CIPC Program Sessions Index

PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2006-153

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Fluid Movement in the SAGD Process

A Review of the Dover Project
A. L. AHERNE
Suncor Energy Inc.

B. MAINI
University of Calgary

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (57th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13 – 15, 2006. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract decreasing the heat efficiency of the steam generation. Further,

The fundamentals of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
steam chamber development are now well understood through
Butler’s analytical models, and extensive field and laboratory
testing. However as industry continues to extend SAGD to new
reservoirs and looks towards SAGD wind down at the end life
of the projects, it is important that we recognize the value of not
only understanding the steam chamber but also of the
movement of fluid in the reservoir. The Dover SAGD Pilot is the
most mature pilot of its kind in the world. A study of this Pilot
has been undertaken in an attempt to understand the behavior
of the fluid within and in front of the steam chamber.
The economics of SAGD are significantly impacted by the cost
of generating steam. At roughly 1mcf/bbl of bitumen produced
for an SOR in the range of 2.3-2.5 m3/m3, natural gas is the
single largest operating cost in a SAGD project. Water
movement within the reservoir can impact the natural gas
consumption wherein warm steam condensate not recovered
must be replaced in the process by colder make-up water,
Formerly with Devon Canada Corporation
where water loss to the reservoir is high, the steam-oil ratio
(SOR) may be negatively impacted. As we approach the 20th
anniversary of the initiation of the Dover Pilot, the cold water
injection test performed prior to any thermal operations taking
place is revisited here. Understanding the transmissibility of
water in the reservoir is key to choosing the optimal operating
pressures and maximizing the value of a project.
It has been widely published1,2 that the injection of non-
condensable gas (NCG) into SAGD chambers will result in the
accumulation of the NCG at the top of the chamber, cooling the
chamber. The lower temperatures within the chamber cause the
viscosity of the bitumen to increase thereby reducing the
bitumen production rate. This has been suggested as a method
of winding down steam chambers as they reach their economic
producing limits3,4,5. From April 1998 to May 2002 NGC was
injected with steam at the Dover Pilot. The gas volume injected
at reservoir conditions was triple the volume of the produced
bitumen over that time. The SAGD chambers did not behave as
predicted. The bitumen production rate did not fall off any
more than would be expected from a mature steam chamber and
live steam was still detectable through the thermocouples within

1
the steam chamber. Further, an increased overall recovery was
observed, most likely from the gas assistance in the production
of previously inaccessible reserves. The simulation model
developed to describe, as well as further observations
regarding the behavior of NCG in the reservoir, are discussed.
Introduction
Geographically located in northeast Alberta, the Athabasca Oil
Sands deposit forms part of the western Canadian oil sands.
With an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in place, it is
arguably the single largest oil deposit in the world. SAGD,
developed by Butler6 in the early 1980’s, is to date, the most
successful in-situ method of exploiting this resource. Several
field trials from 1983 to present including PetroCanada
Corporation’s Dover Pilot (Dover) have been conducted. These
projects have demonstrated the success of SAGD in field
applications. The results of these projects have created
enormous interest in SAGD for use on a commercial scale, with
several large scale projects on line and predicted SAGD
production by 2010 ranging from 500,000 to 1,000,000 barrels
of oil per day7.
The early stages of SAGD recovery are now well understood
through extensive field and laboratory testing. However, this
technology is still developing with most field pilots having been
run for less than five years. The Dover SAGD Pilot is the most
mature pilot of its kind in the world. Further, it is composed of
well pairs of varying maturity, within distances that could allow
the well pairs to interact. As a result, a study of the Dover Pilot
has been undertaken in an attempt to understand the behavior of
the transmissibility of water and gas in and in front of the steam
chamber. A schematic illustrating the well layout at Dover can
be found as Figure 1.
Phase A – Water Transmissibility
Cold Water Injectivity Test
The first phase of the pilot, Phase A, consisted of three
horizontal well pairs, approximately 55m in length, separated
by approximately 25m. Twenty-six, vertical observation wells
were drilled from surface through the reservoir, to measure
temperature, pressure, and surface heave resulting from the
subsequent SAGD operations. From November 12-28, 1987,
prior to the first steam injection into Phase A, a cold water
injection test was undertaken. The water was injected into the
A1 (center) injection and production wells. The injection took
place at hydrostatic pressure of between 1550 – 1100 kPa, the
original reservoir pressure was 510 kPa. Initial water injection
into each well was 12 m3/d, falling to 8 m3/d over the course of
the test. The pressure responses at the observation wells are
shown in Figure 28.
Of interest is the relative positioning of the observation wells
with respect to the depth of the horizontal wells. Assuming an
average surface elevation, the approximate depths of AP1
(producer) and AI1 (injector) were 161m TVD and 156m TVD
respectively. Only the piezometers in AGP1, AGP2, and AGP4
at the respective depths of 157.6m, 157.6m and 160m TVD
were located at depths at or below that of the horizontal wells.
All three of these piezometers demonstrated a pressure
2
response, and the logs of these wells indicate that all three
piezometers are located in bitumen rich zones. It can therefore
be inferred from the pressure responses that water did move
horizontally through this sand.
A numerical model was created based on Chalaturnyk’s9
geological description of the area in order to evaluate the water
injection movement and associated pressure responses in the
model. Figure 3, Figure 4, andFigure 5 show the history
match obtained for the water injection, as well as the pressure
behavior at AGP1, AGP2, and AGP4. Also in the simulation
model, the pressure from the injection has traveled laterally
from the injection wells, consistent with the observations in the
piezometers located in the upper portions of the reservoir.
In order to achieve full injectivity of water in the simulation, the
following parameters were adjusted:
i) The irreducible water saturation was decreased and a
slight relative permeability to water was created over the
range in which the initial water saturation is mobile, to
allow the injection of water into the model.
ii) The endpoints of the water relative permeablities were
adjusted upwards in the water saturation region from
irreducible to 45%. This allowed water to propagate
horizontally and prevented large pressure build-ups near
the injection points.
iii) Saturations were changed by introducing a small free
gas saturation and the correspondingly decreasing oil
saturations. The addition of gas saturation prevented
sharp pressure responses. The reduction of bitumen
saturation allowed the water saturation in the model to
be maintained, preventing an associated reduction in the
relative permeability to water and maintaining the
necessary water injectivity.
The pressure responses at the piezometers coupled with the
sustainability of water injection into AI1 and AP1 provide
strong evidence of cold water transmissibility within the
McMurray Formation.
Phase A Numerical Simulation
Steam injection into the Phase A horizontal wells began in
December 1987, and concluded in December 1989. Over this
time, bitumen recovery of approximately 25,000m3, 60%
recovery of OOIP, and a steam injected to oil recovered ratio
(SOR) of 2.38 had been achieved. This exceeded the
performance of any previous in situ bitumen recovery
performance in Alberta up to that time, and Phase A remains
one of the few SAGD pilots to undergo a complete wind down.
Utilizing the geological model based on Chalaturnyk’s work,
and incorporating the increased water mobility, a history match
of the Phase A Pilot was undertaken, the results of which can be
found in Figure 6. The enhanced water transmissibility in the
model prevented the extreme pressure build-up around the
chamber, allowing full injectivity.
The question then becomes, how, with increased water mobility,
can steam be contained within the over-pressured steam
chambers?
At initial reservoir conditions, with an average 85% oil
saturation and 7ºC, the relative permeability to oil achieved
through the simulation study is 0.96 whereas the relative
permeability to water is 2.14e-3. However, the viscosity of the
bitumen is 4.3 million cP and that of water is 1cP. Calculating
the water oil mobility ratio (M) at these conditions:
M = krwµ o ……………………………… (1)
kroµ w
The mobility ratio is 9600 which strongly favors the flow of
water. At initial conditions, bitumen can be considered to be
immobile. At steam temperature, bitumen and water viscosities
approach parity and, since bitumen has a much higher relative
permeability at high oil saturation the mobility ratio becomes
much smaller than one, and oil becomes significantly more
mobile than water.
The simulation results indicate that it is the fluid movement
ahead of the chamber that allows the steam to be largely
contained within the chamber. When a SAGD chamber is
operated above the reservoir pressure and the bitumen within
the chamber becomes heated, bitumen becomes mobile and is
forced ahead of the chamber in banks. As the bitumen is further
pushed out into the reservoir it cools losing viscosity and
limiting the extent of the banks. The oil movement into the
reservoir in turn pushes non-condensable gas and water, both
mobile at reservoir conditions, ahead of the bank propagating
both an increase in pressure as well as higher temperatures
ahead of the steam chamber front. The edge of the bank closest
to the chamber has very high oil saturation, reducing the water
saturation in these areas to its residual saturation and rendering
water immobile in these regions. It is difficult for steam from
the chamber to finger through the bank as steam is a
condensable fluid, and is liquid water at the chamber edge of
the bank where the temperature is cooler than the steam
chamber. As a result the bitumen banks limit steam loss from
the chamber.
The bitumen banks are perpetually being eroded and shifted
outward as the steam chamber develops. Figure 7 is an
) injected and equivalent
idealized representation of what was observed in the simulation.
Implications for Operating Pressure
For SAGD operations in reservoirs where the bitumen
saturation is high (>80%) and the corresponding water relative
permeability is low, operating at pressures above reservoir
pressure will result in additional water loss. This will be true
especially during early times before the bitumen banks have had
the opportunity to set up. This additional water loss will have
only a small impact on the SOR, as the fluid lost is condensed
steam, and it would normally be produced to surface without
contributing energy to the steam chamber. The impact of water
loss on natural gas consumption results from warm steam
condensate not recovered that must be replaced by cold makeup
water, decreasing the heat efficiency of steam generation.
There are also facility capital implications in that larger
volumes of makeup water must be sourced. While this is a
consideration, the operating pressure decision will likely be
dominated by parameters such as geomechanical effects and
additional heat losses at higher pressures.
3
In regions where the initial oil saturation is lower, and the water
relative permeability is higher, not only will these regions have
a higher SOR as less bitumen is heated per unit of rock and
water but it will be difficult for the bitumen to bank in these
areas. When the SAGD wells are operated at pressures higher
than the reservoir pressure, if the reservoir contains lean zones
that are laterally extensive, both water and steam will propagate
through these zones and result in a very high SOR. As water
transmissibility exists in bitumen rich zones, it will be difficult
to maintain pressure gradients between well pairs. In order to
maintain an economic SOR the field operating pressure will
have to be tailored to the wells in the lean zones.
Phase B – Fluid Movement
The test of the SAGD concept at Phase A of the Dover Project
was successful, however, the peak rates at these wells were
limited to a rate of 20m3/d due to the well pair length of 55m in
the horizontal section. The three Phase B wells were a
commercial length of 500m and spaced 70m apart. Injection
into these wells began in 1993. Commercial rates of 110m3/d of
bitumen per well were demonstrated.
Water Leak Off
The Total Fluid produced to Steam injected Ratio (TFSR) is
used to indicate the degree of balance in the reservoir between
the fluid withdrawn and the steam injected. Assuming no fluid
loss ahead of a steam chamber, the ideal producing TFSR can
be calculated.
TFSR = H2O Prd + Oil Prd - Steam in chamber ……….. (2)
Steam Inj
Every cubic meter of bitumen production would be replaced by
a cubic meter of steam, which at 2,500kPa and 225ºC is
equivalent to 0.045m3 of water at standard conditions. At an
SOR of 2.5, 2.5m3 of steam (CWE
volume of water will be produced. As the steam volume in the
chamber is nearly two orders of magnitude less than the volume
of water produced or injected, it is the water that will have the
largest impact on the TFSR. The calculation of a balanced
TFSR under these conditions is:
TFSR = 2.5m3 + 1m3 -0.045 m3
2.5 m3
TFSR = 1.38 m3/m3
At a TFSR of less than 1.38m3/m3 under these conditions, either
water is leaking off from the steam chamber or the pressure of
the reservoir would increase. The plots of TFSR and the
cumulative TFSR for the Dover total field production can be
found in Figures 8 and 9. By December of 1998, the
cumulative TFSR in Phase B was 1.27m3/m3, and by December
of 2003 it had increased to a balanced 1.39m3/m3.
Because TFSR represents balanced production and injection it
would be expected that the pressure in the Phase B chamber
Steam in cold water equivalent at standard conditions.
would remain constant. The pressure of the steam chamber can
be calculated from the vertical temperature observation wells in
Phase B. The presence of 100% mole fraction steam can be
identified as there is effectively no measurable thermal gradient
in a column of steam. The temperature is therefore that of
saturated steam at a given pressure.
Figure 10 is a plot of the instantaneous temperature profiles
from December 1993 to December 1998 in the vertical
observation well BT4. The y-axis is depth, measured in meters
above sea level, and the x-axis is the temperature. The gamma
and resistivity logs for this well are to the right of the plot. The
reservoir in which BT4 is located contains a thick column of
high quality sand. Since steam temperature is easily observed at
this well, BT4 is well suited for the calculation of steam
chamber pressure over time. The nearest horizontal production
well BP2 is located at an approximate depth of 273m above sea
level (mASL).
Figure 11 shows the depth versus temperature plot of BT4
annually for the years between December 1998 and December
2003. During this period, it is possible to observe the decease
in temperature in the chamber caused by the drop in operating
pressure. The data in 2002 and 2003 had become erratic due to
the failure of some of the thermocouples. This was a common
occurrence at that point in time, particularly among the gauges
exposed to steam temperature for many years. The steam
chamber pressure for Phase B, as calculated from BT4, can be
found in Table 1.
Despite maintaining a TFSR of 1.27m3/m3 at Dover to
December 1998 the pressure in Phase B dropped from 2.35 to
2.07 Mpa. From December 1998 to December 2003, the
pressure dropped again from 1.95 to 1.44Mpa. This suggests
fluid leakoff from the chamber to the surrounding reservoir.
These observations are in agreement with the water balance
seen for the field as a whole. From 1993, when Phase B was
initiated, until December of 2003 at which time Phases B, D,
and E were in operation, the cumulative production and
injection volumes, in CWE, were as follows:
Steam Injected: 3101 E3m3
Oil Produced: 1245 E3m3
Water Production: 2799 E3m3
Net Water Loss: 246 E3m3
The net water loss calculation assumes that the bitumen
produced is replaced entirely by steam at saturated conditions.
The net water loss to the reservoir is therefore 8%, consistent
with the other observations of water mobility at Dover.
Non-Condensable Gas Pilot
By April of 1998 Phase B had produced 460E3m3 of bitumen,
85% of its estimated economic cumulative production, and a
wind down strategy was initiated. This strategy involved
injecting 0.8mol % of non-condensable gas (NCG) with steam.
Simulation work done at that time predicted that the NCG
would accumulate at the top of the chamber, cooling the
chamber10. The lower temperatures within the chamber would
cause the viscosity of the bitumen to increase, stopping its flow
and reducing the time required on wind down. From April 1998
to May 2001 and from September 2001 to May 2002 8-
12E3m3/d of methane was co-injected with steam into the Phase
4
B chamber. From May 2001 to September 2001 flue gas was
injected at a rate of between 33 and 40E3m3/d. A total of
16.3E6m3, at standard conditions, of NGC was injected into the
chamber. By May 2002 the chamber pressure had dropped to
1.7MPa due to a reduction in steam injection, at this pressure
the reservoir equivalent volume of injected gas is 1.58e6m3,
triple the volume of the produced bitumen. Given the volume
of gas injected, it is not possible that it remained in the SAGD
chamber. Therefore the indication is that it flowed into the
reservoir ahead of the chamber, otherwise the pressure in the
chamber would have increased.
There are several implications for the Phase B chamber
associated with this gas movement. First, the chamber did not
cool as expected. While the Phase B production declined
during this time period, the decrease in bitumen production is
no more than would be expected from a SAGD well given the
reduction in steam injection rate, drop in chamber pressure
(hence temperature); and maturity of the well pair. Secondly,
Phase B had produced a cumulative volume of 686E3m3 of
bitumen as of December 2003. This production exceeded the
predicted Phase B recovery by 144E3m3. From April 1998,
temperature profiles show that the temperature had risen into
the Inclined Heterolithic Stratification (IHS) in the upper
section of the reservoir. The displacement of bitumen in this
section is the result of the Steam and Gas Push (SAGP)
process11, by which the flow of gas and steam rising counter
current to the draining oil increases the pressure towards the top
of the reservoir and tends to push the oil down. The SAGP
process allowed the production of bitumen from the IHS, a
portion of the reservoir previously believed to be inaccessible.
Finally, the injection of NCG has prolonged the life of the well
pair. As steam was diverted from Phase B to other, less mature
patterns, NCG re-entered the chamber as the pressure dropped,
reducing the loss of pressure and maintaining higher
temperatures and drainage rates.
Further evidence of the fluid movement ahead of the steam
chambers, was seen at the observation wells, which recorded
pressure then temperature response well ahead of the arrival of
the steam chamber. An earlier publication by the author12
calculated the theoretical rate of pressure-front velocity through
bitumen.
As of December 2003 Phase B continued to produce at a
bitumen rate of 70m3/d with an average steam to oil ratio (SOR)
of 1.2 for the last six months of the year. Figure 12 is a plot of
the historical Phase B production and injection rates.
SAGD Simulation History Match
The total field simulation history match was achieved using a
static model based on a similar geological description with only
slight modifications to the fluid properties developed in the
Phase A simulation previously discussed. No changes were
made to either the water or gas relative permeability curves,
although a slight reduction in oil saturation was applied, without
endpoint modification, allowing additional water movement.
The oil relative permeability at high water saturation was
increased and the endpoint was moved to a water saturation of
95% (from 85%) to increase oil production rates later in the life
of the chamber. The results of the total field history match for
daily injection and production rates are in Figure 13. Figure 14
is the plot of the history match at the observation well BT1
where the symbols represent the temperature seen in the
simulation overlain on the actual temperatures observed at this
well.
In the simulation, the injection wells were constrained on water
injection with a maximum bottom hole injection pressure
limitation, the production wells were constrained on total fluid
production with a minimum bottom hole pressure and a
maximum steam injection production restriction. Using these
parameters good matches for total fluid production and steam
and gas injection were achieved. Good matches were also
obtained for water and oil production until 1999 when flue gas
injection began, at which point the model predicted a slight
over-production of water and under-production of oil;
approximately 10%. The plot of the simulated history match for
the cumulative steam injection and the total fluid and bitumen
production are in Figure 14.
Implications for SAGD Wind Down
The fluid mobility in the reservoir allows pressure to be
transmitted quickly between steam chambers. As mature
chambers wind down it is important that their pressure be
maintained to prevent the leak off of steam from proximal
producing steam chambers. While the injection of NCG is still
a method by which steam chamber maintenance can be
achieved during wind down, the gas injected will not be
confined to the steam chamber. The gas leakoff will impact the
end-life economics of SAGD and it may be more economic to
use NCGs other than methane, such as flue gas or CO2 to effect
pressure maintenance, although additional facility capital costs
associated with injecting and reproducing these corrosive gasses
will be incurred.
Conclusion
The cold water injectivity in Phase A, as well as the gas
injection into and the accelerated pressure movement ahead of
the steam chamber in Phase B, provide evidence of fluid
movement both at initial conditions and ahead of the steam
chamber front. The history match of the Phase A cold water
injection test indicates that the irreducible water saturations are
very low, and that the relative permeability to water is higher at
initial reservoir conditions than previously published.
The implication of the fluid transmissibility is that SAGD well
pairs should not be considered in isolation, rather the impacts of
operating conditions need to be evaluated on a pad and field
basis. Considered in this paper were the impacts of fluid
mobility on steam injection pressures because operating a
SAGD chamber above the reservoir pressure will allow steam
condensate leak-off and lead to additional operating costs. The
use of NCG on SAGD wind down needs consideration given
that the gas transmissibility will necessitate larger volumes of
NCG in the wind down, impacting the economics of the end life
of SAGD chambers.
Not considered in this paper, is an evaluation of the effect of
fluid movement on the effects on solvent and steam solvent
hybrid processes. With a greater fluid mobility in the reservoir
that has been previously been contemplated, solvent will also
likely move ahead of the chamber, resulting in less solvent
recovery. This will have impacts on the profitability of these
processes and is an area of future study.
5
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their appreciation to
colleagues Devon Canada Corporation for their technical input
and support for this work. Thank you to Gregg Birrell and
Mike McCormack for sharing so generously of your time and
talent.
NOMENCLATURE
k = permeability
M = mobility ratio
ro = relative to oil
rw = relative to water
REFERENCES
1
Butler, R. (1999, March). The Steam and Gas Push (SAGP). Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, pp. 54-61.
2
Yuan, J. –Y., Law, D. H. –S., & Nasr, T. N. Impacts of Gas in SAGD:
History Matching of Lab Scale Tests. Paper 2003-202, presented at the
Canadian International Petroleum Conference (June 10-12, 2003),
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
3
Yee, C.T., & Stroich, A. Flue Gas Injection in to a Mature SAGD
Steam Chamber at the Dover Project (formerly UTF). Paper 2002-301,
presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (June 11-
13, 2002), Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
4
Zhao, L., Law, D. H. –S., & Coates, R. (2003, January). Numerical
Study and Economic Evaluation of SAGD Wind-Down Methods.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, pp. 53-57.
5
Zhao, L., Law, D. H. –S., Nasr, T. N., Coates, R., Golbeck, H.,
Beaulieu, G., & Heck, G. SAGD Wind-Down: Lab Test and
Simulation. Paper 2003-045, presented at the Canadian International
Petroleum Conference (June 10-12, 2003), Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
6
Butler, R., McNab, G., and Lo, H. (1981). Theoretical Studies on the
Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil During In Situ Steam Heating. Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 59, pp. 455-460
7
Alberta Economic Development, Oil Sands Industry Update, May
2003.
8
Edmunds, N., Pennacchioli, E., Suggett, J., & Gittins, S. (1994,
February). Wrapup Report: AOSTRA: Underground Test Facility:
Phase A. UTF Product Report # 3020.
9
Chalaturnyk, R. J. (1996, Spring). Geomechanics of the Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage Process in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. A thesis
submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Edmonton,
Alberta.
10
Yee, C.T., & Stroich, A. Flue Gas Injection in to a Mature SAGD
Steam Chamber at the Dover Project (formerly UTF). Paper 2002-301,
presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (June 11-
13, 2002), Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
11
Butler, R. (1999, March). The Steam and Gas Push (SAGP). Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, pp. 54-61.
12
Aherne, A., Birrell, G. Observations Relating to Non-Condensable
Gasses in a Vapor Chamber: Phase B of the Dover Project. Paper 2003-
202, presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy
Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology
Conference ,Calgary, Alberta, Canada, (November 4-7 2002).
 Tables
Date Dec-93 Dec-94 Dec-95 Dec-96 Dec-97 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03
Temperature ( C) 218.7 220.4 219.8 221 225 214 211 212 208 198 196
Pressure (MPa) 2.27 2.35 2.32 2.37 2.56 2.07 1.95 1.99 1.84 1.50 1.44

Table 1: Phase B, BT4 Temperature Profiles 1998-2003

Figures

D2
N
0m

PHASE D
50

F&G
750

D1
DOVAP

E1
750 m
PHASE E

B3
90
m 70 m

PHASE B B2
B1
500 m
Well Pair
0 200 m
SCALE

Tunnels

Well Pair
25 m

PHASE A 60 m

A3 A1 A2

Figure 1: Dover Field Layout

6
 Figure 2: Phase A Cold Water Test Piezometer Responses
From Edmunds et al., February 1994

Phase A CWI Observation Well Pressure Field History File

AGP4 160 Phase A CWI_Press.fhf

700

650
Pressure (kPa)

600

550

500
1987-11-1 1987-11-11 1987-11-21 1987-12-1 1987-12-11
Time (Date)

Pressure AGP4 160 Phase A CWI_Press.fhf

Pressure: 44,3,2 Phase A_(21)_CWI(25).irf

Figure 3: Phase A Water Injection, AGP4 160.4 Pressure

7
 Phase A CWI Observation Well Pressure Field History File
AGP2 157.6 Phase A CWI_Press.fhf

525.0

520.0
Pressure (kPa)

515.0

510.0

505.0
1987-11-1 1987-11-11 1987-11-21 1987-12-1
Time (Date)

Pressure AGP2 157.6 Phase A CWI_Press.fhf

Pressure: 27,3,8 Phase A_(21)_CWI(25).irf

Figure 4: Phase A Water Injection, AGP2 157.6 Pressure

Phase A CWI Observation Well Pressure Field History File

AGP1 157.6 Phase A CWI_Press.fhf

540

530
Pressure (kPa)

520

510

500
1987-11-1 1987-11-11 1987-11-21 1987-12-1 1987-12-11
Time (Date)

Pressure AGP1 157.6 Phase A CWI_Press.fhf

Pressure: 2,3,6 / 8,1,1 Phase A_(21)_CWI(25).irf

Figure 5: Phase A Water Injection, AGP1 157.6 Pressure

8
 Phase A Thermal Simulation Model
Increased Water Transmissiblity

120

Liquid Rate SC (m3/day) 100

80

60

40

20

0
1988-1 1988-7 1989-1 1989-7 1990-1 1990-7 1991-1
Time (Date)
Liquid Rate SC Default-Field-PRO
Water Rate SC Default-Field-PRO
Oil Rate SC Default-Field-PRO
Liquid Rate SC total field
Water Rate SC total field
Oil Rate SC total field

Figure 6: Production History Match Phase A

9
 Overburden

3 1 1
2 2 3
4 4

Injection Well
Underburden Production Well

Index
1. Steam Chamber - steam injected in the upper well flows to interface and condenses, both
temperature and pressure are largely that of saturated steam.
2. Drainage Region – heated bitumen and steam condensate drain into the production well, some of
the heated bitumen is pushed, as a result of a pressure gradient into the bitumen ahead of the
chamber
3. Banked oil – heated oil is banked ahead of the chamber at very high bitumen concentrations, with a
large temperature gradient in this region with temperatures as high as 200ºC at the chamber edge to
as low as 50ºC along the reservoir.
4. Cooler bitumen – movement of connate water and non-condensable gasses ahead of the steam
front.

Figure 7: The SAGD Mechanism

Dover - Total Fluid Produced to Steam Injected Ratio

Phases B, D, &E
5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500
TSFR (m3/m3)

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
Dec-91 Dec-92 Dec-93 Dec-94 Dec-95 Dec-96 Dec-97 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03
Date

Total (m3/m3) Phase B (m3/m3) Phase D (m3/m3) Phase E (m3/m3)

Figure 8: Total Fluid to Steam Ratio – Per Phase

10
 Dover - Cumulative Total Fluid Produced to Steam Injected Ratio
Phases B, D, &E
2.000

1.800

Cumulative TSFR (m3/m3) 1.600

1.400

1.200

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
Dec-91 Dec-92 Dec-93 Dec-94 Dec-95 Dec-96 Dec-97 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03
Date

Total (m3/m3) Phase B (m3/m3) Phase D (m3/m3) Phase E (m3/m3)

Figure 9: Cumulative Total Fluid to Steam Ratio – Per Phase

BT4 FE ohm- m

Temperature Profiles 1993-1998 1 10

B T4
100 1000
310.0 310

305.0 305

300.0 300 FE

295.0 295
Depth (masl)

290.0 GR
290

285.0 285

280.0 280

275.0 275

270.0 270
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 0 100 200 300

Temperature (C) GR A P I

Dec-93 Dec-94 Dec-95 Dec-96 Dec-97 Dec-98

Figure 10: BT4 Temperature Profiles 1993-1998 - Phase B, Dover Project

11
 BT4
FE ohm- m
Temperature Profiles 1998-2003
1 10 100 1000
B T4
310.0 310

305.0 305

300.0 300 FE

295.0 295
Depth (masl)

290.0 290
GR

285.0
285

280.0
280

275.0
275

270.0
270
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 100 200 300
Temperature (C) GR A P I

Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03

Figure 11: BT4 Temperature Profiles 1998-2003

Figure 8: Full Field Simulation Results, Daily Injection and Production Rates
Phases B, D, E Dover Project

12
 Figure 9: Full Field Simulation Results, Cumulative Injection and Production
Phases B, D, E Dover Project
BT1

310

220

200
300
180

160

140
290
120

100

280 80

60

40
270
20

0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 10: BT1 Temperature Profile

13