PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 37, Issue 5, October 2010

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2010, 37(5): 608–613. RESEARCH PAPER

An integrated evaluation on factors affecting the

performance of superheated steam huff and puff in heavy
oil reservoirs
Wu Xianghong*, Xu Anzhu, Fan Hailiang
PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Beijing 100083, China

Abstract: Production of superheated steam huff and puff wells is affected by reservoir geological characteristics (effective thickness,
net gross ratio), the state of development (recovery degree, comprehensive water-cut) and steam injection factors (strength of steam injec-
tion, steam injection rate, temperature and degree of superheat), etc. On the basis of analysis of each factor, factors set were established
and the weight of each factor was determined by the functional correlation between the factors and production of each well. The measured
value of each factor was computed by dimensionless analysis of each factor. The comprehensive measured value of all factors was com-
puted by dimensionless value of each factor through comprehensive evaluation methods. Statistics showed that the higher the comprehen-
sive measured value of all factors, the higher the oil production of each well. According to this good correspondence, the comprehensive
evaluation template was formed, and the total coincidence reached 96% with high reliability in the practical application in the Kenkiyak
Oilfield, Kazakhstan.

Key words: heavy oil; superheated steam huff and puff; affecting factor; comprehensive measured value; comprehensive evaluation
template

Introduction huff and puff has achieved remarkable results[6], but evalua-
tion of its effect is still at the exploratory stage, and a com-
At present, heavy oil reservoirs are put into superheated
plete method of possible evaluation methods have not been
steam huff and puff only at the pilot experimental stage[14].
formed.
Under the same pressure, superheated steam[5] has the charac-
Production performance of superheated steam huff and puff
teristics of higher temperatures, more enthalpy and larger
wells is affected by the reservoir geological characteristics,
specific volume than saturated steam. Therefore, superheated
development condition, injection parameters and many other
steam carries more heat and has greater heating capacity to
factors[79]. This study calculated the comprehensive measured
increase the reservoir temperature high enough with larger
value through building multi-factor mathematical models to
areas to be heated. In the process of heating oil reservoirs,
evaluate the production performance of superheated steam
more intense physical and chemical reactions between reser-
huff and puff wells.
voir fluid and minerals occurred, and the functions of reduc-
ing oil viscosity, expanding volume of crude oil, changing 1 Analysis of factors affecting superheated
rock wettability, increasing the scope of fluid flowing in high steam huff and puff performance
temperature and improving flow environment around the
The calculation formula of superheated steam huff and puff
downhole are more notable. The incremental oil production
production was obtained by the Boberg-Lantz prediction
by superheated steam huff and puff is higher and the produc-
method[10]:
ing cycle is longer. Field application of superheated steam
0.543 K ht m 'p
Qo (1)
ª º ª
 
2º
Pop § Rp 1 rw 2 · P R  R 3 1 R 2
»  Poc «ln Re  3  1 p
R  R
 S ¸  os «ln p »
s p s
¨ ln   
K rop ©¨ rw 2 Rp 2 ¸ K ros «
¹ R p 4 2 
Rp  Rs ¼
2»
K 
roc
« Rp  Rs 4 2 R e
2 »
¬ ¬ ¼

Received date: 26 Jun. 2009; Revised date: 15 Jul. 2010.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: wxhong@petrochina.com.cn
Foundation item: Supported by the Program “Research on potential analysis and optimal development methods of overseas unconventional reservoir” of CNPC
(07G60201).
Copyright © 2010, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 Wu Xianghong et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(5): 608–613

In which controlled by single well) before superheated steam huff and

1  R 1  S wix   S wix  1  f w  f wc  Sorx
K rox
1  S wix  Sorx
(x=p,s,c)
is H s ht M D tb § tD t ·
Rs 2 ¨ e erfc tD  2 D  1¸¸
¨ (3)
4Otbc (Ts  Ti ) ©
2
ʌ ¹
is ( H p  H s )ht M D tb § tD t ·
Rp 2 ¨¨ e erfc tD  2 D  1¸¸
4Otbc Tǻ
2
ʌ more the water cut, the greater the heat loss of superheated
© ¹
4ED tb
tD
is ht m
T=TpˉTs
Where Qo—production of superheated steam huff and puff,
m3/d; K—absolute reservoir permeability, 103 ȝm2;
ht—reservoir gross thickness, m; m—net gross ratio, f;
ǻp—production pressure differential, MPa; ȝop, ȝos, ȝoc—oil
viscosity in the superheated steam heating area, saturated
steam heating area and cold area, mPa·s; Krop, Kros, Kroc—rela-
tive permeability in the superheated steam heating area, satu-
rated steam heating area and cold area, dimensionless; Swip,
Swis, Swic—water saturation in the superheated steam heating
area, saturated steam heating area and cold area, %; Sorp, Sors,
Sorc—residual oil saturation in the superheated steam heating
area, saturated steam heating area and cold area, %; Rp, Rs, Re,
rw—radius of the superheated steam heating area, saturated
steam heating area and cold area, m; S—skin factor, f; is—
steam injection rate, kg/h; Hp, Hs—enthalpy of superheated
steam and saturated steam respectively, kJ/kg; M—thermal
capacity of reservoir, kJ/(m3·K); Įtb—heat dissipation coeffi-
cient of the top and bottom cover, m2/h; Ȝtb—heat conductivity
coefficient of the top and bottom cover, W/(m·K); fw—reser-
voir water cut, %; fwƍ—derivatives of water cut versus water
saturation, dimensionless; R—reservoir recovery factor, %;
tD—dimensionless steam injection time; 7Ƹ—degree of su-
perheat, K; Tp, Ts—temperature of superheated and its corre-
sponding saturated steam, K; Ti—initial reservoir temperature,
K; E—intensity of steam injection, t/m.
From the formula above, the performance of superheated
steam huff and puff is determined by reservoir condition (res-
ervoir effective thickness, net gross ratio), development state
(reservoir recovery factor, water cut), steam injection parame-
ters (intensity of steam injection, steam injection rate, steam
temperature and degree of superheat).
1.1 Effect of reservoir recovery degree, water-cut on the
performance of superheated steam huff and puff
The higher the reservoir recovery (recovery of reserves
Table 1 Performance of superheated steam huff and puff under different water-cut
Water cut/ˁ Duration /d
30 700
40 700
50 700
60 322
puff, the smaller the reservoir oil saturation was, and the oil
production was lower during superheated steam huff and
puff[11], which resulted in poor production performance. The
(2)
higher the reservoir water-cut, the higher the degree of reser-
voir flooded by water was. Because the specific heat of water
is more than that of oil (about two times)[11]. When the same
quantity of superheated steam injected into reservoirs, the
(4)
steam, which resulted in reducing radius of steam heating,
(5) thus decrease the effect of the steam huff and puff[12]. Table 1
showed the simulation results of superheated steam huff and
puff performance versus reservoir water-cut under the same
injection conditions.
1.2 Reservoir effective thickness, net-gross ratio on the
effect of superheated steam huff and puff
With the same reservoir recovery and water-cut, the greater
the effective thickness of oil layer, the greater the reserves
controlled by single well, the higher the production by super-
heated steam huff and puff and oil steam ratio. On the con-
trary, the smaller the effective thickness of reservoir, the
shorter the time required to reach the top and the bottom for
the heat of superheated steam, the top and bottom cover is
heated longer by superheated steam, the greater the heat loss,
the poorer the huff and puff performance. Statistics of super-
heated steam huff and puff showed[12]: cyclic oil production,
oil steam ratio increased with reservoir effective thickness.
Table 2 summarized the huff and puff performance for vari-
ous effective thickness under the same condition of steam
injection rate, intensity of steam injection, steam temperature.
Because the presence of barriers in oil layer, in the process
of steam heating oil, endothermic barriers cause heat loss[13].
In the same conditions of steam injection, the more the num-
ber of barriers, the smaller the net gross ratio of reservoirs, the
more the heat into the barriers, the greater the heat loss of
superheated steam stimulation, the smaller the steam chamber
radius and the scope of steam expansion (Fig. 1), which re-
sulted in lower oil steam ratio and worsened performance.
1.3 Effect of superheated steam temperature and su-
perheat degree on the performance of huff and puff
The changes of superheated steam after entering the for-
mation can be divided as: superheat steamėdry saturated
steamėwet steamėhot water. The first stage is the tempera-
ture of superheated steam reduced to saturated steam tem-
perature and the degree of superheat is consumed. When the
superheat degree reduced to 0, the superheat steam changes
Cyclic steam injection /t Cyclic oil production/t Oil steam ratio
2 340 5 472 2.34
2 340 3 804 1.63
2 340 1 905 0.81
2 340 372 0.16
 Wu Xianghong et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(5): 608–613

Table 2 Performance of superheated steam huff and puff under the duration of superheated steam in the reservoir in the first
different reservoir effective thickness stage, the greater the area heated (Fig. 2). With the same res-
Effective Cyclic steam Duration Cyclic oil pro- Oil steam ervoir properties, the steam injection speed and quantities of
thickness/m injection /t /d duction/m3 ratio heat, the superheated steam production is better than that of
saturated steam (Table 3).
05 780 500 771 0.99
10 1 560 700 2 200 1.41 1.4 Effect of superheated steam injection Intensity and
15 2 340 700 3 804 1.63 injection rate on the performance
20 3 120 700 5 686 1.82 Intensity of steam injection is the total cyclic steam injec-
25 3 900 700 7 256 1.86 tion of per unit reservoir thickness. Typically, as the steam
injection rate increases, the heated scope increased, and the
cyclic oil production will continue to increase, but the in-
creasing trend will be slowed down gradually. If the injected
steam quantity is too large, it may result in steam being
pushed away from the bottom of the region near the wells,
resulting in low oil steam ratio[7]. With the same amount of
steam injection, if steam injection rate is too low, heat loss of
steam will increase, and steam quality in wellbore will de-
crease. However, the higher the steam injection rate, the
higher the injection pressure is, which may cause reservoir
Fig. 1 Superheated steam chamber under the condition of the rock breakdown[8], leading to flow away from the area of in-
same injection and different net gross ratio
jection well. The heat carried by superheated steam can not
into dry saturated steam, but the steam quality remains at play its effective role that the area near the injection well can
100%. The second stage is that the steam temperature keeps not be effectively heated. Meanwhile, because the limited heat
constant and the steam quality decreases. The steam phase is used to heat formation near the bottom, cyclic oil produc-
changes into liquid during the latent heat releasing and be- tion and back recovery of water is lower.
comes wet steam. When the steam quality is reduced to 0, the As is shown from above, the performance of superheated
wet steam changes into hot water. In the case of the same steam huff and puff is affected by a number of factors. It is
steam injection pressure, the higher the temperature of super- difficult to define a specific value of a certain factors to de-
heated steam, the greater the degree of superheat[6], the longer termine its impact degree. Based on the comprehensive analy-

Fig. 2 Range of oil viscosity changes after superheated steam and saturated steam

Table 3 Performance of superheated steam and saturated steam with the same enthalpy
Temperature/qC Quality/ˁ Degree of superheat/qC Cyclic steam injection/t Cyclic oil production/t Oil steam ratio
220 040 00 3 696 3 464 0.94
220 060 00 3 098 3 567 1.15
220 080 00 2 666 3 635 1.36
250 100 30 2 340 4 282 1.83
270 100 50 2 140 4 586 2.14
 Wu Xianghong et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(5): 608–613

sis of various factors, comprehensive evaluation of each factor between the initial oil increment, cyclic oil production, cyclic
was executed through building mathematical models[14], oil steam ratio and 8 factors (net gross ratio, the effective res-
which predicted the performance of superheated steam huff ervoir thickness, water saturation, intensity of steam injection,
and puff. steam injection rate, steam temperature, degree of superheat,
reservoir recovery) can be analyzed, therefore, the results of
2 Integrated evaluation on factors affecting the
comprehensive evaluation will be got[20].
performance of superheated steam huff and puff
2.3 Mathematical models of integrated evaluation
2.1 Mathematical theory of integrated evaluation
2.3.1 Establishment of factor set for judgment target
Since Professor Zadeh L A from University of California
first put forward the concept of fuzzy sets in 1965, the theory For a superheated steam huff and puff well after produced a
of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation has been widely used in long time, factors affecting performance can be divided into
the planning and controlling fields[1518]. geological factors and steam injection factors and these two
Given target set V = (u1, u2... un), (n = 1, 2 ...). u1, u2 ... rep- type of factors are ancestors, denoted: U = (U1, U2) = (reser-
resent the various indexes. aji is the value of the Index i from voir factors, steam injection factor). In order to accurately
the Case j. In the matrix (aji), always it can be found the case describe the two first grade factors, and then they were di-
whose index is the best of all cases. If requested the bigger the vided into the following descendent factors: U1 = (U11, U12,
better type of indexes, the value should be selected U13, U14) = (effective reservoir thickness, net gross ratio, wa-
bi= max {aji}(b is the maximum value) as an ideal case index; ter-cut, reservoir recovery); U2 = (U21, U22, U23, U24) = (inten-
j
if requested the smaller the better type of the indexes, the sity of steam injection, steam injection rate, steam temperature,
value should be selected bi= min {aji} as the ideal index of the degree of superheat).
j
case. According to the various cases’ index and the value of 2.3.2 Establishment of the coefficients weight set
the ideal case, the measured values can be determined.
On the bigger the better type of indexes, the corresponding In the course of comprehensive evaluation, factor weights
measured value of rji as: setting was critical, which reflect the role and the significance
^ `
a ji  min a ji of various factors in the comprehensive evaluation and di-
r ji
j
(7) rectly affect the results of comprehensive evaluation[21].
j
^ ` j ^ `
max a ji  min a ji Therefore, the factor weights, the degree of importance of
each factor should be determined based on contribution to the
On the smaller the better type of indexes, the corresponding
development effect of huff and puff. Changes in each factor
measured value of:
will result in superheated steam huff and puff production
^ `
max a ji  a ji
fluctuating, but changes were in different degrees versus
j
rji (8)
^ `
max a ji  min a ji
j j
^ ` various factors. Combined with the relationship between the
production and each factor from the Formula 1, the correlation
Set the weight of Index i as wi, the comprehensive meas- coefficient Ci was determined. According to the value of the
ured value of Case j can be calculated as: correlation coefficient, the degree of affection on production
n for all the factors was obtained. And the weight of each factor
Rj ¦ wi rji (9)
was calculated by the Formula (10) (Table 4).
i 1

Obviously, max {Rj} is the best.
Table 4 Weight calculation of each factor
j
From the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation theory[19], the
Factors Production Correlation
comprehensive measured value reflects the performance of Factors Weights
changes/% changes/% coefficient
the various factors. The larger the value, the better the per-
Reservoir effec-
formance of various factors, otherwise the worse. 40 56.00 1.40 0.16
tive thickness
2.2 Process of integrated evaluation Net gross ratio 30 39.38 1.31 0.15
Reservoir
The comprehensive evaluation model used fuzzy mathe- 15 15.75 1.05 0.12
recovery factor
matical methods for reference. The process of comprehensive Water cut 20 19.25 0.96 0.11
evaluation was: firstly, describe the single factor and establish Degree of
the factors set; secondly, set the weight of the factors and 30 34.13 1.14 0.13
superheat
establish the weight sets of the factors; thirdly, make various Steam
10 10.50 1.05 0.12
factors dimensionless[18]; and finally, calculate the measured temperature
values. The measured value of the impact factors can be cal- Intensity of
20 19.25 0.96 0.11
culated by equation (9). And then the relationship between the steam injection
performance and the comprehensive measured value of su- Steam injection
20 17.50 0.88 0.10
perheated steam huff and puff wells, that is the relationship rate
 Wu Xianghong et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(5): 608–613

Table 5 Actual values and the comprehensive measured values of affecting factors
Effective Net gross Water Reservoir re- Intensity of steam Steam injection Steam tem- Degree of Comprehensive
Well
thickness/m ratio cut/% covery factor/% injection/(t·m1) rate/(t·h1) perature/qC super heat/qC measured value
39 24.1 0.95 57.5 4.73 111.04 8.40 300 57 0.64
46 12.1 1.00 59.9 6.02 149.17 7.80 308 58 0.57
35 25.7 0.98 82.0 2.87 104.31 8.10 300 54 0.63
26 17.0 0.85 87.0 6.59 113.12 7.80 310 62 0.47
43 22.4 1.00 84.2 2.23 132.59 5.00 300 50 0.59
54 26.2 0.89 62.0 2.79 45.92 10.90 301 51 0.62
41 23.7 0.96 80.3 5.32 88.10 8.10 301 51 0.55
55 29.2 1.00 90.1 4.05 100.89 7.60 300 58 0.64
15 15.7 0.84 75.0 6.45 107.87 7.40 295 41 0.40
19 25.4 0.62 87.8 5.03 125.98 9.80 301 51 0.49
56 23.4 0.88 80.7 2.49 56.62 7.40 298 47 0.50
45 20.3 1.00 92.2 3.93 129.06 6.90 290 42 0.52
33 18.4 0.93 94.3 4.12 93.38 7.40 315 65 0.53
38 24.9 0.86 95.2 4.64 93.33 12.40 312 64 0.62
18 16.4 0.73 89.0 0.02 148.78 9.24 270 30 0.45
24 20.4 1.00 33.0 0.02 103.43 9.77 273 14 0.63
25 21.9 1.00 80.0 0.09 100.46 10.18 276 35 0.61
32 16.3 1.00 43.0 0.01 163.50 9.25 256 11 0.60
17 23.2 0.84 38.0 0.06 128.45 10.35 265 25 0.63

Ci effect of huff and puff, which indicated that the wells had the
wi n
( i=1, 2, Ă, n) (10)
bigger comprehensive measured value, the better adaptability
¦ Ci of superheated steam huff and puff. In practice, according to
i 1
actual indicators, the comprehensive measured value can be
2.3.3 Calculation of measured value divided into various grades, which formed a comprehensive
During comprehensive evaluation of the factors, the calcu- evaluation template. The template can be used to evaluate
lation of the measured value was based on the dimensionless future production of superheated huff and puff wells and selec-
value of each factor by Formula (7) or (8). Some of the factors tion of new suitable well for superheated steam huff and puff.
were the bigger the better type and others were the smaller the
better type. Accordingly, the eight target factors of effective
reservoir thickness, net gross ratio, degree of superheat, steam
temperature, steam injection intensity and steam injection rate
were the bigger the better factors, the measured values were
calculated by Formula (7), but the measured values of reser-
voir recovery and water-cut were calculated by Formula (8).

2.3.4 Integrated evaluation

The comprehensive measured value can be interpreted as

Fig. 3 Correlation between the initial oil increment and com-
total effects of various factors on the development effects,
prehensive measured values of superheated steam huff and puff
which come from the measured values and the corresponding wells in Kenkiyak Oilfield
weight values through calculation by Formula (9) (Table 5).
The performance of superheated steam huff and puff was
usually evaluated through indicators such as initial production
of single well, cyclic oil increment, cyclic oil steam ratio.
After the comprehensive measured value of each factor was
calculated, the relationship between the comprehensive meas-
ured values and the indicators of development effect were
shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. As it can be seen from Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4, there were good positive correlations between the early
oil productions, cyclic oil steam ratios and comprehensive
measured values from the statistics of 19 superheated steam
Fig. 4 Correlation between the oil steam ratio and comprehen-
huff and puff production data in Kenkiyak Oilfield. Therefore, sive measured values of superheated steam huff and puff wells in
the bigger the comprehensive measured value, the better the Kenkiyak Oilfield
 Wu Xianghong et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(5): 608–613
Table 6 Division of comprehensive measured values
Range of comprehensive Initial oil produc-
Class
measured value tion/(t·d1)
Superior R>0.6 qo>10
Middle 0.5<Rİ0.6 5.5<qoİ10
Poor 0.4<Rİ0.5 2.5<qoİ5.5
Fig. 5 Integrated evaluation template for selection of wells suit-
able for superheated steam huff and puff
3 Practical applications
The Blocks I and II of the north wing in Kenkyak Oilfield
were the pilot test area. The relationship between the indica-
tors of huff and puff performance and the comprehensive
measured value were determined by following the methods
mentioned above. According to the early oil production, the
corresponding comprehensive measured values were divided
into three grades (Table 6). And they were classified into the
superior, middle, and poor grades regions, which formed the
initial reservoir evaluation template of superheated steam huff
and puff (Fig. 5). Similarly, for the wells which were not put
into superheated steam huff and puff also had its comprehen-
sive measured value. These wells also can be divided into
superior, middle, and poor categories according to the com-
prehensive measured value in the initial reservoir huff and
puff evaluation template.
The initial evaluation template of the pilot test was estab-
lished based on the data of 19 wells that had been put into
superheated steam huff and puff. Another 80 new wells were
divided into superior, middle, and poor categories according
to the comprehensive measured value of each well in the ini-
tial reservoir huff and puff evaluation template. There were 72
wells fit for superheated steam huff and puff which the com-
prehensive measured value was more than 0.4. There were 22
wells in superior categories which the comprehensive meas-
ured value was more than 0.6, and the initial predicted super-
heated steam huff and puff daily production will be 12.2 t/d.
There were 34 wells in middle categories which the compre-
hensive measured value was between 0.5 and 0.6, and the
initial predicted superheated steam huff and puff daily pro-
duction will be 8.2 t/d. There were 16 wells in poor categories
which the comprehensive measured value was between 0.4
and 0.5, and the initial predicted superheated steam huff and
puff daily production will be 3.8 t/d. The wells of which the
comprehensive measured values were smaller than 0.4 were
not recommended to put into superheated steam huff and puff.
Among the selected 72 wells, there were 51 wells put into
superheated steam huff and puff, from which 15 wells were in
the superior category and the initial production was 11.8 t/d,
the coincidence between the comprehensive value and actual
daily oil production was 96.7%; 25 wells were in the middle
category and the initial production was 7.9 t/d, the coinci-
dence between the comprehensive value and actual daily oil
production was 96.3%; 11 wells were in the poor category and
the initial production was 3. 6t/d, the coincidence between the
comprehensive value and actual daily oil production was
94.7%; and the total coincidence reached 96%.
4 Conclusions
The method of integrated evaluation on factors affecting the
performance of superheated steam huff and puff took into
account the comprehensive measured value of the geological
factors, development factors and steam injection factors and
their 8 descendent factors. The weight coefficient of each
factor was from the relationship between the production and
each affecting factor of the formula, which considers the de-
gree of the impact on the production of various factors. The
integrated evaluation on factors affecting the performance of
superheated steam huff and puff was made using the fuzzy
mathematical theory. It fully reflected the production charac-
teristics of superheated steam huff and puff, and accurately
evaluated the merits of superheated steam huff and puff wells.
The integrated evaluation template established by the good
correlation between the comprehensive measured value and
the performance of superheated steam huff and puff wells can
select wells suitable for superheated steam huff and puff high
efficiently. It was tested and verified that the evaluation tem-
plates built by the method in this work was easily put into
practice and the total coincidence can reach 96%, which pro-
vides a new theoretical basis for the wide use of superheated
steam huff and puff technology.
References
[1] Zhang Yitang, Li Xiuluan, Zhang Xia, et al. Four fundamental
principles for design and follow-up of steam flooding in heavy
oil reservoirs. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2008,
35(6): 715–719.
>@ Qu Tongci, Li Shuang. Technique of enhancing recovery of
remaining oil in heavy oil reservoirs by horizontal wells. Pe-
troleum Exploration and Development, 2009, 36(6): 743–748. 
[3] Heins B, Xie Xiao, Yan Dengchao. New technology for heavy
oil exploitation wastewater reused as boiler feedwater. Petro-
leum Exploration and Development, 2008, 35(1): 113–117.
[4] Chang Yuwen, Zhang Yi, Hu Yongjiu, et al. The progress of
heavy oil thermal recovery technology. Beijing: Petroleum
Industry Press, 1997.
[5] Yan Ke, Ren Huaiqiang. Oil/water inversion and juxtaposition
in heavy oil reservoirs: Taking 6-7 sand members of Guantao
 Wu Xianghong et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(5): 608–613
Formation, Gudao Oilfield as an example. Petroleum Explora-
tion and Development, 2009, 36(5): 635–640.
[6] Shen Weidao, Jiang Zhimin, Tong Jungeng. Engineering
thermodynamics. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2000.
212–229.
[7] Li Chuntao, Qian Genbao, Wu Shuhong, et al. Superheated
steam and its application in the development of heavy oil res-
ervoirs: Kenkiyak Oil Field in Kazakhstan as an example.
Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 2008, 29(4): 495–497.
[8] Chen Minfeng, Lang Zhaoxin, Mo Xiaoguo. Optimization of
steam stimulation injection parameter and the reasonable de-
velopment limits of ultra-heavy oil. Journal of the University
of Petroleum, China (Edition of Natural Science), 2002, 26(1):
39–42.
[9] Chen Yueming. Steam injection and thermal production.
Dongying: China University of Petroleum Press, 1996. 64–83.
[10] Liu Wenzhang. The thermal recovery mode of heavy oil res-
ervoirs. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 1998.
[11] Wan Renpu, Luo Yingjun. Production technical manual(Ċ).
Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2000.
[12] Liu Huiqing, Fan Yuping, Zhao Dongwei. Principles and
methods of thermal oil recovery technology. Dongying: Uni-
versity of Petroleum Press, 2000.
[13] Liu Wenzhang. Steam injection for heavy oil thermal recovery.
Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 1997.
[14] Prada J W V, Cunha J C, Cunha L B. Uncertainty assessment
using experimental design and risk analysis techniques, ap-
plied to offshore heavy-oil recovery. SPE 97917, 2005.
[15] Abdulraheem A, Ahmed M, Vantala A, et al. Prediction of
rock mechanical parameters for hydrocarbon reservoirs using
different artificial intelligence techniques. SPE 126094, 2009.
[16] Zarei F, Daliri A, Alizadeh N. The use of Neuro-fuzzy proxy
in well placement optimization. SPE 112214, 2008.
[17] Zhou Shouwei, Sun Fujie, Zeng Xianglin, et al. Application of
multilateral wells with limited sand production to heavy oil
reservoirs. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2008,
35(5): 630-635.
[18] Wang Chengyi. Introduction of fuzzy mathematics. Beijing:
Beijing Industrial College Press, 1988.
[19] Liu Sifeng, Guo Tianbang, Dang Yaoguo. Gray system theory
and its application. Beijing: Science Press, 1999.
[20] Deng Julong. Gray forecasting and decision-making. Wuhan:
Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press, 1986.
[21] Song Xiaoqiu. Principles and methods of fuzzy mathematics
(Second Edition). Xuzhou: Chinese Mining Industry Univer-
sity Press, 2004. 1–76.