0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

954 Ansichten11 Seiten© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

954 Ansichten11 SeitenAttribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

037

P.J. Closmann, Consultant, Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract

In this paper various analytic models are considered and their usefulness illustrated. Examples are presented of a number of practical applications of the familiar Marx and Langenheim model. The fundamental uses and limitations of the frontal displacement or piston-like approach are enunciated. Most of these methods depend on control of the process at the injection well. The Marx and Langenheim approach has been extended to models that correct for low quality steam and can be simplied by use of some published results. Some of the obvious advantages of numerical simulation are pointed out, including the ability to incorporate irregular geometry, heterogeneity, individual well constraints, and chemical and phase changes. But analytic models continue to nd usefulness in providing insight into the steamood mechanism and the relative importance of various reservoir and operational factors. Analytic models can describe the long-term continuation of steam injection in the mature steam drive. This mode of operation usually continues for most of the project life. The particular model described in this paper considers the steam zone as already established. Careful control of the heat consumption during this phase benets the project economics. Calculation of the oil production by an analytic method permits monitoring of project performance on an ongoing basis and assists the engineer in adjusting some of the operating variables, such as steam injection rate, steam quality, and steam vent rate. Modern innovations, such as horizontal wells, can be included in the method, which provides a simple computational tool for the practicing engineer.

applied mathematical methods to predict performance. However, analytic methods have lately been somewhat overshadowed by the development of numerical simulators4 and engineers' increasing dependence on them. These latter methods have the advantage of applying Buckley-Leverett theory, thus permitting the calculation of saturation distribution. They can also account for chemical and phase changes, as well as the introduction of other uids besides steam or water. Nevertheless, analytic methods and models can still play a useful role in the engineer's bag of tricks. Following are some of the simpler models that have been found useful.

The earliest model to be applied to steamooding was that of Marx and Langenheim5 (ML) for predicting the growth of the steam zone in the reservoir during steam injection into a single well. Steam zone growth is important because of the effective displacement of oil from the steam zone, as shown by laboratory studies.2,3 This model assumed that: 1. Steam penetrates a single layer of uniform thickness. 2. Temperature and pressure remain constant throughout the injection interval. 3. The displacement front is vertical and denes the moving boundary at which the temperature falls from its steam zone value to the initial reservoir temperature. 4. Heat losses are normal to the boundaries of the steam zone at the under- and overburden. Oil production was then assumed to be that displaced by the steam zone, unless pushed out of the pattern beyond the producers.

Introduction

Steam injection was proposed originally for heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs because of the signicant lowering of oil viscosity as a function of temperature and the consequent improvement in ow.1 Laboratory experiments were performed to measure the effectiveness of the oil recovery by steam displacement.2,3 Based on laboratory results and theory analytic models were formulated for monitoring and analyzing the progress of steamoods in the eld. Originally their usefulness was due to the lack of readily available numerical methods for making the necessary calculations. As a result, the engineer was forced to rely upon his intuition and classical

V s = 87.6

r s i s H s ( rC ) s h 2 s K ( rC ) o b (T s - T r )

V( t D ) = A s h s (1)

Based on the above assumptions the following formulas were derived: where

V(t D ) ML = e erfc t d - 1 + 2 t D / p

tD

(2)

and

tD =

4K ( rC ) o b h s ( rC ) s

2 2

(3)

This equation proved to be surprisingly useful in analyzing behavior in eld projects. The size of the developed steam zone correlates well with the oil produced. Good examples include the Inglewood eld in California6 (Figure 1 ), the Schoonebeek eld in The Netherlands7 (Figure 2 ), and the Tia Juana reservoir in Venezuela8 (Figure 3 ). As long as a single zone of uniform thickness is involved, the formula gives reasonable results. More complicated is the behavior of the injected steam when the effect of gravity is important, since the steam injection process is fundamentally gravity unstable. The effect of gravity results in the steam rising preferentially to the top of the reservoir with a displacement front that may be considerably slanted from the vertical. This situation requires the development of other formulas for estimating the effective steam zone thickness, to be discussed below. Steeply dipping reservoirs pose a particularly difcult problem, since steam tends to rise and the condensate to drain downward. All of these situations are automatically handled by numerical methods. Nevertheless, there are some special uses of the ML formula. Consider the non-dipping reservoir in which there is a pronounced directional preference for ow, as occurs in some stream beds. In this case the formula may be applied to a zone of uniform thickness but of non-circular shape, such as an ellipse (Figure 4 ). Here the fundamental heat balance has been maintained, the correct area for heat loss is determined, and the most likely areal shape can be determined by the engineer's best judgement based on eld observations. In viscous oil reservoirs stimulation of the production wells is usually important for signicant oil production. This occurs only after steam (heat) breakthrough to the producers. The steam breakthrough time is therefore important and is related to the areal sweep efciency and the steam zone area for a small (or even zero) steam zone thickness. In this case (as well as the case of a fracture) the Marx and Langenheim formula reduces to the following:9

AS = 197.7

r s is H s tD

(5)

(T s - T r ) K ( rC ) oz

can be distributed according to the inferred ow patterns in the reservoir. Other applications are possible with the ML approach. A useful situation is that of a multilayered reservoir in which relatively uniformly sized layers are separated by approximately the same size shale or impermeable barriers.9 The requisite geometry for deducing the analogous Marx and Langenheim result is given in Ref. 9. The model assumptions are similar to those outlined above. This simple approach provides a relatively quick way to estimate steam zone growth, with its corresponding oil displacement. On the other hand, if the reservoir is highly nonuniform in layer thickness and layer separation, the numerical simulator is probably the best tool to make calculations including specic reservoir heterogeneities and irregular reservoir boundaries. In all these situations the quantity of oil displaced remains a direct function of the steam zone size developed during injection. Another application is that of steam injection into a preheated reservoir. For example, a long term steam drive in one sand of the Kern River Caneld project resulted in conductive heating to an overlying sand, with benecial effects on subsequent steamood oil recovery.10 In cases of preheating the steam zone can be expected to propagate further than if no previous heating had taken place. If an approach similar to that of Marx and Langenheim is taken, it is necessary to make an assumption of the distribution of temperature due to heat that leaked off to the surroundings.11 Depending on the assumption made for this distribution, the analytic solution may or may not be tractable and convenient to use. In this case the performance based on a prior history of heating, with varying temperatures and heating rates, may be more readily handled with a numerical simulator, unless a straightforward and simple algorithm is available. One last example of the application of the ML approach is provided by the case of steam short-circulating from injector to producer.12 Such cases are unusual, but when they occur, analytic methods provide a simple means of estimating the extent of heterogeneities in the reservoir. The case of steam injection into a cylinder can be used to estimate the size of channel diverting steam to its point of detection. This is an example where an analytic solution provides the engineer a quick and reasonably reliable way to diagnose the eld behavior, whereas a numerical simulation would require some ingenuity in selecting both block sizes and the proper input geometry. The above examples apply to single well models. In the case of multiple wells, the spreading of interfering and overlapping steam zones is a situation in which numerical simulators have a denite advantage over analytical models, provided enough is known of the important reservoir parameters.

which gives the area of the high temperature steam zone generated by owing steam in an innitesimally thick interval. It also provides a means of estimating the lower time limit for steam to blanket the top of the reservoir. As before, the area

It was recognized early that the ML model had certain fundamental limitations, i.e.,: 1. It does not account for conduction and convection ahead of the condensation front. 2. It does not properly account for the effect of steam quality. These limitations do not exist for the numerical simulators. Nevertheless, they can be relatively easily addressed by means of two theories which were developed to improve the ML calculation. The theory of Mandl and Volek13 assumes that until a critical injection time is reached the steam condensation front (CF), although always slowing due to heat losses, leads the convective heat ow and tends to sharpen the conductive temperature prole ahead of the front. At the critical time all the latent heat of injected steam is used to supply heat losses from the steam zone to cap and base rock and to provide the latent heat content of the steam zone. After the critical time the convective heat ow due to condensate leads the steam condensation front. Until this critical time is reached, the original ML theory is suitable (although conduction ahead of the CF is ignored by both theories). After the critical time, the propagation of the CF is calculated by an approximate formula presented by Mandl and Volek. This model, with an improved estimate for the steam zone growth, is the basis of a method proposed by Myhill and Stegemeier14 for calculation of the steam zone and the accompanying oil displacement. Their results were presented in the form of a graph with thermal efciency plotted against dimensionless time for various values of the ratio of latent heat to sensible heat. An alternate approach was proposed by Hearn,15 in which the thermal equivalence of the steam zone and hot water zone ahead of the CF was used in the original Marx and Langenheim heat balance. Results were derived which show how the condensation front lagged the ML formula after a certain critical time. Convenient formulas which use Hearn's method were presented by Burger et al.16 They can be rearranged and presented as follows: Critical time: tCD = 1.877[(1 - fhv)- 0.645 - 1]2 The steam zone volume ratio V(tD)H/V(tD)ML = 1 for tD tCD and (7) (6)

V(t D ) H V(t D ) ML

Derfc

=[

fhv

tD

1.05

(8)

for tD > tcD where fhv = fraction of injected heat as latent heat.

t cD N = t cD

r w C w (1 - S o )

(9)

( rC ) oz

The concept of the critical time was also analyzed by Wang and Brigham17 in the following manner. From a uid dynamics viewpoint Mandl and Volek dened the critical time as the time when the heat front velocity equals the temperature front velocity of an adiabatic hot water displacement at the same mass injection rate and temperature as the steam displacement. Wang and Brigham suggest the alternative of dening the critical time as the time when the heat front velocity equals the injected uid ow velocity of an adiabatic hot water displacement at the same mass injection rate and temperature as the steam. With this denition, they conclude that the critical time will be smaller than that dened by Mandl and Volek by a factor of 1.25, depending on the ratio of the temperature front velocity to the uid velocity.17 Calculated in this manner, the critical time is given by the relation Wang and Brigham present some data to support their theory.17 It is interesting that there has been relatively little experimental laboratory work to verify and/or improve the above theories, other than that of the original authors.

Effects of Gravity

The tendency of steam to rise due to gravity was early recognized by steamooders. Methods of predicting the steam zone shape were presented by Neuman18 and by van Lookeren.19 A model to include steam overlay as well as steam vent rate and conditions at both injection and production wells was presented by Hsu.20 The method of van Lookeren, which gives a shape factor based on the steam injection rate to characterize the tilted steam/liquid interface, is especially convenient in making calculations. The equations were validated with scaled, physical models. For less viscous oils, the sloping steam zone interface may prove to be stable. In general, the average steam zone thickness may be estimated from the following:

st

= 0.5A RD h f

(10)

ARD = 50.39[

m s (r s i s )f s

( r o - r s )h 2 k s r s

(11)

These theories to account for gravity override permit the engineer to make an easily obtained estimate of reservoir performance. Their accuracy can be checked and the results rendered more accurate by the use of numerical simulation. For steeply dipping reservoirs (dip greater than about 20 30) the above models may sometimes be applied. Knowledge of the injected steam will usually permit estimating the actual oil displaced. For many of these cases the numerical simulators have a denite advantage, since they can also account for the separation of the gaseous and liquid (condensate) phases.

Models to estimate the oil production under these conditions were presented by Miller and Leung24 and by Closmann.25,26 A number of analytic models are compared in Ref. 25. The method of Ref. 25 and Ref. 26 depends on a modication of the gravity drainage theory of Matthews and Lefkovits27 to include both temperature and oil viscosity variation in the gradually decreasing oil zone. An additional term to account for the steam ow-induced pressure drop is also included in Ref. 26. The basic equation which denes the model is as follows:

re

I q o B o (1 - r / r e )

2 2 rw h h e hw 0

dr = r

h

2pk o 6Drg I I

dZ mo

dh + Ifromp w I

0

dZ mo

(12)

dp>

Although a number of steam soak models have been developed21, the usefulness of analytic models for this process is somewhat limited. The success of an analytic approach depends on the ability to model the reservoir drive mechanism. This can vary widely from one reservoir to another (e.g., gravity drainage, depletion, compaction). One example of the complexity that may occur is shown by the foamy oil zone and its interference with the viscous ngering of water and gases passing through from the cold reservoir at Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada.22 Such a mechanism presents a severe challenge to the formulator of analytic models. At the present time numerical simulators, with their inputs involving specied constraints, boundary and initial conditions, and adaptability to various drive mechanisms, have a denite advantage over the analytic methods developed thus far. The process involving repeated soaks or stimulations is especially well represented by numerical simulation, which can account for the distribution of heat in succeeding cycles as well as the withdrawal of uids.

To evaluate this equation, the temperature distribution assumed is the steady-state form

T - Tr = exp( - vZ / a ) Ts - Tr

(13)

and the oil viscosity distribution has the form suggested by Butler:28

nos no

=[

T - Tr m ] Ts - Tr

2

(14)

F (a ,b ) = 6(1 + b )( 1 + 2ba M )

M

(15)

The integration of Eq. 11 and the evaluation of the constant m, as well as the calculation of the steam phase pressure drop are described in Ref. 26. The result may be put in the following useful form:

Mature Steamoods

Once steam has broken through to the producers and effectively blankets the reservoir, the effectiveness of direct displacement is reduced. Oil is then produced by gravity (usually the dominant mechanism) and also a drag effect (usually small) due to the owing steam pressure gradient applied to the oil zone. The steam pressure gradient can be especially important during high rates of steam venting at the producers. This mature phase of the steamood is generally reached relatively quickly (13 years) after steam injection begins and generally lasts for the life of the ood, perhaps from 1020 years. An analysis of this process was presented by Vogel,23 who showed how to minimize the steam requirements by matching heat requirements to the slowly changing heat losses, thus optimizing the project performance.

a = 2527

where

aAfDS r o m o s R k o Drmr o s h e

3

(16)

F = 1.289H10- 4

mq o B o h e aA DS

(17)

aM=

1 1 61 + [ 1 ]> 2 2ln( r e / r w ) - 1

(18)

rates, therefore, are not as great as would be obtained if steam had been present at the wells the entire time.

The steam phase pressure drop Dps is included in the term : = 2.307 Dps/(heDp) (19)

The above frontal displacement models can usually give a reliable estimate of steam zone development in the reservoir. Some which the author has found useful are listed in Table 1. On the basis of the cases considered, and based on available literature sources, it is reasonable to conclude that: 1. Analytic models are useful in many practical situations, especially when a measure of displaced oil (but not necessarily produced oil) is desired. 2. The Marx and Langenheim formula can be used to assess the growth of steam zones in slightly dipping reservoirs and to give an indication of steam penetration when steam ow is areally non-uniform. 3. Analytic models have certain limitations, and numerical simulation is the tool of most usefulness in non-uniform, stratied, and steeply dipping reservoirs and in multiwell cases. 4. Analytic models which depend on calculating oil production by considering phenomena at the producers, such as gravity drainage and steam venting, can be useful for estimating oil production in mature steamoods.

The pressure drop may be augmented by the inclusion of additional pressures due to agents designed to block or limit ow in zones with bypassing steam. The oil production rate is calculated from the function F(a,), where values of a are determined for various assumed increments in the oil level he. qo = 7758 aAf DS F(a,)/(m he Bo) (20)

In this method history-matching or tting to the observations is accomplished by adjusting the absolute reservoir permeability (usually somewhat uncertain) within physically reasonable values. The procedure is readily adapted to spreadsheet computation. These results can be applied to horizontal as well as vertical wells.25,26 An equation similar to Eq. 15 is obtained:

H H H

(21)

where

DS aX 2 r m e o osvarphi = 0.18225 aH 3 mk r Dr h

o os e

Nomenclature

(22)

A As a aH Drainage area per well, L2, acres Steam zone area, L2, ft2 Dimensionless reservoir parameter Dimensionless reservoir parameter, horizontal wells Oil formation volume factor, RB/STB Specic heat of water, L2/(t2T), Btu/(lbmF) Steam quality, fraction Fraction of heat of steam as latent heat Dimensionless rate function, F(a) when =0 Dimensionless rate function, horizontal wells Acceleration due to gravity, L/t2, ft/sec2 Height of oil level along oil/steam interface, L, ft = average height of oil level, L, ft Height of oil level at outer boundary of drainage area, Initial height of oil level below steam zone, L, ft formation thickness, L, ft Sensible heat of liquid water in injected steam, L2/t2, Btu/lbm Height of liquid level in producer, L, ft Absolute permeability, L2, d Effective oil permeability, L2, d

F H = 2.807

mq o B o h e aLX e DS

(23)

and an analogous shape factor aH = 0.78868 is used. The oil rate is calculated from the function FH(aH,) as follows: qo = 0.3562 aLXefDS FH(aH,)/(mBohe) (24)

The analytic method pertinent to the SAGD (Steamassisted Gravity Drainage) process, using mostly horizontal wells, has been described in detail by Butler.28 An up-to-date appraisal of SAGD is provided in the review article by Batycky.22 Some applications of the present method are illustrated in Figure 5 for vertical wells producing by gravity drainage with vented steam in the Kern River eld,26,29 and in Figure 6 for horizontal wells producing by gravity drainage alone in the Midway Sunset eld.26,30 In Figure 6 the calculated oil production rates lie above the observed values. During production from this reservoir of 3550 dip, these wells were not always maintained at steam temperature. The observed production

kro L Lv M pe pw Dps qo r re rw R So Soi Sor DS t tcD tcD tD Tr Ts DT v V(tD)H V(tD)ML Vs Z a aM os s vo vos po o pos ps psis pw Dp

Relative permeability to oil length of horizontal well, L, ft Latent heat of vaporization of steam, L2/t2, Btu/lbm Exponent in oil viscosity equation, Eq. 13 Steam pressure at outer boundary, m/Lt2, psi Steam pressure at well, m/Lt2, psi Pressure drop in steam zone = pe-pw, m/Lt2, psi Oil production rate, L3/t, STB/D Radial distance from center of well, L, ft Radial distance to outer boundary, L, ft Well radius, L, t ln re/rw - 0.5 Oil saturation in oil zone, fraction Initial oil saturation, fraction Residual oil saturation in steam zone, fraction Change in oil saturation after passage of steam/oil interface, = So - Sor, fraction Time, t, days Dimensionless critical time by Mandl & Volek Dimensionless critical time by Wang & Brigham Dimensionless time Original reservoir temperature, T, deg.F Steam temperature, T, deg.F Ts - Tr, T, deg.F Linear velocity of falling oil surface, L/t, ft/D Dimensionless steam zone volume by Hearn method Dimensionless steam zone volume by Marx & Langenheim Steam zone volume, L3, ft3 Distance coordinate, L, ft Thermal diffusivity of reservoir, L2/t, ft2/D Dimensionless reservoir factor (Eq. 6) Dimensionless pressure drop parameter = 2.307 Dps/(heDp) Oil viscosity, m/Lt, cp Dynamic oil viscosity at steam temperature, m/Lt, cp Dynamic steam viscosity, m/Lt, cp Kinematic oil viscosity, L2/t, cm2/sec Kinematic oil viscosity at steam temperature, L2/t, cm-2/sec Oil density at reservoir temperature (Eq. 10), m/L3, lbm/ft3 Average oil density, m/L3, gm/cm3 Oil density at steam temperature, m/L3, lbm/ft3 Steam density (Eq. 9), m/L3, lbm/ft3 Steam injection rate, L3/t, B/D(CWE) Density of water, m/L3, lbm/ft3 Density difference between oil and steam phases, m/L3, lbm/ft3

Volumetric heat capacity of oil zone, m/Lt2T, Btu/(ft3F) Volumetric heat capacity of overburden, m/Lt2T, Btu/(ft3F) Volumetric heat capacity of steam zone, m/Lt2T, Btu/(ft3F Porosity, fraction

SI Metric Conversion Factors acre 4.046856 E-01 = ha bbl 1.589873 Btu 1.055056 Btu/(ft3/F) 6.706611 Btu/lbm 2.326 Btu/(lbm F) 4.1868 cp 1.0 darcy 9.869233 ft 3.048 ft2 9.290304 F 5/9(F-32) psi 6.894757 E-01 = m3 E+00 = kJ E+01 E+00 E+00 E-03 E-01 E-01 E-02 =kJ/m3K = kJ/kg = kJ/(kgK) = Pas = m 2 =m

= m2 = C E+00 = kPa

References

1. 2. Prats, Michael, 1986. Thermal Recovery, SPE Monograph Volume 7, pp. 6-15. Willman, B.T., Valleroy, V.V., Runberg, G.W., Cornelius, A.J., and Powers, L.W., 1961. Laboratory Studies of Oil Recovery by Steam Injection, J. Pet. Tech. July, pp. 681690. Closmann, P.J. and Seba, R.D.,1983. Laboratory Tests on Heavy Oil Recovery by Steam Injection, SPEJ, June, pp. 417426. Coats, K.H., 1978. A Highly Implicit Steamood Model, SPEJ, October, pp. 369383. Marx, J.W. and Langenheim, R.H., 1959. Reservoir Heating by Hot Fluid Injection, Trans. AIME, Vol. 216, pp. 312314. Blevins, T.R., Aseltine, R.J., and Kirk, R.S., 1969. Analysis of a Steam Drive Project, Inglewood Field, California, J. Pet. Tech. September, pp. 11411150. Dijk, C., 1968. Steam-Drive Project in the Schoonebeek Field, The Netherlands, J. Pet. Tech. March, pp. 295 302. de Haan, H.J. and Schenk, L., 1969. Performance and Analysis of a Major Steam Drive Project in the Tia Juana Field, Western Venezuela, J. Pet. Tech. January, pp. 111 119: Trans., AIME, Vol. 246. Closmann, P.J., 1967. Steam Zone Growth During Multiple-Layer Steam Injection, SPEJ, March, pp. 110.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Restine, J.L., Graves, W.G., and Elias, R., 1987. Inll Drilling in a Steamood Operation: Kern River Field, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May, pp. 243248. 11. Closmann, P.J., 1968. Steam Zone Growth in a Preheated Reservoir, SPEJ, September, pp. 313320. 12. Closmann, P.J., 1984. Steam Zone Growth in Cylindrical Channels, SPEJ, October, pp. 481484. 13. Mandl, G. and Volek, C.W., 1969. Heat and Mass Transport in Steam-Drive Processes, SPEJ March, pp. 5979; Trans. AIME, Vol. 246. 14. Myhill, N.A. and Stegemeier, G.L., 1978. Steam-Drive Correlation and Prediction, J. Pet. Tech., Feb., pp. 173 182. 15. Hearn, C.L., 1969. Effect of Latent Heat Content of Injected Steam in a Steam Drive, J. Pet. Tech. April, pp. 374375. 16. Burger, J., Sourieau, P., and Combarnous, M., 1985. Thermal Methods of Oil Recovery, Gulf Publishing Co., pp. 169171. 17. Wang, Fred P. and Brigham, W.E., 1986. A Study of Heat Transfer During Steam Injection and Effect of Surfactants on Steam Mobility Reduction, Report TR 55, performed for Dept. of Energy Under Contract No. DE ACO381SF11564, Stanford, California, August, pp. 6584. 18. Neuman, C.H.,1975. A Mathematical Model of the Steam Drive Process Applications, SPE 4757, presented at the California Regional Meeting, Ventura, April 24. 19. van Lookeren, J., 1983. Calculation Methods for Linear and Radial Steam Flow in Oil Reservoirs, SPEJ, June, pp. 427438. 20. Hsu, C.F., 1992. A Pattern Steamdrive Model for Personal Computers, SPE 24076, presented at the Western Regional Meeting, Bakerseld, California, March 30 April 1.

21. Prats, Michael, 1986. Thermal Recovery, SPE Monograph Volume 7, pp. 113124. 22. Batycky, J.P., 1997. An Assessment of In Situ Oil Sands Recovery Processes, J. Can. Pet. Tech., Vol. 36, No. 9, October, pp. 1519. 23. Vogel, J.V., 1984. Simplied Heat Calculations for Steamoods, J. Pet. Tech. July, pp. 11271136. 24. Miller, M.A. and Leung, W.K.,1985. A Simple Gravity Override Model of Steamdrive, SPE 14241, presented at 60th annual SPE meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 2225. 25. Closmann, P.J., 1995. Simplied Gravity-Drainage OilProduction Model for Mature Steamoods, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May, pp. 143148. 26. Closmann, P.J., 1997. Simplied Oil-Production Model With Viscous Flow, Gravity Drainage, Skin, and Instantaneous Oil/Steam Ratio for Mature Steamoods, SPEJ, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 466473. 27. Matthews, C.S. and Lefkovits, H.C., 1956. Gravity Drainage Performance of Depletion-Type Reservoirs in the Stripper Stage, Trans. AIME, Vol. 207, pp. 265274. 28. Butler, R.M., 1991. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Chap. 7, pp. 285359. 29. Kimber, K.D., Deemer, A.R., Luce, T.H., and Sharpe, H.N., 1995. A New Analytical Model for Assessing the Role of Steam Production in Mature Steam Floods, paper SPE 296s57, presented at SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakerseld, California, March 810. 30. Kuhach, J.D. and Myhill, N.A., 1995. Optimization of a Mature Steam Flood Utilizing Horizontal Wells, Midway Sunset Field, J. Can. Pet. Tech., September, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp. 3641.

Figure 2: Pore volume steam zone according to material balance and Marx and Langenheim.7

10

Figure 5: Model calculation of oil production rate in mature steamood, illustrating gravity drainage rate and effect of steam venting.

Figure 6: Model calculation of oil production rate by gravity drainage for three horizontal wells Midway Sunset eld.

11