Current Steamflood Technology

S.M. Farouq Ali, * SPE-AIME, PennsylvaniaStateU.

R.F. Meldau, SPE-AIME, Husky Oil Co.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to help petroleum
engineers keep up with emerging steamflood
technology, including both reservoir and operating
experience. Useful data and references also are
provided.
Steam injection is the principal enhanced oil-
recovery method used today, accounting for 90070 of
all oil produced by such methods. Prats! estimates
the total worldwide oil production rate from steam is
about 400,000 BOPD (64 000 m
3
/d oil). The U.S.
produces 60% of this total, Venezuela produces
35%, and Canada produces Y%. Several large
projects are in the planning and construction stages
for the oil sands of Alberta
2
,3 and the Orinoco oil belt
of Venezuela. 4
Steam injection technology has advanced
significantly since the status of steam injection was
reviewed at a Canadian Inst. of Mining and
Metallurgy meeting 6 years ago.
5
,6 The Oil and Gas
J. 's annual review for 1978 lists 99 active steam-
injection projects for the U.S., 41 for Venezuela, and
14 for Canada.
7
In addition, petroleum engineers
have published several technical papers describing
field projects and providing greater understanding of
how the process can best be applied in the future.
8
The most notable development in steam injection
during the past 5 years is the overwhelming shift to
steamflooding, with cyclic steam stimulation
"Now with the U. of Alberta, Canada.
becoming an important adjunct, rather than a
separate oil-recovery process. This is attributed (1) to
the relatively low ultimate oil recovery attainable by
cyclic steam stimulation and (2) to higher oil prices,
which have served to make economically attractive
the considerably lower oil/steam ratios characteristic
of steamfloods.
Field Tests
Table 1 gives formation characteristics and Table 2
lists test results for 13 selected steam-injection field
tests. These tests represent most of the major steam-
injection projects, except for those reported earlier in
Refs. 5 and 6. Unfortunately, a few large projects are
not listed in Table 1 because sufficient data were not
available. These include Santa Fe Energy Co.-
Chanslor Div!s 23,OOO-BOPD (3700-m
3
/d oil)
Midway-Sunset project, Texaco Inc.'s 35,OOO-BOPD
(5600-m3/d oil) San Ardo project, and several
steamfloods in Venezuela. Test 4 (Charco Redondo)
is cited in Table 1 primarily because of its unique
features. This project was' a highly instrumented
steam pilot in a thin, waterflooded reservoir.
Following the steamflood, the field was flooded
successfully by in-situ combustion. Tests 6 and 13 are
large, cyclic steam-stimulation projects, and the rest
are steamfloods. Tests 7 and 12 are eSl'entially in the
01492136179/00107183$00.25
1979 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper provides an overview of current steam injection technology. Reservoir data
and performance are compiled for 13 selected field projects in the U.S., Canada, and
Venezuela. Subjects discussed include oil recovery, well completions, operating
practices, and special reservoir conditions. Emphasis is on steamf/ooding, with some
data on cyclic steam stimulation.
1332 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
startup stage; the data given are based on scaled
model studies. The only projects repeated from a
previous survey6 are' Tests 10 and 11, which have
undergone major expansions.
Table 2 shows that oil recoveries up to 730/0 were
attained in steamfloods conducted to date. These
recoveries are much higher than previously reported.
The oil/steam ratios average 0.20 bbl/bbl (0.20
m3/m3).
Reservoir Performance
Cyclic Steam Stimulation and Steamflooding
Cyclic steam stimulation is a single-well operation-
injecting steam and then producing oil from the same
well. Steamflooding is a pattern flood, designed to
sweep a large proportion of the area within the in-
jector and the producer rows. Individual features of
the two p r o e s s ~ s have been discussed in detail
previously.6 Recent recovery figures are given for the
two processes, conducted in the same area,
The highest cyclic steam-stimulation recovery
reported so far is for the Yorba Linda field (Test 5)
with 35% of the oil in place. Conversion of this
project to steamflooding was conducted at an op-
timum time, based on heat communication in the
reservoir. Steamflood recovery has been reported as
45 to 55%.
In the Tia Juana project (Test 7), a recovery of
18% was reported for cyclic steam stimulation (231-
m spacing). The subsequent steamflood recovery has
TABLE 1 - STEAMINJECTION TEST FORMATION CHARACTERISTICS
Field, Location Year Net/Gross Pay Depth to Top Dip Porosity Permeability
Test (Operator) Started Formation (ft) (ft) (degrees) (%) (md)
--
1 MountPoso, 1970 Upper Vedder 60/75 1,800 6 33 15,000
CA(Shell)
2 Midway-Sunset, 1975 Monarch sand 260/350 1,300 10 27 520
26C, CA (Chevron)
3 Cat Canyon, 1977 S1-B sand 80/80 2,500 10 31 5,000
CA(Getty)
4 Charco Redondo, 10/10 200 35 2,500
TX(Texaco)
5 Yorba Linda, 1971 Upper 325/- 650 12 30 600
CA(Shell) Conglomerate
6 Duri Field, 1967 Duri sandstone 100/- 525 37
Sumatra (Caltex)
7 Tia Juana, M6, 1975 Unconsolidated 125/250 1,624 4 38 2,800
Venezuela (Maraven) sand
8 Kern River Sec. 3, 1968 Kern River 70/- 705 3 35 7,600
CA (Chevron) sand
9 S. Belridge, 1969 Tulare D and E 91/210 1,100 7 35 3,000
CA(Mobil)
10 Kern River, 1964 K1,R,R1 60/- 900 4 35 3,000
CA(Getty)
11 Winkelman Dome, 1964 Nugget sand 73/- 1,220 25 638
WY(Amoco)
12 Peace River, Alta. 1979 Upper 90/40 1,800 0.2 28 1,050
(SheIl/AOSTRA) Bullhead
13 Cold Lake, Lemming, 1975 Clearwater 150/155 1,500 35 1,500
Alta. (Esso)
Oil Vjscosity
Oil Oil at Reservoi r Reservoir Reservoir Primary
Field, Location Saturation Gravity Temperature Temperature Pressure Production
Test (Operator) (%PV) ('API) (cp) ('F) (psi) (%IOIP)
--
1 Mount Poso, 58 16 280 110 100 35
CA(Shell)
1,500 2 Midway-Sunset, 48 14 105 75
26C, CA (Chevron)
3 Cat Canyon, 65 9 25,000 110 12
CA(Getty)
4 Charco Redondo, 34 18 95 72 10
TX(Texaco)
5 Yorba Li nda, 14 6,400 85 5
CA(Shell)
6 Duri Field, 62 22 160 98 180 10
Sumatra (Caltex)
7 TiaJuana, M6, 85 12 5,000 113 350 11
Venezuela (Maraven)
8 Kern River Sec. 3, 52 14 2,710 80 140 13
CA (Chevron)
9 S. Belridge,
76 13 1,600 95 180 9
CA(Mobil)
10 Kern River, 50 14 4,000 95 50 10
CA(Getty)
11 Winkelman Dome, 75 14 900 81 210
WY(Amoco)
12 Peace River, Alta. 77 9 200,000 62 530 0
(Shell I AOSTRA)
13 Cold Lake, Lemming, 60 10 100,000 55 450 0
Alta. (Esso)
OCTOBER 1979 1333
TABLE 2 - STEAM-INJECTION TEST RESU L TS
Average
Pattern Size/ Number of Average Average
Pattern Total Area Producer/Injector Injection Pressure Injection Rate
Test Location Type (acres) Wells (psig) (BWPD/well)
Mount Poso Line -/2,100 49/10 350 2,000
2 M idway-Su nset Irregular 4/23 15/6 400 3,000
five-spot
3 Cat Canyon Inverted 5/20 9/4 1,375 500
five-spot
4 Charco Redondo Ihverted 2.5/2.5 4/1 215 580
five-spot
5 Yorba Linda Inverted 74/16 200 850
nine-spot
6 Duri Field Cyclic 239/- 450 1,000
7 TiaJuana M6 Inverted 17.111,831 131/19 600 3,150
seven-spot
8 Kern River Inverted 6.1/61 32110 400 600
(Chevron) seven-spot
9 South Belridge Line 5/204 40/10 600
10 Kern River Five-spot 2.5/2,750 2,751/818 200 400
(Getty)
11 Winkleman Dome Five-spot 2.5/5.3 21112 1,150 241
12 Peace River Inverted 7/49 24/7 2,500 1,500
seven-spot
13 Cold Lake Cyclic 6.1/61 70/- 1,300 1,500
Cumulative Cumulative
Total Oil/Steam Steam/Oil
Oil Rate Recovery Ratio Ratio Source
Test Location (BOPD) (%OIP) (bbl/bbl) (bbl/bbl) Reference Notes
Mount Poso 13,000 60' 0.18 5.6 38,39 a
2 Midway-Sunset 720 65 0.16 6.25 11 b
3 Cat Canyon 250 43' 0.25' 4.' 40 c
4 Charco Redondo 60 73 0.05 20. 41 d
5 Yorba Linda 7,000 50 13 e
6 Duri Field 34,000 8 6.10 0.16 42
7 TiaJuanaM6 45 0.34 2.94 43 g
8 Kern River 1,490 63 0.17 5.88 44 h
(Chevron)
9 South Belridge 3,200 26 0.28 3.57 9
10 Kern River 65,000 73 0.21 4.76 45
(Getty)
11 Winkleman Dome 850 50 0.20 5. 46
12 Peace River 3,500' 50' 0.25' 4.' 2
13 Cold Lake 5,000 20 0.40 2.5 3 k,f
Notes
Predlcted.
(a) Strong water drive, Phases 1 to 3 only; (b) instantaneous OSR is 0.19 with only 0.105 PV steam injected to date; (c) cyclic stimulation OSR is 1.0; (d)
total injection time is 222 days; (e) thick, discontinuous silt barriers in the sand; (f) cyclic steam stimulation project; (II) only three seven-spots were
flooded in 1977; recovery is net due to steam; (h) response to steamflooding 4 months after start; (i) 1,600 BOPD is peak cyclic steam-stimulation rate
before steamflood; (j) project figures are based on scaled model experiments; steam injection recently started; (k) wells hydraulically fractured during
steam injection.
1334 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
been estimated at about 45 0/0.
Gates and Brewer
9
gave an interesting comparison
of oil recovery from the two processes (Fig. 1). In-
cremental oil recovery was high when new wells were
first steamed; however, the oil rate declined during
subsequent cycles. Steamflooding, on the other
hand, successfully sustained a fairly constant oil
production rate.
Theoretically, a steamflood would have recovered
all the oil assigned to cyclic stimulation; however, in
actual practice, a steamflood may not be feasible in a
cold reservoir because of the high resistance to flow
near the producers, especially in the case of very
viscous oils. Cyclic steaming of the producers is a
common practice in steamfloods. Also, depletion of
the formation pressure before steam flooding helps to
attain a high steam-injection rate and a more ef-
ficient process.
Screening Criteria
Over the years, various screening criteria have been
proposed for selecting the proper thermal-recovery
process for a given oil reservoir. We agree with
Prats 1 that each reservoir should be examined on an
individual basis as though no guidelines were
available. This is particularly true as oil prices in-
crease and government assistance becomes available
to help steamflood the more difficult reservoirs.
Certain reservoir properties do improve the
chances of successful steamflooding. For' example,
thick sands, low pressure, high rates, and high oil
content are all favorable factors (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 shows
predicted results for Mount Poso conditions. 10
Key properties of the most successful steam floods
reported in the literature are given in Table 3.
Naturally, the range of reservoir properties for
successful projects will increase with improved
technology and better oil prices. Reservoir pressure
. and thickness are most important. All floods ate at
pressures below 300 psi (2.1 MPa), and at thicknesses
of more than 30 ft (10 m), except for one flood at a
very low pressure.
:k=::WELLS
... 'ro 'n: '72
'73
1
Fig. 1- Estimated primary, cyclic, and steamflood oil in
the South Belridge steamflood.
9
OCTOBER 1979
Steamflood Recovery
Table 2 shows that pil recoveries for successful
steamfloods reported to date are generally greater
than 50% and range up to 73%. This recovery is
much higher than that obtained with cyclic steaming,
and higher than expected a few years ago.
Chevron Oil Field Research Co. engineers have
given a detailed account of displacement efficiency,
areal sweep, and vertical conformance for Test S, the
Kern River lO-pattern steamflood. Their average
values at 1.2 PV injection were as follows:
Hot Water Total Heated
Stearn Zone Zone Displacing
(Sor = 6.30/0) (Sor =23.2%) Zone
Sweep (%) (%) (%)
Volumetric 25 35 60
Areal 56 77 77
Vertical 43 45 78
Total heat coverage of 60% implies that more than
one-half the reservoir had been contacted by enough
. heat to reduce the residual oil saturation to less than
23% PV. The estimated oil recovery was 55%, and
the capture factor was 9S.30/0, defined as the ratio of
total oil produced minus primary production at the
start of steam injection to the total oil displaced by
steam.
In late 1975, injection into the 10 original patterns
of Chevron's flood was switched from steam to
140F (60C) water. Since then, recovery has con-
tinued to increase as oil rates continued their normal
decline. This improves profits. We conclude from
this and other field experience that heat scavenging
by water injection following steam will be desirable
in many floods. Phillips Petroleum Co. uses water
plus air after steam in the Smackover field.
As much as 15% of the surface heat injected was
produced with the fluids in Chevron's test.
Production wellhead temperatures of lS00P (SrC)
were recorded for Test 2, and more than 250F
(121 0C) was reported for Test 3, Table l. None of the
analytical formation-heating models account for
such heat production, although produced heat may
be included in Myhill-Stegemeier's factor correcting
theory to observed field performance. 10
Getty Oil Co. engineers reported an areal sweep of
about 100% for the Kern River steam project, the
largest to date. They also gave a comprehensive
comparison of oil recoveries based on coring,
laboratory tests, and volumetric balance. Notice that
this project and the one discussed above are at
different stages of maturity. Duerksen and Gomaa
ll
have reported a capture factor of about O.S for a
steam flood in a steeply dipping 300-ft (92-m) thick
sand. The low capture was explained by reservoir
fillup and inigration outside the test area.
Gravity Override of Steam
Most reports on steamfiooding refer to gravity
segregation of steam leading to "Qverride." Such a
tendency . would be aggravated further by the
presence of a gas zone. Examples are the Smackover
field, AR 12 and the Yorba Linda field.l3 The result is
1335
an uneven vertical sweeping of the formation. For
example, in Test 2, the response was in the upper
one-third of the 350-ft (107-m) Monarch sand at
Midway-Sunset. Likewise, in Test 8[Kern River
(Chevron)], the steam displaced only the upper one-
third of the 57-ft (17.4-m) interval. Hot water
displaced the rest of the oil recovered.
Gravity segregation of steam can be beneficial in a
carefully planned steamflood. It is a prime factor for
overcoming viscous fingering to achieve an efficient
displacement process and oil recoveries of 60 to 70070.
When steam is injected, it first channels through a
relatively small volume of the sand and soon arrives
at the producing well. However, because of gravity,
the fingers rise to the top of the permeable sand (Fig.
3). The fingers then spread out to give areal coverage
as high as 100%, as noted previously. In the case of
very high oil viscosities, however, the gravity effect
may not achieve areal coverage this good because it
takes too long from an economic standpoint.
With more time and continued steam injection, the
entire reservoir becomes heated and the steam zone
downward. Oil at the interface is hot and thus
0.5
0
ti
ct:
0.4
:E

LLJ
0.3
l-
(/)
.....
-I
0
0.2
I-
z
LLJ
-I 0.1

:5
S
0.00
500 1000
PRESSURE (psig)
0.00 50
100
FORMATION THICKNESS (ft.)
can be "stripped off" as it flows toward the
production well and the hot water falls out of the
steam zone. Warm water displacement below the
interface is important in some reservoirs, such as
Kern River.
Irregular areal flow is shown in Fig. 4 for the 10-
pattern steamflood. The arrival of heat at ob-
servation wells located at the same distance from the
injection well varied from 2 weeks to 2 years. This
resulted from areal heterogeneities and reservoir
"drift" - pressure gradients that pushed the steam in
a given direction. Drift can be a serious problem in
pilots, where it distorts flowlines and makes observed
performance difficult to interpret.
Cook
13
discussed the effect of discontinuous silt
zones, 10- to l00-ft (3.05 to 30.5-m) thick, on the
steam flood performance in the Yorba Linda field.
The silt layers restricted vertical movement of steam,
while promoting horizontal spreading. Thus, wells
completed beneath the silt barriers would experience
greater communication, while draining short oil
columns. Beyond the silt barriers, the steam would
move vertically, allowing drainage of thicker oil
columns. Proper selection of injection and
0.5 r------------""I
o
ti
ct: 0.4
:E

LLJ 0.3
1;;
.....
-I
o 0.2
I-
z
0.1


S 0.0 ...... -----....... -----.....
o
ti
ct:
:E

LLJ
l-
(/)
.....
-I
o
I-
Z
LLJ
-I

:5
a
LLJ
o 1000 2000
INJECTION RATE (BIOI WELL)
0.4r------..",..-----..,
0.3
0.2

0.0 0.5 1.0
POROSITV,;OIL SATURATION CHANGE,
;or NET TO GROSS THICKNESS,
Zn/Zt
Fig. 2 - Effect of key parameters on cumulative oil/steam ratio for Mount Poso project.
10
1336
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
production points with regard to the silt layers led to
. a high oil recovery in this field.
Gas Cap
The presence of a gas cap reduces oil content and
increases override caused by gravity. However, it
may enhance areal coverage and early heating of the
oil below. Also, the cap helps to achieve high steam-
injection rates. The Smackover steamflood has a gas
cap thicker than its oil ?:one.
12
Bottom Water
Bottom water is often, but not always, undesirable in
a steamflood, especially in very viscous oils, where
the steam would channel into the high-conductivity
water zone. The adversity of this effect depends on
the thickness of the water layer relative to the for-
mation. A very thick, underlying water sand would
act as a heat sink; on the other hand, a thin sand
could be used advantageously to heat the overlying
oil sand, initially by conduction. The Slocum
steamflood discussed by Hall and Bowman 14 is a case
in point. The oil sand (So =650/0) was underlain by a
water sand (So = 3%). Both injection and production
120 (QuIVALENT INJECTlON INTERVAL
IES _ 3' ~ COLLAR LOG
, $
LOG TIME
Fig. 3 - Vertical steam zone growth with time.
44
117
166
Fig. 4 - Steam front advance in 10pattern steamflood.
44
OCTOBER 1979
wells were completed a few feet into the water sand .
InitiallY, the steam flowed through the water sand;
however, eventually the oil zone above was heated
sufficiently, leading to the recovery of 36% of the oil
in place. The test has been terminated; the large
volumes of steam needed and high producing WOR's
were two of the factors involved. In-situ combustion
also was unsuccessful in this field.
In the case of very high oil viscosities, such as those
found in the Cold Lake and Peace River formations
of Alberta, a water sand can be especially beneficial.
The Peace River project (Test 12) is a good example
of this type. Here, the 9-ft (2.7-m) thick water-
saturated sand will be pressurized and used to heat
the overlying 81-ft (24.7-m) oil zone. After the oil has
been mobilized sufficiently, depressurization and a
regular steamflood ~ l l follow. Scaled model studies
by Prats
15
show the adverse effects of increasing the
underlying water-zone thickness relative to the oil
zone on the oil/steam ratio.
A more difficult situation is presented by a strong
water drive as in Shell Oil Co.'s Mount Poso field
(Test 1). A carefully pJanned updip and downdip
injection strategy ensures little loss of steam to the
downdip aquifer and manageable WOR's. The pilot
cumulative oil/steam ratio was 0.2. More steeply
dipping formations also require careful design. For
instance, in the Monarch sand, with a 10 dip, 400
B/D (64 m3/d) steam (cold water equivalent) was
injected updip, and 600 B/D (95 m3/d) was injected
downdip.ll Similarly, a tilted oil/water interface in
the Yorba Linda field required special techniques. 13
Light-Oil Formations
We believe that steamflooding can be an important
tertiary recovery process for light-oil reservoirs
offering adequate steam injectivity.
Research studies
16
at Pennsylvania State U.
showed that the high-gravity light oils of Penn-
sylvania should respond favorably to a steamflood.
A field project conducted in 1965 confirmed this.
Steam reduced the initial (waterflood) oil saturation
from 40 to 14%. Since then, at least three more field
tests have been reported. The principal results of
these tests are as follows:
Viscosity, cp
So; Sor
Field (mPas) (010) (Olo) Reference
Bradford, PA 4 40 14 Bleakley17
El Dorado, KS 4 48 20 Hearn
18
Brea, CA 6 49 8 Volekand
Pryor
19
ShieUs
Canyon,CA 6 47 5 Konopnicki
eta/. 20
One can see that steam flooding holds considerable
promise for the recovery of light, distillable oils. An
oil/steam ratio of 0.25 is reported for Shiells
Canyon, which is better than some of the values
reported for conventional steamfloods.
Pressure Parting
Steam injection at high rates by pressure parting has
proved feasible in two recently reported projects.
Steam injection pressure is high enough to break
1337
down the formation by parting or hydraulic frac-
turing. Loss of containment may occur, but the
process permits high rates under adverse reservoir
conditions.
Esso Resources Canada Ltd. uses vertical fractures
in cyclic steaming 1,500-ft (457-m) deep wells in the
Lemming pilot, Cold Lake field, Alta.
3
Reservoir oil
viscosity is about 100,000 cp (100 Pas), but pilot oil
production is about 5,000 BOPD (800 m
3
/d oil).
Wells produce practically no oil on primary
production, but produce 120 BOPD (20 m
3
/d oil)
after steaming. Cumulative oil after 5 to 7 cycles is
100,000 bbIlwell (15 898 m
3
/well). Performance
depends strongly on quality of the sand and is af-
fected adversely by bottom water. Additional data
are given in Tables 1,2 and 3. Esso plans to expand
cyclic steaming to produce 160,000 BOPD (25 000
m
3
/d oil) when regulatory approval is received.
Conoco Inc. uses horizontal fractures to steam-
flood thin, shallow oil sands in the Loco field, OK.21
One sand at 200 ft (60 m) is 18-ft (5.5-m) thick and
contains 750 cp (750 mPas) oil. The second sand at
500 ft (150 m) is only 12-ft (3.7-m) thick and contains
240 cp (240 mPa s) oil. Conoco notches the casing in
the middle of the pay and fractures both injectors
and producers with field water. Steam then is in-
jected at rates of 1,000 BSPD (160 m
3
/d steam) and
at pressures high enough to maintain pressure
parting. Oil production increases in a day or two and
reaches 200 BOPD (32 m
3
/d oil) per pattern in 1
week. Total pilot recovery ranged from 31 to 61 % of
the oil in place in several patterns. The pilot has been
expanded to a commercial steamflood, according to
informal reports.
Oil Sands
Cyclic steam stimulation currently is the most widely
used recovery method in the oil sands of Alberta, as
well as in the Orinoco heavy-oil belt of Venezuela.
"Oil sands" refer to tar sands, or sands containing a
very viscous or even semisolid oil, with little or no
primary production. Cyclic steam stimulation is par-
ticularly attractive for oil sands because it is a single-
well operation and does not require initial com-
munication between wells. The largest successful
cyclic steam project in oil sands is Esso's Cold Lake
pilot reported above.
. Once the sand is heated sufficiently, the process
can be converted to a steamflood. Small-scale steam-
floods have been conducted in Alberta and the
Orinoco area, but a large pilot has not been un-
dertaken.
A comprehensive review of the status of oil sands
exploitation is provided in the book edited by
Redford and Winestock,22 and by papers presented
at the First International Conference on Heavy Oil
and Tar Sands, held in Edmonton, Canada, in June
1979. Latest surveys of Alberta oil sands projects are
provided by Nicholls and Luhning
23
and Tippee. 24
Towson and Kenda1l
25
discussed the applicability to
oil sands of in-situ oil-recovery techniques.
Well Completions
Special well completions are needed for the high
temperatures encountered during steamflooding.
Well failures have been costly in some projects. On
the other hand, a good thermal completion design
can result in trouble-free operation of stean:tflooded
wells. Among the design features to be considered are
wellhead equipment rating, casing design, cement
composition, tubing, thermal packer (if used), and
tubing insulation. A careful analysis of casing
temperature and stress during steam injection and
subsequent cooling also is necessary for good casing
design.
Table 4 summarizes the well completion methods
currently used in representative steamfloods. Most
data were provided by engineers directly involved in
the steam projects. The wide variation in practices
reported results partly from differing steam-injection
temperatures, partly from operator experience and
preferences, and perhaps partly from differing
overburden properties. Notice that in three of the
deeper steamfloods, the casing is prestressed to
counteract partially the compressive stress developed
because of casing temperature increases. All
operators surveyed cement the casing to the surface
. with silica flour, usually 40%. Several operators felt
that a good cementing procedure was more im-
portant than casing grade or joint strength. Various
additives, such as perlite, are used to lighten the
cement column above the formation. In most cases,
operators complete the well for production with a
gravel-packed liner that has a lead or brass hanger,
but no expansion joint.
The following allowable temperature increases can
TABLE 3 - SUCCESSFUL STEAMFLOODS
ReservOir h
/Lo
k, Steam/Oil Oil/Steam
Depth Pressure Net Pay Oil Viscosity Permeabi I ity kh//Lo Oil Content Ratio Ratio
Field-Sand (tt) (psig) (tt) (cp) (md) (mdft/cp) (bbl/acre-ft) (bbl/bbl) (bbl/bbl)
----
Kern River, CA 900 35 60 4,000 4,000 60 1,360 4.0 0.25
Inglewood, CA 1,000 120 43 1,200 6,000 220 1,580 2.0 0.50
BreaB,CA 4,600 110 189 6 70 2,200 940 4.8 0.21
Coalinga,CA 1,500 300 35 100 5,000 1,750 1,250 2.8 0.36
Yorba Linda, CA 2,100 200 32 600 500 27 1,070 4.8 0.21
San Ardo Auginac, CA 2,350 250 150 2,000 3,000 225 1,690
Mount Poso, CA 1,800 100 60 280 15,000 3,210 1,480 4.8 0.21
Yorba Linda, CA 650 325 6,400+ 600
South Belridge, CA 1,100 180 91 1,600 3,000 170 1,820 3.6 0.28
Midway:Sunset, CA 1,600 50 350 4,000 4,000 350
Schoonebeck, Holland 2,600 120 83 180 5,000 2,300 1,980 2.7 0.37
Slocum, TX 535 110 40 1,300 3,500 1,080 1,400 5.6 0.18
Smackover, AR 2,000 5 20 70 5,000 1,330 1,960 3.0 0.33
Tia Juana, Venezuela 1,600 300 125 5,000 2,800 70 1,660 1.2 0.83
Winkleman Dome, WY 1,200 210 73 900 600 50 1,450 5.0 0.20
1338 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
be used for casing design in fields with no steam-
injection experience:
Allowable Temperature Change at Shoe, of
Casing
Willhite
26
Gates
27
Grade CF) CC) CF) CC)
H-40 170 to 200 77 to 93 170 to 230 77 to 110
J-55 240 to 275 116 to 135 250to31O 121 to 154
N-80 350to400 177 to 204 370 to 480 188 to 249
S-95 410 to 475 210 to 246
P-ll0 520 to 630 271 to 332
Tubing insulation in the past has been used in some
fields to reduce casing temperature and thus casing
failure. As generator fuel costs increase in the future,
tubing insulation will become most important for
reducing downhole heat loss in steam injection wells.
For example, the following data show calculated heat
loss for several types of insulation in a typical 2,000-
ft (610-m) well with 2Ys-in. (60-mm) tubing and 7-in.
(178-mm) casing.
Tubing Heat Lost,
Casing Temperature
Insulation (070 injected) CF) CC)
None 24+ 496 258
Gas pack 22 460 238
Vented annulus 17 374 190
Crude oil gel 9 244 118
Solid calcium silicate 5 182 83
Thermocase IIITM 2 130 54
The steam injection pressure is 1,000 psig (6.90
MPa), the rate is 500 BSPD (80 m
3
/d steam), the
time is 30 days, and the initial temperature is 105 OF
(41C). Shell Oil Co. of Venezuela (now Maraven)
for years has used many tubing strings insulated with
calcium silicate in cyclic steaming wells of the
Lagunillas and Tia Juana fields. Thermocase III
provides very low heat loss, but costs two to three
times as much as solid calcium silicate and has not
been tested yet in thermal operations.
Thermal packers with expansion joints are
required for all the tubing insulation techniques listed
above except the gas pack. These can be
troublesome, but usually perform well at tem-
peratures as high as 500F (260C) if assembled, run,
and set with care. New packer designs using
elastomeric compounds rated to 650F are being field
tested now.
Operating Practices
Cyclic Steam Stimulation
In cyclic steam stimulation, the steam-injection
period depends on the steam injectivity and cold oil
viscosity. The volume of oil produced in any cycle
increases with the volume of steam injected. This is
particularly true in the case of highly viscous oils,
where the stimulated production rate essentially
depends on the heated zone volume. Exceptions
occur when the initial oil saturation is low, or there is
substantial primary oil. 10 In later cycles, the oil
recovery is low because the oil saturation around the
wells has decreased. As a rough guide, in California,
the injected-steam volume (water equivalent) is about
10,000 bbl {1590 m
3
) per cycle, injected over 2 weeks.
OCTOBER 1979
In Cold Lake, Alta., where the oil viscosity is 10 to 20
times as high as that in California, the steam volumes
tend to be larger, perhaps 30,000 bbl (4770 ill
3
) or
more, injected over a I-month period. The specific
local conditions would determine the actual
operation strategy.
Soak time is usually short, less than I week, at least
partly because it is economically attractive to
produce oil as soon as possible. Well service costs can
be minimized by leaving the pump and rods in the
tubing during steam injection, or even injecting
steam down the annulus.
When a steamed well is put on production, it may
flow for a few days. This is desirable because the
imposed back"pressure tends to prevent the flashing
of the high-temperature water and thus conserves
heat. After the flowing period, a pump unit must be
installed. Poor pump efficiency in the hot well and
sand production can be serious problems.
Operational problems in cyclic steam stimulation
were discussed by Farouq Ali.6 An additiqnal
problem recently noted by Hong
28
and others is
markedly different steam quality under some flow-
splitting conditions, when more than one well is
steamed from the same generator. Hong provides a
simple remedy, which is to split the flow in a
horizontal tee pipe, with steam flowing into the long
arm and out the two short arms of the tee.
Steamflooding
Myhill and Stegemeier
lO
' found from scaled
laboratory tests and analysis of field tests that total
oj! recovery by steam drive is usually proportional to
the size of t4e steam zone. This forms the basis of
their analytical prediction method. Even in cases
such as Kern River, where much of the oil is
recovered from a hot water zone, the Myhill-
Stegemeier approach gives a good first estimate.
However, their method should be confirmed by
performance predictions from computer' simulation
before substantial investment; it is not valid for the
early years of a steamflood. .
High rates are desirable, but the
accompanying high injection pressures and heat
production may be limiting factors. Myhill and
Stegemeier's scaled experiments showed that high
pressures may be required to inject steam initially
because oil is being banked up. After hot water
breakthrough, the pressure drops sharply and large
amounts of heat are produced. With time in thick
reservoirs, steam tends to spread over the reservoir as
a blanket. Heated oil flows to the wells as a result of
gravity as well as viscous forces.
Maximum steam-drive efficiency can be attained
by promoting early steam breakthrough and then
steam-blanketing most of the reservoir to avoid
leaving cold oil banks, with controlled subsequent
heat production. Specific suggestions are: (1) choose
a flood pattern that provides close spacing and an
ample number of production wells to achieve high
rates, (2) use cyclic steam producers and multiple
injection wells to heat and mobilize reservoir oil as
early as possible, (3) install a large pump capacity to
1339
handle high water rates and achieve low fluid levels
even when steam flashing reduces pump efficiency,
(4) reduce the steam injection rate after heat
breakthtough to minimize steam production, and (5)
scavenge with water or water/air injection.
Profile Control
In most wells, the injection interval affects oil
recovery in both cyclic steaming and steamflooding.
The exception is a single sand with good vertical
permeability. Here, steam goes to the top, regardless
of where it is injected.
The common practice of positioning the tubing
near the bottom of the pay zone is not satisfactory in
some wells because condensation of steam within the
well bore effectively may inhibit steam penetration
over the upper part of the interval. Thus, the original
intent of steam penetration over the entire interval is
defeated.
When a high gas-saturation zone and/or bottom
water is present, injection profile control is only
partially successful. Steam would follow the path of
least resistance, in spite of any corrective measures
within the wellbore. Even in the absence of high gas
or water saturations, steam tends to sweep the upper
part of the sand because of gravity segregation.
The profile control measures used can be
mechanical or can involve the use of chemicals or, in
some instances, the injection/production strategy
may help to improve vertical distribution of steam.
The presence of shale or other streaks, which inhibit
or stop vertical flow, has a critical effect on profile
control. A few of the techniques reported are cited.
The references can be consulted for more details.
Stokes and Doscher
29
noted that during cyclic
steaming in the Yorba Linda field, performance
deterioration in full-interval completions was noted.
This was attributed to the entry of steam into the
upper part of the interval- the" air" zone. Remedial
measures consisted of cementing blank inner strings
to within 50 ft (15 m) of the bottom and scab
cementing the upper part of the producing interval.
Giusti3 discussed vertical steam-distribution
problems caused by the presence of different per-
meabilities and widely differing oil viscosities within
the same interval during cyclic steaming and
steam flooding in western Venezuela. Steam
penetrated nearly every part of the interval,
depending on the prevailing conditions. Selective
injection was achieved by using efficient horizontal
seals, which consisted of special polished nipples with
matching mandrels inside the liner, and also by using
a sealing agent in the gravel pack, which previously
had been pumped through a port collar incorporated
in the blank section of the liner.
Froning and Birdwe1l
3
! discussed various methods
for injectivity profile control in a waterflood. A few
of the methods discussed also could be applied to
steam. Their paper is useful because it describes
nearly every injectivity control method and also gives
field results.
The most recent study on profile control was
conducted by Hutchinson,32 in which he discussed
various mechanical devices for steam injectivity
control. These included special packer cups for
isolating an interval, steam deflectors to split or
distribute the steam stream, and thermal packers. He
also discussed flrofile control in the producing wells,
where two packers may isolate an interval in which
steam breakthrough has occurred.
Fitch and Minter
33
reported the use of a chemical
diversion agent ahead of the steam. The chemical
forms a foam in those intervals where steam chan-
neling is a problem, thus restricting further advance
of the steam. The foam breaks up into a liquid when
the steam condenses. Knapp and Welbourn
34
described a high-temperature [300F (150C)] gel for
plugging thief zones in steam injection. Another
TABLE 4 - SURVEY OF THERMAL WELL COMPLETION PRACTICES
Maximum
Steam
Casing
Injection
Depth Pressure Size Weight Type
Test Field Operator (tt) (psi g) (in.) (Ibm/tt) Grade Coupling Prestress
1 Kern River Getty 900 350 7 23 K55 STC No
2 MidwaySunset Chevron 1,200 450 8% 36 K55 LTC No
3 Cold Lake Esso 1,500 2,000 7 23 SOO95 BUTT Yes
4 TiaJuana Maraven 1,600 1,500 9% 43.5 N80 BUTT No
5 Mount Poso Shell 1,800 500 9% 36 K55 STC No
6 San Ardo Texaco 2,350 800 8% 32 K55 STC No
7 Guadalupe Union 3,000 1,800 7 26 N80 BUTT No
8 Cat Canyon Conoco 3,500 2,500 7 23 SOO95 BUTT Yes
9 Morichal Lagoven 3,500 1,500 7 23 N-80 BUTT Yes
Annulus
Liner
During Length Size Weight Type
Test Field Operator Cyclic (tt) (in.) (Ibm) Grade Coupling
--
1 Kern River Getty Steam None
2 Midway-Sunset Chevron Steam 400 6% 28 K-55 BUTT
3 Cold Lake Esso Steam 200 5'12 15'12 H-40 FJ
4 TiaJuana Maraven Vent 100 7 29 N-80 BUTT
5 Mount Poso Shell 100 7 23 K-55 STC
6 San Ardo Texaco Vent 150 6% 28 K55 SF
7 Guadalupe Union Gas pack 100 5'12 17 N80 BUTT
8 Cat Canyon Conoco Steam 400 5'12 17 N-80 X-Line
9 Morichal Lagoven Crude 250 3'12 13 N-80 FJ
1340 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
approach is to use only a few perforations, which
then act as a critical flow choke.
Additives
Under certain conditions, a small amount of a chem-
ical or a gas may improve cyclic-steaming or steam-
injection performance. Pursely35 reports scaled
model studies of cyclic steaming Cold Lake wells for
several additives, including water thickeners,
solvents, methane, air, and carbon dioxide. Sub-
stantial increases in recovery were noticed when using
water thickened with 3.8070 bentonite. Solvent used
with steam did not improve recovery.
Both the laboratory model results and a computer
simulation study showed substantial increases in oil
produced when gas was injected in addition to steam.
The computer model, for example, predicted an
increase in oil produced from 8,300 to 14,000 bbl
(1320 to 2230 m
3
) when 5 MMscf (142 x 10
3
m
3
) gas
was injected following 45,000 bbl (7160 m
3
) steam.
Field test results in early Cold Lake pilots reportedly
were favorable, but apparently were not good
enough to warrant the extra expense and trouble of
injecting natural gas with the steam. Esso does not
use this technique at Cold Lake any more.
Husky Oil Co. had encouraging results with air
cyclic steam stimulation in the Paris Valley
CA.36 About 3,500 Mscf (lOOx 10
3
m
3
) air and
10,000 bbl (1600 m
3
) steam were injected in a typical
cycle. Peak oil rates and total oil produced were more
than twice that produced during the previous cycle
for a comparable period after air was added to the
steam. Reservoir simulation results confirmed the
field response qualitatively and suggested the im-
provement was caused by better distribution of
injected heat and the added pressure in the reservoir
around the well during backflow.
Steam injectivity is a problem in some tight
reservoirs that have high clay content. Chevron
engineers found that steam injectivity could be
doubled by treating the sand around the wellbore
with hydroxyaluminum.
37
Texaco engineers added
potassium chloride to maintain steam injection rates
in the Shiells Canyon pilot. 20
The use of surfactants during steamflooding to
improve displacement at the steam/oil interface has
been investigated in the laboratory. So far, available
surfactants are not stable long enough at steamflood
temperatures.
Conclusions
On the basis of recent field test data, one can con-
clude that steam injection is more effective than ever
as an oil-recovery method. Oil recoveries of up to
70% are attainable. Furthermore, the range of
applicability of steam injection is expanding to in-
clude more viscous, thiner, and lighter oil reservoirs.
While cyclic steam-stimulation projects abound, the
shift is toward steamflooding, exploiting the most
desirable features of the two processes. Notable
advances have been made in well completion
technology and profile control, which have served to
enhance the predominance of steam as a primary
(Alberta), secondary (California), or tertiary
(Pennsylvania) recovery method.
OCTOBER 1979
References
1. Prats, M.: "A Current Appraisal of Thermal Recovery," J.
Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1978) 1129-1136.
2. Gorrill, R.G., Kitzan, P., and Komery, D.P.: "The Design of
The Peace River In-Situ Oil Sands Project," Unitar Report
14, First IntI. Conference on Heavy Oil and Tar Sands,
Edmonton, Canada, June 1979. [Also, see Oil and Gas J.
(Nov. 1974) 188.]
3. Buckles, R.S.: "Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil Recovery at
Cold Lake, Alberta," paper SPE 7994 presented at the SPE-
AIME 49th California Regional Meeting, Ventura, April 18-
20,1979.
4. Bonegales, C.J.: "Production Characteristics and Oil
Req>very in the Orinoco Oil Belt," Unitar Report 30, First
IntI. Conference on Heavy Oil and Tar Sands, Edmonton,
Canada, June 1979.
5. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Current Status of In-Situ Recovery From
the Tar Sands of Alberta," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-Mar.
1975) 51-58.
6. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Current Status of Steam Injecti'On as a
Heavy Oil Recovery Method," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-Mar.
1974) 1-15.
7. Noran, D.: "Growth Marks Enhanced Oil Recovery," Oil and
GasJ. (Mar. 27,1978) 113-140.
8. Dietz, D.N.: "Review of Thermal Recovery Methods," paper
SPE 5558 presented at the SPE-AIME 50th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. I,

9. Gates,C.F., and Brewer, S.W.: "Steam Injection Into the D
and E Zone, Tulare Formation, South Belridge Field, Kern
County, California," J. Pet. Tech. (March 1975) 343-348.
10. Myhill, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L.: "Steam-Drive
Correlation and Prediction," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 173-
182.
11. Duerksen, J.H., Webb, M.G., and Gomaa, E.E.: 'Status of
the Section 26C Steamflood, Midway-Sunset Field,
California," paper SPE 6748 presented at the SPE-AIME
52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
12. Smith, R.V., Bertuzzi, A.F., Templeton, E.E., and Clampitt,
R.L.: "Recovery of Oil by Steam Injection in the SmackOVer
Field, Arkansas," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1973) 883-889.
13. Cook, D.L.: "Influence of Silt Zones on Steam Drive Per-
formance Upper Conglomerate Zone, Yorba Linda Field,
California," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1977) 1397-1404.
14. Hall, A.L. and Bowman, R.W.: "Operation and Performance
of the Slocum Thermal Recovery Project,:' J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1973) 402-408.
15. Prats, M.: "Peace River Steam Drive Scaled Model Ex-
periments," Oil Sands of Canada- Venezuela, Cdn. Inst. of
Mining and Metallurgy, Edmonton (1978) 346-363 ..
16. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Recovery of the Bradford Crude by
Continuous Steam Injection," Prod. Monthly (Aug. 1966) 14-
17.
17. Bleakley, W.B.: "Penn Grade Crude Oil Yields to Steam
Drive," Oil and Gas J. (Mar. 25, 1974) 89-96.
18. Hearn, C.L.: "The EI Dorado Steam Drive-A Pilot Tertiary
Recovery Test," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1972) 1377-1384.
19. Volek, C.W. and Pryor, J.A.: "Steam Distillation Drive-
Brea Field, California," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1972) 899-906.
20. Konopnicki, D.T., Traverse, E.F., Brown, A., and Dieberg,
A.D.: "Design and Evaluation of the Shiells Canyon Field
Steam Distillation Drive Pilot Project," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1979) 546-552.
21. Wooten, R.W:: "Case History of a Successful Steamflood
Project - Loco Field," paper SPE 7548 presented at the SPE-
AIME 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
22. The Oil Sands of Canada- Venezuela 1977, D.A. Redford and
A.G. Winestock (eds.), Cdn. Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy,
Edmonton (1978) 17.
23. Nicholls, J.H. and Luhning, R.W.: "Heavy Oil Sand In-Situ
Pilot Plants in Alberta (Past and Present)," J. Cdn. Pet.
Tech. (July-Sept. 1977) 50-61.
24. Tippee, R.T.: "Tar Sands, Heavy-Oil Push Building Rapidly
in Canada," Oil and Gas J. (Jan. 30, 1978) 87-91.
25. Kendall, G.H. and Towson, D.E.: "Importance of Reservoir
1341
Description in Evaluating In Situ Recovery Methods for Cold
Lake Heavy Oil, Parts 1 and 2," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-
Mar. 1977) 41-54.
26. Willhite, G.P. and Dietrich, W.K.: "Design Criteria for
Completion of Steam Injection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1967) 15-17.
27. Gates, C.F. and Holmes, B.G.: "Thermal Well Completions
and Operations," paper PD 11 presented at the Seventh World
Pet. Cong., Mexico City (1967).
28. Hong, K.C.: "Two-Phase Flow Splitting at a Pipe Tee," J.
Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1978) 290-296; Trans., AIME, 265.
29. Stokes, D.D. and Doscher, T.M.: "Shell Makes a Success of
Steamfiood at Yorba Linda," Oil and Gas J. (Sept. 2, 1972)
71-78.
30. Giusti, L.E.: "CSV Makes Steam Soak Work in Venezuela
Field," Oil and Gas J. (Nov. 4, 1974) 89-93.
31. Froning, S.P. and Birdwell, B.F.: "Here's How Getty
Controls Injectivity Profile in Ventura," Oil and Gas J. (Feb.
10, 1975) 60-65.
32. Hutchinson, S.O.: "How Downhole Tools Improve Steam
Stimulation Efficiency," World Oil (Nov. 1977) 56-61.
33. Fitch, J.P. and Minter, R.B.: "Chemical Diversion of Heat
Will Improve Thermal Oil Recovery," paper SPE 6172
presented at the SPE-AIME 51st Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976.
34. Knapp, R.H. and Welbourn, M.E.: "An Acrylic/Epoxy
Emulsion Gel System for Steam Thief Zone Plugging," paper
SPE 7083 presented at the SPE-AIME Fifth Symposium on
Improved Methods for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19,
1978. .
35. Pursley, S.A.: "Experimental Studies of Thermal Recovery
Processes," paper presented at the Heavy Oil Symposium,
Maracaibo, July 2-4, 1974.
36. Shipley, R.G. Jr.: "Wet Combustion Pilot, Paris Valley Field,
California," Fifth DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Aug. 1979.
37. Coppel, C.P., Jennings, H.Y. Jr., and Reed, M.G.: "Field
Results From Wells Treated with Hydroxy-Aluminum," J.
Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1973) 1108-1112. .
38. Stokes, D.D., Brew, J.R.,Whitten, D.G., and Wooden,
L. W.: "Steam Drive as a Supplemental Recovery Process in
an Intermediate Viscosity Reservoir, Mount Poso Field,
California," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1978) 125-131.
39. O'Dell, P.M. and Rogers, W.L.: "Use of Numerical
Simulation To Improve Thermal Recovery Performance in the
Mount Poso Field, California," paper SPE 7078 presented at
1342
the SPE-AIME Fifth Symposium on Improved Methods for
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19, 1978.
40. Hanzlik, E.J., Schenck, H., and Birdwell, B.F.: "Steamfiood
of Heavy Oil Cat Canyon Field," Proc., ERDA Symposium
on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa (Sept. 1977).
41. Haynes, S. Jr., Fontaine, M.F., and Teasdale, T.S.: "The
Charco Redondo Steamfiood Pilot. Data Analysis," paper
SPE 5823 presented at the SPE-AIME Fourth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, March 22-24, 1976.
42. Atmosudiro, H.W.: "Steam Soak Increases Recovery in
Indonesia," Oil and Gas J. (Aug. 1, 1977) 104-108.
43. Herrera, A.J.: "The M6 Steam Drive Project Design and
Implementation," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1977) 62-83.
44. Blevins, T.R. and Billingsley, R.H.: "The Ten-Pattern
Steamfiood, Kern River Field, California," J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1975) 1505-1514;; Trans., AIME, 259.
45. Bursell, C.G. and Pittman, G.M.: "Performance of Steam
Displacement in the Kern River Field," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug.
1975) 997-1004. .
46. "Winkleman Dome Steam-Drive Project Expands," Oil and
Gas J. (Oct. 21,1974) 114-120.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
acre x 4.046 873 E + 03 = m
3
API 1.415/(API + 131.5) E + 05 = kg/m3
bbl x 1.589873 E - 01 = m3
bbllacre-ft x 1.288931 E - 04 = m
3
/m
3
cpxl.O* E+OO=mPa's
OF (519)CF-3r) . E + 00 = C
ft x 3.048* E - 01 = III
in. X 2.540* E+Ol = mm
Ibf x 4.448222 E +00 = N
Ibm/ft X 1.488164 E+OO = kg/m
psi x 6.894757 E - 03 = mPa
scflbbl X 7.518 21 E - 03 = kmollm
3
'Conversion factor is exact.
WI
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office April
21, 1978. Paper accepted for publication Nov. 2, 1978. Revised manuscript
received July 30, 1979. Paper (SPE 7183) first presented at the SPEAIME Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, held in Cody, WY, May 1719, 1978.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY