam flood simulation. More recently, development
of efficient computational techniques and increases in
speed and storage of computers have made
mathematical simulation of steamflooding efficient,
reliable, and fast. They also have enabled
consideration of the effect of additional mechanisms,
such as the effect of dissolved gas on a steam drive.
Recently, thermal numerical simulators have been able
to duplicate physical model results, 15 lending even
more confidence to the use of mathematical
simulation.
Mathematical Simulation. The partial differential
equations describing the flow of oil, water, and steam
together with the flow of heat were formulated for
petroleum reservoirs in the 1950's. At that time,
however, computers had insufficient memory and were
much too slow to allow these equations to be solved
simultaneously as a steamflood progressed. Over the
ensuing 20 years, not only did computer speed and
storage increase phenomenally, but efficient
computation techniques were developed. Coats, Chu,
and Marcum 16 and Coats 17 have described some of
these techniques.
At the current stage of development, it is possible to
simulate the behavior of a representative portion of a
heterogeneous reservoir under steam drive. The
modeled portion can include several injection wells
and their surrounding producers. The reservoir can be
heterogeneous both vertically and laterally. The effects
of dip and gravity can be included.
Mathematical reservoir simulation is now the fastest,
most accurate, and most efficient method for
predicting performance of steamfloods. One problem
that arises in such simulation is the difficulty in
visualizing results. The computer output is usually a
discouragingly large stack of paper showing a large
number of computed values of oil production,
temperature, saturation distribution, etc. In some cases
a series of 2D plots of these data also are provided.
The voluminous nature of the output is a deterrent to
its analysis. Typical output from one run is about half
a million numbers.
One recent improvement in this regard is the
Dynamic Visual Display method developed by Shell
Development Co. 18 By this technique the numerical
output from a large computer is processed by a smaller
one to develop 2D arrays of the process variables.
These digital results are converted to TV signals that

468 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

are fed to a color monitor. Typically, the intensity of
pressure and temperature is represented by spectra of
color, and saturations of oil, steam, and water are in
three separate colors. Temperatures, pressures, and
individual fluid saturations may be shown on a cross
section or aerial view of the reservoir. As the flood
progresses, the output on the color monitor is
photographed by a movie camera. Results of the
calculations may be reviewed by either videotape
or movIe.
Many possible injection and production schemes
may be studied economically in this manner. The
pictorial display of results speeds interpretation and
allows engineering improvements to be visualized.
Field Development of Steam Drive
Early Drives. The industry still was learning how to
conduct a steam drive in 1970. It was observed in
several fields with good vertical permeability that
injected steam rose rapidly to the sealing silt or shale
at the top of the injected interval and then traveled in a
thin layer to a production well. After steam
breakthrough occurred at the producer, only a very
small pressure differential could be maintained
between injector and producer. Thus, the oil was not
being produced by a drive but rather by a "drag." Oil
directly beneath the overlying steam zone was heated
by the steam and flowed cocurrently with the steam to
the production well.
With the very low pressure gradient between wells,
the required injection pressures were very low. Thus,
many of the early steam drives could be characterized
as continuous steam injection at very low pressure.
The steam injection rate was also low, usually just
high enough to keep the producers hot and with little
steam production. High-injection-rate steam drives
appeared somewhat later.
High-Rate Steam Drives. In reservoirs with
significant dip, laboratory model studies showed that it
was possible to drive the oil downdip to producers by
injecting steam updip. This usually required initial
injection of steam into some of the downdip producers
to preheat the oil. Drives of this type began to appear
during the 1970's. Examples are found at Mt. Poso l9
and at Midway-Sunset. 20 Partially as a result of these
high-rate drives, steamdrive production increased in
the U.S. from 30,000 BID in 1970 to 270,000 BID
in 1982.
Steam drives may lead to dramatic increases in
production rate. At Mt. Poso, a 280-cp oil was in the
final stages of a strong water drive. Steam was
introduced when the field was producing 1,500 BID
oil at 99 % water cut. Oil production finally rose to
about 25,000 BID. It is estimated that recovery from
the steam drive at Mt. Poso may exceed 65 % of OOIP
vs. 38 % from the natural water drive.
The largest steam drive in the U.S. is at Kern River
(107,000 BID). Other large drives are at South
Belridge (63,000 BID), San Ardo (26,000 BID), and
MARCH 1983
Midway-Sunset (28,000 BID). In Venezuela,
steamdrive production is about 20,000 BID in
Lagunillas. At Schoonebeek, steamdrive production is
expected to reach 9,000 BID in a few years.
Steam drives are under way in Canada and in
France, but production is still small. Drives are
planned in Trinidad, Argentina, and Indonesia. The
latter is planned to be the world's largest steam drive,
with an oil production rate of 300,000 BID.
Selecting and Designing a Steamflood
Criteria. Key properties of some of the most
successful steamfloods are given in Table 2.1
Reservoir properties of successful projects cover a
wide range of conditions. Table 3 contains a list of
factors unfavorable for steamflooding. This table is
useful for rapid screening of projects. However, a
project may violate one or two of these factors and
still be successful, if all other factors are highly
favorable. Thus, every potential project should be
evaluated on its own merit.
Estimating an OillSteam Ratio. After a preliminary
screening, the next step in evaluating a potential
steam flood is to estimate the average oil/steam ratio.
The method of Myhill and Stegemeier 13 is convenient
for this purpose.
Simulation, Injection Testing, and Economic
Analysis. Before a substantial investment is made in a
steamflood, a laboratory model or computer simulation
study should be run. Refs. 14, 16, and 17 discuss both
approaches. The simulations also will allow studies of
the effect of well spacing and well arrangement,
completion interval, injection and production schedule,
pressure level, steamsoak size, and many other
variables.
An example of the use of a reservoir simulator to
improve field performance is given in Ref. 21.
With simulation results in hand, an economic
evaluation can be made. This evaluation usually will
be a strong function of the steam injection rate.
Methods for predicting this rate are only approximate,
and injection tests in several key wells in the reservoir
of interest are a "must."
A careful geological and reservoir study is also
necessary. There are numerous examples of
steamfloods that failed when a careful preflood study
would have pointed out the pitfalls. Some of the
reasons for failure were: (1) less net pay than
originally estimated, especially in sands with shaly
intervals; (2) lower oil saturation than originally
estimated, especially when the connate water is
relatively fresh; (3) poor reservoir continuity; and (4)
nearness to an updip gas cap or to bottom water.
The final test of a steam drive is a pilot. In contrast
with waterflood pilots, steamdrive pilots are often at
least semiquantitative. The reason for this is that the
pilot area will be surrounded by formation containing
cold, viscous oil, usually at a high oil saturation since
469
primary production from heavy-oil reservoirs is low.
Heated oil normally will flow into a steamsoaked (and
heated) producer because of this surrounding "wall"
of viscous oil.
Mathematical reservoir simulation is of considerable
value during a pilot, particularly if there are
observation wells. Simulation may show, for example,
that much larger steam soaks are needed in certain
wells, or that updip production should cease, to force
steam downdip. Continuous interaction between
research, engineering, and operations is required at
this stage for success.
The Potential of Heavy Oil and Tar Sands
Resources. The tar sand and heavy oil resources of
the world are very great. Canada and Venezuela each
have resources (heavy oil and tar in place) of the order
of 1 trillion bbl. These tar sands range in depth from
the surface-minable deposits to those at several
thousand feet. Smaller tar-sand deposits are known to
exist in many other countries, including the U.S.
The U.S. Natl. Petroleum Council (NPC) made a
detailed study in 1976 of the potential of all U.S.
heavy oils. They found that the potential recovery by
steam is quite low. Less than 4% of the entire U.S.
heavy oil resource is estimated to be recoverable in
this manner. Even in California, where the world's
largest thermal oil production is now occurring, only
about 7 % of the heavy oil in place is estimated to be
recoverable. Reasons for poor recovery, in addition to
those noted previously, include the presence of
fractures, low porosity or permeability, and thief
zones. Where steam is applicable, oil recovery can be
as high as 60%. Where steam is not applicable, oil
recovery is very low. The 7 % overall recovery for
heavy oil in California indicates that steam injection is
not widely applicable, for the reasons discussed.
Undoubtedly, price and new technology will change
some of these resources to reserves. Many years and
much effort will be required. Recovery of heavy oils
and tar sands that are unrecoverable with current
economics will pose a challenge for future generations.
Recovery in Canada. As mentioned, Canada has
extremely large resources of heavy oils and tar sands.
The very large resources are in the Cold Lake, Peace
River, and Athabasca areas. The Cold Lake deposit
currently is yielding about 14,000 BID by steam soak.
At Peace River a large steamdrive pilot is currently
in progress.
The giant Athabasca tar-sand reservoirs have not
succumbed yet to commercial in-situ exploitation. The
shallow Athabasca tar sands now are being mined
commercially, but the deeper deposits, in spite of
extensive research and field testing, have not yielded
their tar commercially. This remains one of the great
challenges for the petroleum scientist and engineer.
Recovery in Venezuela. Venezuela, like Canada, is
blessed with a very large heavy-oil resource. Estimates
of 1 trillion bbl in place have been made. Much
470
additional drilling will have to be done, however, to
determine the characteristics of this resource. Very
likely, drilling will indicate, as at Athabasca, that this
tar belt is composed of many different reservoirs, each
with different sand and oil characteristics.
A start has been made at process development. The
Jobo steam pilot was begun in 1981. Planning for
upgrading the heavy tar is also under way. The tar belt
could prove to be a major sustainable source of energy
for many years.
Potential. The current world production rate from
steam is about 550,000 BID. From the number of
projects planned it seems likely that production in the
U.S. will rise to 500,000 BID by 1990. A production
rate of 350,000 BID in the rest of the world appears
reasonable, for an overall world production of 850,000
BID in 1990. In the 1990's, commercial projects at
Cold Lake, Peace River, and in the Venezuela tar belt
easily could double this figure. The tar and heavy-oil
resource is so large that it could sustain production of
a few million barrels per day many years into the
next century.
Constraints to Development
In the U.S. there are a number of factors that probably
will prevent the rate of oil production from steam
injection from reaching its maximum potential. Some
of these are:
1. Delays in obtaining air emission permits. Three
years or more have been required in the past to obtain
some permits to install and operate steam generators in
the U.S.
2. Evolving regulations. As new regulations were
issued, new engineering studies were required. These
in turn led to alteration of proposed projects, which
meant additional studies and revisions.
3. Scrubber waste disposal. Most steam generators
in California burn crude oil containing several percent
sulfur. Caustic scrubbers currently are used to remove
S02 from exhaust gases. Constructive efforts of both
industry and government are required to assure that
scrubber waste disposal is both environmentally
acceptable and cost effective.
4. Water supply. Approximately 4 bbl of water are
required for each barrel of oil produced. Oilfield steam
generators can use nonpotable water with a high
content of dissolved solids. It is also common practice
to recycle produced water. Thus, water for steam
generation is not usually a problem. However, S02
scrubbers require fresh water. Although the
requirements are small, they are critical. This may be
a problem in some areas.
5. Taxes. The U.S. federal government provides a
disincentive in the form of the "Windfall Profit Tax. "
According to the 1976 NPC study, this will lower the
potential production rate of U.S. thermal oil in 1990
by up to 300,000 BID.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
New Possibilities
Other Fuels for Steam. In steam drives, the
equivalent of approximately one-third of the produced
oil is required to generate steam. The ratio is lower in
steam soak. Substitution of petroleum coke or coal for
part or all of the oil used as fuel may be possible in
large installations. Fluidized-bed combustion of coal is
one of the promising technologies for such large-scale
steam generation.
Burning natural gas, when available, under a field
steam generator is an efficient use of energy. For
every Btu burned, about 3 to 5 Btu will be produced
in the form of heavy oil. Use of gas also eliminates
most emission problems in the field.
Cogeneration. By generating steam at higher
temperature and pressure than needed for steam
injection, electrical power first could be generated.
After expansion through an electrical power generator
turbine, the lower-pressure steam could be injected for
heavy-oil recovery. Burning the fuel in a turbine
before raising steam offers an additional possibility of
further increasing the efficiency of the entire cycle.
Downhole Steam Generators. For deep steam-
injection projects, for injection into low-permeability
reservoirs, and for use offshore, a downhole steam
generator would be attractive. Several types are
currently under development. In one type the products
of combustion are injected along with the steam. In
another the combustion products are vented to the
surface. If development is successful, these downhole
generators undoubtedly will make their contribution to
increased thermal oil production.
Conclusions
Steam now has proved an important agent for oil
production. The oil production rate for steam projects
continues to increase and the worldwide rate may
reach 850,000 BID by 1990. Regulatory and economic
constraints may prevent the oil production rate from
increasing to its maximum potential in the short term,
especially in the U. S. Changing environmental
regulations, delays in issuing permits, and increased
taxes are among the major constraints to production.
On the brighter side, there is still considerable
potential for new technology to bring on currently
marginal steam projects.
References
I. Farouq Ali, S.M. and Meldau, R.F.: "Current Steamtlood
Technology," 1. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1979) 1332-42.
2. Stoval, S.L.: "Recovery of Oil from Depleted Sands by Means of
Dry Steam," Oil Weekly (1934) 74, 9.
3. Van Dijk, e.: "Steam-Drive Project in the Schoonebeek Field,
The Netherlands," Trans., AIME (1968) 243, 295-302.
MARCH 1983
4. deHaan, H.J. and Schenk, L.: "Performance and Analysis of a
Major Steam Drive Project in the Tia Juana Field, Western
Venezuela," Trans., AIME (1969) 246, II I - 19.
5. Bums, J.: "A Review of Steam Soak Operations in California,"
Trans., AIME (1969) 246, 25-34.
6. Stokes, D.D. and Doscher, T.M.: "Shell Makes a Success of
Steam Flood at Yorba Linda," Oil and Gas 1. (Sept. 2, 1974)
71-76.
7. Boberg, T.C.: "What's the Score on Thermal Recovery and Ther-
mal Stimulation?", Oil and Gas 1. (Aug. 23, 1965) 78.
8. Owens, W.D. and Suter, V.E.: "Steam Stimulation-Newest
Form of Secondary Petroleum Recovery," Oil and Gas 1. (April
26, 1965) 82.
9. Willman, B.T., et al.: "Laboratory Studies of Oil Recovery by
Steam Injection," 1. Pet. Tech. (July 1961)681-90.
10. Volek, e.W. and Pryor, J.A.: "Steam Distillation Drive, Brea
Field, California," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1972) 899-906.
II. Lauwerier, H.A.: "The Transport of Heat in an Oil Layer Caused
by the Injection of Hot Fluid," Applied Science Research (1955)
A-5,145.
12. Marx, J.W. and Langenheim, K.H.: "Reservoir Heating by Hot
Fluid Injection," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 312-15.
13. Myhill, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L.: "Steam Drive Correlation
and Prediction," 1. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 173-82.
14. Stegemeier, G.L., Laumbach, D.D., and Volek, e.W.:
"Representing Steam Processes with Vacuum Models," Soc. Pet.
Eng. 1. (June 1980) 151-74.
15. Myhill, N.A.: "A Check on Numerical Thermal Simulation,"
paper SPE 8822 presented at the 1980 Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, April 20-23.
16. Coats, K.H., Chu, e., and Marcum, B.D.: "Three-Dimensional
Simulation of Steamtlooding," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (Dec. 1974)
573-92.
17. Coats, K.H.: "A Highly Implicit Steamtlood Model," Soc. Pet.
Eng. 1. (Oct. 1978) 369-83.
18. Good, P.A. et al.: "Use of Color Movies for Interpretation and
Presentation of Reservoir Simulation Results," 1. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. 1980) 1331-38.
19. Stokes, D.D. et al.: "Steam Drive as a Supplemental Recovery
Process in an Intermediate Viscosity Reservoir, Mt. Poso Field,
California," 1. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1978) 125-31.
20. Duerksen, J.H., Webb, M.G., and Gomaa, E.E.: "Status of the
Section 26C Steamtlood, Midway-Sunset Field, California,"
paper SPE 6748 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
21. O'Dell, P.M. and Rogers, W.e.: "Use of Numerical Simulation
to Improve Thermal Recovery Performance in the Mt. Poso Field,
California," paper SPE 7078 presented at the Fifth Symposium on
Improved Methods for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19,1978.
22. Ramey, H.J.: "How to Calculate Heat Transmission in Hot
Fluid," Pet. Eng. (Nov. 1964) 110.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
acre X 4.046 873 E+03 = m 2
E-Ol = m 3
bbl X 1.589 873
Btu X 1.055 056 E+03 =1
cp X 1.0* E-03 Pa's
E-Ol
ft X 3.048* m
E-03
psi X 6.894 757 MPa
"Conversion factor is exact. JPT
Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive presentations that
summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by
individuals recognized as experts in the areas, these articles provide key references
to more definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology.
Purpose: To inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of
petroleum engineering. The series is a project of the Technical Coverage Committee.
471