Sf?
IE 6728
Pattern Configuration Effect
on Steamflood Performance
Chieh Chu, SPE-AIME, Gwy 011CO.
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of
pattern configuration on steamflood performance.
The study is composed of two parts: the first paxt
deals with irregular five-spot patterns, and the
second part compares the relative merits of five-spot
vs inverted ‘7-,9-, and 13-spot patterns.
Steam injection and oil production wells in a steam
displacement project in principle should be drilled
according to regular patterns. However, it is often
more convenient in actual field operations to drill
wells in locations that result in irregular pattexn
shapes. Irregularly shaped five-spot patterns result in
unequal distances between injectors and producers.
Injected steam tends to channel through the reservoir
preferentially toward some producers rather than
others. The areal sweep efficiency is reduced and oil
recovery suffers. How much loss in oil recovery
results when some wells are placed away from their
ideal locations? The first part of this research tries to
answer this question. Three cases were studied: (1) a
single producer off-pattern, (2) a single injector off-
pattern, and (3) several wells off-pattern in adjacent
patterns. Note that the off-pattern wells studied here
refer to wells that are moved away from their regular
pattern locations, not to extra wells existing inside
regular patterns.
Steamflood in practice have been conducted in
five-spot patterns,] inverted seven-spot patterns,2 and
0149.212W7WOOS-S728$W.25
01979 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
I t
This two-part simulation study shows (1) that a well in a five-spot pattern, situated
aw~y from its pattern location, acould cause a substantial [OSSin oil production, and
(2) that a five-spot pattern is superior in performance to an inverted 7-, 9-, or 13-
spot pattern.
SEPTEMBER 1979
inverted 13-spot patterns.3 A well-accepted principle
is that in a displacement project, the ratio of the
number of producers to the number of injectors
should equal the ratio of average ~njectivity to
average productivity. The extremely high steam-to-
oil mobility ratio favors high producer/injector
ratio. The producer/injector ratios of five-spot and
inverted 7-, 9-, and 13-spot pat terns are one, two,
three, and five, respectively. One must determine
which pattern configuration is the best cimice for
steamflooding. The second part of this study
determines the best configuration by comparing
steamflood performance of the four different
configurateions.
This research was conducted using a nine-point
steam model where fluids and heat are allowed to
flow diagonally as well as in the x and y directions.
The formulation of a nine-point, finite-difference
scheme for cold displacement processes was
discussed by Yanosik and McCracken.’ The method
involves simultaneous calculation of the pressures
and saturations for a grid block and its eight
neighbors; this determines the flow terms in ail
directions implicitly. Here, a modified version of the
nine-point scheme was incorporated into the steam
model reported by Coats.5 The magnitudes of the
diagonal flow terms were calculated based on
pressures and saturations existing at the start of the
time step and then included explicitly as known
quantities during the calculations of pressures and
1101
 . .

TABLE 1-ROCK ND RESERVOIRPROPERTIES Choice of pattern sizes of various pattern con-

?
figurations was such that the drainage area of each
Sand thickness, ft(m) 60 (18.3)
Porosity, YO 35 producer equaled 2.5 acres in all cases. The steam
Permeability,md 3,000 (homo. injection rate was set proportional to the pattern size.
geneoueand The pattern sizes, steam rates, and other operatin~
isotropic) variables are shown in Table 2. All producers were
Initial reservoirpressure,psia
(abeolute kPa) 50 (345)
assumed to contirme producing without any
InitJalreservoirtemperature, ‘F (“C) 75 (23.8) operational changes after steam breakthrough.
Initial oil saturation, ?40 50 Three-dimensional grids were used throughout this
Initial water saturation, % 50 study. The use of two vertical layers was considered
011viscosity,cp(Pa.s) essential to ac~ount for the steam override effect. In
75°F (23.8”C) 2,000 (2)
500”F(260”Cl) 2 (0.002) the first part of the study, a 13 x 13 x 2 grid was
used to simulate four contiguous five-spot patterns.
saturations at the end of the timestep. This modified In the second part of the work, one-quarter of a five-
approach was both correct and efficient and was also spot or nine-spot pattern was simulated using “a
computationally stable. Almost perfect mass and 7x7x 2grid. A13x9x2 grid was usedto
heat balances were obtained easily. The grM- simulate one-half of the 7- or 13-spot pattern, which
orientation effect was reduced effectively, which consists of two akernative quarters juxtaposed
enabled irregular pattern shapes to be studied. (See against each other along a slant edge. A!l boundary
the Appendix for an expanded discussion on the grid- blocks have half-lengths in these grids.
orientation effect.)
IrregularFive-Spot Patterns
Simulation Input Data A Single Producer Off-Pattern
The reservoir rock and fluid properties used here are Four contiguous 2.5-acre, inverted fi’(e-spot pat-
given in Table 1. Water/oil and gas/oil relative terns, forming a 10-acre square with a !Jroducer at its
permeability curves are shown in Fig. 1. Two dif- center, were used to simulate the case of a single off-
ferent rock compressibilities were used. The first part pattern producer in a field of otherwise regular
of this work used a rock compressibility of 3 x 10-s patterns. The producer at the center was allowed to
psi-i, which was higher than the range of ex- move from its ideal pattern location, either laterally
perimental values of Sawabini et af.b for the un- toward another producer or diagonally toward an
consolidated Arkosic sands from the Los Angeles injector. Two cases were studied in which the lateral
basin. The second part of this study used a value of movement of the producer was one-sixth and one-
3 X 10-4 psi-l, which was within the range of third the length of one side of a regular 2.5-acre, five-
Sawabini’s data. The use of different rock com- spot pattern; that is, the lateral off-pattern distances
pressibilities led to different oil-recovery curves, ” were 56.6 and 113.1 ft, and were labeled Cases L/6
especially in the early life of the project. This should and L/3, respectively. Similarly, two cases were
not affect the comparison of various cases as long as studied in which the diagonal movement of the
the same rock compressibility was used when producer was about one-sixth and one-third the
length of the diagonal of a regular 2,5-acre, five-spot

WATER
, ,*J’& 75QF 4d
o
o 0.2 0.+ 06 08
WATERSATURATION LIQUiDSaturation
e. Water/oil b. Gae/oii

Fig. 1 - Water/oii and gas/oil relative permeability curves.

1102 JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

. .

TABLE 2- STEAMFLOODOPERATING VARIABLES

Inverted Inverted Inverted

Five-Spot Seven43pot Nine-Spot 13-spot
Numberof producersper injector 1 2 3 5
Pattern size, acres (rr?) 2.5 (10 116) 5.0 (20 232) 7.5 (30 349) 12.5 (50 561)
Steam rate, WD (m3/d) 300 (48) 600 (95) 900 (143) 1500 (238)
Steam InjectIon pressure,psla (kPa) 200(1378)
Steam quelity, YO 70
Steam stimulation schedule At the beginningof the project and at the end of the first 6 months.
Each injection period iasts 10 days, foiiowed by 3 days of soaking.
Stimulation rate is 1,200 B/D(190.8 m3/d).
Productionrate Determined by deliverability based on a productionweli pressureof
14.7 psia (101 kPa) and euffkient pump capacity to kesp the iiquids
pumpedoff.
Completion interval injection well - iower one.haif.
Productionweii - entire intervai.

pattern. The diagonal off-pattern distam ;s in these
two cases were 80.0 and 160.0 ft and were labeled
Cases D/6 and D/3, respectively. The case for
regular patterns in the absence of off-pattern wells
was labeled Case A. These’labels are similar to those
used by Prats et al.,7 who studied waterflood per-
formance of irregular patterns.
Lateral movement of Producer PI shortens its
distance from Injectors 11 and 12 on two sides in the
direction of its movement (Case L/6, Fig. 2a). The
thermal effect of the injected steam in these two
injectors reaches the producer sooner than in Case A
for the regular patterns. The effect of lateral
movement of Producer PI increases its recovery
more than in Case A. Further increase in the lateral
off-pattern distance (Case L/3) shows ~ incremed
oil recovery in the early part of the project. Oil
recovery, however, falls off later because steam
breakthrough occurs earlier in Producer PI in Case
L/3 than Case L/6, drastically reducing the oil
production rate (Fig. 2a),
Shortening the distance between Well P1 and
Injectors 11 and 12 draws steam toward Well PI at a
faster rate. This occurs at the expense of all other
producers surrounding Wells 11 and 12, especially
Producer P2. Earlier breakthrough of steam in W611

TIME, YEARS

‘“~

CUMULATIVE STEAM INJECTION, PV CUMULATIVE STEAM INJECTION, PV ‘

a. PI b. Overali
Fig. 2- Effect of iaterai movement of Produc8r P1 on oii recovery.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1103

 TABLE 3- EFFECT OF A SINGLE OFF-PATTERNPRODUCERON PERFORMANCE
OF FOUR NEIGHBORING INVERTED FIVE-SPOTPATTERNS

oil Lossin 011

Off-Pattern Recovery Recovery Cumulative Lossin Oil
Dletance (?AO original (% original oil ProductIon
Case
.— (ft) oil in place) 011In place) (thoueand bbl) (thousandbbl)
A 62.2 606.8
5:,6 59.7 20.7
;: 113.1 53.1 ;7 w 74.1
D16 80,0 57.5 468,1 38.7
D/3 160.0 51.4 {07S3 416.7 86,1
Bask Cumulativesteam injection = :.4 PV (5 years of Injection)

PI reduces the areal sweep efficiency. Thus, the
overall oil recovery of Well PI and its eight neigh-
boring producers is reduced in Case L/6. Recovery
decreases further in Case L/3 as the lateral
movement doubles (Fig. 2b).
The pattern oil recoveries of Cases L/6, L/3, and
A were compared at the time when the cumulative
steam injection reached 1.4 PV. This corresponds to
5 years of injection, at which time th: instantaneous
steam-injection/oil-production ratio was about 8.0
bbl/bbl. The comparison showed that the loss in oil
recovery in Case L/6 was 2.5oi’ooriginal oil in place in
the four inverted five-spot patterns surrounding the
off-pattern producer. The original oil in place for the
four patterns (totaling 10 acres 60 ft thick, 3513’o
porosity, and 50V0 initial oil saturation) is 814,600
bbl. The loss in oil production is 20,700 bbl when the
producer is off-pattern laterally for a distance of 56.6
ft. The loss in oil recovery for Case L/3 is 9.1070,
which corresponds to an alarmingly high loss in oil
production of 74,100 bbl resulting from lateral
movement of 113.1 ft for the producer (Table 3).
Diagonal movement of Well P1 for a distance of
80 ft toward Well 11 (Case D/6) gives a considerable
increase in oil recovery at Well P 1 compared with
Case A (Fig. 3a]. Doubling the off-pattern distance
toward the injector, however, shortens the distance
between Wells 11and PI to such an extent that steam
breakthrough occurs very early. Oii recovery in Case
D/3 falls below that in Case D/6 shortly after 1 year
of injection and becomes even lower than that in
Case A after 4 years (Fig. 3a).
The flow of steam preferentially toward Well ?1
exerts an adverse effect on the oil production of tie
three other producers surrounding Well 11, especially
Well P3 on the other side of Well 11 (Fig. 3b). The

CASEA CAS\ D/6

o o~ —
‘~ — 7
#l $ pul H
PIo
OPI
o— — 0 0 0

~ ? #’$
+’ I
0
o— 0 —0 o— o—

TIME, Y:ARS TIME, YEARS

I
“~~ ‘“~

15
CUfULATIVE STEAM lN\:CTION, PV

a. PI h. OveraH

Fig. 3- Effect of diagonal movement of Producer PI on oil recovery.

1104 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

overall oil recovery of Well P 1 and its eight neigh-
boring producers suffers a loss in Case D/6. The loss
is even greater as the off-pattern dlsttmce is doubled
in Case D/3 (Fig. 3b).
Losses in oil recovery for Cases D/6 and D/3 when
cumulative steam injection is 1.4 PV is 4.7oi’oand
10.8%’0original oil in place, respectively. A diagonal
movement of 80 ft results in a loss of 38,700 bbl oil
production, whereas doubling the diagonal
movement to 160 ft increases the loss to as much as
88,100 bbl (Table3).
The loss in oil production can be expresstxh as a
function of the off-pattern distance of the producer,
regardless of whether it is lateral, diagonal, or in
some intermediate directions. On the average, the
loss in oil production can reach 20,000 bbl when a
producer is off-pattern by a distance of 50 ft. This
loss can be increased to 54,000 bbl if the off-pattern
distance is increased to 100 ft (Fig. 4a).
A Single Injector Off-Pattern
The effect of a single off-pattern injector in a field of
otherwise regular patterns was studied using four
contiguous normal 2.5-acre, five-spot patterns that
form a 10-acre square with an injector at the center.
This injector was allowed to move laterally toward
another injector in Cases L/6 and L/3, and
diagonally toward a producer in Cases D/6 and D/3.
The case for regular patterns was again designated
Case A.
Lateral movement of Well 11 shortens its distance
from the two producers, P1 and P2, in front of its
movement (Fig. 5a). Oil recovery in Well P1 or P2 is
greater in Case L/6 than in Case A. Doubling the
off-pattern distance in Case L/3 increases the
recovery even more. Lateral movement of Well 11
increases its distance from Wells P3 and P4 (Fig. 5b).
The oil recovery in these two producers therefore is
reduced. This reduction is more severe in Case L/3
than in Case L/6. The total of the two counteracting
effects leads to an overall pattern oil recovery that is
higher during the first 4 years of injection and lower
Off -Pat krn DistanCe, f t
a. Producer
Fig. 4- Loss in oil production as a function of off-pattern distance of a well.
SEPTEMBER1979
at a later stage (Fig. SC).The increase or decrease in
oil recovery most of the time is greater in Case ‘~/3
than in Case L/6.
The loss in oil recovery in Case L/6 at the end of S
years of injection is 3. i 070original oil in place inside
the four normal 2.5-acre, five-spot patterns .
surrounding the injector (Table 4). The loss in oil
recovery in Case L/3 is 5.0070original oil in place. In
other words, a lateral movement of the injector for a
distance of 56.6 ft leads to a loss of 25,500 bbl oil
production. The loss is increased to 40,800 bbl when
the off-pattern distance is doubled to 113.1 ft.
.Diagonal movement of Well 11 toward Well P1
leads to an increase in oil recovery for that producer
in Case D/6 (Fig. 6a). Doubling the off-pattern
distance in Case D/3 at first increases the oil
recovery. However, too close a distance between
Wells 11and P1 causes an early steam breakthrough,
and oil recovery suffers from that time on (Fig. 6a).
The distances between Well 11 and the two
producers, P2 and P3, on two sides have been in-
creased along with the distance between Wells 11 and
P4. Oil recovery in all these producers thus decreases
(Figs. 6b and-6c). The total effect on the overall OU
recovery for the four pattern producers is that tht
recovery is slightly higher than in Case A within 3
years of injection, but is considerably lower at a later
stage (Fig. 6d).
Losses in oil recovery in Cases D/6 and D/3 are 5.2
and 10.S070original oil in place, respectively (Table
4). This means that when an injector is moved
diagonally toward a producer for a distance of 80 ft,
a loss in oil production of 42,900 bbl results after 5
years of injection. This loss increases to 80,100 bbl
when the off-pattern distance in the diagonal
directiori is increased to 160 ft. ~
The loss in oil production can be expressed as a
function of the off-pattern distance of the injector,
regardless of the direction along which the injector is
moved. On the average, the loss in oil production can
reach 25,000 bbl when the injector is off-pattern for a
distance of 50 ft. The loss can amoul,t to 46,000 bbl
, ,
! ,
59 w [M ““
Otl-patt%rn Distance. it Off-pattern Oist.mco, ft
b. Injector c. Produceror Injector
1105
 TABLE 4- EFFECT OF A SINGLE OFF-PATTERNINJECTOR 9N PERFORMANCE
OF FOUR NEIQHBORINQ PRODUCERS

011 Loss in 011

OffsPattern Recovery Recovery Cumulative Loss in Oil
Distance (?40 original (% original oil Production
Case (ft) 011in place) 011in place) (thousand bbl) (thousandbbl)
A 62.0 505.3 —
%06 3:1 499.8 2;5
:: 113.1 2: 5.0 464.5 40.8
D16 80.0 56.8 462,4 42.9
D13 160.0 51.5 :0!5 419,2 66.1

Basis:Cumulative steam injection = 1.4 PV(5 years of injection)

for an off-pattern distance of 100 ft (Fig. 4b).
The average loss in production caused by off-
pattern movement of a producer does not differ
much from the average loss for an injector, as long as
the off-pattern distance is within 100 ft. These two
averages therefore can be averaged again. This
average of the averages gives the loss in oil
production as a function of the off-pattern distance
of a well, regardless of whether it is a p:oducer or an
injector. This leads to the conclusion that a loss in oil
production of 22,000 bbl can result when a well,
whether a producer or an injector, is moved from its
pattern location a distance of 50 ft. This loss can
increase to as much as 50,000 bbl if the off-pattern
distance is increased to 100 ft (Fig. 4c).
Multiple Injectors and Producers Off-F”attern
It is logical to assume that the effects of off-pattern
wells are cumulative if these wells are not close to
each other. What happens if off-pattern producers
and injectors occur in the same pattern or adjacent
patterns as is usually the case in actual field
operations? This study again uses four contiguous,
normal 2.5-acre, five-spot patterns that form a 10-
acre square (Fig. 7a). Case A again refers to regular
patterns in the absence of off-pattern wells. Case 1W
has one well off-pattern, which is the injector at the
center, and is moved one step up and one step to the
left, where one step covers a distance of 56.6 ft. This
case then is the same as Case D/6 for the off-pattern
injector mentioned above. Case 3W has two ad-
ditional wells off-pattern – one injector and one
producer. The selecticm of aciditional wells to be
moved from their pattern locations and the direction
and number of movement steps were determined
randomly, However, three restrictions existed. First,
the four corner wells of the 10-acre square are fried,
leaving only nine movable wells, including Well 11,
which already has been moved. Second, the four edge
wells can only move along their respective edges.
These two restrictions were considered necessary to
keep intact the 10-acre, four-pattern area, even
though all patterns within this area could become
more and more irregular. Third, the possible number
of steps for the movement is limited to zero, one, and
two so that the off-pattern distance will not be un-

TIUf, WARS T[Mf, l[ARS

,?s4 5 ,?34 >
13
I
I

CUiiLAllVt STUM llIJiCIIf*l, PV CU~ULAIIVf SlfAM lNJ~CIION, PV “” CUWJLAIWi Sii Aft M Cl -W, PV

a. P1 and P2 b. P3 and P4 co Overall

Fip 6- Effect of lateral movement of Injector 11on oil recavery.

1106 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

 TIME,YEARS TIME, YEARS
I 2 3 4 9 I 2 3 4 5
1 1 I I I I I I 1

-~
0$ 10 15 15

CUMULATIVE STEAM INJECTION, PV CUMULATIVE STEAM INJKIKJN, PV

a. PI b. P2 and P3

TIME, YEARS TIME, YEARS

I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5
I I I t 1 # I 1

CUMULATIVE STEAM INJECTICIN, PV CUMULATIVE STEAM IMJECTIOH, PV

c. P4 d. Overall

Fig. 6- Effect of diagonal movement of injector 11on oil recovery.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1107

 CAE 5W
#

I 2
TIME,YEARS
3“ 4 5
El ‘#f”

0
0

I I I 1

CUiilLATIVE STEAM INJECTION, PV

Number of off-pattern wells
a. Overall 011recovery b. Loss In 011production vs number
of off-pattern wells
Fig. 7 - Effect of multlple off-pattern wells.

?1 ?2

/11

TIME. YEARS TIME, YEARS

‘“~

CUMULATIVE STEAM INJECTION, PV

b. 13.spot
Fig. 8- 011recoveryof center-of-edgeand corner producersin an inverted9- or 13-spotpattern.

1108 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

duly long. The two additional wells in Case 3W
involved moving Well 12 left two steps and Well P4
right zero steps and up two steps. Case 5W includes
two more off-pattern wells, and soon (Fig. 7a).
The movement of an additional producer or in-
jector away from its ideal location shortens its
distance from some wells while at the same time
increasing its distance from some other wells. The
overall oil recovery of the four patterns involved
could increase in the early life of the steamflood, but
recovery invariably decreases later. The effect of
moving additional wells off-pattern, however,
decreases as the number of existing off-pattern wells
increases (Fig. 7a). In the later life of the project, the
reduction in oil recovery from Case A to Case 1W,
where the first well has been moved off-pattern is
almost the same as the reduction from Case 1W to
Case 5W, with four additional wells moved off-
pattern. The movement of more wells off-pattern
produces even fewer additional effects.
The loss in oil recovery when cumulative steam
injection is 1.4 PV was 5.2%’ofor one off-pattern
well, 9.6070for four additional off-pattern wells, and
11.6qo for another four off-pattern wells (Table 5).
The corresponding losses in oil production are
42,900,78,600, and 94,500 bbl, respectively.
The loss in oil production as a function of the
number of off-pattern wells shows a curve with a
diminishing slope as the number of off-pattern wells
increases (Fig. 7b). Moving one well off-pattern in a
neighborhood composed of regular patterns could
cause a sizable loss in oil recovery. This loss may not
be as significant if an additional well is moved off-
pattem in a neighborhood composed of patterns that
already were irregular.
The loss in oil production for Case 5W with five
wells off-pattern (78,600 bbl, Table 5) is less than the
loss in oil production for Case D/3 for one producer
off-pattern (88, 100 bbl, Table 3). A single well off-
pattern a great distance could damage steamflood
performance more than several off-pattern wells.
Comparison of Five-Spot With Inverted 7-,
9-, and 13-Spot Patterns
An inverted nine-spot pattern differs from a five-spot
in that an additional well is drilled at the center of
each side of the square pattern. The distance between
this center-of-edge Producer P1 and the Injector 11 is
only 1/fi or 0.707 of the distance between corner
TABLE 5- EFFECT OF MULTIPLE OFF.PATTERN WELLS ON PERFORMANCE
OF FOUR CONTIGUOUS NORMAL FIVE.SPOTPATTERNS
011
Number of Recovery
Off-Pafterne (Yo orlglnal ~ (% original
Ca$e Wells 011in place)
A o 62.0
56.8
:; :. 53.1
5W 5 52,4
50.7
z ; 50.4
Basis Cumulative eteam Injection = 1.4 PV (5 years of Injection)
SEIWE!MBER1979
Producer P2 and Injector 11. The steam injected at
Well 11 tendf to channel toward Well PI, adversely
affecting the performance of Well P2 (Fig. 8a).
A similar situation exists in the il.verted 13-spot
pattern (Fig. 8b). However, the distance between the
center-of-edge Producer P2 and Injector 11is fi/2 or
0.866 of the distance between corner Producer P2
and Injector 11. The distance ratio of 0.866 is much
closer to unity than the 0.707 value in the case of the
inverted nine-spot pattern. The performance of the
corner Producer P2 in an inverted 13-spot pattern is
not as poor as that in the case of the inverted nine-
spot pattern (Fig. 8b compared with Fig. 8a).
Cases 5S, 7S, 9S, and 13S refer to five-spot and
inverted 7-, 9-, and 13-spot patterns, respectively.
The oil-recovery curves in the later life of the project
(after 0.8 PV or 3 years of injection) silow a general
trend decreasing in the following order: Case
5S > Case7S > “Case 13S > Case 9S (Fig. 9).
The use of an inverted 5-acre, seven-spot pattern
instead of a 2.5-acre, five-spot pattern results in a
loss in oil recovery of 2.7070original oil in place after
5 years of injection (Table 6). This corresponds to a
loss in production of 5,500 bbl per producer. Ac-
cording to Muskat,8 the steady-state sweep efficiency
~ for a seven-spot pattern is 74.0070,greater than the
71.W’ovalue for a five-spot pattern. The reason why
the oil recovery for a 5-acre, seven-spot steamflood is
less than that of a 2.5-acre, five-spot steamflood can
be attributed to thermal efficiency of steam which
decreases with the increasing distance that steam has
to travel from injector to producer. That distance is
289.5 ft for the seven-spot, 24070longer than the
distance of 233.3 ft for the five-spot pattern. The
losses for an inverted 12.5-acre, 13-spot pattern are
4.2oi’ooriginal oil in place and 8,600 bbl per producer.
The worst case is the inverted 7.5-acre, nine-spot
patterr. The losses are 16.6070original oil in place
and 33,800 bbl per producer. The loss of 16.6070
original oil in place corresponds roughly to one-
quarter of the oil normally recoverable by st~-
flood using five-spot patterns.
Conclusions
IrregularFive-Spot Patterns
1. The off-pattern placement of a producer in-
creases its own oil production rate, at least before
steam breakthrough. This off-pattern producer,
however, adversely affects the performance of its
Lose”InOil
Recovery Cumulative Loss In OH
oil Production
011in place] (thousand bbl) (thousand bbl)
505.3 -
462.4 42,9
t: 432.6 72.7
428.7 78.8
:: 413.3 92.0
11.6 410.8 94.5
1169
 TABLE6- COMPARISON OF FIVE-SPOTWITH INVERTED 7., 8“,
AND 13SPOT PAlTERNS

oil Lose In 011 Cumulative Loss In Oil

Recovery Recovery oil ProductIon
(Yo original (% original per Producer t)er Producer
Case Pattern oil in place) 011In t)lace) (thousand bbl) (thousandbbi)
5s Five-spot 67.9 138.3
Invertedseven%pot 65.2 132.8
;:
13s
Invertednine-spot
Inverted 13-spot
51.3
f33.7
:613
4.2
104.5
129.7
:3!3
8.6

Basis Cumulative steam injection = 1.4 PV (5 years of Injection)

eight neighboring producers to such an extent that a
net loss results in the overall recovery of the
surrounding four inverted five-spot patterns.
2. The movement of an injector from its pattern
location increases the oil prodttction rate of those
producers whose distance from the injector is
shortened because of that movement, at least before
steam breakthrough. However$ this is at the expense
of the other producers, whose distances from the
injector increased because of the movement. The
overall oil recovery of the four surrounding
producers suffers an eventual net loss.
3. The movement of a well, regardless of whether
it is a producer or an injector, from its pattern
location for a distartce of 50 ft can cause a loss in oil
production of 22,030 bbl in the fiist 5 years of in-
jection. This loss can be as high as 50,000 bbl when
the off-pattern distauce increases to 100 ft. These
CASE
5S CASE
7S CASE
9S CASE
13S
d H
E@
D<-)
TIME,YEARS
‘“~
results are based on the assumption that all wells
continue producing long after steam breakthrough,
without any operational changes that could alleviate
the situation. (These findings apply to the case of 2.5-
acre, five-spot patterns, 60-ft sand thickness, 3S%’0
porosity, 50070initial oil saturation, and 300 B/D
steam rate.)
4. The effect of moving a well away from its
regular position in an irregular pattern or a group of
irregular patterns does not make the performance
much worse, although moving a well off-pattern in a
field of regular patterns could cause sizable loss in oil
recovery.
Comparison of Five-Spot with Inverted 7-,9-,
and 13-Spot Patterns
The oil recovery in a five-spot pattern (normal or
inverted) is greater than in an inverted seven-
spot,which in turn is better than in an inverted 13-
spot. The worst case is the inverted nine-spot, where
one-quarter of the oil normally recoverable by five-
spots remains unproduced. These conclusions were
reached on the assumptions that the drainage areas
of all producers are the same and that the steam rate
is proportional to the pattern size.
References
1. Bursell, C.G. and Pittman, G. M.: “Performance of Steam
Displacement in the Kern River Field,” 1 Pet. Tech. (Aug.
1975)997-lM, Trans., AIME, 2S9.
2. Blevins. T.R. and Billingsley, R.H.: “The 10 Pattern Steam
Flood, Kern River Field, Ctilfornia,” J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.1975)
150: 151~ Trans., AIME, 259.
3. Halt, A.L. and Bowman, R.W.: “Operation and Performance
of the SIocum Thermrd Recovery Project,” J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1973)402-408.
4. Ysnosik, J.L. and McCracken, T.A.: “A Nine-Point, Finite-
Dlfference Reservoir Simulator for Realistic Prediction of
Adverse Mobility Ratio Dkplacements,” Sot. PeL Eng. J.
(Aug. 1979)253-262 Trans., AIME, 267.
5. Coats, K.H.: “Simulation of Steamflooding Whh Distillation
and Solution Gas,” Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1976)235-247.
6. Sawabini, C.T., Chilirsgar, G.V., and Allen, D. R.: “Com-
pressibility of Unconsolidated, Arkosic Ofl Sands,” Sot. Pet.
Eng, J. (April 1974) 132-138.
7. Prats, M., Hszebroek, P., and Allen, E. E.: “Effect of Off-
Pattern Wells in the Performance of a Five-Spot Waterflood,”
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1%2) 173-178; Pvm.s.,AIME, 235.
8. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-
HIIIBook Co. Inc., New Yo;k City (1949).

CUMULATIVE
STEAM
INJECTION,
PV Orlglnal ‘manuscript reoelved in Soolety of Petroleum Englneere office Supt.
20,1$77. Paper arxepted fw publication June 2,1978. Reylaed manuecrlpt
recalved July 13, 1979. Papar (SPE 6728) flret presented at the SPE-AIME
Fig. 9- Comparison of five-spot with inverted 7-, 9-, and 52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, held In Denvar, Oct.
13-spotpatterns. S-12, 1077.

1110 JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY

;.,

APPENDIX the contours for the two grids were mostly quite
similar to each other. There was definitely a
Grid-Orientation Effect of the Modified pronounced improvement over the case for the five-
Nine-Point Formulation point formulation, where the contours obtained
The grid-orientation effect of the modified nine- using the parallel grid could often be perpendicukr
point formulation applied td the simulation of the to those obtained usingthe diagonal grid.
steamflood was studied by comparing the oil-
recovery curves and temperature and oil-saturation S1Metric Conversion Factors
dis~ributions for one-fourth of a five-spot pattern acre x 4.046873 E+03 = T12
using parallel and diagonal grids. Oil recoverycurves bM/bbl X 1 = m-/m3
for the diagonal grid almost perfectly matched those B/D X 1.589873 E-01 = ms /d
for the parallel grid. As for the temperature and oil- Cp x 1.000* E-03 = Pa-s
saturation distributions, no perfect agreement was “F(°F-32)/l .8 = “c
obtained whenthe grid orientation was changed from psi, psia x 6.894757 E-03 = MPa
parallel grid to diagonal grid. However,the shapesof Conversion factoris exact.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1111