Numerical Simulation of Steam Displacement

Field Performance Applications

Chu, SPE-AIME, Geuy Oil Co.
A. E. Trirnble, SPE-AIME, Getty Oil Co.

C.

Introduction
The three-dimensional, three-phme numerical model for
steam displacement, described by Coats et al., 2 was
previously tested with three sets of laboratory experimental data and was used in various applications, including a
representative
field-scale
problem and a steamstimulation example. This paper concerns the same
model and consists of two parts. The fust part is a further
validation of the numerical model by history matching
the performance of a single pattern in the Kern A
project in Kern River field, Calif. (Fig. 1). Related
studies are included on the simulation of steam stimulation, the effects of grid orientation, upstream weighting
of viscosities, and the temperature dependence of relative
permeabilities. In the second part, the model is used to
optimize an objective function for the cases of constant
and varying steam rates. While the constant-steam-rate
cases maintained the same rates for the entire project life,
the varying-steam cases used decreasing sequences of
steam rates, with each maintained for a prespecified
length of time.

Performance of a Single Patkrn

Field Pattern Description
A five-spot steam-displacement pattern was selected in
the Kern A project (Fig. 2) for histo~matching purposes. The basis for this selection was primarily the
following criteria: (1) the field operation typifies Kern
River, (2) the availability of good reservoir data, (3) the
newly complete cycle life of the displacement zone, and
(4) near symmetry of the pattern. The Pattsm seleeted is

about 430 ft in the east-west direetion and 270 ft in the

north-south direction, and covers an area of 2,7 acres,
East-west and north-south cross-sections through this
pattern are gi (en in Fig. 3. The displacement sand shown
in the cross-seetions is locally referred to as the RI
interval. Note the existence of a tight streak in a part of
this interval. Core-hole data are available from Weli 503,
which was cored before displacement of the RI zone, and
Well C, H. 1, which was cored near the depletion of
displacement in the R, sand. The patterns including
Wells 503 and C. H. 1 were not chosen because the wells
are not as symmetrically spaced as those in the pattern
around Well 68.
Data from Well 503, shown in Table 1, were used for
the vertical distribution of permeability and saturation.
The permeability of Layer 2 in Table 1 was assumed to be
only 1 percent of that of Layer 1, which reflects the
existence of the tight streak shown in Fig. 3. The fluid
volumes, as indicated by core analysis, were assumed to
completely fill the available pore space, and normalized
saturations were calculated. This method tends to restore
the core data of the unconsolidated sand to reservoir
conditions, as suggested by Elk ins, 4 Calculations were
also made to correet core porosities to vahes closer to
reservoir conditions.
Additional Fluid and Reek Data
This type of reservoir simulation requires a wide range of
input data. Where possible, field data were used to supplement data obtained from the literature. In Table 2, Set
?

A three-dimensional, three-phase numerical steam-displacement model was used to history

match 5% years offield aktafiom a representative five-spot pattern in Kern River, Calif. The
model was usedjimther to effect optimization of steam-injection ratesfor typicaljive-spot
patterns.
JUNE, 1975

765

w temperature viscosity data used in the history

.
match. These data were obtained from produced oil in
Kern WelI 68, the model pattern producer, Table 3 shows
the relative-permeability data used to obtain the final
history match. Note that temperature dependence is
shown in the table. Previous simulations of experimental
data led to the conclusion that the temperature dependence of relative permeabilities has a considerable effect
on calculated results, Studies in this project showed that
an increase in oil relative permeabilityy and a decrease in
water relative permeability at an elevated temperature
resulted in better representation of the field performance
in the Kern A Well 68 pattern. Subsequent laboratory
measurements of relative permeability for temperatures
up to 400F have shown that these effects are indeed
representative of the behavior of Kern River core material. Similar effects on consolidated rocks were also reported by Weinbrandt and Ramey. 7 The remaining basic
data used in the history match are shown in Table 4. The
injection wells are completed in the lower one-third of the
in:srval, whereas the production well is completed over
the entire interval.
Required Numerieal Techniques
Before the history match, several problems were encour tered. One of these problems was the excessive pressure
buildup upon steam injection into the reservoir. There are
at least three methods that can be used to cope with this
problem. The first method involves the use of infinite
boundaries. An obvious disadvantage of this method is
that it requires a very large number of grid blocks and,
therefore, an excessive expenditure of computer time.
Reduction of :he number of grid blocks in the x and y
directions leads to enormous pressures, The second

--1---

ymg}
KERN

sPROJECT

W,.

,,0,,,,S

28S.

(1s#s)cH + ; s@J
C* =

l++sg+

(1)

where
C, = compressibility of the spongy rock
(composite of rock and nonsteam gas)
CR = cornpressibilit y of the rock
~ = pxosity
So = initial saturation of the nonsteam gas
P
= absolute pressure.
In the spongy-rock method, a confined region can be used
that allows the fluid to be released when the pressure is
lowered during the production stage. Many computer
runs using this method have given satisfactory results.
The latest version of the model (Coast3), with the added

COMPANY

method is to use fictitious wells on the boundary of a

confined region to remove the fluids pushed out by the
injected steam. The disadvantage of this methoc! is that
the fluids being produced in the fictitious wells are permanently
lost. These two methods gave unsatisfactory
results in several trials.
The third method involves the concept of spongy
rock. It is assumed that voids, or gas saturations, existed in the reservoir before the start of the steam displacement process, either because the original formation
contained voids or because they were created during
primary operation. The present steam model cannot account for any gas other than steam. To simulate the
cushioning effect of the existing gas saturation, the compressibility of the rock was assumed to be a composite of
the compressibilities of rock and gas. The following
equation was used and can be readily derived, assuming
ideal gas behavior:

2f3E
2,

?L

--ly

29 S.-2SE.

;Z
/

~-~
5-SPOTPATTEP.N
OF lNTWST
~
,WLLS COREO
THROUGH
RI SANO
AoA,BsS GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTIONS
(SEEFIG. 3)
Fig. 2lsopech

Fig.lMap of KernRiver field.

of net productive R, oil send Kern A pilot

area
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 2-41-VISCOSITY

TABLE 1VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PERMEABILITIES ANO

SATURATIONS
Layer

Thickness (ft)

k (red)

1
2
3
4
5

12

5,500

2;
21
9

1,9%
1,359
1,408

Temperature

0.350
0.350
0.630
0.650
0,670

et al. 6

A second problem was the effect of grid orhmtation on

calculation results of the steam displacement process in
five-spot patterns, as noted previously.z The parallel grid
that favors flow of steam in a direction along the
streamline joining the injector and the producer gave
more satisfactory representation of laboratory experimental data than did the diagonal grid. This effect was
noted again in this study.
To obtain the correct direction of fluid flow, a quadrant
of the pattern with dimensions equal 10the averages of the
dimensions of the four quadrants was used. In this way,
the steam front moves directly from tne injector toward
the producer. This is shown in the isotherms in Fig. 4. An
advantage of using a qua&ant instead of the entire pattern
is that the number of grid blocks necessary for the simulation can be substantially reduced.

& (Cp)

Sw,

capabllit y to handle gas saturation, obviates this procedure. On the other hand, the rock compressibilities calculated based on the spongy-rock concept are within the
range af the ex~rimentally determined rock compressibilities of unconsolidated sands reported by Sawabini,

(F)

75.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
303.0
350.0
400.0
500.0
600.0

TABLE 3-WATER-OIL

Set 1

Set 2

3,000.0
740.0
107.0
24.0
9.0
2.6
1.7
1.0

5,780.0
1,380.0
187.0
47.0
17.4
8.5

k,w

Gas-Oil Data

km.

Sw + so

at 7!YF
0.000
0.002
0,004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.021
0.045
0.100
1.000

0.270
0.420
0.510
0.560
0.620
0,650
0.680
0.720
C.800
0.940
0.970
1.000

1.00
0.99
0.80
0,60
040
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.30
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.65
0.68
0.71
0.74
0.78
0.83
0.89
1.00

0.000
0.004
0.010
0.012
0.014
0,016
0.018
0.022
0.028
o.f345
0.100
1.000

k ,
B

at 400F
1.00
0.99
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.63
0.64
0.65
0.67
0,69
0.71
0.74
0.77
0.80
0.84
0.90
1.00

.
1
Z.*

Pig.3-Cross-sections

,.---

II
-w

>
?M?u

Steam quality
o.. ib/cu ft

14.5
0.7
60.3

passing through Well 68. Upper portion:

east-westdiraction. Lower pottion: north-south direction.

JUNE, 1975

PCIC9
Pcm

0.000
0.005
0010
0.020
0.030
0.040
C.070
0.090
0.130
0.190
0.300
1.000

OATA

Cm, vol/vol-F
Cm, vol/vol-F
CPW, Btu/lb-F
Cm, Btu/lb-F
4
KR , Btu/ft-D-F
K&,
Btu/ft-D-F
(P), i Btu/cu ft-F
(@)@, Btu/cu ft-F
1,, F
PI, psia

r.

It-

0.51
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0,25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

1.00
1.00
0.000003
0.000005
0.000735
(for spcmgy-rock
0.00049
0.00039
1.00
0.50
0.345
38.4
38.4
35.0
35.0
95.0
50.0

Sfl
piml Psi
pm, psi

0.000
0.005
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.130
0.190
0.300
1.000

0.51
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

at 400F
0.500
0.620
0,690
0.720
0.740
0,760
0.780
0.810
0.850
0.940
0.970
1.000

krcw

k r9

at 75F

TABLE 4-BASIC

7A*

::;
1.5
0.8

AND GAS-OIL RELATIVE-PERMEABILITY DATA

Water-Oil Data
s
__S__

LJW,,mol/res bbl
b.,, STB/res bbl
(2W,vol/vol-psi
CO, vol/vol-psi
Cfi, vol/vol-psi

c.

DATA

(0.000586)
concept)

(0.3)

(80.0)

0.0
0,0

Note: Most of the date listed here are common to both runs for history matching
and optimizetin.
In caae the data differ, those pertaining to optimization
runs are placed within parentheses

767

.-

TABLE 6-STEAM-STIMULATION
Year

1968
1968

DATA OF WELL S8

Month

Total Steam
Injected (STB)

Feb.
July

6,990
7,957

Remarks
6 days of
stimulation
followed by
3 days of
soaking

following month. In July 1968, when oil-production

rate declined in Well 68, it was steam stimulated a second
time. Soon thereafter, production response to displacement was realized and further stimulation was not necessary. The steam-injection rates were averaged during
periods when they stayed fairly constant (Table 5). The
steam-stimulation data of Well 68 are given in Table 6,
whereas its oil- and water-production rates and c umulative productions throughout the period between March
1968 and Aug. 1973 are presented on a monthly basis in
Table 7.

the

Fig. Wlculated

isothfirms using a Farallel grid.

Pattern History Match

History matching was performed using the actual
steam-injection rates, together with availabie experimental reservoir rock and fluid data. Two ways of ascertaining the initial oil and water saturations were investigated.
One way assumed that the initial oil saturations reported
in core analysis were correct and that initial water saturations were just the balances. Another way assumed that,
since the total fluid saturations reported in core analysis
did not add up to unity, the saturations should be normalized. The latter method was chosen !O insure beuer
simulation, Water-oil and gas-oil relative-permeability
data were found to ha~e a profound effect on calculated
production. Adjustments were made on the relativepermeability data to achieve better agreement between
calculated and actual oil and water product ions, The
results of history matching are presented in Figs. 5
through 7.
Fig. 5 compares the cumulative oil and water production of Well 68 with that predicted by the model. The
calculated cumulative water production deviatez only
slightly from the field data, from the b:ginning of the
project up to the end of available data. The comparison
between calculated and actual cumulative oil productions
reveals more appreciable deviations exist ing in several
segments; nevertheless, the calculated ultimate oil production at the end of Aug. 1973 matches the field value.
The comparison of oil- and water-production rates are
shown in Fig. 6. Several variances can be noted in the
comparisons of the oil-rate curves. The comparisons are
not as good as we would have liked, but the matching of
field thermal-production data is difficult. Part of this is

the original version of the numerical model, upstream weighting of the viscosity of steam was used,
along with ~hhetic
averagng of viscosities of oil and
water. [Suppose a fluid moves from Block i to Block i +
1 and its viscosities in these blocks are pi and p.~+1,
respectively. Upstream weighting means using w for
calculating intertbek transmissibility, whereas arithmetic weighting means using % (M i- W+,) instead. ] In the
simulation of the laboratory data, the calculated ~ival of
the steam fron? was later than the actual arrival in the
experiments. A similar discrepancy was observed when a
history match of the five-spot pattern was attempted in
this study. Using upstream weighting for all phases results in faster propagation of the steam front and in
improved matching of the field performarice.
In

Field Pattern Opation

In Kern River, when displacement is planned in patterns
of a projeet, the producing wells are heavily stimulated
before and during the early stages of steam displacement.
If production starts to drop after displacement has started,
the well is stimulated again. This procedure has proved
successful in improving pattern sweep efllciency in this
low-pressure reservoir. It was necessary to consider this
stimulation history of Well 68 in the history match.
Well 68 was steam stimulated and subsequently produced before inception of the Kern A displacement
project. In Feb. 1968, it was stimulated for 6 days. In
March 1968, continuous steam injection started in Well
504 (Fig. 2). Wells 505,507, and 508 started injection in
TABLE 5-AVERAGED

INJECTION RATES OF WELLS

(Wells 504, 505,507,

From
Year
Month
1968
1968
196$
1969
1969
1970
1971
768

March
April
Aug.
Jan.
July

July
Jan.

To
Year

1968
1968
1969
1970
1970
1973

and 508)
Steam Rate (STB/D)

Month
July

Dec.
June
June
Dec.
Aug.

Well 504

Well 505

127
214
245
307
290
216
272

25!
295
307
260
216
272

Well 507
.
0
251
245
307
246
210
218

Well 5=
25?
246
310
269
249
258

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

because of erratic production, despite fairly constant

operating conditions.
The match between calculated and field water rates in
Fig. 6 is considered quite good. The calculated and field
oil rates show a reasonable match through 1970; however, a decline began in 1971 that could not be matched

).000,000
-4...

L--L
Ir

--

, ;- ...+._

4..

.+

-.

.:.- ..- :.

.+. ;
I

.:

.+

TABLE 7PRODUCTION RATES AND CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION

OF WEU 68

10
~

IN, ooo

--:

F
g

E
.

:--

. . . .. .

...&.

. .

10.00(?

.. -,.

.. .

-j --;--. .

1
t
-

..

. . .-

1 ,W?
i 968

:969

; a-o

1971

1972

1973

Fig. 5--A history match cumulative oil and water productions.

----

field data
calculated

. .
r)... ....

10
f

l:.

... .

,:
,.:

. . :..- -..
!..

,.

,..

.,

.,
.:

,.,

-:

...

:1

1
1968

Fig. 6-A

1969

1970,

197]

1972

1973

history match oil and water production rates.

water rate, field data

. . . . . . water rate, calculated
oil rate, field data
--
oil rate, calculated

JUNE, 1975

Cumulative
Water
Production

Date

Water
Rate
(STB/D)

Mai ch 1968
April 1968
May 1968
June 1968

3:
33
39
25

51
132
194
279

1,023
2,013
3,222
3,972

1,581
5,541
11,555
19,925

3
8
8

100
167

23,025
28,202
30,212
36,815
44,645
54; 503

(STB)

July 1966
Aug. 1968
Sept. 1968
Ott, 1968
NOV. 1968
Dec. 1968

;:
114

2::
261
318

4,065
4,313
4,554
5,266
7,816
11,350

Jan. 1969
Feb. 1969
Match 1969
April 1969
May 1969
June 1969

161
193
166
163
118
90

440
555
327
359
267
206

16,341
21,745
26,891
31,781
35,439
38,139

68,143
83,683
93,820
104,590
112,867
119,047

JUIY 1969
Aug. 1969
Sept. 1969
Oct. 1969
NOV. 1969
Dec. 1969

110
112
104
185
122
68

212
205
20 I
301
222
182

41,549
45,021
48,141
53,876
57,536
59,644

125,619
131,974
138,004
147,335
153,995
159,637

Jan. 1970
Feb. 1970
March 1970
April 1970
May 1970
June 1970

111
93
106
72
40
62

170
162
189
I 50
95
164

63,085
65,689
68,975
71,135
72,375
74,235

164,907
169,443
175,302
179,302
182,747
187,667

July 1970
Aug. 1970
Sept. 1970
Oct. 1970
Nov. 1970
Dec. 1970

129
123
88
84
78
40

286
310
205
188
171
145

78,234
82,047
84,687
87,291
89,631
90,871

196,533
206,143
212,293
218,121
223,251
227,746

Jan, 1971
Feb. 1971
March 1971
April 1971
May 1971
June 1971

42
33
34
;;
45

167
157
157
208
176
284

92,173
93,097
94,151
94,661
95,808
97,158

232,923
237,319
242,186
248,426
253,882
262,402

July 1971
Aug. 1971
Sept. 1971
Oct. 1971
Nov. 1971
Dec. 1971

39
37
34
33
30
30

237
436
205
201
111
198

98,367
99,514
100,534
101,557
102,457
103,387

269,749
283,265
289,415
295,646
298,976
305,114

Jan. 1972
Feb. 1972
March 1972
April 1972
May 1972
June 1972

20
27
21
17
17
21

117
177
116
180
181
165

104,007
104,790
105,441
105,951
106,478
107,108

308,741
313,874
317,470
322,870
328,481
333,431

July 1972
Aug. 1972
Sept. 1972
Oct. 1972
NOV. 1972
NC. 1972

18
10
20
23
18
15

186
173
259
236
172
258

107,666
107,976
108,576
109,289
i09,829
110,294

339,197
344,560
352,330
359,646
364,806
372,804

Jan. 1973
Feb. 1973
March 1973
April 1973
May 1973
June 1973

14
;:
16
12
16

338
284
271
358
293
221

110,728
111,260
111,942
112,422
112,794
113,274

383,282
391,234
399,635
410;375
419,458
426,088

July 1973
Aug. 1973

17
18

282
303

113,801
114,359

434,830
444,223

2
:
5
u

Cumulative
Oil
Productiorl
(STB)

Oil
Rate
(ST8/D)

.,

769

with the model. By the end of Aug. 1973, the calculated

oil rate was about 60 percent higher than the field ti.a.
The history match was not perfect; however, given
more adequate input data to describe the reservoir characteristics and more time to make various reasonable adjustmen~, a perfect match would be readily accessible.
The main objective of this effort was to validate the steam
model; the reasonable history match obtained proved
the viability of the model, making efforts to pdrsue a
perfect match unnecessary. Furthermore, the discrepancies in oil-production rate toward the latter part of
a project become less significant when the oil is discounted based on the present-worth concept. Such discrepancies would therefore produce insignificant effect
on the results of optimization studies such as the study
on optimal steam rates presented below.
Fig. 7 shows calculat&l temperature distributions at
various times of the steam-displacement operation. It is
interesting to note that, in spite of the intervening shale
break, steam reaches the top of the formation and propagates along the ceiling toward the #reducer, The same
phenomenon can be noticed in Fig. 8, where oilsaturation distributions are presented at various times.
The S-shaped curve of the Oto 0.10 saturation line in the
cross-section from injector to producer at 3 and 5 years is
evidently caused by the impedence to oil flow by the tight
streak. The islands of increased cil saturations in the
.,

1 yr

bottom plan views demonstrate the possibility of a small

oil-bank formation,

Optimization of Steam-Injection Rates

Steam injection in a displacement project is a major
operating cost, Any attempt at optimizing steaminjection rates has potential impact on a projects profitabilityy. The numerical steam model, as discussed in the
first part of the paper, gives a reasonable history match
to field production data, In this section, we show how
the model can be used to evaluate the important variable
of steam rate.
Criterion for Optimization
In any optimization, the initial problem is to establish a
realistic objective function to maximize or to minimize.
In this study, an objective function was selected that
considers the present worth of produced oil at-d consumed fuel. This function is referred to as the cumulative
discounted net oil (CDNO).
To define CDNO, cumulative net oil is fwst defined as
equal to the cumulative oil production minus the barrels
of fuel needed to produce that oil, This can be expressed
as
Cumulative net oil = Cumulative oil moduced
Cumulative oil ~urned, . . . .(2)

3 yr

5 yl

TOP
PIAN
VIEW

,.

p-

p,

CROSS SECTION
FROM INJECTOR
TO PRODUCER

MIDWAY
CROSS SECTION
NORMAL TO LINE
JOINING
INJECTOR
AND PRODUCE R

95-

200F

Fig. 7-Calculated
770

lzz!
temperature

200-

300F

AEOVE 300F

distributions.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

where
Cumulative oil burned =
Cumulative heat
Cumulative heat
input to sand face
from inlet water
Efficiency
Heating value
X
of fu_el
factor Values used in this study were 70F feedwater, 6.2 MM
Btu/bbl fuel, 0.68 efficiency factor, and 200 psia steam at
70 percent quality.
Substituting these values in Eq. 2 gives
Cumulative net oil = Cumulative oil produced
_ Cumulative steam

..,.,
(3)
13.36
With cumulative net oil defined, CDNO is now defined as
N
CDNO = z

n=]

(Cumulative net oil).+, (Cumulative net oX.,

. . . (4)

t
(1.1) *

where CDNO is in stock tank barrels, n = time index, and

r~+ Y2 = time in days, corresponding to the midpoint

between the times denoted by n and n+ 1. An annual

discount rme of 10 percent has been assumed,
In Eq. 4, N corresponds to the time to which the
CDNO refers. This study uses the CDNO at the economic
limit as the objective function. This particular CDNO is
termed the final CDNO (FCDNO). It is assumed that the
total operating cost for steam injection is equal to twice
the fuel cost. In other words, the economic limit for steam
injection is reached when the following occurs:
Instantaneous
steam/oil ratio

steam/fuel ratio

. . . . (5)

The number 13.36 in Eq. 3 is the steam/fuel ratio; therefore, the steam-oil ratio used as the economic limit in this
study is 6.68 bbl/bbl,
In a related study, Ferguson5 performed a more complete economic analysis in which he included operating
expenses other than fuel cost and capitalization of
steam-generation facilities, He found that CDNO k adequate as a criterion for optimization if inflation premises
are used, whereas some refinement is necessary with the
use of the coilstant doHar basis,
Scope of Optimization
All variables related to the steam-displacement process,
whether controllable or uncontrollable, can affect the
3

1 yr

= %

yr

TOP
PLAN
VIEW

BOTTOM
PLAN
Vmw

CROSS SECTION
FROM INJECTOR
TO PRODUCER

MIDWAY
CROSS SECTION
NORMAL TO LINE
JO INItW3 INJECTOR
AND PRODUCER

0-0.10

Fig. &Calculated
JUNE, 1975

Ezl

0.10-0.35

oil-saturation distributions.

ABOVE 0.35

TABLE 8-OATA

FORRATE OPTIMIZATION

Pattern ccmfiguration
Relative permeability
Oil viscosity
Permeability, md
Porosity, percent
Initial oil saturation, percent
Steam injection pressure, psia
Steam quality, percent
Completion interval
Production rate

Other pertinent data

Five-spot
Curves applicable to Kern A
68 pattern (Table 3)
Curve applicable to Kern River
crude (Set 2 of Table 2)
3,000
30
50
200
70
Injection well - lower third
Production well - entire interval
Determined by deliverability
based on a rwoduction-well
pressure 0fi4.7
psia,
subject to a specified
maximum production of
total fluids
Given in Table 4

of steam-injection
rates. Although the
ideal optimization is to vary all variables at the same
time, this approach is too unwieldy to yield any meaningful results without an unjustifiably large amount of computational effort and expense. To make the problem more
tractable, the scope of optimization was narrowed in this
study by fixing the quantities as shown in Table 8.
In addition, the pattern producer was steam stimulated
at the beSinning of steam displacement and at every
6-month interval when needed. Each stimulation lasted 6
days, followed by 3 days of soaking. Steam-stimulation
rates were 1,200, 800, and 400 B/D for respect ive thicknesses of 90, 60, and 30 ft. This thickness range covers
the bulk. of individual displacement zones in the 668
inverted five-spot patterns now in operation by Getty Oil
in Kern River. Average pattern size is about 2.5 acres,
which is considered near optimal for the area, Therefore,

optimal

choice

TABLE UOMPUTATiONAt
Run

Steam Rate
(BID)

Case 1 2.5acre,
Clol
?102
C104
C105
C106
CI07
C108

this study was based prima)ily on 2.5 acres. However,

because of future expansion into areas with potentially
larger spacing, some data on 5-acre spacing are included.
The five specific cases reported here are the following,
Case

Pattern Size
(acres)

;
3
4
5

2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0

Thickness
(ft)
90
60
30
90
30

Cases 1 through 3 were studied using both constant and

variable steam rates, while Cases 4 and 5 involved only
constant steam rates.
Constant Steam Rates
Most of Kern River production history is based on constant steam-injection rates. Therefore, our initial s!udy of
the field production was based on these constant injection
rates, providing a good basis of comparison for the wriable injection-rate cases discussed in the next section.
Computational results for constant steam-injection
rates are shown in Table 9. Based on these tabulated
results, Figs, 9 and 10 were plotted, giving the variation
of FCDNO with steam rate for Cases 1 through 3
(2.5-acre spacing) and Cases 4 and 5 (5. O-acre spacing),
respectively. From these figures, the optimal choice of
steam rates can be made for various pattern sizes and sand
thicknesses, as shown in Table 10.
Fig. 11 shows the variation of optimal steam rate with
thickness for both 2.5- and 5 .O-acre spacings, For
2.5-acre spacing, it is seen that, as thickness decreases
from 90 to 60 ft, the optimal rate decreases. However, the

RESULTS CONSTANT STEAM RATES

Stimulation
Time (years)

cutoff
Time (years)

Cumulative
Oil (STB)

FCDNO
(STB)

11.4
9.3
:::
3.9
4. I
2.7

155,000
153,500
149,000
138,900
110,100
112,500
90,503

62,700
67,500
67,400
65,400
55,600
55,600
47,100

90ft

150
200
250
300
400
400
500

0,0.5,
0,0.5,
0,0.5
0,0.4
0,0.4
0
0

1,0, 1.5
1.0

0,0.5,
0,0.5,
0,0.5
0,0.5

1.0
1.0

8.5
7.5
6.6
5.3

104,000
103,600
99,900
95,400

46,300
4/,200
46,700
46,000

0,0.5,
0,0.5
0,0.5
0,0.5
0,0.5

1.0, 1.5

6.o
3.6
2,9
2.3
1.7

41,100
41,100
40,800
41,000
37,600

17,500
20,500
21,300
21,400
19,100

0,0.5,
0,0,5,
0,0.5,

1.0
1.0
1.0

13.2
10.4
8.7

310,500
299,600
285,500

111,460
115,800
113,600

4.7
3.6
2.9

86,000
85,800
79,800

35,100
36,400
32,600

Case 2 2.5 acre, 60 ft

C201
C202
C203
C204
Case3

150
175
200
250
2.5acre,

C301
C302
C303
C304
C305

30ft

100
150
200
250
350

Case 4 5. Oacre, 90 ft
C401
C402
C403

300
400
500

Case 5 5.0 acre, 30 ft

C501
C502
C503
772

300
400
500

0,0.5
0,0.5
0,0.5

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

decrease is not in proportion to the decrease in thickness.

As thickness decreases further from 60 to 30 ft, the
optimal steam rate increases again so that the optimal
rates for 90 and 30 ft are the same. Assuming that the
optimal rate should be proportional to the oil content of
the reservoir, and therefore, proportional to sand thickness (assuming constant oil saturation), it would be expected that since the optimal rate for 90-ft thickness is
225 B/D, the optimal constant rates for 60 and 30 ft
should be 150 and 75 B/D, respectively. The calculated
optimal constant rates for 60 and 30 ft are higher than
these values because heat losses to the overburden and
underburden become more and more important as thickness decreases. An increase in steam rate should be
provided to compensate for the heat lcsses.
Fig. 11 shows that, for 5. O-acre spacing, the optimal
rate decreases slightly when thickness decreases from 90
to 30 ft. Furthermore, although the curve joining the three
points for the 2.5-acre-spacing case shows a dip at 60 ft,
the variation in optimal rates for the entire range of 39 to
90 ft is not large. It may, therefore, be deduced that the
optimal rate for 2,5-acre spacing is in the neighborhood
of 200 B/D. By the same token, the optimal rate for
5 .O-acre spacing is about 400 B/D. This indicates the
optimal constant steam rate is relatively independent of
sand thickness, but is proportional to pattern size. This
conclusion was reached based on thicknesses in the range
of 30 to 90 ft and applies to that range only, It is conceivable that the optimal constant steam rate could be proportional to both thickness and pattern size (that is, the
volume) for reservoirs much thicker than 90 ft, and that
the cptimal rate could increase as thickness decreases for
resewoirs less than 30 ft thick.
Fig. 12 shows the FCDNO at the optimal steam rate

plotted against thickness. If the optimal steam rates are

used, the FCDNO is proportional to sand thickness.
Fig. 13 gives the FCDNO at the optimal steam rate
plotted against pattern size. Since the points for 5. O-acre
spacing lie beneath the dotted lines joining the corresponding 2.5-acre points and the origin, 5-acre spacing is
less favorable than 2.5-acre spacing.

121

10

II

61

1--Lu_
300

400

CONSTANT

Fig. 10-Finai

I
I

500

I
. :. . .. .

..

---- t- -

400

.. ---- ..-.

..+

.. .,I

STEAM

500

-1
I
600

RATE - BPD

cumuia!ive discounted net oil as a function of

constant steam rate 5.0 acres.

TT

I
..

200

50

c1

Ck

ACRES

30

60

300

.___ ,.

.. .

-----

200

30 fr

~~
.
....
..
. /-;1::.
I
-7=++=--

100

11

00

100

200

CtINSTANT STE.M+ RATE,

Fig. kFinal

JUNE, 1975

400

300

0
o

90

BPD

cumulative discounted net oil as a function of

constant steam rate 2.5 acres.

THICKNESS
Fig. 1 lVariation

, FEET

of optimal steam rate with thickness.

773

Variable Steam Rates

120

100

80

60

40

70

c1
30

60

TIIIcK?:CSS,

h.

90

tECT

12Final cumulative discounted net oil at optimal steam rate

as a function of thickness.

.-..-. .

120

100

80

60

40

. ..~.-- ---

20

.-.

TABLE 1O-OPTIMAL

0
c

2,5
PATTERN

Fig. 13-Final
774

Initially, constant steam rates were used at Kern River,

but production history and closer analysis indicated a
ste~m-rate reduction was desirable at some time after the
start of injection, The basis fort his operations change is
given by Bursell and Pittman, 1.To determine the effect of
rate cutback of injection on production, this study was
initiated.
Computational results for variable steam-injection
rates are given in Table 11. A graphical representation of
the variation of steam rate with time for various computer
runs is given in Fig. 14.
To compare sorre of the results from these variable
steam-rate cases with those of the constant-rote cases,
Table 12 was constructed. (This is merely a convenience table constructed from Table 9 and 11 for
discussion.)
Note that in comparing Runs V 101 and Cl 04 (Table
12), the cumulative oil is about the same, bat the FCDNO
is larger by 4,700 STB for the variable-rate case. The
dominant factor in this increase appears to be the shorter
production life of the variable-rate case, which would
increase present worth.
In Group 2, Runs VI02, VIO1, and CI04 are compared. In Run V102, Run V1OI is modified by adding a
third rate reduction to 100 B/D. This rate reduction increases the life of the displacement zone and increases
both cumulative production and FCDNO. Comparing all
three runs suggests a field procedure of high initial steam
rates, a middle steam-rate reduction, and a final steamrate reduction as most advantageous. Limitations on
these multiple rate changes would be those imposed by
field operation,
To obtain a better look at the effect of increasing the
initial steam rate, Run V 103 was made. Note that the
initial rate increase from 500 to 750 B/D resulted in about
the same cumulative oil, but that the FCDNO increased
by 2,400 STB. This increase was apparently caused by
the faster production rate.
This comparative study shows that carefully selected
rate changes over a displacement-zone life can improve
protlabilit y either by increased oil recovery or by present
worth. The actual steam-rate reduction in any given project will need to be chosen so that an injection-rate reduction does not make a significant change in production
trend.
Fig. 15 shows the type of study required for analysis of
the effect of steam-rate change. Note that in this run (Run
V 103), the reduction in steam rate does not cause a
proportional reduction in oil rate and, therefore, results in
an immediate drop in steam-oil ratio,
The variation of steam rates with time in Run V 103
may be visualized as a discrete approximation to a hyperbola, described by the equation

5.0

S 1ZE , ACW3

cumulative discounted net Oil at optimal steam rate

as a function of pattern size.

CHOICE OF CONSTANT STEAM RATES

Pattern
Size (acres)

Thickness
(ft)

Optimal Steam
Rate (B/D)

FCDNO at
Optimal Rate
(STB)

2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0

90

225
175
225
400
375

67,800
47,200
22,400
115,800
36,600

%
90
30

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Stearnrate XTime Q= Constant,

throughout the 5-year, 6-month period. This match, although short of being perfect, served to validate the
model.
2. With the present model, which does not have the
capability to handle hydrocarbon gas, using the concept
of spongy rock alleviates the excessive pressure created
during the stimulation stage.
3. Using upstream weighting of viscosities of oil and
water and including the temperature dependence of relative permeabilities tends to improve the simulation.

. . . . . . . . . ...(6)

where a is an index. In a similar vein, Run V 104 shows a

straight-line variation. Run V 105 is similar to Run V 103,
except that the initial rate M lowered and another step is
added. The FCDNO of these two runs was not as good as
that in Run V103. Run VI(I6 used a geometric sequence,
800,400, 200, and 100 B/D, as the rates for the successive stages. At each stage, the rate was maintained until
the residual oil saturation reached or approached 6.68
bbl/bbl. At the end of the last stage (100 B/D), steam
injection was discontinued. The FCDNO for this run was
78,600 B/D, slightly higher than that of Run VI03.
Although a more definitive study is needed to determine the optimal variation of steam rate, Runs V101
through V106 tend to support the contention that a hyperbolic variation is more favorable than a linear variation.
For the case of 60-ft thickness, Run V201 represents a
linear variation, whereas Run V202 approximates a
hyperbolic variation. Here again, the latter is more favorable than the former. Run V202 gives an FCDNO of
51,400 STB, 9 percent higher than the value of 47,200
STB shown in Table 10 for the optimal constant rate of
175 BID.
Results in the case of the 30-ft thickness indicate that
the FCDNOS of Runs V301 through V304 are not significantly better tlm the value of the optimum constantinjection rate. Apparently, heat loss is an overriding
factor with thin sands,

Optimization of Steam-Iqjection Rates

1. The final cumulative discounted net oil at the
economic limit (FCDNO) is an adequate criterion for
comparison and optimization. This criterion takes into
consideration the present worth of the produced oil and
consumed fuel and yet avoids the use of monetary values,
which are affected by price and ccst changes.
2. The optimal choice of constant steam rate is relatively independent of sand thickness but is proportional to
pattern size. As sand thickness decreases, the total oil
content in the reservoir decreases, and this calls for a
lower steam rate. At the same time, a higher steam rate is
needed to compensate for the increased prcentage heat
loss with a decrease in thickness. These two counteracting factors nmdt in only a small variatkn in the optimal
steam rate as thickness changes from 90 to 30 ft.
3. With the same thickness, the FCDNO at the optimal constant steam rate for 5 .O-acre spacing is less favorable than 2.5-acre spacing for the situation studied.
4. The FCDNO for the constant steam rate can be
improved by increasing the steam rate in the initial stages
and decreasing the steam rate with time. Although a more
definitive study is needed to determine the optimal varia-

Summary
Performance of a Single Pattern
1. A reasonable history match was made with the oil
and water production of Well 68, Kern A project,

TABLE 1140MPUTATIONAL
Run

RESULTS VARIABLE STEAM RATES

cutoff
Time (years)

Cumulative
Oil (STB)

FCDNO
(STB)

6.9
9.7
9.3
9.2
9.8
7.2

148,800
157,400
157,500
161,500
156,800
163,400

72,100
75,900
78,300
76,200
76,600
78,600

0,0.5
0,0.5

7.7
8.0

104,200
104,000

49,800
51,400

0,0.5
0,0.5
0,0.5
0,0.5

2.7

40,800
40,600
41,100
41,000

21,800
21,200
21,500
21,700

Stimulation
Time (years)

Steam Rate (Duration) B/D (yr)

Case 1 2.5 acre, 90 ft

Viol
V102
V103
V104
V105
V106

500(1) 250
500(1) 250(4) 100
750(1)
250(3) 100
400(1) 300(2) 200(2)
600(1) 400(1) 200(2)
800(1,3) 400(1.1)200(4

100
100
.1)100

0
0
0
0,0.4

Case 2 2.5 acre, 60 ft

V201
V202

250(2) 200(2) 150(2) 100

450(1) 250(1) 150(2) 100

Case 3 2,5acre,
V301
V302
V303
V304

30 ft

250(1)200(1)
150
300(1) 250(1) 200
350(1)
100
350(1)
200(1).
100
TADLE 12-COMPARISON

$:
2.4

OF SELECTED CONSTANT AND VARtABt.E STEAM-RATE CASES

steamRdteS

JUNE, 1975

(BPD)

Cutoff Time

Cumulative Oil
(STB)

FCDNO (STB)

Number

Comparison Cases

Viol
C104

500/250
250

6.9
7.8

148,800
149,000

72,100
67,400

V102
Viol
C104

500/250/100
500/250
250

9.7
6.9
7.8

157,400
148,800
149,000

75,900
72,100
67,400

V103
V102
C104

750/250/100
500/250/100
250

9.3
9.7
7.8

157,500
157,400
149,000

78,300
75,900
67,400
775

CASE 1
AcRE!
90

2.5

Iw

CASE 2
ACttE: 60

2.5

FT.

FT.

v 201

101

WI
b

00246

v 102

420

2.5

CASE 3
AcM:
30 F1.

fig. 16-Variation

00 z

*4,8

em

c1
2

v 105

v 303

L
00

@0246a

Subscripts
2

g = gas
i= initial condition
n = time index
o = oil
ob = overburden
R = rock
w = water

8(W

V304

V 106

200

200

00248

b
01

TIME,

YEARS

of steam rate with time for various computer

runs.

of steam rates, evidence so far obtained tends to

support the contention that a hyperbolic variation is
superior to a linear variation.
5, Improvement in FCDNO by reducing steam rates
with time increases with sand thickness. For a 2.5-acre
pattern, a greater improvement in the FCDNO was
realized for a 90-ft sand than for a 60-ft sand, No significant improvement was noticed for a 30-ft sand,

tions

Nomenclature
b = formation volume factor, STB/res bbl
CDNO =
C =
CP =
CT =

776

of cumulative discounted net oil and steam-oil

ratio with time 2.5 acres, 90 ft.

Zw

200

Fig, 14-Variation

1
,,

FCDNO = final cumulative discounted net oil, STB

k = permeability, md
k, = relative peirneability
K = thermal conductivity, Btu/ft-12-F
p = pressure, psia
P, = capillary pressure, psi
S = saturation
t = time, days
a = index
~ = viscosity, cp
p = density, lb/cu ft
4 = porosity, fraction

2C4

00

;,

m.?.,

v 301

v 103

too

;
.m

v 302

400

.;,

0ot48

SW
00

!:,,

002468

too

:W

Sco

v 202

4W

for oil, molkes bbl for water and steam

cumulative discounted net oil, STB
compressibility, volhol-psi
..
specific heat, Btu/lb-F
thermal expansion coefficient,
vol/vol F

References
1. Bursell, C. G. and Pittmtm. i;. M.: Performance of Steam Dis-

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

placement - Kern River FWI.i, paper SPE 5017 presenled at the

SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fa!t Meeting. Houston, Oc[. 6-9, 1974.
Coats, K. H,, George, . D., Chu, C., and Marcum, B. E.:
Three-Dimensional Sim&ion of Steamflooding. Sot. Pet.
Etrg. J. (Dec. 1974) 573-59.: ram., AIME., 2S7.
Coats, K. H.: Simulation ~Steamflooding With Distillation and
Solution Gas, paper SPE J5 presented at the SPE-AIME 49th
Annual Fall Meeting, Houst, ~.Oct. 6-9, 1974.
Elkins, L. F.: Uncertain\ of Oil-in-Place in Unconsolidated
Sand Reservoirs - A Case }:r;tory, J. Per. Tech. (Nov. 1972)
1315-1319.
Ferguson, N. B.: private comr]lunication.
Sawabini, C., T., Chilingar, G. V., and Allen, D. R.: Compressibility of Unconsolidated, Arkosia Oil Sands, Sot, Per. Eng. J.
(April 1974) 132-138.
Weinbrandt, R. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr., The Effect of Temperature on Relative Permeability-of Consolidated Rocks, paper-SPE
4142 presented at the SPE-AIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting. San
mT
Antonio, Tex., Oc!. 8-11, 1972.

Original manuscript received m SocLefy of Petroleum Engmaers offnce Aug. 1.1974.

Revised manuscnpt recewed March 17, 1975. Paper [SPE 5016) was f lrat presented at
the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held m Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974. @COpyright
] 9?5 American Instdute of Mining, Metallmglcal, and Petroleum Enginee6. inc.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY