The symbols used in the previous equations have the

definitions and dimensions given as follows.

2K ] Vc
[ MhyD t'

M = [(1 - cp) p,C r

(Btu/ft" - OF)

T,

(.

dImensIOnless)

(5)

+ Swc/Jp"C", + SoCPP,c,,]
(6)

= cumulative heated area at time t (ft')

K = overburden thermal conductivity (Btu/ft-hr-OF)
D = overburden thermal diffusivity (ft'/hr)
h = pay thickness (ft)
H" = constant heat injection rate (Btu/hr)
:::'T = T; - To
T, = injection temperature (OF)
To = initial formation temperature (OF)
cp = formation porosity fraction (dimensionless)
p,. = rock grain density (lb/ft')
p". = water density (lb/ft')
po = oil density (lb/ft)
C r = dry rock specific heat (Btu/lb - OF)
C", = water specific heat (Btu/lb - OF)
C" = oil specific heat (Btu/lb - OF)
S,.,S" = initial reservoir water and oil saturations (dimensionless)
t = time since start of heat injection (hours)
A (t)

II
! r-----------,!

EfFECTIVE

RADIUS

~I

>-

RAOIAL DISTANCE FROM INJECTION WELL

FIG. 2-ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RADIUS

OF THE HEATED ZONE.

The maximum practical heat injection rate (Ho)

which can be sustained over the life of the project must
be evaluated by supplementary reservoir calculations
or, preferably, by field pilot tests. Use of the adjective
practical in connection with Ho infers that its value may
be limited either by the injection capacity of the reservoir or by capital investment limitations on the size of
the heating plant.
For a constant heat injection rate H" a direct heat
balance yields
t

H, = 2

K/::;.T
f[ Yr.D(t
-

,\)

] (dA)
dA
d' d'\ -1- Mh:::'Tdt

1\

(1)

where the first term on the right represents the nonproductive heat flux lost to the overburden and underburden, and the second term describes the productive
heat flow into the pay zone.
Eq. 1 is analogous to the equation describing fluid
flow into a growing fracture bounded by permeable surfaces. R. D. Carter' has shown that the integrated solution for the fracture case can be obtained by use of
the Laplace transformation. Following his procedure
and solving for the heated area A (t), at any time t
there results:

A(t)

~~;~][ e/erlc x + ~: -

1]
(2)

From this it follows that

~~ [M~~T][ /erlcx]

(3)
For the convenience of the user, tabulated values of
.

e/erlc x and (e"erlc x

+ 2~
y"

--

1).

(4)

are given in the Appendix for the full range of x values

likely to be of practical interest. As soon as x and the
physical properties of the operating system have been
determined, as described below, both A(t) and (dA/dt)
can be evaluated by direct substitution of the appropriate values from the Appendix into Eqs. 2 and 3.
VOL. 216, 1959

The notation, eric x, employed in Eqs. 2 and 3, has

the following meaning:

(7)

Here the second integral on the right is the well known

error function, erl x. This definition is included for
the sake of general information. Since the values of all
terms involving eric x are tabulated in the Appendix,
there is no need for the reader to make an independent
evaluation of this integral.
The expressions derived up to this point, on the basis
of the highly idealized temperature step function dashed
curve of Fig. 1, can be interpreted in terms of the temperature distribution shown in Fig. 2. By considering a
simple heat balance for the productive heat flux into the
pay zone, it follows from Eq. 3 that
,dA,'
dT
Mn/::;.T- = H,,(e' eric x) = 2r.rhK-d.t
dr
(8)

where r is the distance from injection well to the midpoint of the temperature distribution and dT / dr is
the temperature gradient at that point.
These considerations yield

dT
dr

H" (eX -eric x)

2r.rhK

(9)

from which the still idealized but somewhat more realistic profile of Fig. 2 can be constructed.
OIL DISPLACEMENT RATES
Using the values of dA/dt obtained from Eq. 3, together with suitable unit conversion factors, it follows
that the oil displacement rate for the idealized reservoir
is given by
"

4 27~-'---MfiT--(e'erlcx)
[ H"cp(S" - S,,)] .'

V,,-'.

(10)
313

where Vo = stock tank oil displacement rate in barrels/

day and Soc = irreducible stock tank oil residual saturation.
Displaced oil, as the term is used here, is not the
same as produced oil. Although between SO and 100
per cent of the displaced oil should ultimately be produced from standard well patterns, there will be a time
lag between displacement and production. Failure to
make adequate allowance for this feature caused many
of the earlier field tests to be terminated prematurely.
In this respect it should be pointed out that thermal
drive, such as steam injection, corresponds to flooding
wih a very high viscosity fluid. Flooding of this kind
should result in excellent areal sweep efficiency il continued long enough to cover a given well pattern.
ECONOMIC LIMITS
Overburden and underburden heat losses will in all
cases impose a practical limit on the area which can
be "swept out", or heated, from anyone injection point
for any given combination of heat injection rates and
reservoir parameters. Continued heat injection beyond
this point imposes an economic liability upon the operation. However, as noted previously, this limiting area
need not be interpreted as a limitation on the well
spacing itself, since additional oil recovery may be realized by moving the residual heat bank out over larger
areas by subsequent cold water injection. This type of
follow-up, or heat scavenging, is not treated in the present report.
The theoretical economic limit for sustained heat injection is reached when the net value of the oil displaced per unit time is just equal to the cost of the heat
injected per unit time. For the reservoir approximations
on which the present calculations are based, the limiting
condition is given by the expression
( e.' eric x ) ,= (561
. S X 10 )
-H

$ $"M6.T
( _ S )]
o So
or
(11 )

where [eX' eric xl, = practical limit of e'" eric x; $" =

unit energy cost, in dollars/million Btu; and $0 = net
unit value of oil in dollars/bbl. The numerical coefficient in Eq. 11 is a dimensional conversion factor which
renders the right hand member dimensionless.
For any precise application of Eq. 11, $" and $"
would be determined by engineering cost analysis,
and So by prior reservoir evaluation (such as core analysis) and So,. by laboratory tests or post mortem coring of field pilot tests. In all cases, Ho must first be estimated from supplementary engineering calculations or
pilot field tests, as described earlier.
Once the necessary parameters have been evaluated,

Formation porosity ______________________ cp = 0.25

Initial water saturation _______________ S" = 0.20
Initial oil saturation ______________________ So = 0.60
Irreducible oil saturation ______________ S or = 0.10
Initial formation temperature ______ To = SOF
Saturated steam temperature
_T, = 470F at
514.7 psia
Average formation thickness_______ h = 20 ft
Steam energy cosL__________
_____ $" = $0.50/
million Btu
Displaced oil value ________________________ $" = $2.00/
bbl, with royalty and lifting costs deducted and
ultimate recovery factor of O.SO assumed.
Estimate the following:
(a) Area swept out in first 1,000 hours.
(b) Oil displacement rate at 1,000 hours.
(c) Economic areal limit for sustained injection.
(d) Time required to reach economic areal limit.
PHYSICAL CONSTANTS

Specific heat rock __________ C, = 0.21 Btu/lb - OF

Specific heat, water
_____ C" = 1.0 Btu/lb - OF
Specific heat, oil
___ Co = 0.5 Btu/lb - OF
Rock grain density
_ p, = 167 lb/ft'
Water density ___________________ po = 62.41b/ft 3
Oil density___ ___ p" = 50.0 Ib/ft 3
Overburden thermal
conductivity __ _________ K

1.50 Btu/ft-hr-oF

Overburden thermal
diffusivity____________ _____ D = 0.0482 ft'/hr
Available heat of steam
at 470F, 500 psig __

Q, = 1,150 Btu/lb

SOLUTION PROCEDURE

1. Ho = 5,000 Q, = 5,740,000 Btu/hr.

2. 6.T = T, - To = 390F.
3. (From Eq. 5) x = 0.0206 t" (dimensionless).
4. (From Eq. 6) M = 33.2 Btu/ft' - OF.
5. When t = 1,000, (h = 31.6, and x = 0.652.
6. From the Appendix, when x = 0.652 one finds
e,'erlcx

0.545 and [ex'erlcx

+ 2~
yo.

- 1

]=

0.281.

7. Substituting from Step 6 into Eq. 2, the answer

to part (a) of the problem is A (t = 1,000 hours) =
(5.23 X 104 ) (0.281) = 14,700 ft', or 0.338 acres.
8. Substituting from Step 6 into Eq. 1, the answer to
part (b) of the problem is V" = 103 BOPD at t =
1,000 hours.
9. Using Eq. 11, the economic limiting condition is
[eX'erlc xl, = 0.182.

the limiting value of eX 'eric x is directly determined by

Eq. 11. The value of x corresponding to this limiting
condition is obtained by reference to the Appendix.

From the Appendix, the value of x corresponding to this

is x, = 2.948.

When this value of x and of eX 'erlc x is inserted into

Eq. 2, the practical limiting area is established.

Inserting these values into Eq. 2, the answer to part

(c) of the problem is A, = 112,000 ft' or 2.57 acres,
which is the economic areal limit for the given conditions.

SAMPLE CALCULATION
PROBLEM

Five thousand Ib/hr of saturated steam are to be continuously injected from a single well, at 500 psig, into
an oil sand under the following conditions:
314

10. The answer to part (d) of the problem is obtained by solving for t from Eq. 5 or, more conveniently, from Step 3 using the limiting value of x, = 2.948,
as follows:
2.948 = 0.0206 tV;; t, = 20,500 hours, or 854 days.
PETROLEUYI

TRANSACTIO~S,

AI ME

The values assumed for the cost of steam generation

and the irreducible oil saturation in the sample calculation were chosen arbitrarily for illustrative purposes
only. They should not be interpreted as the result of
any specific cost or reservoir analysis by the Phillips
Petroleum Co.
REFERENCES
1. Carter, R. D.: Appendix to "Optimum Fluid Characteristics
for Fracture Extension", by G. C. Howard and G. R. Fast,
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1957) 267.

APPENDIX
2

eX erfc

eX eric x

2x

yn

-1

eX eric x

eX

erlc)(

2x

1.25
.30
.35
.40
45

0.36782
.35764
.34796
.33874
.32996

Vi<
0.77830
.82454
.87127
.91847
0.96611

1.50
.55
.60
.65
.70

0.32159
.31359
.30095
.29865
.29166

1.01415
.06258
.11136
.16048
.20991

1.75
.80
.85
.90
.95

0.28497
.27856
.27241
.26651
.26084

1.25964
.30964
.35991
.41043
.46118

2.00
.05
.10
.15
.20

0.25540
.25016
.24512
.24027
.23559

1.51215
.56334
.61472
.66628
.71803

2.25
.30
.35
.40
.45

0.23109
.22674
.22255
.21850
.21459

1.76994
.82201
.87424
.92661
1.97912

2.50
.60
.70
.80
.90

0.21081
.20361
.19687
.19055
.18460

2.03175
.13740
.24350
.35001
.45690

3.00
.10
.20
.30
.40

0.17900
.17372
.16873
.16401
.15954

2.56414
.67169
.77954
.88766
2.99602

3.50
.60
.70
.80
.90

0.15529
.15127
.14743
.14379
.14031

3.10462
.21343
.32244
.43163
.54099

4.00
.10
.20
.30
.40

0.13700
.13383
.13081
.12791
.12514

3.65052
.76019
.87000
3.97994
4.09001

4.50
.60
.70
.80
.90

0.12248
.11994
.11749
.11514
.11288

4.20019
.31048
.42087
.53136
.64194

5.00
.20
.40
.60
.80

0.11070
.10659
.10277
.09921
.09589

4.75260
4.97417
5.19602
.41814
.64049

0.00
.02
.04
.06
.08

1.00000
.97783
.95642
.93574
.91576

0.00000
.00039
.00155
.00344
.00603

0.10
.12
.14
.16
.18

0.89646
.87779
.85974
.84228
.82538

0.00929
.01320
.01771
.02282
.02849

0.20
.22
.24
.26
.28

0.80902
.79318
.77784
.76297
.74857

0.03470
.04142
.04865
.05635
.06451

0.30
.32
.34
.36
.38

0.73460
.72106
.70792
.69517
.68280

0.07311
.08214
.09157
.10139
.11158

0.40
.42
.44
.46
.48

0.67079
.65912
.64779
.63679
.62609

0.12214
.13304
.14428
.15584
.16771

0.50
.52
.54
.56
.58

0.61569
.60588
.59574
.58618
.57687

0.17988
.19234
.20507
.21807
.23133

0.60
.62
.64
.66
.68

0.56780
.55898
.55039
.54203
.53387

0.24483
.25858
.27256
.28676
.30117

0.70
.72
.74
.76
.78

0.52593
.51819
.51064
.50328
.49610

0.31580
.33062
.34564
.36085
.37624

6.00
.20
.40
.60
.80

0.09278
.08986
.08712
.08453
.08210

5.86305
6.08581
.30874
.53184
.75508

0.80
.82
.84
.86
.88

0.48910
.48227
.47560
.46909
.46274

0.39180
.40754
.42344
.43950
.45571

7.00
.20
.40
.60
.80

0.07980
.07762
.07556
.07361
.07175

6.97845
7.20195
.42557
.64929
7.87311

0.90
.92
.94
.96
.98

0.45653
.45047
.44455
.43876
.43311

0.47207
.48858
.50523
.52201
.53892

8.00
.20
.40
.60
.80

0.06999
.06830
.06670
.06517
.06371

8.09702
.32101
.54508
.76923
8.99344

1.00
.05
.10
.15
.20

0.42758
.41430
.40173
.38983
.37854

0.55596
.59910
.64295
.68746
.73259

9.00
.20
.40
.60
.80

0.06231
.06097
.05969
.05846
.05727

9.21772
.44206
.66645
9.89090
10.11539

10.00

0.05614

10.33993

-1

***

VOL. 216, 1959

315

Further Discussion of Paper Published in

Transactions Volume 216

Reservoir Heating by Hot Fluid Injection

J. W. MARX
R. H. LANGENHEIM
MEMBERS AIME

PHIlLIPS PETROLEUM CO.

BARTLESVILLE, OKLA.

(Published as T.P. 8092, Page 312)

DISCUSSION
H. J. RAMEY, JR.
MEMBER AIME

The authors are to be complimented for a timely

presentation of useful information concerning application of heat to oil reservoirs to increase the rate and ultimate recovery of oil.
The solution for heated area resulting from constant
rate injection of a hot fluid, presented by the authors,
and the fluid-flow analogy, solved by Carter,' are particularly interesting in that no restriction is placed on
the direction of development of the heated area. It is
not necessary that the heated area grow radially. Thus
the ,solution could provide useful information for heat
injection in any type of well pattern with any specified
swept area data. However, it was assumed in the development that the heated region would remain at a
constant elevated temperature. Vertical heat losses were
computed on this basis. Physically, the assumption that
the heated region will remain at a constant temperature
(independent of distance from the injection point) appears to require that the heat injection medium be
steam, or other condensible gases near the boiling point
at injection pressure. If a hot liquid below the boiling
point or a hot gas considerably above saturation temperature were used, the temperature of the heated region would decrease with distance from the injection
well. Lauwerier' has discussed this problem for a linear
system. (See also Jenkins and Aronofsky,3 and McNiel
and Nelson.') Thus, the authors' solution applies more
nearly to steam injection than to hot water injection or
hot, non-condensable gas injection.
Assuming steam as the injection medium, it appears
that steam would pass through the constant-temperature heated region and condense upon contact with
the unheated sand. The temperature in the condensing
region would probably be governed by the release of
heat of vaporization required for phase equilibrium at
the existing pressure distribution. Temperatures in the
region would also be influenced by vaporization of hydrocarbon. Thus, it is doubtful that an expression for
radial temperature distribution based on heat conduction only (such as the authors' Eq. 9) would have practical significance.
As pointed out by Marx and Langenheim, the growth
of the heated area under constant rate steam drive will
eventually be limited economically by vertical heat loss.
lReferences given at end of discussion.
364

GENERAL PETROLEUM CORP.

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIF.

The possibility of continuing to move heat economically

by cold water injection or by increasing the steam injection rate appears to be a very important consideration. (Movement of liquids away from the injection
well should increase injectivity.) Fortunately, the solution presented by the authors may be generalized to the
case of a variable heat injection rate. The general solution is:
A(t) =

where x

C:i;T) ,; (

e/ erfc x ).

2K ~-t

= -

Mh

(1)
(2)

D'

and the symbols used are those defined by Marx and

Langenheim. The symbol H(t) represents the heat injection rate, which may be a function of time. The symboV', represents the convolution of two functions,' cr:
t

F,(t)';'F,(t) =

F,(T)F,(t -

T)CIT =

(3)
o

If steam is injected at constant rate, the convolution

integral defined by Eqs. 1 through 3 may be solved
readily to yield the Marx-Langenheim Eq. 2. If steam

is injected at a series of constant rates not necessarily

equal, the convolution integral may also be evaluated
readily as a summation of terms similar to the MarxLangenheim solution. (See Appendix.), A period of
steam injection followed by cold water injection may
be approximated as a drop in the steam or heat injection rate.
In conclusion, the solution presented by the auhors
and the general solution presented herein appear to be
very useful tools for consideration of thermal recovery
of oil by steam injection or combint.ltions of steam injection and water injection.

APPENDIX
The integro-differential equation presented by the
authors is a special case of a more general problem
which may be solved readily by the Laplace transform
method as described by Churchill. 5 The heat injection
PETROLEUM THANSACTIONS, AIME

term may vary as a function of time. Using Marx-Langenheim symbols, the problem becomes:

may write the solution for heated area with an injection schedule given by Eq. 5 as:

MldT~A_=

H(t)

~ 2f(~ KL::.~__ )(~~_)dle.

die

dt~-~--

Dy!(t

A(t) = H. e'''' eric x"

(4)

Ie)

(Hm

The general solution to Eq. 4 was presented previously

as Eq. 1. If the heat injection rate cannot be expressed
analytically, it may be necessary to use numerical or
graphical integration to obtain specific answers from
Eq. 1. Furthermore, the heat injection function is subject to certain mathematical conditions. It is doubtful
that practical heat injection schedules could invalidate
the solution, however.
If the heat injection rate can be expressed by con-

stant values for increments of time (for example,

monthly average values),

H, for O<t< t,
H2 for t , <t<t2
(5)

The convolution integral for the heat injection schedule

given by Eq. 5 may be substituted in Eq. 1. The result
will be a summation of separate integrals over each
increment. The integral for each increment of time can
be expressed as the difference between the integral
from time zero to the terminal time of the increment
less the integral from time zero to the initial time of
the increment. Since the analytical solution for each
such integral is known (Marx-Langenheim Eq. 2), we

2] +

+ ,~~

H ",+1) [ e",,,-., eric x"'

1n = n -

VI/

1U

= 1

2X''']
+ --=
~ 1 .

(6)
y!7r
When the heat injection rate is constant, the difference
in heat rates within the summation is zero, and Eq.
6 simplifies to the solution presented by the authors'
Eq. 2. Eq. 6 may be solved readily as a simple tabular
calculation with the functions presented by the authors,
or by Carslaw and Jaeger."
REFERENCES
1. Carter, R. D.: Appendix to "Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture Extension", by G. C. Howard and G.. R.
Fast, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1957) 267.
2. Lauwerier, H. A.: "The Transport of Heat in an Oil Layer
Caused by the Injection of Hot Fluid", Appl. Sci. Res.,
Sec. A (1955) 5, 145.
3. Jenkins, R., and Aronofsky, J. S.: "Analysis of Heat Transfer Processes in Porous Media - New Concepts in Reservoir Heat Engineering", Bull. 64, Mineral Industries Experiment Station, The Pennsylvania State U., State College,
Pa. (1954).
4. McNiel, J. S., Jr. and Nelson, T. W.: "Thermal Methods
Provide Three Ways to Improve Oil Recovery", Oil and
Gas lour. (Jan. 19, 1959) 57, No.3, 86.
5. Churchill, R. V.: Modern Operational Mathematics in
Engineering, First Ed., McG.raw-Hill Book Co., New York,
N. Y. (1955) 42.
6. Carslaw, H. S. and Jaeg.er, J. c.: Conduction of Heat in
Solids, First Ed. Oxford University Press, Amen House,
London (1950) 373.

AUTHOR'S REPLY TO H. J. RAMEY, JR.

As Ramey has pointed out, the expressions developed
here can be applied to any areal sweep-out geometry.
We have used radial geometry simply to provide an illustrative example, for which one might specify a sweepout distance as well as an area. It was not our intention
to place any geometric restriction on future applications.
In extending this approach to the case of variable
heat injection rates, Ramey has made a major con-

VOL. 216, 1959

tribution. This important generalization adds much to

the practical application possibilities. As authors, we
are most indebted for this very constructive criticism.
We agree that this calculation applies most rigorously to the injection of a condensable vapor, such as
steam, at its saturation pressure. However, we also feel
that it will serve as a useful engineering approximation
for the injection of hot fluids in general, for most practical heat injection projects.

***

365