Calculation Methods for Linear and Radial

Steam Flow in Oil Reservoirs

J. van Lookeren, SPE, Shell IntI. Petroleum Mij.

Abstract
The flow of oil and water in a reservoir as a result of
steam injection is related to the shape of the growing
steam zone. Analytical formulas describing the approximate shape of this zone have been derived both for
linear flow in horizontal and dipping formations and for
radial flow around injection wells in a horizontal
formation.
The theory is based on segregated-flow principles such
as those previously used by Dupuit, 1 Dietz, 2 and others.
The formulas take into account gravity overlay of steam
zones and have been checked against results of scaled
laboratory experiments, steam-injection projects in the
field, and calculations with a numerical reservoir
simulator. From the good agreement with the new
calculation method it would seem that the shape of a
steam zone is controlled mainly by one group of
parameters including steam-injection rate, pressure, and
effective formation permeability to steam.
The equations can be used to analyze and explain field
observations, such as the position of steam/liquid contacts in injection wells, estimates of effective permeability to steam in steam zones, and steam-zone thickness as
noticed in observation wells. This paper shows, for example, how a cumulative oil/steam ratio for oil displaced
from a steam zone depends on steam-zone pressure, injection rate, and time.
With increasing oil viscosity, more bypassing of oil by
steam owing to viscous forces will occur, leading to
more overlay of steam zones and eventually to narrow
tonguing in a lateral direction.
01977520/83/00066788$00.25
Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

JUNE 1983

The calculation methods provide an evaluation tool for

steamdrive and steam-soak processes to reservoir
engineers engaged in field operations, project design,
and research.

Introduction
The reservoir engineer is often confronted with many
day-to-day problems in designing, planning, and starting
up steam-injection projects and monitoring their
performance analysis and improvement in which fast and
simple, although approximate, engineering calculation
methods could be used to advantage.
By presenting calculation methods for linear and radial
steam flow in oil reservoirs, a tool is provided to gain a
better understanding of the shape and growth of steam
zones in reservoirs subjected to steam injection. A selection has been made from reservoir engineering literature,
laboratory experiments, and field data to introduce the
essentials of the calculation methods for making
estimates with respect to performance, sweep efficiency,
optimization, etc., of steam-injection processes in actual
oil reservoirs.
Oil displaced from steam zones is calculated, but no
attempt has been made to arrive at a full prediction tool
for oil production from reservoirs by adding calculations
for oil quantities displaced by cold- and hot-water drives
and even miscible drives, if the oil has volatile components. With the present capacities of mathematical
reservoir simulation programs, adequate integration of
simultaneously occurring oil-displacement processes
seems more appropriate for the large computer.
The principal sources of information have been contributions within the Shell Group and, in particular,
427

results of laboratory experiments carried out in the

Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium, The Netherlands. Over the last 20 years many
publications related to oil production by steam injection
have appeared. Since this paper was first presented in
1977, several publications have elaborated on the
method. 3 ,4 Many useful comments have been received
and have led to this improved contribution. Much information has been used from the literature dealing with
reviews,5.6 segregated flow descriptions,I.2.7 heat
balance calculations, 8,9 and observations on steam-zone
growth. 10-15
The small- and large-scale steamdrive experiments
were carried out in the early 1960's. This led to a first set
of calculation methods in the mid-1960's. The verification and ultimate confirmation by field tests was done
from 1965 to 1975. Many thermodynamic-fluid
mechanical and chemical processes happen with a steamdrive. Several of these may not yet have been described
physically and mathematically in a form for engineering
calculus and subsequently not for mathematical reservoir
simulation. Nevertheless, the approximate mathematical
description of the steam flow in a steam zone formed
with a free liquid/vapor boundary in a porous medium
may contribute to the engineering literature.
The following section of this paper contains the
calculus for a linear steamdrive in a dipping layer, with
emphasis on the case of updip steam injection because
this case is more helpful in illustrating which type of approximation is used than is the interesting case of a radial
steamdrive, to which the calculus is also applied.
The section after that deals with the steam zone around
an injection well in a horizontal layer, providing insight
about the strong effect of gravity forces on the steam
zone's shape. However, the much more complicated
cases of steam-zone growth in a dipping layer for wells
in a midway or downdip position are left to computerized
reservoir simulation and further analysis.

Linear Steam Drive in Dipping Layers

Approximate Mathematical Description
For the approximate analytic solution of the differential
equations for two-phase flow, we use a method in which
the flow potentials of each phase are taken as constant in
the plane perpendicular to the bedding plane of the reservoir. This method was used successfully by Dupuit, I
Dietz,2 and Coats. 7 Flow potentials in two successive
planes, crossing Points I and 2 of the steam/liquid interface (Fig. 1), can then be expressed in terms of pressure
at the interface:
<l>sl.1 =Psl.I -Psig hsl,lcosex, ................. (1)

<1>0,1 =Po,I-Pog hn,lcOSex,

................. (3)

and
<1>0,2 =Po,2 -pog(hsl,2cosex-Axsinex).

. ........ (4)

Using h SI ,2 -hSI,1 = Ilhsl' <1>,,1,2 -<I>sl,1 = 1l<l>"I' etc.,

and PSI,I -Po,1 = PSI,2 -Po,2, we can eliminate the
428

pressures and arrive at

a<I>

51

a<I>

-----=(Po-Psl)g

ax

ax

ah sl

.)

--COSex-Slllex . .. (5)

ax

Writing Darcy's law for each segregated phase, we have

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

and
----------

.................. (7)

where W,t and w () are mass flow rates of steam and oil,
respectively.
Mainly we consider stable or frontal displacement of
liquid by steam in a series of steady states. In waterdrive
processes this situation would be characterized by working with mobility ratio, M, < 1. In the segregated-flow
situation, fluid-phase velocities are rather evenly
distributed in the approximate equipotential plane in the
Z direction. When we consider the front movement as a
series of steady states, the front will move nearly parallel
to itself. In that case the change of mass flow rate of oil
with linear distance, x, is proportional to the height of
the oil column irrespective of the shape of the steam/oil
contact. For the mass flow rate distribution of steam between X=Xe and X=Xb, we shall later consider two
typical cases between which the true distribution will lie.
For the time being we take a simple first-order approach,
which is that steam condensation (consumption) is proportional to the steam-zone thickness. The hot water
formed by condensing steam is ignored because its
mobility is so much higher than that of cold and even of
hot oil. In a later stage, however, W () can be considered a
gross-oil rate and a corrective term introduced. Thus we
have in approximation
WSI=WII(Xb)hs/hb

....................... (8)

and

Point X=Xb, hSI =hb denotes an endpoint of the interface

for segregated two-phase flow. The other end of the
steam/liquid interface is the steam-zone tip at x e: h.1'I =0.
Taking the situation of hb =h, we deal with the more
common case of steam zones reaching the base rock
(Fig. 2). The positive and negative values of dip angle,
ex, represent downdip and updip steam injection,
respectively.
The resulting differential equation for the shape of the
interface, h 51 = j(x), is then found by combination of
Eqs. 5 through 9:

(p () - P .II )gh . k .II P sl . bcosex

. (1 - M*) + tgex, .................... (10)

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

CAP ROCK

Z =h

/,

o x

STEAM

/'" 1 :---1

:/1

:/

LIQUID ZONE
(OIL)

x.

BASE

ROCK

uau 10
(OILl
I

=0.1

CASE i

ST~.-=~

cPO 2

hO

=0.2

ALD= 0.5

'

CASE 2
BASE ROCK

Fig.1-Pressure and flow potential near the steam/liquid

interface.

where the pseudomobility ratio is calculated as

Fig. 2-Steam-zone shape calculated for a linear drive. Case

1-Even steam condensation between x b and x e'
Case 2-Steam condensation only at tip of steam
zone (xe)'

parameters of Eq. 10 with subscript LD for linear flow:

............. (12)

Aw
In the case of an isothermal' 'frontal" water drive with a
tilted oil/water contact, Eq. 11 would have been
M*=M=p.o kw1p.wko and Eq. 10 would resemble the
well-known equation of Dietz. 2 The pseudomobility
ratio indicates the following possible conditions.
1. If M* ~ 1, the tilt of the interface (degree of steam
overlay), ahs/ax, is dependent on steam flow rate, W SI '
steam density, PSI, permeability to steam, k sl' reservoir
dip, a, and a few other parameters.
2. The liquid viscosity gradually will playa role as M*
becomes larger, and the interface will have less tilt (more
steam overlay) with higher liquid viscosities.
3. If M*?;, 1, there may no longer be a frontal drive,
because a steam tongue not even covering the full width
(b) will develop, particularly when the value of the formation dip, tga, in Eq. 10 is insufficient to suppress that
of the other half of the sum.
A further analysis of the physical significance of the
pseudomobility ratio is given in Appendix A.

Stable Linear Steam drive

The steam/liquid interface described by Eq. 10 is like a
plane moving parallel to itself, if the parameters involved do not change with time. The front has the shape
of a plane because of the assumption of an even steamconsumption distribution (described later in Case 1) in
the area where the steamlliquid interface is present.
It is not necessary to use only one model of steam
distribution. We therefore treat an alternative (Case 2),
which is chosen so that reality will lie between Cases 1
and 2 (Fig. 2).
Case I-Even Steam-Consumption Distribution (Eq.
8), We introduce a dimensionless group, A, for the
JUNE 1983

Eq. 10 becomes

ah
ax

_S_I

-A LD (I-M*)
_ _ _ +tga .............. (13)
cosa

and, after integration,

h sl = [ Aw (

(1-M*)
]
cosa
-tga (xe-x), ....... (14)

where

and
h
xb(t)=Xe(t)-

[Aw(l-M*)/cosa] -tga

..... (15)

The steam/liquid interface in principle ends at the base

rock in Point (xb,h b ). All condensed-steam flux between
X=Xb and x=O is regarded as some liquid flux in the
steam zone, which may slightly affect the effective
permeability to steam.
The tilt of the steam front, calculated with Eq. 14, also
is shown in Fig. 2 for three common values of A w. To
demonstrate which values of A w may occur in actual
fields, the field-prototype data of Table 1, yielding
Aw =0.2, can be illustrative. For a quick estimate,
when the bottom of the steam front is still close to the injection end (Xb =0), we can use injection-end values to
replace WsI(Xb)/PsI by wSI,/PSI,i in Eq. 12.
429

TABLE 1-DATA ON LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS AND FIELD PROTOTYPES

Linear Steam Drive

Parameter
L, 'e' m
b, e, rad
h, m
a, rad
/loi (T , ), mPa S
/lo * (T st ), mPa's
/lst.l'mPas
W st.1' kg/s
pp(at xeJe), bar
Pi' bar

Field
Prototype
1

Laboratory
Model
S-61

Field
Prototype
2

Laboratory
Model
SSO-2

Field
Prototype
3

Laboratory
Model
SSO-3

Field
Prototype
4

3.0
1.5

508
254
25.4
0
< 1.7
<0.35
0.0176
5.34
28 +
29.4
0.345
2.0
0.90
0.10
2.46
0.61
1.02
800
14.7
233
2.60
0.40
38
<0.18
0.20
<1.5

3.0
1.5
0.15
0
740
8.5
0.0135
0.0154
5.8--+2.3 +
6.1--+29.4
0.345
2.0
0.90
0.13
1600
400
920
887
1.34
126
2.61
0.4
25
0.58
0.20
500

508
254
25.4
0
180
1.5
0.0176
5.34
19.6
64--+29.4
0.345
2.0
0.90
0.13
2.46
0.61
1.02
960
14.7
233
2.60
0.55
38
0.58
0.20
160

0.30

120
27r
19
0
2.6
0.41
0.0183
1.13

0.30

120
27r
19
0
2.6
0.4
0.183
6.53

0.1~

0
0.90
0.22
0.0132
0.0154
1.95 +
1.96
0.345
2.0
1.0
0.10
1600
400
1600
1000
1.11
120
2.61
0.25
25
0.015
0.20

<I>

P 1 C 1 ' mJ/m 3 . C
SOl
Sor
k, /lm2
kst, /lm2
kO(+w), /lm2
Po, kg/m 3
Pst, kg/m 3
Tst'oC
H st ' mJ/kg
fi
T"oC
M*
ALO (or A RO )
Mow

From Eq. 14 and Fig. 2 we note that (1) steep steam

fronts are possible if injection conditions of the steam
(vapor) are such that parameter Aw (1-M*0.5
and/or adequate use is made of the formation dip, and (2)
as steam fronts move away from the injection end, the
value of the parameter group A w( 1 - M*) may decrease
considerably, because Wst(Xb) will be less than W,t.;
because of heat losses. As a consequence, gradually
more gravity overlay can be expected.
Case 2-Concentrated Steam-Consumption Distribution. A different steam-condensation distribution, which
yields an analytical solution of the differential equation,
is the extreme case of all heat losses taking place near the
tip of the steam zone, x e' Physically, such a situation is
possible for short periods [e.g., when a steam-zone
pressure is declining and temporary heat losses to cap
and base rock are negligible (see Fig. 2)].
The shape of the linear-drive steam zone in a horizontal homogeneous formation (a=O) with M*:::::O, Aw
defined by Eq. 12, and Eq. 8 replaced by W,t = W st (x b) is
now described by

ah st

ax

-A LD hlh ,t .

......................

(16)

Integration yields
h.lt =.,hA w 'h(x e -x).

. ................... (17)

The shape of this interface is parabolic and the average

tilt of this steam/liquid front is twice that of Case 1 (Fig.
430

Radial Steam Drive

Laboratory
Model
S-94

7r/3
0.0475
0
22
2.0
0.0132
0.62x10- 3
1.95 +
1.96
0.36
2.0
0.88
0.12
4000
1000
4000
840
1.11
120
2.61
0.4
22
0.08

A RO =0.36
15

39.2
0.345
2.0
0.90
0.13
3.8
0.95
1.90
800
19.7
248
2.60
0.65
40.0
0.08
0.36
8

7r/3
0.0475
0
22
2.0
0.0132
3.6x10-3
1.95
1.96
0.36
2.0
0.88
0.12
4000
1000
4000
840
1.11
120
2.61
0.3
22
0.10

A RO =0.87
15

39.2
0.345
2.0
0.90
0.13
3.8
0.95
1.90
800
19.7
248
2.60
0.60
40.0
0.10
0.87
3

2). Reality will be closer to Case 1 than to Case 2.

Knowing the basic shape, we can verify and control the
steam-zone shapes-e.g., in fields or when calculated by
numerical simulators, as shown later.
Verification by Laboratory Experiments
With a few steam-injection experiments in a large
laboratory model of a reservoir we could verify the approximate shape of a steam zone as calculated.
To ensure a negligible liquid viscosity (M*->O), we
used in one experiment a sandpack filled with water and
injected steam under conditions where the steam-zone
shape factor Aw =0.2. The reservoir data are given in
Table 1 (Experiment S-94) and the experimental results
in Fig. 3. This figure shows steamliiquid interface contours as inferred from temperature readings in observation wells, in which the arrival of a steam zone could be
seen. In the early stage we may take w,t(Xb)=W\I,; and
thus find the tilt of the interface tg m=0.2=Aw. In a
later stage we have w\I(Xb) < w st ,; because of heat
losses, and indeed the average slope of the interface
tgm =A w is less, say a factor of two-thirds, a value that
can easily be brought into agreement with heat-loss
calculations. The possible upward bend of the steamliiquid interface after 0.5 PV steam injected is believed to be
a measuring inaccuracy in Observation Points 28 and 48.
The next experiment shown in Table 1, S-61 (also see
Fig, 4), also has Aw =0.2, but with a moderately
viscous oil, such that M* =0.6. The observed average tilt
of the interface is now tg m = O. I = A w (1 - M*), in
agreement with theory. As could be expected, the stabili:
ty of the steam front in a lateral and vertical direction is
not high, because M* approaches unity. In the area of a
developing steam tongue a local value of M* may have
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

PRODUCTION SIDE

INJECTION SIDE

I
I

I
I

,
_

, TOP ANDI

ihl

-kh

,
I

0 BonOM I

.
. .
[
59~ ~-=--

OJ ..
~-~-v---

'"",

WELL 37
STEAM

Il!QUIDZONE'~,:--:-:- .~._

__ .1

{025 Vp STEAM INJECTED)

(050 Vp STEAM INJECTED)

WELL
39

-~11

21

BOTTOM CONTOUR

TOP

49

INJECTION

~,-

10

PRODUCTION

-~'1

WELL 35

39 ~

WELL 33

~-:-_--.---.-:J'

WELL
31

~91

TOP CONTOUR +h

41

59L----""-'~
(O 75 Vp

WELL
39

_-.J 51
STEAM INJECTED IN 12 5 YEARS)

WELL 37

WELL 35

WELL 33

L___ .._-,--~==-=-=-======J

WELL
31

Fig. 3-Steam-zone shape in a linear drive experiment with

light oil, A LD = 0.2.

Fig. 4-Steam-zone shape in a linear drive experiment with

viscous oil, A LD = 0.2.

been larger than unity because of preheating by a hotwater tongue.

Taking oil with still higher initial viscosity, we observed pronounced lateral and vertical tonguing in
accordance with expectations (M*< 1).

Eliminating the potential gradients and introducing the

mobility ratio M* (see Eq. 11) results in

oh"

/1- sl W"I

or

7r(Po -P.It)g kslPsI

Translation to Field Conditions

If only for M* and Aw values, a laboratory experiment
can represent many realistic reservoirs. As an illustrative
example we have given a prototype field in conjunction
with each laboratory experiment in Table 1. Figs. 3 and
4 may thus represent the steam-zone shape of injecting
460 ton/D of dry steam over a reservoir part 0.16 miles
wide, 0.32 miles long, with an effective steam permeability at S or + Sew of 610 md and a reservoir pressure of
430 psia.
As water flow had a negligible effect on the steamzone shape in the selected samples, we left the mass flow
of water and its viscosity unadjusted in the experiments,
as is reflected in the unscaled oil/water mobility ratio
parameter (Mow in Table 1).

Radial Steam Drive: Steam-Zone

Development Around an Injection Well
Approximate Mathematical Description
We consider a series of steady states in radial flow in a
horizontal layer and thus limit our calculations to the
shape of the interface in a r-z cross section with separate
solution in time. The derivation of equations is now
similar to that for Eqs. 1 through 5:
0<1> SI

0<1> 0

or

or

_ (

oh"

- - - - - - Po-Pst g - - ,

0<1>51

or

or

/1-51 'W SI

(see Eqs. 8 and 9), and

As shown for the linear steamdrive, the basic steamzone shape is found when M* <{ 1, and more steam-zone
overlay will occur as M* moves closer to unity-e.g.,
when there is a higher oil viscosity.
The basic steam-zone shape, with M*=O, is then
calculated from

............. (18)

where

................. (19)

........... (24)

and

............... (20)
JUNE 1983

where

ARD is a dimensionless parameter, convenient for

characterizing the shape of a radially growing steam
zone with a steam-flow rate W 51 between the dry-steam
injection rate w.1t,; at the wellbore at r=r wand W 51 =0 at
the steam-zone tip at r = r e (t).
431

fLst Wst, ,
7TL'>pgh 2 pstk s t

o
r.

~~\wx~ T~6~KrSS

. /

ARDhO~~~~LLLLLLLLLLLkLLLLLLLLLLLL~~~~

383

- - - - - -

RADIUS r,(t,)

hl~_J

PRACTICAL RANGE IN FIELDS

LIKE
SCHOONE8EEK (NETH)
TIA JUANA (VENEZUELA)

0,5

r~

STEAM ZONE
- - - - -

626

r,(tz)

hstlO~

CAP ROCK

h,t

r,(tl)

~-.--~

1.0

BASE ROCK FOR ARD=' 1.0

RANGE OF EXPERIMENTS IN
MODELS IN LABORATORY

LfOI/IO ZONE

BASE ROCK FOR ARD = 05

/w =O,IOre

BASE ROCK FOR ARD - 04, etc

I (,

02

04

06

08

rw =005 re ,etc

Fig. 5-Steam-zone shape calculated for a radial drive.

Fig. 6-Liquid level, h w' in a steam-injection well as a function of A RO '

Steam-Zone Shape in a Stable Radial Steam drive

To obtain suitable lateral steam flow rate distribution for
which Eq. 23 can be solved analytically, we consider
again the two extreme cases of a steam-condensation
distribution, between which actual steamdrives lie (see
top of Fig. 2).

Cases I and 2 enclose an area in which we may expect

the curve for the shape of the realistic steam zone. Case I
will be closer to reality than Case 2.
Fig. 5 can be used as an analytical graph to understand
steam-zone shapes. The wellbore can be represented by a
vertical line at rlr e = r wlr e' which will move to the left
as the value of r e increases with time. The bottom of the
reservoir can be indicated by a horizontal line. Using
h st = h, this line lies at

For Case 1,

(h\/ARDh) = liARD'

...................... (29)

Wst,i

because

For Case 2,
W

st

- = 1 ................................ (26)
wst.i

Integration of Eq. 23 Using Eqs. 25 and 26, respectively, results in a mathematical expression of the steamzone thickness as a function of radius:
For Case 1,

~ = (lnrelr- '/z + '/zr2 Ire 2) '/2.

. .........

h wlh = I - A RD (LNTM) '/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . (30)

For Case 2,
st

Liquid Level in Injection Wells. A liquid level, h w, in

steam-injection wells can be a very significant observation with respect to the steam/liquid interface, provided
the well completion (open interval) and reservoir
heterogeneity (stratification) do not mask the
phenomenon.
Rewriting Eqs. 27 and 28 with h",=h-h st , we obtain

(27)

ARDh

h - = (lnr elr) '/2.

-

Where this bottom line crosses the steam/liquid interface, we define a radius of the steam zone at the base
rock, rb: hst=h, r=rb' It is obvious that if rb<r""
steam will not reach the base rock. Instead a steam/liquid
contact can be observed in the injection well. This level
can be predicted with Eqs. 27 and 28 for given values of
r wand r e'
We note that the steam-zone thickness, h</, ofEqs. 27
and 28 is in principle independent of layer thickness, h,
which will cancel out from the denominator, ARD h.

and the log term

. ......................

(28)

LNTM = In r e Ir It' - '/2 + r", 2 /2r e 2 + s

ARDh

in Case I, or, in Case 2,

Eqs. 27 and 28 are plotted in Fig. 5. The external
radius, r e' is some function of time. The two curves of
432

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

We have added the skin factor, s, in the conventional

way. Note that a negative value of s is very likely to occur in practice because steam is an excellent cleaning
agent for well bore surroundings and has considerable
power to dissolve silica.
A plot ofEq. 30 is shown in Fig. 6 with four values for
L..NTM. A high probability area is marked by interval
3 < LNTM < 6.25, and the low probability area extends
to I < LNTM < 9.
The figure shows that if the steam-zone shape factor,
A RD , <0.6, liquid levels in injection wells can indicate
steam-zone limits. By measuring liquid levels at different rates, pressure levels, and times, and using Eqs.
30 and 24, we thus improve our knowledge about r e> s,
k sl' etc., in actual reservoirs.
It may sometimes be easier to show a steam-zone
shape when the curves are given for different values of
r e and ARD (Fig. 7). Nevertheless, each curve in Fig. 7
has been derived from Fig. 5 (i.e., Eq. 27).

Verification by Laboratory Experiments

The calculated shape of a radial steam zone has been
verified successfully in experiments in a transparent sector model filled with very fine glass beads. Pictures were
made with a camera placed in front, taking a crosssectional view directly with the top and bottom view using two mirrors placed at a 45 angle. Some of the
resulting pictures are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The
laboratory-model data and corresponding examples of a
field prototype are given in Table I.
The steam-zone shapes observed in Experiments
SSO-2 and SSO-3 with shape factor ARD =0.36 and
0.87, respectively, confirm the pictures calculated and
shown in Fig. 7. In both cases we could ignore the influence of the mobility ratio M*, because oil viscosity
was low. However, when a very high oil viscosity (e.g.,
above 500 cp at initial reservoir conditions) was used,
viscous instability in the form of a single steam tongue
(M*> I) was observed.

Fig. 7-Position of the steamlliquid interface in a radial drive

as a function of A RD and re'

Ie

(b

. h =f(t)

as r e =f(t). . ............. (32)

The relative size of the steam zone will also define h sl'
a laterally averaged thickness of a steam zone. Combining Eqs. 31 and 32, we obtain

r (r)

hSI
2
-'-d h re r e

_II

STEAM

.c

.f
5...

'"
...

II

_ II
"-

08

UhwlF

LIQUID.

$=+4

II

<r

II
II

\W hw IF

04

...u~
'"u.

$0-2

II

0.6

~
-'
-'

'"u.;0

ARD o 02

" - II
,-'
\ II.

;0

:I:

II
II

02

II
II

u
0.2

0.4
STEAM

. . (33)

11

~L
"-

rb

If steam does not reach the base rock, rb =0. The

steam-zone volume relative to the total reservoir volume,
comprised of steam zone and underlying part, is expressed as

JUNE 1983

~R

STE

(e

27rh rdr+ J 27rh sl rdr . .......... (31)

Vb *= 7rr /

Ie

JI

OIL + WATER

Fig. a-Shape of the steam zone in a transparent radial

model experiment with A RD =0.36.

Volume and Average Thickness of a

Radial Steam Zone
The bulk volume of the steam zone is found from the
areal integration

V b .sl =

LATE STAGE

EARLY STAGE
ST2:

0.6

0.8

1.0

ZONE SHAPE FACTOR ARD

Fig. 9-Shape of the steam zone in a transparent radial

model experiment with ARD =0.87.
433

CUMULATIVE OILISTEAM RATIO

Np,s! M' OILITON STEAM
Qj

t.4

RELATIVE AVERAGE

1.2

STEAM ZONE THICKNESS

tist

EQUAL QUANTITY OF STEAM

INJECTED, Qj ; RESf' t. t0 5 ,
2. t0 5 , ETC. (TONS)

t.O

CASE 2

1.0

0.8

CASE t

0.8

\ 2 ~ re at maximum
\ \

0.6

II\..

1\\'-

0.6

~ \ , ..................

....................

\:"-..
\

0.4

0.4

,,~

- -- r -

"'...........
"'-,-"""""" __

"

"

0.2

510 TID, A RO =1.10

-P=20BAR

255 TID, ARD= .80

t28 TID, ARD' .55

0.2

0+---.,.......--.------,---,-----,
0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

SHAPE PARAMETER ARC

133 TID, ARD .30

to

TIME, YEARS

Fig. 10-Relative average steam-zone thickness as a function

of A RD'

Fig. ll-Cumulative oil/steam ratio for oil from a steam zone

as a function of time at various pressures and injection rates.

Inserting in this integral the functions for h s/h found in

Eqs. 27 and 28 and integrating numerically, we obtain
for Case 1

Nevertheless, steam override or steam-zone overlay

are frequently mentioned 10-15 and are in line with the expectations discussed in this paper. How the calculation
methods can be applied to field conditions is first shown
in the following two examples.

h
V
-f(A RD,
)
-sl-_ - b.sl
-h
Vb*

..................... (34)

Example 1. After 2 months' steam injection in a well,

and for Case 2

hH

Vb .51

r;

-=--=ARD-...j --;;-- erf - - ........... (35)

h
Vb *
8
ARD
Both functions have been plotted in Fig. 10 showing
straight-line relationships for values of ARD < 1. This
means that for cases where steam hardly reaches the base
rock we can use a very simple equation for the average
steam-zone thickness. In Case 1

the injection rate is only 50 ton/D. A spinner survey has

indicated that only the top 30% of the sand is taking
steam. Should the steam injection profile be improved,
and if so, how?
Injection takes place at a maximum injection pressure
of 1,150 psia because of backpressure into a reservoir of
98-ft thickness, of which the top 39 ft have an average
permeability of 1 darcy. The steam-zone shape parameter, A RD , is given by
A RD =

II

rsl
(

W,
SI,'

7r(Po -PsI)gh k st 'Pst

'/2

=0 20
.

hs/h=0.383ARD' ........................ (36)

and in Case 2

h,/h=0.626A RD . ........................ (37)

For the average of Cases 1 and 2

h 5 /h=0.5ARD'

.......................... (38)

Verification by Field Data

Published field data that unmistakably confirm the approximate calculations are scanty. The reason is that a
pure linear steamdrive is not likely to be applied in practice where horizontal formations or specially controlled
off-take distributions are rare.
434

For this example we have taken k 51 = 250 md and

wst.i =40 ton/D, assuming that at bottomhole conditions
10 ton/D of steam has condensed, flowing away through
the liquid zone. From Fig. 6 it follows that a situation in
which only 35 % of the formation is taking steam can be
expected.
It can thus be concluded that there is no thief-zone indication and that no mechanical changes in the well (low
perforation, tail pipe) will change the steam-zone shape
away from the wellbore.

Example 2. As a continuation of Example 1, we have a

situation, after 1 year of steam injection, in which the injection well is getting 250 tonlD of 96 % quality and the
steam-zone pressure (:=:: flowing bottomhole pressure) is
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

570 psia. What is the vertical sweep efficiency of the

steam zone if we assume radial (stable) steamdrive? How
can we improve sweep efficiency?
Assuming that the bottomhole steam-injection rate is
230 ton/D, taking into account 10-ton/D heat losses in
the wellbore, and that the entire 98 ft of reservoir
thickness has an average permeability of 1 darcy, the
steam zone shape factor ARD is given by

ARD = (

1.8x230x 10 7 /(24X3.6)
7f

x 820 x 10 x 30 xO.25 x20

'/2

=0.63.

The vertical sweep efficiency, E v' of a steam zone is

equal to the average steam-zone thickness divided by the
total thickness. From Eq. 38 (see Fig. 10) we may take

Ev =h,,1h == 0.5ARD =0.32.

As shown in Fig. 6, the well is now taking steam over
the entire height (h w1h =0 at A RD =0.6), but this does
not mean that 100% vertical sweep efficiency exists.
The sweep efficiency can be improved by increased injection rates and lower steam-zone pressures. Taking
400 ton/D at 283-psia steam-zone pressure and providing
for adequate injection and production facilities, the
steam-zone shape factor can be increased by a factor

375 x 20)
230 10

'/2

=1.8

and
ARD = 1.8 xO.63= 1.13.

Thus, as shown in Fig. 10, Ev =h,,1h=0.53 (60%

increase).

Some Field Observations

A replacement well drilled in the Schoonebeek field
some 22 m away from the original steam injector showed
that the steam-zone thickness was 11 m at that time. As
conditions were rather comparable to those of Example 2
(see Table 1), this field observation is in agreement with
the calculated vertical sweep efficiency. The comparison
is rough because the lateral shape of the steam zone in
this slightly dipping reservoir was unknown. 12
In the Tia Juana field 10 spinner surveys in 14 injection
wells during steam injection showed that frequently only
upper parts of reservoirs, involving 20% to 70% of formation thickness, were taking steam. With injection
rates between 50 and 200 ton/D per well, steam-zone
pressures between 150 and 400 psi, and average sand
permeabilities in the range of 1 to 3 darcies (k'1 =0.5 k),
a range of steam-zone shape factors (for a thickness
h = 118 ft) is given by

This practical range of steam-zone shape factors explains

the observation of liquid levels in the Tia Juana field,
which can be verified by using Figs. 6 and 7.
In the Inglewood field II considerable gravity override
JUNE 1983

has also been observed. Taking the reported figures

(w st .i=0.7xI080 BID, Pst=400 psi, h=50 ft, k st
assumed at 1.5 darcies), we obtain a steam-zone shape
factor ARD =0.43. The expected average steam-zone
thickness is then 0.5 A RDh = 11 ft.
This compares well with the 12 ft reported in observation Wells 271 and 304A. In addition, ARD =0.43 indicates that 75% of the well may take steam (see Fig. 6).
This figure also corresponds with reported observations.
In the Kern River field steamdrive project 15 two wells
have been cored showing 18 ft (5.5 m) of steamed-out
sand at the top of the formation. Although the actual
reservoir is dipping and the offtake distribution
presumably has been irregular, we can start with the
assumption of horizontal radial flow around the average
injector and, using q sr,i =500 BID dry steam, k st =2 darcies, and p=7l psia, calculate as average steam-zone
thickness
h,t =0.5ARDh= 15.7 ft.

This 15.7-ft average steam-zone thickness can certainly

be increased when making use of formation dip and
linear downdip movement of oil and water. The reported
21- to 30-ft expected vertical sweep seems to confirm
this. Note that if the layer thickness, h, =70 ft, the
steam-zone shape parameter will be ARD =0.45, indicating a theoretical vertical sweep efficiency of about
23 % uncorrected for dip, pattern, oil-viscosity effects,
etc.

Steam-Zone Growth as a Function of Time

Since 1959, formulas have been published (e.g., Refs. 8
and 9) that relate injected heat, heat lost to cap- and base
rock, and lateral extent of a steam zone with constant
thickness as a function of time. Although the original
publications regarded the reservoir thickness as steamzone thickness, it is rather easy to adapt the formulas to
this case with a constant average steam-zone thickness
and averaged thermal constant for caprock and reservoir
rock underlying the steam zone. Linear averaging yields
2A2P2 C2 = (APC)caprock

+ (Apc) underlying rock,

. . . . (39)

We can thus use the formula

where

QHt =sum of QHJ and heat in caprock+underlying

rock=QHi(l-ip )' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (42)

QHi=cumulative heat injected=wsr,iHstt, ..... (43)

i p = fraction

of heat injected but unused (e.g., produced, escaped in hot water tongues, etc.),
435

508 M
J = 1
.4
0. 8 617
0.5989

0,85.42
0.3273

0.605'
0.0

0.8513

0.8530
0.3270

0.6424
0.0

1
Z

...0....5.~.n ...

.1

Q.8TU

o.~~~&

0.6668

0.4073

.. ......3

254M

.. 2
"'0;8728
0.7106

0..7.580
0.0980

0.85130.8530
0.5631

0.3270

0.8611

0.5989.

0.8542
0.3273

0.0

10
0.0
0 ..0.....

0.0

0.0

0.0

.0 .0.

....L

251:M

Iii i STEAMZONE
- - STEAM ZONE CONTOUR AT CAPROCK
-

STEAM ZONE CONTOUR AT BASEROCK

---}130 0 F CONTOURS IN UPPER BLOCK

____
LOWER

Fig. 12-Shape of the steam zone and a hot-water tongue calculated with a simulator for a linear drive with viscous oil (Field Prototype 2) represented by 10 x 5 x 2 blocks, three injectors, and three producers; numbers indicate steam (gas) saturation in
each gridblock.

and
T

dimensionless time

can easily calculate the mass ratio of cumulative oil produced from a steam zone and the cumulative injection of
steam:

By elimination, we obtain from Eqs. 39 through 44 the

bulk volume of the steam zone
PIC'

0.85 ~ 4AP 2 c 2
( Tsr - Tf ) ( 1 + - - f(ARD)

t)

(Plc,h)2

....................... (48)
The external radius of the steam zone will be
r e(t)=(Vb.sr!7rhsr) '/' ...................... (46)
In practice we have sufficient accuracy if we replace Eq.
40 by an empirically found relationship:
F](T)=(l+0.85J;")-I . ................... (47)

This allows us to obtain rather simple equations for

engineering calculations, as shown in the next section.

Oil/Steam Ratios for Oil From Steam Zones

One of the yardsticks that has come into use in recent
years is the oil/steam ratio, which is particularly useful
to assess economic limits. From the equations given, we
436

where f(ARD)=h.,./h (see Fig. 10). When ARD < 1, we

may even take f(A RD) "" 0.5 A RD .
With Eq. 48 we have calculated six curves, with three
injection rates and two steam-zone pressures for the second field prototype. The plots of these curves are shown
in Fig. 11. They demonstrate how the cumulative
oil/steam ratio can range from Fosr =0.1 to Fosr =0.7
Ibm/Ibm after injection of 300,000 tons of dry steam in
the same reservoir as a result of simply using different
injection rates and pressures.
Sometimes operational conditions (e.g., high oil
viscosity) will not permit the reservoir engineer to op-'
timize between such wide ranges. On the other hand, in
petroleum engineering practice, the range of values for
parameters in Eq. 48 is much wider than that shown in
Fig. 11.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Comparison With Results of

Mathematical Reservoir Simulators
Calculations of shapes and volumes of steam zones have
also been made with various numerical simulators
available within the Shell Group. It was possible to
simulate the steamdrive with realistic steam-zone shapes
in accordance with the theoretically determined ones.
However, the degree of success depends on the choice of
shape and number of gridblocks and on the use of adequate pseudocapillary pressure and relative permeability
functions. These functions usually refer to segregated
flow of oil, water, and steam. For further definition of
pseudo functions see Ref. 7. For gridblock-averaged
relative permeabilities we used straight-line relationships
between relative permeability and saturation. The corresponding endpoint values of these curves (Sew' S org'
Sorw, Sgr=O, k o , kw, kg) can be taken from representative core measurements.
With Intercomp's steam flood simulator 7 we also obtained the steam-zone shape under conditions comparable to those of the examples in this paper. For the
linear steamdrive we used a two-dimensional (2D) vertical (lOx 1 x 5) and a three-dimensional (3D)
(lOx5x2) gridblock system with Aw=0.2 and
M*=O.1 and M*=0.5 (see Field Prototypes 1 and 2 in
Table 1).
Apart from a waggle in the progression of the steam
front because of the coarseness of the grid and a resulting
oscillation of the slope, the 2D computer runs produced
the theoretical slope of the steam front both for light oil
(tg m=0.230% for waggling) and for viscous oil
(tg m=O.1 30%).
The 3D computer runs confirmed the experimental
results of Figs. 3 and 4-straight contours for the steam
zone in light oil and lateral tonguing of steam in viscous
oil (see Fig. 12). The development of one steam tongue
clearly was enhanced by the preceding development of
one hot-water tongue.
The 3D runs were much more realistic and favorable
than 2D cross-sectional runs, because the hot-water
tongue gave rapid heat breakthrough and kept the producer hot and on high productivity, needed to keep the
injectivity of steam high.
Apart from side effects resulting from the coarse gridblocks, no grid-orientation effects (for an example see
Ref. 7) occurred. Only the start of viscous tonguing is
noticeable (Fig. 12).
Computer runs for radial steam-zone growth around an
injection well could be made with the values of
parameters A RD , M*, etc., from Table 1, yielding
steam-zone shapes in accordance with the theoretically
calculated ones. In the direct vicinity of the wellbore
some discrepancies could occur, partly the result of approximations used for the well-model options, partly
because of inaccuracy of the analytical calculation
method since vertical flow potential gradients cannot
always be ignored.
The mathematical simulators are a powerful tool for
complete prediction of oil production performance as a
result of steam injection because of their ability to integrate complicated flow processes. By analyzing computer runs with the approximate calculation method
presented, however, we could improve our assumptions
JUNE 1983

and gridding to obtain more reliable output from the

mathematical simulation of steam-injection processes.

Conclusions
1. The approximate calculation methods presented
here can be used for estimates of steam-zone shape and
of oil recovery from steam zones with linear and radial
steamdrive in oil reservoirs.
2. A steam zone overlying oil is a phenomenon caused
by gravity. This basic phenomenon will be pronounced if
the initial oil viscosity in a reservoir is high.
The basic steam-zone shape (i.e., formed when flow
potential gradients in the hot liquid zone are negligible)
is governed by the value of a dimensionless group of
parameters named the steam-zone shape factor A LD or
A RD for linear or radial flow, respecti vel y .
3. When oil viscosities become high (e. g., over 1,000
cp at reservoir conditions, bypassing of oil by steam in
tongues may become predominant, as is indicated by a
pseudo steam/oil mobility ratio larger than unity.
4. Verification of basic steam-zone shapes as a function of steam-zone shape factor has been successful in
laboratory experiments and in the field.
5. The basic shape of steam zones could be reproduced
in mathematical simulators. Now that we know the approximate shape of steam zones, the proper selection of
gridblock numbers, sizes, and other parameters in
numerical simulators is much easier, and as a result it is
possible to make much better use of mathematical
simulators for steam flood processes in, for example,
heterogeneous and irregularly produced reservoirs.

Nomenclature
A LD = dimensionless group for scaling a linear
steam zone
A RD = dimensionless group for scaling a radial
steam zone
b = width of reservoir (in linear cases), ft (m)
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB (m 3/ m 3)
c = heat capacity, Btu/Ibm/OF [l/(kg'K)]
E v = vertical sweep efficiency
Ii = fraction of heat of steam injected, not used
to heat up reservoir rock
Ip = unused fraction of heat of wet steam
F 1(7)
ratio of heat in steam zone to sum of heat
in steam zone and heat in caprock and
underlying rock
Fosr = oil/steam ratio, Ibm/Ibm (kg/kg)
Fos r.i = local internal oil/steam ratio, Ibmllbm
(kg/kg)
g = acceleration by gravity, ft/sec 2 (m/s2)
_ h = reservoir thickness, ft (m)
h.\./ = areally averaged steam-zone thickness,
ft (m)
H = enthalpy of steam at Ts/ relative to Tf ,
Btu/Ibm (J/kg)
k = effective rock permeability, darcies (m 2)
m = slope of steam/liquid contact, rad
M = mobility ratio
M* = mobility ratio at temperature Tf
Nps/ = cumulative oil displaced from steam zone,
cu ft (m 3)
437

p = absolute pressure, psi a (Pa)

QHf = cumulative heat contained in steam zone,
Btu (1)
QHi = cumulative heat injected, Btu (J)

QHt = cumulative heat in steam zone and caprack

and underlying rock, Btu (1)
r = radius, ft (m)

s = skin factor of well

S = saturation
t = time, seconds
T = temperature, OF (K)
Tf = original formation temperature, of (K)
Vb = bulk volume of steam zone and underlying
reservoir volume, cu ft (m 3 )
Vb ,t = bulk volume of steam zone, cu ft (m 3)
w = mass flow rate, Ibm/sec (kg/s)
x = linear distance, ft (m)
a = formation dip, rad
A = heat conductivity, Btu/ft-oF-s (1lm'K's)
fl = viscosity, cp (Pa' s)
fl * = viscosity at elevated temperature, cp (Pa' s)
p = density, Ibm/cu ft (g/m 3)
7 = dimensionless time
</>
porosity
<P = flow potential in pressure units, psia (Pa)

Subscripts
b = bottom endpoint of steam zone at x b or r b;
bulk in Vb
D = dimensionless
e = top endpoint of steam zone at Xe or r e
em = external radius of model
I = formation
g = gas
i = initial, but in OSR i a characteristic val ue
i = at injection end
L = linear
0 = oil
r = irreducible
R = radial
sf = steam
t = total
w = water, but well in rw
= at Point I (XI or rl); in PICI (heat
capacity), formation rock
2 = at Point 2 (X2 or r2); in P2C2 (heat
capacity), overburden or underburden

Acknowledgments
I thank the management of the Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Praduktie Laboratorium Rijswijk for their
permission to publish these results. I also thank J. W.
Spijker and his staff, who carried out most of the scaled
laboratory experiments, and J. van Heiningen, who
strongly stimulated the experimental work leading to the
formulation of the methods presented.

References
I. Dupuit. J.: Etudes theoriques et practiques sur Ie mouvemenr des
eaux, Dumod, Paris (1863).

438

2. Dietz, D.N: "A Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Encroaching and Bypassing Edge Water," Proc .. Kon. Ned. Akad.
Wetensch, Amsterdam (1953) 856, 83-92.
3. Rhee, S.W. and Doscher, T.M.: "A Method for Predicting Oil
Recovery by Steamflooding Including the Effects of Distillation
and Gravity Override," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1978), 249-66.
4. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Steam Injection Theories-A Unified Approach," paper SPE 10746 presented at the 1982 SPE California
Regional Meeting, San Francisco, March 24-26.
5. Thermal Recol'ery Techniques. Reprint Series, SPE Dallas (1972)
10.
6. "Secondary and Tertiary Oil Recovery Processes," Oklahoma Interstate Oil Commission (1975).
7. Coats, K.H., Dempsey, J.R., and Henderson, J.H.: "The Use of
Vertical Equilibrium in Two-Dimensional Simulation of ThreeDimensional Reservoir Performance, Soc. Pel. Eng. J. (March
1971) 63-71.
8. Marx, J. W. and Langenheim, R.H.: "Reservoir Heating by Hot
Fluid Injection," Trans., AIME (1959) 216,312-15.
9. Mandl, G. and Volek, C.W.: "Heat and Mass Transport in
Steam-Drive Processes," Soc. Pel. Eng. 1. (March 1969) 59-79.
10. de Haan, H.J. and Schenk, L.: "Performance Analysis of a Major
Steam Drive Project in the Tia Juana Field, Western Venezuela,"
1. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1969) 111-19.
II. Blevins, T.R., Aseltine, T.J., and Kirk, R.S.: "Analysis of a
Steam Drive Project, Inglewood Field, California," 1. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1969) 1141-50.
12. van Dijk, c.: "Steam Drive Project in the Schoonebeek Field,
The Netherlands." J. Pet. Tech. (March 1968) 295.
13. Shutler, N.D.: "Numerical Three Phase Model of the TwoDimensional Steamflood Process," Soc. Pel. Eng. 1. (Dec.
1970),405-417.
14. Baker, P.E.: "Effect of Pressure and Rate on Steam Zone
Development in Steamtlooding." Soc. Pel. Eng. J. (Oct. 1973)
274-84.
15. Blevins. T.R. and Billingsley, R.H.: "The Ten-Pattern
Steamflood, Kern River Field. California," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1975) 1505-14.

APPENDIX

The Pseudomobility Ratio

for Oil/Steam, M*
The combination of flow and material balance equations
yielded a pseudomobility ratio in Eq, II

M*

flo *kstp st W o(x e )

, , , , , , , , , , , , , .. , . , (A-I)

flstkoP 0 WIt (x b)

In the first approximation (e.g" with "stable" steam

fronts) we can take
flo*"" flo at T H ,

. , " " " " ' , . . . . , , .

(A-2)

provided that the time to heat up oil at the front is ample

and the hot -water viscosity is negligible, Otherwise
flo * > flo (at T H ), which easily may lead to cases of
viscous bypassing with M* > I, more suitable for computerized calculation. The ratio wa/wlt is an internal
oil/steam ratio, which we can write with the aid of a
steam-front velocity Vf as

Vf(Soi/Boi -Sor/Bor)</>bhpo
VfP

ICI

(TIt - Tf )bh/Hst(l-Ii)

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

or

becomes larger than unity, viscous tonguing may

become significant. In our examples we considered all
heat contained in hot water (condensed steam) as lost and
included it in!i'

SI Metric Conversion Factors

We thus have

M*=lI-o*:stPst . Fos r,i ,

II-st oPo

. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . (A-4)

The stability of a steamdrive in the field, laboratory experiments, and mathematical reservoir simulators will
depend on proper control of the parameters in M*, with
the purpose of keeping M* < 1. The symbol!i denotes
the fraction, at point x b, of the heat inflow, which is not
used to heat reservoir rock (e.g., that lost in hot water
and to cap and base rock in the area x b to x e).
With low values of J; we can aim at relatively high
oil/steam ratios, by using high injection rates, for example. However, if high local Fos r ,i values imply that M*

JUNE 1983

bar
bbl
cp
cu ft
C
ft

x
x
x
x
x

of

Ibm
ton

x
x

1.0*
E+02
E-Ol
1.589873
E-03
1.0*
E-02
2.831 685
C+273.15
E-Ol
3.048*
(OF +459.67)/1.8
E-Ol
4.535924
E+03
1.0*

'"ConversIon factor is exact.

kPa
m3
Pa s
m3
K

m
K

kg
kg

SPEJ

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers offtce July 28, 1977
Paper accepted for publication Dec. 2, 1982. RevIsed manuscrtpt received Feb. 25,
1983. Paper (SPE 6788) first presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Oct. 9-12

-+39