energies

Article
Steam Cavity Expansion Model for Steam Flooding in Deep
Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Lina Zhang 1 , Dianfa Du 2,3, *, Yaozu Zhang 2,3, * , Xin Liu 4 , Jingang Fu 3,5 , Yuan Li 2,3 and Jianhua Ren 1

1 Research Institute of Exploration & Production, Sinopec East China Oil & Gas Company,
Nanjing 210000, China; 13675186940@163.com (L.Z.); renjianhua126@126.com (J.R.)
2 Key Laboratory of Unconventional Oil & Gas Development, Ministry of Education,
Qingdao 266580, China; liyuan9877@126.com
3 College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266000, China;
fujgupc@gmail.com
4 Institute of Engineering Technology, Sinopec East China Oil & Gas Company,
Nanjing 210000, China; 13814078093@163.com
5 Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
* Correspondence: dudf@upc.edu.cn (D.D.); s19020093@s.upc.edu.cn (Y.Z.)

Abstract: Steam flooding is crucial for the development of heavy oil reservoirs, and the development
of the steam cavity significantly determines the efficiency of steam flooding. Previous studies have
elucidated the concept of steam overburden and pseudomobility ratio; however, the thermal energy
loss in deep heavy oil reservoirs during steam injection needs further investigation. Therefore, in this
study, the vapour–liquid interface theory and mathematical integration were used to establish a steam
cavity expansion model. The wellbore heat loss rate coefficient, steam overlay, and pseudomobility
ratio were used to accurately describe the development of the steam cavity in deep heavy oil reservoirs.
The proposed model was experimentally validated, and it was observed that the model could
accurately reflect the actual mine conditions. In addition, the pressure gradient distribution of the
steam belt and the heat dissipation areas of the top and bottom layers of the steam cavity were
evaluated. The results showed that the influence of the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient on the
Citation: Zhang, L.; Du, D.; Zhang,
Y.; Liu, X.; Fu, J.; Li, Y.; Ren, J. Steam
pressure gradient of the oil layer was primarily in the range of 5–20 m away from the steam injection
Cavity Expansion Model for Steam well. Furthermore, it was observed that the pseudomobility ratio is inversely proportional to the
Flooding in Deep Heavy Oil development of the steam cavity. As the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient increased, the wellbore
Reservoirs. Energies 2022, 15, 4816. heat loss increased. The larger the area ratio, the more pronounced the steam overlay phenomenon,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134816 and the large area ratio does not meet the development requirements of the steam chamber. The
research closely combines theory with production, and the results of this study can help actual mines
Academic Editor: Rouhi Farajzadeh
by providing theoretical support for the development of deep heavy oil reservoirs.
Received: 21 April 2022
Accepted: 29 June 2022 Keywords: deep heavy oil reservoir; vertical well steam flooding; steam cavity expansion model;
Published: 30 June 2022 wellbore heat loss; heat energy loss
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. 1. Introduction
Owing to the depletion of conventional oil reservoirs, heavy oil reservoirs have grad-
ually become crucial for oil field development. Steam flooding, which is a significant
contributor to the development of heavy oil reservoirs, has the advantages of high recovery,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
quick effect, and low pollution. During steam flooding, when the steam is injected into the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
reservoir along the wellbore, heat is released. Consequently, the heat reduces the interfacial
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
tension of the crude oil, and the fluidity of the heated heavy oil increases, making it easier
conditions of the Creative Commons
to displace and develop. However, the development and expansion of the steam cavity is a
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
significant factor affecting the efficiency of steam flooding; therefore, the expansion law of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the steam cavity should be investigated.
4.0/).

Energies 2022, 15, 4816. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134816 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 4816 2 of 15

In the 1950s, Marx and Langenheim [1] established a steam-flooding, front-propulsion

model based on the relationship between the growth of the steam zone and the dissipation
rate of the top and bottom caprocks. Their research formed the basis for one of the
fundamental theories of steam flooding and elucidated the relationship between measurable
parameters and crude oil volume production. Furthermore, it provided a theoretical
basis for the subsequent steam flooding and steam chamber expansion models. However,
they assumed that the thickness of the vapour zone remained constant, which is not an
accurate representation of the actual experimental conditions. Therefore, to mitigate the
shortcomings of the Marx–Langenheim model, Neuman [2] proposed a steam flooding
theoretical model based on the temperature distribution of the heat transfer in an infinite
reservoir. The theoretical model was established using the total enthalpy balance equation,
condensate water, and crude oil mass flow equation. However, it was assumed that the
main expansion direction of the steam zone was vertically downward, and gravity was the
dominant factor affecting the steam overlay. Myhill and Stegemeier [3] proposed a new
steam cavity, leading-edge propulsion model. In their study, the steam cavity leading edge
was not considered to be vertical, the displacement effect of condensed water on crude
oil before the condensation front was ignored, and a description of the thermal efficiency
of the steam zone was proposed. The proposed thermal efficiency function can be used
to determine the volume of the steam zone; however, their model assumes that the oil
displacement is equal to the oil production, and the research was based on the premise of a
high injection rate.
Van-Lookeren [4] analysed the shape of the vapour–liquid interface and proposed
that a maximum shape factor value can ensure optimal steam injection parameters. The
shape factor value is a dimensionless parameter, which is used to characterize the shape of
the steam cavity with the radial growth of steam flooding. However, in actual reservoirs,
owing to the high viscosity of crude oil, the pseudomobility ratio is often not zero and
sometimes even approaches one. Consequently, the pseudomobility ratio affects the shape
of the front edge of the steam cavity; therefore, for a nonzero pseudomobility ratio, the
maximum shape factor cannot optimise the steam injection parameters [5–8]. Vogel [9]
identified the slow descending behaviour of the steam zone as the primary thermal oil
recovery mechanism and established a steam flooding model. The model could accurately
represent the various energy relationships of the reservoir during steam flooding; however,
it did not consider the upper oil layer, which resulted in an overestimation of the rock heat
loss at the bottom of the reservoir.
Stegemeier, Farouq Ali, and Peake et al. [10–12] have also made significant contribu-
tions to the literature. In recent years, Cheng [13] established a steam chamber expansion
model considering the pseudomobility ratio and shape factor and reported that the shape
of the front edge of the steam chamber becomes ideal as the pseudomobility ratio increases.
In addition, the study demonstrated that a higher degree of influence has a more significant
effect on the sweep efficiency of steam flooding. Furthermore, the study improved the
method used in previous studies to optimise steam injection parameters by making the
pseudomobility ratio a non-negligible parameter [14–16]. By characterising the upper
boundary of the steam front, Ding [17] established a mathematical model of the steam front
that considered the start-up pressure gradient and the change in the upper boundary of the
steam front; the results showed that the upper boundary of the steam front decreases with
an increase in the starting pressure gradient.
Huang [18] established a prediction model of the steam cavity leading edge by study-
ing the characteristics of the steam cavity leading edge submerged by horizontal steam; the
model was used to analyse the position of the steam cavity leading edge under different
production conditions and the shape of the steam cavity leading edge. The analysis results
demonstrated that the linear steam cavity front is the ideal shape. In contrast, the convex
shape was observed to be the worst shape because it aggravates the steam overburden
phenomenon and affects the efficiency of steam flooding. However, the research was
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 3 of 15

primarily conducted on thin heavy oil reservoirs and did not explain the characteristics of
the vapour cavity front of deep heavy oil reservoirs.
Considering that the increase in asphaltene deposition will block the throat and inhibit
the formation of the vapor cavity, Tian [19] proposed a steam cavity expansion model
for thin heavy oil reservoirs. The IMPES (Implicit Pressure Explicit Saturation) method
was used to establish the model. Previous studies have shown that the development and
expansion of the steam chamber are proportional to the concentration of butane; however,
if the concentration of injected butane is too high, it will lead to a steam overburden
during the early stage in the steam chamber [20–22], and a front breakthrough of the
steam chamber will occur between the injection and production wells. Farzain [23] and
others used numerical simulation software to analyse the influence of steam quality and
steam injection temperature on the expansion of the steam cavity. The results showed
that a high steam injection temperature and medium-quality steam are the optimum
configurations. Under this combination, the development of the steam chamber is optimal
and cost effective.
Pang [24] quantitatively analysed the expansion of the steam cavity and water intru-
sion at the bottom of the steam cavity during the steam flooding process. The analysis
results were used to establish a novel method to study the expansion law of the steam
cavity by utilising the energy conservation rate. It was demonstrated that the steam mainly
migrates to the top of the oil layer. During steam flooding, the content of petroleum compo-
nents gradually changes, owing to distillation. The light hydrocarbon content is higher at
the front of the steam cavity, heavy components mainly occupy the sweeping area flooded
by the steam, and the front of the steam cavity reaches half the distance from the production
well at the end of the steam flooding.
Owing to the large burial depth and high viscosity of deep heavy oil reservoirs, well-
bore heat loss will occur during steam injection. As well depth increases, heat dissipation
in the wellbore and the negative effects of wellbore friction will reduce the amount of heat
injected into the reservoir by reducing steam dryness. The existing steam cavity expansion
models are not applicable to the development of medium-deep heavy oil reservoirs or deep
heavy oil reservoirs steam flooding.
Therefore, in this study, the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient was used to describe the
heat loss of steam along the wellbore during the development of deep heavy oil reservoirs.
A steam cavity expansion model was developed based on the wellbore heat loss rate
coefficient of deep heavy oil reservoirs. After verifying the model, the pressure distribution
at the front of the steam belt and the relationship between the steam-dissipated heat area
were calculated. Furthermore, the influence of the wellbore heat loss rate on the expansion
of the steam cavity was analysed. The steam cavity expansion model was used to analyse
the sensitivity of parameters such as the shape factor and pseudomobility ratio and describe
the effects of the steam cavity on the development of the deep heavy oil reservoirs. The
model developed in this study can quickly and accurately predict the position of the front
edge of the steam cavity and calculate the volume of the steam cavity without the assistance
of traditional numerical software models. Thus, the novel model is fast, cost effective, and
provides theoretical support for the development of deep heavy oil reservoirs.

2. Expansion of Steam Flooding Chamber

2.1. Assumptions
Various factors influence each other during steam flooding production, and the heat
transfer and seepage mechanisms are intricate. Therefore, in this study, to simplify the
production process, the following assumptions were made regarding the characteristics of
deep heavy oil reservoirs:
(1) Homogeneous reservoirs and fractures were assumed to be absent.
(2) The thermal conductivity values of the top and bottom rocks were the same, and the
heat conduction in the horizontal direction was zero in top and bottom rocks.
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 4 of 15

Energies 2022, 15, 4816 (2) The thermal conductivity values of the top and bottom rocks were the same,4and of 15 the
heat conduction in the horizontal direction was zero in top and bottom rocks.
(3) The injected steam parameters were constant, and the steam did not undergo a phase
change.
(3) The injected steam parameters were constant, and the steam did not undergo a phase
(4) The wellbore friction loss was ignored.
change.
(5)
(4) The wellboreproperties
The physical friction lossand
wasfluid saturation of the oil layer were not affected by tem-
ignored.
(5) perature.
The physical properties and fluid saturation of the oil layer were not affected by
(6) The streamline is in the horizontal direction, and the flow only occurs in all planes
temperature.
(6) perpendicular
The streamlineto is the horizontal
in the horizontalinjection and
direction, andproduction well;
the flow only the in
occurs cross-flow
all planes be-
tween vertical planes
perpendicular does not injection
to the horizontal occur. and production well; the cross-flow between
vertical
From theplanes
abovedoes not occur. the three-dimensional problem can be converted into
assumptions,
From the aboveproblem,
a two-dimensional assumptions,
and the
the three-dimensional
movement of theproblem can be converted
vapour–liquid interface into
can be
a two-dimensional
studied. In addition,problem, and the
a steam cavity movement
expansion of the
model ofvapour–liquid interface
a deep heavy oil cancan
reservoir be be
studied. In addition, a steam cavity expansion model of a deep heavy oil reservoir can
established according to the actual situation. A schematic of the movement of the vapour–
be established according to the actual situation. A schematic of the movement of the
liquid interface is shown in Figure 1.
vapour–liquid interface is shown in Figure 1.

Figure1.
Figure Diagram of
1. Diagram of the
the movement
movementof
ofthe
thevapor–liquid
vapor–liquidinterface forfor
interface steam flooding
steam in heavy
flooding oil oil
in heavy
verticalwells.
vertical wells.

2.2. Vapor-Liquid Interface Shape

2.2. Vapor-Liquid Interface Shape
When the bottom end of the steam interface reaches the bottom end of the steam
When
injection thethe
well, bottom endat of
pressure thepoint
each steamon interface reachesinterface
the steam–liquid the bottom enddistances
at radial of the steam
r1
injection well, the pressure at each point on the steam–liquid interface at radial
and r2 from the steam injection well can be converted to the plane of Y = 0. The pressure distances
r1and
and r2 from
flow the steam
potential at the injection wellinterface
steam–liquid can be converted
are showntointhe plane
Figure 2. of Y = 0. The pressure
and flow potential at the steam–liquid
 interface are shown in Figure 2.
φ = Ps1 − ρs ghs1
  φs1 = Ps1 − ρ s ghs1

 s1
φs2 = Ps2 − ρs ghs2
φ = P − ρ gh (1)
=
φo1 s 2 Po1 s−
2 ρo gh
s s1 s 2
  (1)


φo2 φ= = − ρ
 o1 o2 o1 o o gh
P P − ρ gh s2 s1
φo 2 = Po 2 − ρo ghs 2
where φs1 and φs2 are the potentials of the steam at points 1 and 2, respectively, at the
φ andinterface
vapour–liquid
where φ areconverted to the Y = 0 surface; φo1 and φo2 are the potentials of the
the potentials of the steam at points 1 and 2, respectively, at the
heavy oils1 at pointss 21 and 2, respectively, at the vapour–liquid interface converted to the
vapour–liquid
Y = 0 surface; P interface
s1 and Ps2converted to the Yof=the
are the pressures 0 surface; φo1 and
steam at points φo22, are
1 and the potentials
respectively, at
the vapour–liquid interface; P and P are
of the heavy oil at points 1 ando12, respectively,
o2 the pressures of the heavy oil at points 1 and
at the vapour–liquid interface converted to
2, respectively, at the vapour–liquid interface; hs1 and hs2 are the thicknesses of the steam
the Y = 0 surface; Ps1 and Ps 2 are the pressures of the steam at points 1 and 2, respec-
belt at points 1 and 2, respectively; ρs is the steam density; ρo is the oil density; and g is the
tively, acceleration. interface; Po1 and Po 2 are the pressures of the heavy oil at
at the vapour–liquid
gravitational
 points 1 and 2, respectively, at the vapour–liquid interface; hs1 and hs 2 are the thick-

Energies 2022, 15, 4816 nesses of the steam belt at points 1 and 2, respectively; ρs is the steam density; 5ρofo 15is
the oil density; and g is the gravitational acceleration.

Figure2.2.Pressure
Figure Pressureand
andflow
flowpotential
potentialatatthe
thevapour–liquid
vapour–liquidinterface
interfacefor steam
for flooding.
steam flooding.

Thus,
Thus, 
4φs = φs1 − φs2 = ( Ps1 − Ps2 ) − ρs g(hs1 − hs2 )
 φφs =−φsφ1 o2
− φ= −ρ (2)
4φo = s 2 (=P(o1
Ps−1 −PPs 2))− ρos g 1−
g((hhss1 −hsh2s2) )
 o1 o2
(2)
φ = φ − φ = ( P − P ) − ρ g ( h − hs 2 )
Because the pressures on obothosides
1 o 2of the o1 vapour–liquid
o2 o s1interface are equal:
Because the pressures on both sides of the vapour–liquid interface are equal:
4 φs − 4φo = (ρo − ρs ) g(hs1 − hs2 ) = (ρo − ρs ) g 4 hs (3)
φs −φo = ( ρo − ρ s ) g (hs1 − hs 2 ) = ( ρo − ρ s ) g hs (3)
When r1 and r2 are infinitely close, the following can be concluded:
When r1 and r2 are infinitely close, the following can be concluded:
∂φs ∂φs∂φo∂φo ∂h∂sh
− − = (=ρ(oρ− ρsρ)sg) g s
o − (4)
(4)
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r∂r
UsingDarcy’s
Using Darcy’sformula
formulafor
forthe
thetwo
twophases,
phases,we weobtain
obtainthe
thefollowing:
following:
 μs ws 
∂hs ∂hs = 1 1 µoμwoowo 

 µs ws − (5)
∂r ∂r (ρo (−ρoρ−s )ρgs ) g2πrh
= − 2π rh k ρ (5)
 2πsrh
k ssρkss ρ s 2πrh o koo ρoo o 

whereµs μiss the

where is the viscosity
viscosity of steam,
of steam, μo viscosity
µo is the is the viscosity
of heavy of oil,
heavy thew
ws isoil, s is the
radial radial
velocity
ofvelocity
steam inofthe steam
steam belt,
in the wo isbelt,
steam wo isvelocity
the radial the radial ofvelocity
heavy oil of in the steam
heavy k s is the
belt,steam
oil in the belt,
steam permeability, k o is the oil permeability, hs is the thickness of the steam belt, and h is
ksthickness
the is the steam permeability,
of the oil layer. ko is the oil permeability, hs is the thickness of the steam
belt,The h isburial
andlarge the thickness
depth and of high
the oil layer.
crude oil viscosity observed in deep heavy oil reser-
The be
voirs can large burial depth
attributed to theand high crude
nonzero oil viscosityratio.
pseudomobility observed
The in deep heavy oilM
pseudomobility 0 is
reser-
'
obtained
voirs canasbe follows:
attributed to the nonzero pseudomobility
0k ratio. The pseudomobility M is
µ s ρ w
s o e( r )
obtained as follows: M0 = o × (6)
µs k o ρ o ws (r b )
μo k s ρs wo ( re )
'
where µ0o is the crude oil viscosity during M′ = formation × when heated by steam; ws (rb ) is the (6)
steam velocity at rb in the steam belt; and wμos(kroe ) isρothe ws (oil
rb ) velocity at r in the steam belt.
e

where μ is the crude oil viscosity during formation when heated by steam; ws (rb ) is
From Van-Lookeren’s
' research, the dimensionless shape factor is obtained as fol-
lows [4]: o
the steam velocity at rb in the 2steam belt; and µs is wo (re ) is the oil velocity at re in the
ArD = (7)
steam belt. π (ρo − ρs ) gh2 k s ρs
where, is is the steam injection rate.
We can obtain

∂hs h2 w s h s wo ws (r b )
= − ArD 2 [1 − M 0 ] (8)
∂r 2rhs is h − h s ws wo (r e )
 2 μsis
ArD = (7)
π ( ρ o − ρs ) gh 2 k s ρs

where, is is the steam injection rate.

We can obtain
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 ∂hs h 2 ws h wo ws ( rb ) 6 of 15
= − ArD 2 [1 − M ′ s ] (8)
∂r 2 rhs is h − hs ws wo ( re )

2.3. Wellbore
2.3. WellboreHeat
HeatLoss
Loss Rate
Rate
Owing
Owingtotothethelarge
large burial depthofofdeep
burial depth deepheavy
heavyoiloil reservoirs,
reservoirs, heatheat
loss loss occurs
occurs during
during
thethe injectionofofsteam
injection steam from
from the
the surface
surfaceinto
intothe
thereservoir
reservoir[25–27].
[25–27].
AAmicroelement
microelement structure
structure in
in the
thewellbore
wellborewas wasselected,
selected,as shown
as shownin Figure 3. 3.
in Figure
dq = π dK [T − (t0 + mx)]dx = −GCdT (9)
dq = πdK [ T − (t0 + mx )]dx = − GCdT (9)
where dq is the heat dissipation loss from the wellbore; K is the total heat transfer co-
where dq isfrom
efficient the heat dissipation
the outside of theloss fromtothe
tubing formation;K is
thewellbore; d the total
is the heatdiameter
inner transfer of
coefficient
the
from the outside
oil pipe of the
or insulated tubing
pipe; T istothe formation;ofd the
thetemperature is the inner
fluid; t0 diameter of the
is the surface oil pipe or
tempera-
insulated pipe; T is the temperature of the fluid; t0 is the surface temperature; m is the
ture; m is the geothermal gradient; G is the injected fluid flow; and C is the specific
geothermal gradient; G is the injected fluid flow; and C is the specific heat capacity of the
heat capacity of the injected fluid.
injected fluid.

Figure 3.3.Heat
Figure Heattransfer
transfer microelement structureofofvertical
microelement structure vertical well
well steam
steam flooding
flooding wellbore.
wellbore.

When W = GC, Kl = πdK, the following is obtained:

When W = GC , Kl = π dK , the following is obtained:
dTdT KKl l
== [([(tt00 + mx) )− −
+ mx T ] T] (10) (10)
dxdx WW
Thus,
Thus,
dTdT KKl l Kl
K
+ TT = = l ((tt00++mxmx
) ) (11) (11)
dxdx +WW W
W
Kl Wm
T = Ce− W− Kxl x+ (t0 + mx ) Wm− (12)
T = Ce W + (t + mx) − Kl (12)
0
Kl
When x = 0, T = T0 , the following is obtained:
When x = 0 , T = T0 , the following is obtained:
Wm
C = T0 − t0 + (13)
Kl

Thus,
Wm − Kl x Kl x
T= (e W − 1) + ( T0 − t0 )e− W + (t0 + mx ) (14)
Kl
The heat dissipation loss when there is no phase change during the injection of hot
fluid along the wellbore is calculated as follows:

q = GC ( T0 − T ) (15)

The wellbore heat loss rate coefficient is obtained:

q GC ( T0 − T )
n= = (16)
q0 GCT0

where q0 is the heat at wellhead injection.

Energies 2022, 15, 4816 7 of 15

2.4. Steam Cavity Expansion Model for Steam Flooding

Previous studies have reported that after the steam rises to the top of the oil layer,
it maintains a steady balance in the radial and longitudinal directions of the steam belt.
Subsequently, the steam expands outwards in both radial and longitudinal directions
simultaneously. In the longitudinal direction of the steam zone, the steam rate decreases
uniformly, and the steam rate ratio is defined as the ratio of the thickness of the steam zone
to the thickness of the formation.
ws hs
= (17)
ws (r b ) h
wo hs
= 1− (18)
wo (r e ) h
Van-Lookeren [4] and Cheng [13] have shown that the ratio of the bottom hole steam
mass flow rate to the steam radial velocity on the steam belt is equal to the ratio of the front
radius of the steam cavity, whereas the bottom hole mass flow rate is equal to the ratio of
the steam cavity leading-edge radius.
However, in deep heavy oil reservoirs, due to the increase of the well depth, the steam
will lose heat energy in the wellbore, and the wellbore heat loss rate cannot be ignored.
Therefore, the concept of wellbore heat loss rate was proposed based on the characteristics of
deep heavy oil reservoirs. The wellbore heat loss rate coefficient is calculated by considering
the kinetic energy loss of steam in the wellbore and brought into the relationship between
the steam zone rate and the bottom hole steam rate. The coefficient values range from
0 to 0.5.
ws re 2 − r2 r2
= (1 − n)( 2 2
) = (1 − n)(1 − 2 ) (19)
is re − rb re
where r is the radial distance from the steam injection point, and ic is the bottom hole steam
mass rate.
Substituting Equations (17)–(19) into Equation (8), we obtain the following:

∂hs h2 (1 − n ) r2
= ArD 2 (1 − M0 )(1 − 2 ) (20)
∂r 2rhs re

Integrating Equation (20), we obtain the steam chamber leading-edge expansion model
as follows: s
re 1 1 r2
hs = ArD h (ln − + ) × (1 − M 0 ) × (1 − n ) (21)
r 2 2 re 2
From the steam flooding front shape equation, it can be inferred that the shape of the
steam flooding cavity front in deep heavy oil reservoirs is mainly determined by the shape
factor, wellbore heat loss rate coefficient, and pseudomobility ratio.

3. Model Validation
To verify the accuracy of the proposed model, the steam flooding test area of a deep
heavy oil reservoir in an oil field in northeastern China was selected as the research object.
The basic parameters of the reservoir are presented in Table 1. The parameters were used
in the Van-Lookeren steam chamber expansion model, Cheng steam chamber expansion
model, modified steam chamber model, and compared with the steam chamber in the
actual field. The actual data is measured by the observation well temperature method. The
temperature distribution of the oil drainage zone can be used to infer the position of the
front edge of the steam chamber, and then the shape of the front edge of the steam chamber
can be obtained by fitting the curve [28].
 model, modified steam chamber model, and compared with the steam chamber in the
actual field. The actual data is measured by the observation well temperature method. The
temperature distribution of the oil drainage zone can be used to infer the position of the
front edge of the steam chamber, and then the shape of the front edge of the steam cham-
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 ber can be obtained by fitting the curve [28]. 8 of 15

Table 1. Basic data table of steam flooding test area.

Table 1. BasicItem
data table of steam flooding
Valuetest area. Item Value
Reservoir density/kg·m−3 980 Oil layer thickness/m 15
Item Value Item Value
Steam density/kg·m− −3 20 Well spacing/m 70
Reservoir density/kg·m 3 980 Oil layer thickness/m 15
Steam viscosity/mPa·s
−3 1.44 × 10−2 Steam injection rate/kg·s−1 1.5
Steam density/kg·m 20 Well spacing/m 70
viscosity/mPa·s −2 Wellbore heat loss rate ·coeffi-
s−1
Steam
Oil viscosity/mPa·s 7.5×× 10
1.44 105 Steam injection rate/kg 1.5
0.15
Oil viscosity/mPa·s 7.5 × 105 cient/f
Wellbore heat loss rate coefficient/f 0.15

As shown in Figure 4, the shape of the leading edge of the steam cavity in the Van-
As shown in Figure 4, the shape of the leading edge of the steam cavity in the Van-
Lookeren model is more ideal than the shape of the leading edge of the steam cavity of
Lookeren model is more ideal than the shape of the leading edge of the steam cavity of
the latter two, and the phenomenon of steam overlap is not as obvious as the protruding
the latter two, and the phenomenon of steam overlap is not as obvious as the protruding
phenomenon of the leading edge of the steam cavity in the Cheng model. Compared with
phenomenon of the leading edge of the steam cavity in the Cheng model. Compared
the Van-Lookeren
with the Van-Lookeren model and and
model Cheng model,
Cheng the front
model, edgeedge
the front of the
ofsteam cavity
the steam of theofmod-
cavity the
ified model is further back, the longitudinal distance between the tops of the
modified model is further back, the longitudinal distance between the tops of the steam steam belts
is larger,
belts the steam
is larger, overlap
the steam phenomenon
overlap is more
phenomenon obvious,
is more and itand
obvious, is also
it iscloser to theto
also closer actual
the
site steam cavity.
actual site steam cavity.

Figure 4. Model steam cavity front edge verification comparison diagram.

Because the Van-Lookeren model and Cheng model are based on steam flooding
development of thin heavy oil reservoirs, the thermal energy loss caused by wellbore
heat loss is ignored, which seriously affects the development and expansion of steam
chambers. Therefore, on the basis of Cheng’s model, a wellbore heat loss rate coefficient
was introduced to describe the phenomenon of heat loss due to the increase of steam along
the well depth. Compared to the Cheng model, the accuracy of the calculation results was
improved by approximately 10%. The position of the leading edge of the steam drive cavity
obtained in this study was more backward, and the steam overburden phenomenon was
more notable.

4. Model Application
4.1. Gradient Analysis of Steam Belt Pressure
The differential formula for radial flow in the Darcy plane is:

AK dp
Q= (22)
µ dr

where Q is well flow rate, A is seepage area of plane radial flow, and K is the permeability.
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 9 of 15

Due to the different properties of the fluid near the injection well and the production
well, the pressure gradients of the production well and the injection well are calculated
separately:
Q µ 1
η1 = 1 1 × (23)
2πKhs r
Q2 µ2 1
η2 = × (24)
2πKhs ( L − r)
where Q1 is the output of the production wells, Q2 is the steam injection volume, µ1 is the
fluid viscosity near production wells, µ2 is the fluid viscosity near injection wells, and L is
the spacing between the injection and production wells.
According to the superposition principle of the potential, the pressure gradient of the
steam belt on the main flow line of the injection-production well can be obtained:

dp Q µ 1 Q µ 1
= 1 1 × + 2 2 × (25)
dr 2πKhs r 2πKhs ( L − r)

Table 2 shows the reservoir and injection parameters for the test area of the medium-
deep heavy oil reservoir. The data were used as input for Equation (25), and the relationship
between the oil layer pressure and steam zone distance in the deep heavy oil reservoir was
obtained.

Table 2. Reservoir parameters and injection parameters.

Item Value

Energies 2022, 15, 4816 Production well output/m3 ·d−1 150 10 of 15

Steam injection volume/m3 ·d−1 200
Fluid viscosity near production wells/mPa·s 500
Fluid viscosity near injection wells/mPa·s 10
the steam injection well, and the−wellbore
Permeability/10 3 µm2 heat loss rate coefficient had a1500
significant influ-
ence on the reservoir pressure gradient. As the steam zone moved farther away from the
steam injection well, the effect of the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient on the reservoir
From Figure 5, it can be inferred that at the same position, as the wellbore heat loss
pressure gradient became less marked.
rate coefficient increased, the pressure gradient increased. The steam zone was close to the
After steam injection, heat loss occurs in the wellbore, and a large amount of heat
steam injection well, and the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient had a significant influence
energy is consumed. When the pressure gradient is large, the steam belt pressure differ-
on the reservoir pressure gradient. As the steam zone moved farther away from the steam
ence per unit distance changes significantly. It can be inferred that the steam belt pressure
injection well, the effect of the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient on the reservoir pressure
drops significantly, and the development of the steam cavity is not ideal.
gradient became less marked.

Diagramofofpressure
Figure5.5.Diagram
Figure pressuregradient
gradientatatdifferent
different positions
positions of of
thethe steam
steam belt.
belt.

According to the prediction, it is found that in the reservoir in this study, the optimal
heating radius of steam flooding is about 35 m. Similarly, when the radius of the steam
belt increased again, the pressure gradient also increased. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the optimal heating radius of the steam zone in deep heavy oil reservoirs is approxi-
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 10 of 15

After steam injection, heat loss occurs in the wellbore, and a large amount of heat
energy is consumed. When the pressure gradient is large, the steam belt pressure difference
per unit distance changes significantly. It can be inferred that the steam belt pressure drops
significantly, and the development of the steam cavity is not ideal.
According to the prediction, it is found that in the reservoir in this study, the optimal
heating radius of steam flooding is about 35 m. Similarly, when the radius of the steam belt
increased again, the pressure gradient also increased. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the optimal heating radius of the steam zone in deep heavy oil reservoirs is approximately
35 m. When the steam zone radius exceeds this range, severe steam overburden is observed,
the oil layer pressure drops rapidly, and the efficacy of steam flooding decreases.

4.2. Calculate the Heat Dissipation Area

The steam flooding front equation can be obtained from Equation (21):
s
re 1 1 r2
hs = ArD h (ln − + ) × (1 − M 0 ) × (1 − n )
r 2 2 re 2

When the steam reaches the bottom of the steam injection well, r = rb , h = hs , and the
following is obtained:

1 2 1 1
( ) = (ln y − + y2 ) × (1 − M0 ) × (1 − n) (26)
ArD 2 2

where y is the ratio of the heat dissipation areas of the top and bottom layers.
Thus, the following is obtained:

1
y = f( ) (27)
ArD 2 (1 − n )(1 − M0 )

The relationship between the heat dissipation area between the top and bottom cover
layers is as follows:
A1 (t) = πre 2 = y2 πrb 2 = y2 A2 (t) (28)
where A1 (t) is the heat dissipation area for the top layer, and A2 (t) is the heat dissipation
area for the bottom layer.
The shape factor is also called the steam overlay coefficient, which has a significant
influence on the development of steam flooding and steam chambers. The relationship
between the heat dissipation area of the top and bottom layers of steam flooding and the
shape factor is shown in Figure 6. When the shape factor was 0–1.2, the ratio of the heat
dissipation area of the top layer to that of the bottom layer changed significantly. Thus, it
can be concluded that the heat dissipation area of the top layer was much larger than that
of the bottom layer. In addition, severe steam overburden was observed. Furthermore, the
steam inrush of the top layer was severe, which is not conducive to the efficacy of steam
flooding; when the shape factor was greater than 1.2, the ratio of the heat dissipation area of
the top layer to that of the bottom layer was small. The two ends of the steam chamber were
at an equally advanced position towards the production well, and the oil recovery factor
increased. Under the same shape factor, the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient increased, and
the ratio of the area of the top layer to that of the bottom of the steam zone increased. Note
that the front edge of the steam cavity protruded significantly, and the steam overburden
had an adverse effect on the development of steam flooding [29].
 flooding; when the shape factor was greater than 1.2, the ratio of the heat dissipation area
of the top layer to that of the bottom layer was small. The two ends of the steam chamber
were at an equally advanced position towards the production well, and the oil recovery
factor increased. Under the same shape factor, the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient in-
creased, and the ratio of the area of the top layer to that of the bottom of the steam zone
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 11 of 15
increased. Note that the front edge of the steam cavity protruded significantly, and the
steam overburden had an adverse effect on the development of steam flooding [29].

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Diagram
Diagramof
ofsteam
steamdrive
drivetop-to-bottom heat
top-to-bottom area
heat ratio
area versus
ratio shape
versus factor.
shape factor.

4.3.
4.3. Sensitivity AnalysisofofSteam
Sensitivity Analysis SteamChamber
ChamberExpansion
Expansion
4.3.1. Influence Analysis of Shape Factor
4.3.1. Influence Analysis of Shape Factor
Figure
Figure 77 shows
showsthatthatthe
theshape
shapefactor
factorincreased,
increased, thethe angle
angle between
between the the steam
steam cavity
cavity
and the horizontal direction tended to be 90 ◦ , the shape of the front edge of the steam
and horizontal direction tended to be 90°, the shape of the front edge of the steam
cavity
cavity became
became steeper,
steeper,the
thelongitudinal
longitudinalthickness
thicknessofofthe thesteam
steambelt increased,
belt increased, andandthethe
steam
overlay phenomenon
steam overlay became
phenomenon less marked.
became In deep
less marked. heavy
In deep oil reservoirs,
heavy the the
oil reservoirs, lower
lowerpart of
the
partsteam
of thecavity
steamcould
cavityreach
couldthe bottom
reach of the well
the bottom only
of the wellforonly
a shape
for afactor
shapeoffactor
approximately
of ap-
proximately
1.2, 1.2, which
which formed formed
a steam zonea steam zone
over the over the
entire entire Only
oil layer. oil layer.
when Only
thewhen
frontthe front
edge of the
Energies 2022, 15, 4816
edge ofcavity
steam the steam
reachescavity
thereaches
bottomthe of bottom of thecan
the oil layer oil layer can the
the steam steam
belt belt
of the of theoil
whole whole
12 of 15 be
layer
oil layer Thus,
formed. be formed. Thus,ofthe
the range range
steam of steam
flooding flooding
will increase,willand
increase, and the recovery
the reservoir reservoir will
recovery
be improved.will be improved.

Figure 7. Shape
Figure Shape of
ofthe
thesteam
steamchamber
chamberfront
frontatat
different injection
different rates.
injection rates.

4.3.2. Influence Analysis of Pseudomobility Ratio

Figure 8 shows the shape of the steam flooding front under different pseudomobility
ratios. From the figure, it can be inferred that the pseudomobility ratio had an adverse
effect on the shape of the steam front. With increasing pseudomobility ratio, the steam
 Figure 7. Shape of the steam chamber front at different injection rates.

Energies 2022, 15, 4816 12 of 15

4.3.2. Influence Analysis of Pseudomobility Ratio
Figure 8 shows the shape of the steam flooding front under different pseudomobility
ratios. From the
4.3.2. Influence figure,ofitPseudomobility
Analysis can be inferred that the pseudomobility ratio had an adverse
Ratio
effect on the shape of the steam front. With increasing pseudomobility ratio, the steam
Figure 8 shows the shape of the steam flooding front under different pseudomobility
front
ratios.became severely
From the inclined,
figure, it and thethat
can be inferred longitudinal thicknessratio
the pseudomobility of the
hadsteam belt became
an adverse
smaller. In actual reservoirs, the pseudomobility ratio cannot be ignored,
effect on the shape of the steam front. With increasing pseudomobility ratio, the steam due to reservoir
'
heterogeneity and excessive
front became severely crude
inclined, and theoil viscosity.thickness
longitudinal Therefore, steamMbelt
when
of the ≥ 0.8 , the steam
became
overburden phenomenon
smaller. In actual reservoirs, intensifies, the difference
the pseudomobility between
ratio cannot the radius
be ignored, due toofreservoir
the upper part
heterogeneity
of and excessive
the steam chamber and thecrude oil viscosity.
radius of the lowerTherefore, when
part of the M0 ≥
steam 0.8, theincreases.
chamber steam The
overburden phenomenon intensifies, the difference between the radius
aggravation of the steam overlay hinders steam flooding, resulting in reduced oil of the upper part of recov-
the steam chamber and the radius of the lower part of the steam chamber increases. The
ery.
aggravation of the steam overlay hinders steam flooding, resulting in reduced oil recovery.

Figure 8. Shape
Figure 8. Shapeofofsteam
steam chamber
chamber front
front at different
at different pseudomobility
pseudomobility ratios. ratios.

4.3.3. Influence Analysis of Wellbore Heat Loss Rate Coefficient

Figure 9 shows that the smaller the wellbore heat loss rate is, the smaller the angle
between the steam zone and the plane is, and the front edge of the steam cavity is linear. It
can be inferred that the coefficient of the wellbore heat loss rate was inversely proportional
to the shape of the steam cavity front. In actual fields, because of the geological charac-
teristics of deep heavy oil reservoirs, after steam is injected along the wellbore, energy
loss occurs with increasing well depth; this results in changes in steam dryness and steam
mass flow rate. The increase of the wellbore heat loss rate will lead to the reduction of the
heat energy carried by the steam injected into the reservoir, and the steam mass flow rate
at the steam zone will decrease accordingly. Thus, the effective sweeping range of steam
flooding and the oil displacement efficiency are reduced significantly; it is not conducive to
the development of steam flooding.
 ergy loss occurs with increasing well depth; this results in changes in steam dryness an
steam mass flow rate. The increase of the wellbore heat loss rate will lead to the reductio
of the heat energy carried by the steam injected into the reservoir, and the steam mas
flow rate at the steam zone will decrease accordingly. Thus, the effective sweeping rang
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 of steam flooding and the oil displacement efficiency are reduced significantly;
13 of 15 it is no
conducive to the development of steam flooding.

Figure Shape
Figure9. 9. of steam
Shape chamber
of steam frontfront
chamber at different wellbore
at different heat loss
wellbore rates.
heat loss rates.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
Heavy oil is widely distributed and rich in resources in the world, and countries regard
heavy Heavy
oil as anoil is widely
important distributed
strategic and richCompared
energy reserve. in resourceswith in therecovery
other world, and countries re
methods,
steam flooding can realize the complete process of steam cavity
gard heavy oil as an important strategic energy reserve. Compared with other formation, expansion, and recover
breakthrough, which is in line with the development law of heavy
methods, steam flooding can realize the complete process of steam cavity formation, ex oil thermal recovery.
However,
pansion, theandsuccess of steam flooding
breakthrough, which isdepends on thethe
in line with development
development andlawexpansion
of heavyof oil ther
steam chambers, so it is very important to accurately grasp the development and expansion
mal recovery. However, the success of steam flooding depends on the development an
laws of steam chambers.
expansion of steam
In the current chambers,
research, so it isonvery
the research importantoftosteam
the expansion accurately
cavitiesgrasp the developmen
in shallow and
and expansion laws of steam chambers.
thin heavy oil reservoirs is relatively complete, and many influencing factors are considered,
such asInsteam
the current
overlay, research,
pseudomobility the research
ratio andon theparameters.
other expansion However,
of steam the cavities in shallow
existing
and thin
steam heavy
cavity models oil cannot
reservoirs is relatively
be perfectly appliedcomplete, and many of
to the development influencing factors
steam flooding in are con
deep heavysuch
sidered, oil reservoirs.
as steam Due to thepseudomobility
overlay, characteristics of large
ratio burial depthparameters.
and other and high viscosity
However, th
inexisting
deep heavy
steamoil reservoirs,
cavity models after steam
cannot is injected along the
be perfectly wellbore,
applied thermal
to the energy loss of steam
development
will occur with
flooding the increase
in deep heavy oil of well depth, resulting
reservoirs. Due to the in the reduction of the
characteristics heat carried
of large burialby depth an
the injected steam into the reservoir.
high viscosity in deep heavy oil reservoirs, after steam is injected along the wellbore, ther
Therefore, in this study, the vapour–liquid interface theory and mathematical integra-
malwere
tion energyusedloss will occur
to establish withcavity
a steam the increase
expansionof model.
well depth, resulting
The wellbore in loss
heat the rate
reduction o
the heat carried by the injected steam into the reservoir.
coefficient, steam overlay, and pseudomobility ratio were used to accurately describe the
Therefore,
development insteam
of the this study,
cavity in thedeep
vapour–liquid interfaceThe
heavy oil reservoirs. theory
proposedand model
mathematical
was inte
gration were used
experimentally to establish
validated, and it was a steam
observedcavity
thatexpansion
the model model. The wellbore
could accurately reflectheat
the loss rat
actual mine conditions.
coefficient, steam overlay, and pseudomobility ratio were used to accurately describe th
This research considers the thermal energy loss phenomenon of steam in the injection
process and expounds the macroscopic expansion law of steam displacement chamber in
deep heavy oil reservoirs. Compared with the traditional numerical model, this research
can quickly and accurately predict the position of the front edge of the steam cavity and
calculate the volume of the steam cavity, thereby saving time and costs, and improving the
economic benefit of steam flooding development.
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 14 of 15

6. Conclusions
In this study, a steam cavity expansion model for deep heavy oil vertical well steam
flooding was established considering the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient, steam overlay,
and pseudomobility ratio. The proposed model was analysed and validated. The following
conclusions were made:
(1) During the steam flooding development of deep heavy oil reservoirs, after the steam
is injected from the wellhead, energy loss occurs with increasing wellbore depth.
The wellbore heat loss rate coefficient can accurately reflect the heat energy loss
phenomenon during the steam injection process and provide a theoretical basis for
the development of steam flooding in deep heavy oil reservoirs.
(2) The influence of the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient on the pressure gradient of the
oil layer was primarily observed at a distance of 5–20 m from the steam injection well.
At a greater distance, the influence of the wellbore heat loss rate becomes negligible,
and deep heavy oil is obtained. Therefore, the optimum heating radius for reservoir
steam flooding is approximately 35 m. When the radius of the steam zone exceeds the
optimum range, the phenomenon of steam overburden becomes significant.
(3) As the wellbore heat loss rate coefficient increased, the heat carried by the steam
injected into the reservoir increased. The reduction of the heat dissipation area ratio
of the top and bottom layers of the steam chamber means that the steam overlay effect
is not obvious; the steam zone can maintain a vertical shape and advance toward the
production well.
(4) From the sensitivity analysis of the steam cavity expansion model, it was concluded
that with increasing shape factor, the shape of the steam cavity is better developed.
The pseudomobility ratio is inversely proportional to the shape of the steam cavity.
In addition, with increasing well depth, the loss of steam heat energy becomes more
severe. Thus, the greater the coefficient of heat loss rate of the wellbore, the less
developed the steam chamber is, resulting in lower ultimate recovery.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.Z. and Y.Z.; methodology, Y.Z.; software, D.D.; vali-
dation, Y.Z.; formal analysis, Y.Z.; investigation, Y.L.; resources, L.Z.; data curation, L.Z.; writing—
original draft preparation, Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, X.L.; visualization, J.R.; supervision,
J.F.; project administration, D.D.; funding acquisition, L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Lina Zhang, and grant number is P21086 (Ministry of Science
and Technology of China Petrochemical Corporation).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The results of this study could not have been possible without the efforts of the
staff on the research team, and, at the same time, we sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for
spending their valuable time reviewing and providing valuable comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Marx, J.W.; Langenheim, R.H. Reservoir Heating by Hot Fluid Injection. Pet. Trans. 1959, 216, 312–315. [CrossRef]
2. Neuman, C.H. A mathematical model of the steam drive process applications. In Proceedings of the SPE International Thermal
Operations Symposium, Ventura, CA, USA, 2–4 April 1975; p. 4757.
3. Myhill, N.A.; Stegemeier, G.L. Steam Drive Correlation and Prediction. J. Pet. Technol. 1979, 30, 173–182. [CrossRef]
4. Van-Lookeren, J. Calculation methods for linear and radial steam flow in oil reservoirs. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1983, 23, 427–439.
[CrossRef]
5. Santos, M.D.; Neto, A.D.; Mata, W. New antenna modelling using wavelets for oil thermal recovering methods. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
2011, 76, 64–75. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 4816 15 of 15

6. Zhang, Y.T.; Li, X.N.; Zhang, X. Four fundamental principles for design and follow-up of steam flooding in heavy oil reservoirs.
Pet. Explor. Dev. 2008, 35, 715–719.
7. Lai, L.B.; Pan, T.T.; Qin, Y.; Xu, C.X.; Li, X.F. A calculation method for heat loss considering steam overlap in steam flooding. J.
Northwest Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2014, 44, 105–110.
8. Du, D.F.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Liu, X.; Zhang, L.N.; Ren, L.C.; Liu, P. New Gas Tracer Convection−Diffusion Model between Wells in
Heavy Oil Reservoirs. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 24752–24764. [CrossRef]
9. Vogel, J.V. Simplified heat calculations for steamfloods. J. Pet. Technol. 1984, 36, 1127–1136. [CrossRef]
10. Farouq, A.S.M. Steam injection theories: A unified approach. In Proceedings of the Caliornia Regional Meeting of SPE, San
Francisco, CA, USA, 24 March 1982.
11. Peake, W.T. Steamflood Material Balance Applications. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1989, 4, 357–362. [CrossRef]
12. Closmann, P.J. A simplified gravity drainage oil production model for mature steam drives. In Proceedings of the SPE International
Thermal Operations Symposium, Bakersfield, CA, USA, 8–10 February 1993; p. 25790.
13. Cheng, L.S.; Liu, D.; Gao, H.L.; Zhou, F.J. Research on steam flooding front prediction model considering pseudo mobility ratio. J.
Southwest Pet. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2009, 31, 160–162.
14. Gomma, E.E. Correlations for Predicting Oil Recovery by Steamflood. J. Pet. Technol. 1980, 32, 325–332. [CrossRef]
15. Hou, J.; Wei, B.; Du, Q.J.; Wang, J.C.; Wang, Q.L.; Zhang, G.F. Production prediction of cyclic multi-thermal fluid stimulation in a
horizontal well. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 146, 949–958. [CrossRef]
16. Aydelotte, S.R.; Pope, G.A. A Simplified Predictive Model for Steamdrive Performance. J. Pet. Technol. 1983, 35, 991–1002.
[CrossRef]
17. Ding, Z.P.; Luo, Y.Y.; Cheng, L.S.; Shen, Y. Mathematical model of steam front considering the starting pressure gradient of oil
phase. Sci. Technol. Eng. 2014, 14, 46–48.
18. Huang, S.J.; Xia, Y.; Cao, M.; Chen, X. An Prediction Model of Steam Front of Horizontal Steam Flooding for Thin Heavy Oil
Reservoirs. In Proceeding of the SPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 10–12 December
2018; p. 193740.
19. Tian, Y.P.; Ju, B.S.; Lu, G.Z.; Liu, N.N.; Dong, Y.T.; Ma, S. The comprehensive model for solvent assisted steam flooding in thin
heavy oil reservoirs considering asphaltene deposition. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 185, 106676. [CrossRef]
20. Lai, L.B.; Pan, T.T. Evaluation method of steam overlap between injection and production wells in steam flooding. Spec. Oil Gas
Reserv. 2013, 20, 80–83.
21. Wang, H.T.; Fan, H.F. Steam flooding and oil recovery by different types of horizontal well pattern. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35,
479–487. [CrossRef]
22. Pang, Z.X.; Liu, H.Q.; Zhu, L. A laboratory study of enhancing heavy oil recovery with steam flooding by adding nitrogen Foams.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 128, 184–193. [CrossRef]
23. Farzain, U.D.K.; Arshad, R.; Raoof, G.; Muhammad, Z.H.; Chaudary, S.F. Analyzing the effect of steam quality and injection
temperature on the performance of steam flooding. Energy Geosci. 2021, 2, 83–86.
24. Pang, Z.X.; Wang, L.T.; Yin, F.H.; Lyu, X.C. Steam chamber expanding processes and bottom water invading characteristics during
steam flooding in heavy oil reservoirs. Energy 2021, 234, 121214. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, M.K. Quantitative Calculation of Heat Transfer in Steam Injection Well. J. Pet. Univ. 1994, 18, 77–82.
26. Wang, Z.G.; Zhang, L.; Jia, Y.Y.; Song, Y.C.; Gong, K.Q. Heat loss calculation method for thermal fluid injection along the wellbore.
J. Liaoning Tech. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2013, 32, 1345–1348.
27. Zhao, D.W.; Wang, J.; Ian, D.G. Optimized solvent-aided steam-flooding strategy for recovery of thin heavy oil reservoirs. Fuel
2013, 112, 50–59. [CrossRef]
28. Zhou, Y.; Lu, T.; Wu, S.Y.; Shi, L.; Du, X.; Wang, J. Models of steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) steam chamber expanding
velocity in double horizontal wells and its application. Pet. Explor. Dev. 2019, 46, 334–341. [CrossRef]
29. Khansari, Z.; Kapadia, P.; Mahinpey, N.; Gates, L.D. A new reaction model for low temperature oxidation of heavy oil: Experiments
and numerical modeling. Energy 2014, 64, 419–428. [CrossRef]