Numerical Simulation of Steam-Assisted

Gravity Drainage With Vertical Slimholes

J. Chang, Devon Canada; and J. Ivory and C. Tunney, Alberta InnovatesTechnology Futures
Summary
Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is the primary in-situ
recovery method for bitumen from the large Athabasca deposit in
Alberta, Canada. SAGD eld operations encounter a signicant
decrease in production performance when low-permeability shale
barriers are present in the formation. These layers can reduce SAGD
performance and impede the growth of the steam chamber. They
also signicantly limit the percentage of the deposit from which bi-
tumen can be economically recovered with SAGD. The concept of
drilling vertical slimholes to create ow paths through barriers was
conceived and investigated at Alberta InnovatesTechnology
Futures (AITF), formerly the Alberta Research Council. The use of
slimholes has the potential to signicantly increase the amount of
recoverable bitumen (reserves) and the rate at which it is produced
during SAGD. For shallow reservoirs, the slimholes could be drilled
from the surface at a relatively low cost. It is believed that the pro-
cess can be economically viable after its technical operation has
been optimized with improvements in drilling technology, slimhole
size and spacing, and enhanced usage of the slimholes in the devel-
opment of steam chambers above the shale layers. Alternatively, the
slimholes could be drilled from the horizontal wellbores (to avoid
surface disturbance) as either horizontal slimholes from the pro-
ducer or as horizontal/vertical slimhole combinations from the
injector.
The 2D and 3D eld-scale numerical simulations were per-
formed by use of reservoir properties and operating conditions
based on published information for the MacKay River SAGD
operation in the Athabasca deposit. The reservoir depth was 135
m, the initial pressure 500 kPaa, the initial temperature 7.5

C, and
the initial oil saturation (S
O
) 0.8. The simulations explored the
effect of vertical slimholes, which were laterally offset 7 m from
the horizontal well-pair in reservoirs with and without shale layers
or shale lenses. The effects on SAGD performance that were
investigated were slimhole cross section (25 cm 25 cm or 50 cm
50 cm), the distance between slimholes (12 or 24 m) in the
direction parallel to the well pair, the permeability of the reservoir
and the vertical slimholes, and horizontal slimholes from the in-
jector or producer. The slimhole cross section represents the dis-
turbed area adjacent to the drilled slimhole and the drilled hole
itself and is therefore relatively large. The slimholes were repre-
sented as high-permeability vertical channels by use of rened
grids. For a reservoir with a continuous shale layer, SAGD per-
formance was improved by vertical slimholes because of the re-
covery of previously inaccessible oil from above the shale layer,
where a secondary steam chamber was formed.
Introduction
After Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, Canada has the third-largest
oil reserves in the world. Of Canadas 28.5 billion m
3
of oil
reserves, 27 billion m
3
is bitumen in Alberta that is considered
economically recoverable with current technology. This reserves
estimate could be increased to as much as 50 billion m
3
with
improving technology (Government of Alberta 2010). The Atha-
basca deposit is the largest of three major oil-sand deposits in
Alberta (Fig. 1) in which the original bitumen in place has been
estimated to be approximately 161.1 10
9
m
3
(Energy Resources
Conservation Board 2011). The other two deposits are in Cold
Lake and Peace River. Another deposit (Wabasca) is connected to
the Athabasca deposit and is generally grouped with it. At reser-
voir conditions, bitumen is too viscous to ow and is produced
either by surface mining after the overburden has been removed
or by in-situ methods. The majority of oil-sand production is cur-
rently carried out by surface mining, but in-situ production will
exceed it in the future because 80% of Albertas bitumen deposits
are too deep for surface mining. Most of the accessible bitumen in
this deposit will be recovered by thermal processes (Table 1), and
most of the inaccessible bitumen results from a pay thickness that
is too thin (Table 2) and in which heat losses to the surrounding
formations are too great for thermal processes to be economical.
SAGD is unlikely to be economical for pay thicknesses less than
10 m. Thinner net pays have higher heat losses to the overburden
and the underburden, and have higher capital costs per unit of bi-
tumen produced because of the smaller recoverable resource.
Both SAGD and cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) are steam-based
recovery processes used in the Cold Lake and Peace River deposits,
but SAGD is the preferred option for Athabasca and has been
implemented commercially there. Combined, these technologies
produce a little more than 160 000 m
3
of bitumen. The SAGD pro-
cess was developed by Roger Butler and colleagues (Butler et al.
1981; Butler and Stephens 1981; Butler 1991a, b). In this process, a
pair of horizontal wells is drilled into the oil sand, with an injector
approximately 5 m above the producer (Fig. 2). Steam is injected
continuously into the upper well and heats the reservoir by conduc-
tion and convection, thus reducing the bitumen viscosity, mobiliz-
ing it, and causing it to ow into the underlying producer (Butler
and Chung 1988; Butler 1991a, b, 1992). Little of the bitumen
below the producer is recovered. SAGD technology has existed for
30 years; it was rst piloted successfully at the Underground Test
Facility (UTF) near Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada (Edmunds
1987; Edmunds et al. 1987, 1988, 1991, 1994; Edmunds and Gittins
1993). At the UTF site, the bitumen viscosity was 5 million mPa.s
at the reservoir temperature of 7

C. This high viscosity is typical of

the Athabasca deposit (Komery et al. 1998). Most SAGD commer-
cial projects have come on line only within the last decade.
Because of the stratigraphy and unconformity of the regional
geology, the Lower Cretaceous formations of the Athabasca oil-
sand deposits contain extensive interbedded sand and shales
(silt-, mud-, and clay-shale or silt-, mud-, and clay-stone) (IBS).
IBS conditions are present in a wide area of the Alberta oil-sand
deposit. At least four unconformity-bounded and stacked succes-
sions extend more than a broad area (~320 300 km). Along the
western and southern edge of the Athabasca Wabiskaw-McMur-
ray oil-sand deposit, channel sands grade into ner-grained
mudstones with thin coarsening-upward sand. The rocks range
from tight, shales/mudstones to poorly sorted bioturbated sandy
silty mudstones, to well-sorted sandstone (Hein and Marsh 2008).
There are three main stratigraphic units in the McMurray forma-
tion, and each contains shale or inclined heterolithic stratication
to different degrees. They are present in most SAGD operations
in the Athabasca deposit (RPS Energy Canada 2009). Operators
have mostly already selected the prime locations for SAGD, and
future operations will occur in locations with lower-quality oil
sand. Then, shale layers will be a dominant issue that must be
dealt with for SAGD to be economical.
Copyright VC 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 148803) was accepted for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference, Calgary, 1517 November 2011, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 14 October 2011. Revised manuscript received for
review 10 September 2012. Paper peer approved 17 September 2012.
662 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
The reservoir quality varies considerably across the huge
Athabasca deposit (Hein and Cotterill 2006). It can even vary
between well pairs at a particular location. Bitumen recovery
depends, to various extents, on bitumen viscosity, pay thickness,
permeability, porosity, S
O
, and reservoir heterogeneity. Reservoir
complexities (e.g., interbedded shale, overlying water and/or gas
layers) can interfere with the process and reduce its effectiveness.
Although operating strategy is highly important, reservoir quality
has the greatest effect on SAGD performance. Many variables/
parameters (e.g., well length, well-pair orientation, vertical spac-
ing between injector and producer, lateral spacing between well
pairs, steam rate, operating pressure) can be adjusted to improve
the SAGD operation. Typically, SAGD reservoirs are selected on
the basis of pay-zone thickness (>15 m), high S
O
, high permeabil-
ity, and high porosity.
Effective methods for recovering bitumen from lower-quality
reservoirs, such as those with continuous shale layers or multiple
thin pays, are needed. The complex reservoir properties and wide
ranges of geological conditions require improved technology to
overcome the difculties in SAGD applications. Thin pay and
IBS reduce SAGD performance and interfere with steam-chamber
growth. IBS layers are often more than 30 cm thick. They provide
a signicant challenge for SAGD applications to overcome to be
successful. Consequently, dealing with IBS during the SAGD
process has become an important issue.
There are many examples of clean sands interrupted by shale
layers (Tristone Capital 2007) approximately 1 m thick, and it is
difcult for logging tools to resolve layers less than 1 m thick.
Lack of pay continuity makes it difcult to attain desired produc-
tion rates, and reduced well spacing may be required. Shale, if
continuous to a signicant lateral extent, impedes/prevents steam
rise and drainage of oil and water to production wells. It acts as a
barrier to vertical-pressure transmission and rapidly transmits
pressure horizontally. Extensive shale intervals between an injec-
tor and producer can cut off communication between them. IBS
layers or lenses above an injector can prevent the steam chamber
from rising to the top of the reservoir, but continued exposure to
steam may create conditions for some uid penetration.
Thin shale layers may be broken in time because of clay
swelling during SAGD. Injection of steam may increase shale per-
meability because of the stresses and volumetric strain created
during SAGD. However, these changes are likely to be insuf-
cient and cannot be relied on, especially for thick shale layers. An
example of the presence of shale was the 1- to 3-m layer of shale
and IBS (Unit F) that was continuous through most of the UTF
Phase A site (Edmunds et al. 1994). It did lie between the injector
and producer of Well Pairs A1 and A3 and was below the A2 well
pair (Fig. 3).
Operating at SAGD pressures close to the fracture pressure is
one alternative to increase steam injectivity in formations with
thin shale interbeds. However, this is risky because caprock integ-
rity can be undermined. This is particularly important for shallow
Athabasca deposits in which a steam release to the surface occurs
(e.g., the one at Joslyn Creek near Fort McMurray in May 2006)
(Energy Resources Conservation Board 2010). Many papers have
been written about geomechanics, its modeling, and its effects on
SAGD (Chalaturnyk 1997; Chalaturnyk and Li 2004; Collins
2002 and 2005; Li and Chalaturnyk 2005, 2006, and 2009; Poo-
ladi-Darvish and Mattar 2002; Touhidi-Baghini 1998; Tran et al.
2005; Wan 1991), but the effect of geomechanics is still too
uncertain to risk operating near the formation-fracture pressure.
Borehole mining, in which a water jet is used to create a cavity
below the shale layer, and the oil sand is removed from the cavity,
was tried at Esso Cold Lake in the 1990s (Sharpe et al. 1997). It
was considered unsuccessful because of the collapse of the shale
roof. Overall, the best strategy may be to cause reservoir dilation,
increase effective permeability in the reservoir, and rely on a strat-
egy such as slimholes to create communication through shale layers.
overburden
vapor
chamber
Mobilized oil
Injector
Oil sand
Producer
underburden
H
S
H
Fig. 2Schematic of SAGD conguration and steam chamber.
Fig. 1Alberta hydrocarbon resources (Oil Sands Industry
Updates, Government of Alberta 2011).
TABLE 1ACCESSIBLE BITUMEN VOLUMES IN ATHABASCA
OIL SANDS AS OF 2005
a
Accessible Volumes Billions of m
3
Surface mining 9.4
Cold primary 2.0
SAGD, CSS 66.8
Total 78.2
a
Werniuk 2007.
TABLE 2INACCESSIBLE BITUMEN VOLUMES IN
ATHABASCA OIL SANDS AS OF 2005
a
Inaccessible Volumes Billions of m
3
Too thin 60.4
Insufcient caprock 5.8
Intermediate depth 4.4
Low-pressure gas cap 2.2
a
Werniuk 2007.
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 663
AITF has proposed and investigated an innovative technology
involving the use of drilled slimholes to improve SAGD perform-
ance, increase bitumen recovery, and optimize SAGD applications
for the Athabasca oil-sand deposit (Chang et al. 2011). To under-
stand and apply the proposed new technology in the eld, it is nec-
essary to evaluate its technical and economic feasibility. This paper
summarizes numerical simulations performed to evaluate the techni-
cal applicability concerning how the SAGD process can benet
from the use of slimholes rather than how they will be drilled. The
slimholes considered could be drilled either from the surface as ver-
tical slimholes or drilled from the horizontal wellbores, to avoid sur-
face disturbance, as either horizontal slimholes from the producer or
as horizontal/vertical slimhole combinations from the injector.
The project primarily evaluated the use of vertical slimholes to
create vertical pathways for uid ow through shale layers. The ver-
tical slimholes are considered to be disturbed open holes in the res-
ervoir without affecting the caprock integrity or holes drilled into
the reservoir lled with a gravel pack with a porosity of approxi-
mately 0.48 in the pay zone(s) to maintain structural integrity and
plugged (cemented) at the top of the reservoir to prevent steam ow
to the surface. The slimholes in the simulations included the dis-
turbed (high-permeability) area around the drilled hole. Countercur-
rent ow will occur through the slimholes. Steam and exsolved gas
will ow upward, and oil and condensed steam downward. The
extent to which these countercurrent uid ows will interfere with
each other depends on the characteristics of the slimholes (e.g., their
effective diameter, permeability, and wettability). For example, if
the effective diameter of the slimholes is too small, steam will rise
through them, and the drainage of condensed steam and oil will be
negatively affected. The project examined the effect of the slim-
holes on the steam chamber below the shale layer and if a new
steam chamber will be formed above the shale layer as shown sche-
matically in Fig. 4. It determined slimhole effectiveness for an
impermeable shale layer (a 1- to 1.5-m thickness between or above
SAGD wells), shale lenses, and homogeneous reservoirs with a ver-
tical permeability/horizontal permeability (k
v
/k
h
) in the range of 0.1
to 1. It also evaluated the effect of slimhole size (25 cm 25 cm vs.
50 cm 50 cm) and spacing (12 vs. 24 m).
The use of slimholes has perhaps its greatest benet for multiple
shale interbeds in which it is not practical to have a horizontal-well
pair in each layer. The process can be operated so that the steam
does not simply channel to the top oil-sand layer, leaving underly-
ing oil-sand layers undrained. In particular, the pressure must rst
build up in an oil-sand layer to displace bitumen downward so that
steam can penetrate the shale. This pressure buildup (as explained
later) is caused primarily by conductive heating, which means that
each oil-sand layer will be heated and drained, in turn, starting at
the bottomlayer in which the horizontal-well pair is located.
Methodology
Reservoir Simulator Used in Simulations. Numerical-simula-
tion models were developed to investigate the use of vertical
slimholes through shale layers (Fig. 5). Although intuitively one
might think that slimholes would improve SAGD performance,
this is simplistic, because it evades the complexity of the process.
The simulations were effective in highlighting important mecha-
nisms involved in the process. They also showed that before they
ultimately improve SAGD performance, the slimholes can initially
reduce oil production as a result of steam loss to the reservoir
above the shale layers. The simulations looked at the effect of res-
ervoir type on the effectiveness of slimholes.
The simulations were performed by use of the CMG STARS
(Computer Modelling Group 2012) simulator, which is based on the
nite-difference method. A Cartesian coordinate system was used.
In the simulator, a gridblock is represented by I, J, and K;
2.4 m
7.4 m
5.2 m
8.8 m
9.5 m
1.7 m
3.3 m
>7.5 m
Edmunds et al., 1991
Fig. 3UTF Phase A stratigraphic cross section.

C
189
168
147
126
105
84
63
42
21
0
210
Fig. 4Conceptual secondary steam chambers at slimholes.
12 or 24 m
7 m
Injector and Producer wells
Openhole channels
Steam Chamber Note: not to scale
Fig. 5Conceptual model for vertical slimholes.
664 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
I represents its position as the number of blocks in the traditional x-
direction, J is the number of blocks in the y-direction, and K is the
number of blocks in the z-direction, in which K=1 represents
blocks at the bottom of the formation.
Slimhole Representation in Simulations. For most simulations,
the slimholes were assigned a permeability of 1,000 darcies, a po-
rosity of either 0.4 or 0.48, a water saturation (S
w
) of 0.5, and a
gas saturation of 0.5. During the SAGD preheat phase, oil quickly
entered the slimholes, and the S
O
increased. Some simulations
were performed with a slimhole permeability of 100,000 darcies
and a porosity of 95% to determine whether the effectiveness of
the slimholes would be improved if they had higher permeability
and porosity (i.e., contained fewer solids). Countercurrent ow of
gas and liquid through the slimholes can be represented by adjust-
ing (reducing) the relative permeability in the slimholes but was
not done in the simulations described here.
Reservoir gridblocks were typically 1 1 m in the area in
which the slimholes were located. Each of these gridblocks was
subdivided (rened) into 16 25 cm 25 cm gridblocks. One of
the rened gridblocks was used to represent a 25 cm 25 cm
slimhole in each layer, but a 50 cm 50 cm slimhole occupied
two of these gridblocks. The rened gridblocks assigned to the
slimholes had the specied slimhole properties, but the other (oil-
sand) rened gridblocks had the original reservoir properties. The
rened grid was also used for the simulations without slimholes.
In those simulations, the original reservoir properties were
assigned to all rened gridblocks, including the gridblocks that
were assigned slimhole properties in those simulations with slim-
holes. This procedure ensured that any changes attributed to the
use of slimholes were not numerical artifacts caused by the use of
a rened grid in the simulations involving slimhole applications.
Properties Used in Simulations. Reservoir Properties. The
initial reservoir conditions were based on two Petro-Canada pre-
sentations to the Energy Resources Conservation Board in Alberta
(Energy Resources Conservation Board 2010, 2011). The presen-
tations were related to the Petro-Canada (now Suncor) MacKay
River SAGD performance (Kupsch et al. 2005, 2006). In the
simulations, the initial pressure at the reservoir depth of 135 m
was 500 kPaa. The reservoir temperature was 7.5

C. The initial
oil-sand S
w
was 0.2, and its initial S
O
was 0.8. An operating (pro-
ducer) pressure of 1500 kPaa was used in most of the simulations.
Pressure/Volume/Temperature (PVT): Solubility Properties.
The Athabasca bitumen was assumed to be initially in a live
state with an initially low CH
4
mole fraction in the oil phase of
0.03 [i.e., the initial gas/oil ratio (GOR) was 1.2 std m
3
/m
3
]. The
initial GOR was low because of the shallow depth and resulting
low initial pressure.
The equilibrium concentration of a component i in the oil
phase (x
ieqm
) is determined from its concentration in the gas
phase, its temperature, and its pressure. In the CMG STARS sim-
ulator, the equilibrium PVT behavior is represented by the use of
K values for each component i as follows:
K
i
=
y
i
=
x
i
(1)
where x
i
=equilibrium mole fraction of i in oil phase and
y
i
=mole fraction of i in gas phase.
The K value of a specic gas depends on temperature and
pressure and is calculated by use of a modied version of the
Antoine equation (Reid 1977),
K =
kv
1
P
kv
2
P kv
3

exp
kv
4
(T kv
5
)

(2)
where P is pressure (kPa), T is temperature (K), and kv
1
, kv
2
, kv
3
,
kv
4
, and kv
5
are coefcients for specic gases.
The CH
4
kv values used in the simulations were obtained from
the CMG STARS manual and are provided in Table 3.
Oil-Phase Viscosity. The CMG STARS default logarithmic
mixing rule was used to determine the oil-phase viscosity:
ln(l
live oil
) =
X
[X
i
ln(l
i
)[ (3)
where l
live oil
is viscosity of the oil phase and l
i
is the pseudovis-
cosity of component i.
The dead-oil viscosity and the dissolved CH
4
pseudoviscosity
at different temperatures are provided in Fig. 6. These values were
considered to be independent of pressure because its effect is minor
compared with that of temperature. The pseudoviscosity of CH
4
is
the viscosity that, if used for CH
4
in Eq. 3, will result in the pre-
dicted value of the live oil phase that includes dissolved CH
4
and
dead oil. The value for the dissolved CH
4
pseudoviscosity at 20

C
was determined on the basis of measured in-house live-oil values.
The CH
4
values at other temperatures in Fig. 6 were estimated.
Other Properties. The Athasbasca bitumen molecular weight
was specied as 590 g/mol. Other properties used in the simula-
tions are provided in Table 4. Note that the vertical (z-direction)
permeability for shale was 2.5 10
10
darcies, on the basis of
measurements performed on actual eld core with IBS. The
horizontal permeability of shale is much higher than its vertical
permeability because of its laminated structure. As such, a higher
value of 6.4 darcies was selected for the horizontal (x- and y-direc-
tion) permeability of shale and also for oil sand. The horizontal
permeability of shale would have little effect on the simulations if
it is much higher than its vertical permeability.
Reservoir Types Represented in Simulations. Four different
reservoir types were considered that are qualitatively representative
of many of the reservoirs that are present in the Athabasca deposit.
Homogeneous Sand With No Shale. This reservoir type
represented regions of oil sand with little shale presence that are
currently being exploited. Vertical slimholes would have a much
lesser effect on these reservoirs than on more-complex reservoirs
with shale present.
Homogeneous Sand With a Shale Layer. This type represents
more of a challenge to produce oil at an acceptable rate and is
also more difcult to simulate. In the simulations, the single con-
tinuous shale layer was 1.0 to 1.5 m thick and was either above
(K=18) (Fig. 7a) the injector or between (K=5) the injector
(K=7) and the producer (K=2) (Fig. 7b). Figs. 7a and 7b
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3CH
4
kv VALUES USED IN THE SIMULATIONS
CH
4
kv
1
(kPa) 545 470
kv
2
(kPa
1
) 0
kv
3
0
kv
4
(

C) 879.84
kv
5
(

C) 265.99
0 1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Dead oil
CH
4
Temperature (C)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
m
P
a

s
)

.
Fig. 6Dead-oil viscosity and dissolved-CH
4
pseudoviscosity.
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 665
represent the same reservoir, except that the shale layer was at dif-
ferent depths. Half-symmetry (reservoir split along I-axis) was
used in the simulations to reduce simulation run time. The cumu-
lative injection, production, and rates must be multiplied by two
to represent the situation for a complete reservoir. Figs. 7a and 7b
were produced by the CMG graphics package with some transpar-
ency to display the relative position of the shale layers, the
slimholes, and the horizontal wells.
Homogeneous Sand With Shale Lenses. Fig. 8 shows the
grid structure for simulations and the locations of the shale lenses.
There is an innite number of possible congurations of shale
lenses in a heterogeneous reservoir. One possible conguration
was selected for this investigation. It was designed to show the
effect that shale bafes would generally have on an SAGD
performance. Previous investigations at AITF with different but
similar (in that uid could move around the lenses) congurations
TABLE 4SOME PROPERTIES USED IN THE SIMULATIONS
Property Value
Porosity (%) 33 for oil sand, 27.7 for shale, 40 or 50 for slimholes
Absolute permeability in
x- and y-direction (darcies)
6.4 for oil sand, 6.4 for shale, 1,000 for slimholes
Absolute permeability in
z-direction (darcies)
3.4 for oil sand, 2.5 10
10
for shale,
531 or 1,000 for slimholes
Initial oil saturation (S
O
) 0.8 for oil sand, 0.25 for shale, 0.0 for slimhole
Initial water saturation (S
w
) 0.2 for oil sand, 0.75 for shale, 0.5 for slimholes
Initial gas saturation (S
g
) 0 for oil sand, 0 for shale, 0.5 for slimholes
Initial pressure (kPaa) 500
Initial temperature (

C) 7.5
Initial dead-oil mole fraction in oil phase 0.97
Initial methane mole fraction in oil phase 0.03
Oil compressibility (kPa
1
) 1.1 10
6
Rock compressibility (kPa
1
) 1.8 10
7
Rock specic heat (J/m
3
.

C) 2.0410
6
Rock thermal conductivity (J/m.d.

C) 6.6010
5
Water thermal conductivity (J/cm.d.

C) 5.3510
4
Oil thermal conductivity (J/cm.d.

C) 1.1510
4
Gas thermal conductivity (J/cm.d.

C) 2880
Steam quality 0.9
Oil specic heat (J/mol.

C) 783.1
Methane specic heat (J/mol.

C) 67.2
Surface pressure (kPa) 101
Surface temperature (

C) 15
Relative Permeability Endpoints for Reservoir:
Irreducible water saturation=0.2
Irreducible oil saturation for oil/water system (S
oirw
) =0.1
Residual oil saturation for oil/water system=0.1
Residual oil saturation for oil/gas system=0.02
Critical gas saturation=0.1
Oil relative permeability at irreducible water saturation=0.75
Gas relative permeability at connate liquid =0.85
Gas relative permeability at 1S
oirw
=0.6
Capillary Pressure Endpoints for Reservoir:
Maximum value of water/oil capillary pressure (kPa) =1.0
Maximum value of gas/oil capillary pressure (kPa) =2.0
a)
Slimholes
b)
Slimholes
31 m
42.5 m
743 m
I
J
K
Shale layer
Shale layer
Fig. 7Homogeneous sand with a continuous shale layer (a)
above the injector and producer and (b) between the injector
and producer.
I
J
K
Half-symmetry used
Shale lense
31 m
42.5 m
65 m
Fig. 8Homogeneous sand with shale lenses.
666 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
of shale lenses have shown behavior similar to that observed in
this project.
Heterogeneous Sand With No Shale (Fig. 9). In contrast to
Fig. 8, the model here is for a full reservoir (i.e., symmetry was
not used). The heterogeneity of the system is visually apparent
from viewing the three faces visible in Fig. 9 and also from
Fig. 10, which shows the porosity distribution in the second layer
from the bottom (K=2) and the location of the horizontal slim-
holes from the producer that were used in one of the simulations
discussed later. The arithmetic mean porosity and its standard
deviation were 32.95 and 0.82%, respectively. The corresponding
values for the horizontal permeability were 6.39 and 0.80 darcies.
The selection of this reservoir type was based on a desire to inves-
tigate if vertical slimholes would increase oil production because
of their ability to increase the average effective vertical perme-
ability of a heterogeneous reservoir.
Numerical simulations were performed by use of one of the
following two reservoir representations.
Representation 1 (Large Model). The entire reservoir model
was 743 m long 85 m wide 31 m high with a 738-m-long
horizontal injector and a 731-m-long horizontal producer, which
was 5 m below the injector and was 1.5 m above the bottom of the
reservoir. The lateral spacing between the 25 cm 25 cmslimholes
was 25 m. There were 28 slimholes. The horizontal wells were at
one edge of the model (i.e., at J =1). The reservoir dimensions for
half-symmetry (Figs. 7a, 7b; Fig. 11) were 743 42.5 31 m and
were represented by 253 19 26 gridblocks.
The simulations involved source/sink wells with heaters used
for SAGD startup. Earlier simulations used discretized wellbores
and the PHWELLBORE semianalytical option in STARS that
resulted in numerical issues, excessively long simulation times,
and difculties in lifting the uid to the surface.
Representation 2 (Small Model). This is a 65-m-long 85-m-
wide 31-m-high reservoir (Figs. 12a and 12b). The horizontal
injector was 60-m long, and the horizontal producer was 53 m
long. The latter was 5 m below the injector and 1.5 m above the
bottom of the formation. The spacing between slimholes was
either 12 or 24 m. There were 27 19 26 gridblocks for the half-
symmetry element (Fig. 12a) in which the well was split along the
axis in the I-direction, and there were 27 37 26 gridblocks
when symmetry was not applied (Fig. 12b). There were four slim-
holes (25 cm 25 cm or 50 cm 50 cm cross section) when they
were 12 m apart and two slimholes when they were 24 m apart.
Typical spacing between SAGD well pairs in eld operations
is approximately 100 m; thus, the 85-m width of the models is
realistic in representing the area surrounding one SAGD well pair.
The continuous shale layer and shale lenses had a vertical perme-
ability of 2.5 10
10
darcies, a porosity of 27.7%, an S
w
of 0.75,
and an S
O
of 0.25. It should be noted that Fig. 5 was originally
developed as a simple schematic to show the concept of slimholes
and is not directly related to the reservoir models used in the
simulations.
SAGD Startup. All simulations described here used heaters in
both wells for a 60-day preheat with which production was
obtained in both the top and bottom source/sink wells during the
startup.
SAGD Operating Strategy. For Reservoir Representation 1, the
maximum-allowed steam rate for the 738-m-long horizontal injec-
tor was specied to be 300 m
3
CWE/D (0.41 m
3
CWE/m of well
length) in which CWE is the cold-water equivalent of the injected
steam. For Reservoir Representation 2, the maximum-allowed
steam rate for the 60-m-long horizontal injector was 24 m
3
CWE/
D (0.40 m
3
CWE/m of well length). The minimum-allowed
production pressure was 1500 kPaa.
Investigation Approach. The investigation approach was as
follows:
v Perform 3D numerical simulations for different reservoir
congurations with operating conditions based on those of the
PetroCanada (now Suncor) MacKay River SAGD project.
v Apply the SAGD process without slimholes as a baseline for
the different reservoir congurations.
v Implement the use of slimholes for the SAGD process.
v Apply different types of slimhole scenarios both for applica-
tions in which SAGD performance is limited by shale layers or
Full reservoir symmetry not used
md
31 m
85 m

65 m
9,000
8,580
8,160
7,740
7,320
6,900
6,480
6,060
5,640
5,220
4,800
Fig. 9Heterogeneous reservoir with no shale.
Slimholes
0.390
0.381
0.372
0.363
0.354
0.345
0.336
0.327
0.318
0.309
0.300
Porosity
Producer
Fig. 10Horizontal slimholes from producer (plan view at
K52).
IK
IJ
31 m
743 m
42.5 m
Fig. 11Grid for Reservoir Representation 1 (symmetry used).
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 667
lenses and for better SAGD conditions (i.e., 31-m-thick uniform
oil sand with high porosity and permeability).
v Assess spacing between slimholes (12 or 24 m for Reservoir
Representation 2 and 25 m for Reservoir Representation 1) and
slimhole size (25 cm 25 cm and 50 cm 50 cm cross sections)
for slimhole-enhanced SAGD applications.
The preceding investigation was completed and is reported in
this paper.
Results
Reservoir Representation 1 (Large Model). Vertical Slimholes
for a Homogeneous Reservoir. For a homogeneous reservoir
with no shale layer, the vertical slimholes had little effect on bot-
tomhole pressure (BHP), oil production, steam injection, S
O
, and
temperature proles. The introduction of vertical slimholes left
the average calendar-day oil rate (CDOR) and the average steam/
oil ratio (SOR) for the rst 3,094 days (8.5 years) unchanged at
148.4 m
3
/d and 1.98 m
3
CWE/m
3
, respectively.
Vertical Slimholes for a Homogeneous Reservoir With a
Shale Layer. The results for Reservoir Representation 1 with a
shale layer (17.5 m above the bottom of the reservoir and above
the injector) are summarized in Figs. 13 through 18. In the pres-
ence of shale, the 25 cm 25 cm slimholes signicantly
improved oil production at 2,764 days by 53% (Fig. 13) and oil
recovery from 49.3 to 75.2%. With vertical slimholes, better
injectivity was achieved because of a reduction in injector BHP
due to steam penetrating the shale. The injector and producer
BHP started to increase at approximately 500 days when there
were no slimholes and at approximately 1,700 days when vertical
slimholes were used (Fig. 14). The increase in BHP was caused
by steam-trap control (10

C) that kicked in and increased the pro-

ducer backpressure to prevent the production of live steam. A
steam trap of 10

C species that the well BHP is increased if the

temperature of the produced water is within 10

C of the steam-
saturation temperature.
As a result of steam penetrating the shale layer (Fig. 15a), oil
was displaced downward from above the shale layer (Fig. 15b).
The growth of an initial steam chamber below the shale layer and
then of a secondary steam chamber above the shale layer is appa-
rent from Figs. 15a and 15b. This did not occur in the absence of
slimholes, which can be seen from the temperature proles at 2
years (Fig. 16a and 16b). Figs. 17 and 18, respectively, are cross
sections of the temperature and S
O
proles halfway along the hori-
zontal wells and perpendicular to them. They demonstrate the dif-
ference in behavior when slimholes are used compared with when
they are not. In the absence of slimholes, the temperature does
eventually increase above the shale because of conduction, but
no oil is produced from this region (Figs. 17 and 18). In contrast,
a secondary steam chamber is formed above the shale when slim-
holes are used, and substantial oil production is obtained from
this region. The improvement in oil production created by the
slimholes did not occur until after approximately 3 years (1,095
days), and for a period before this time there had been even lower
oil production than when there were no slimholes. This was
because steam was being lost to the oil sand above the shale
layer, thereby reducing oil production from below the shale layer.
Production from above the shale layer started at approximately 3
or 4 months after the dip in oil production from below the shale
layer.
4
2
.
5

m
K/I aspect ratio = J/I aspect ratio = 1
3
1

m
Horizontal wells at J = 1 for
symmetry and at J=19 for no
symmetry
IJ
IK
8
4
.
5

m
65 m
Symmetry
65 m
No Symmetry
Horizontal wells at J = 1 for
symmetry and at J=19 for no
symmetry
a)
b)
Fig. 12Grid for Reservoir Representation 2.
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
Multiplycumulativeproductionby2
becausesymmetryused
Vertical slimholes
Noslimholes
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Fig. 13Effect of vertical slimholes on oil production for Reser-
voir Representation 1 with shale layer.
Time, days
W
e
l
l

B
H
P
,

k
P
a
a
Vertical slimholes
No slimholes
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
Fig. 14Effect of vertical slimhole on injector and producer
BHP for Reservoir Representation 1 with shale layer.
668 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Reservoir Representation 2 (Small Model). Reservoir Repre-
sentation 2 was a smaller and simplied version of Reservoir
Representation 1 and was used to more quickly test the effect of
different slimhole scenarios. For both reservoir representations,
the effect of the slimholes was most signicant when the reservoir
had a continuous shale layer that was penetrated by the slimholes.
Penetration of steam to the oil sand above the shale layer increased
steam injection by 6.5% (Fig. 19a) and oil production by 67%
(Fig. 19b).
A reduction in the steam-injection rate occurred in these simu-
lations when the maximum allowed injection pressure (2000
kPaa) was reached. This reduction occurred later when vertical
slimholes were used because they allowed some steam to enter
the oil sand above the shale layer, thereby delaying breakthrough
of steam to the horizontal production well. Again, this was
because of the loss of steam to the oil sand above the shale and
the delay in oil being produced from it.
As explained earlier, in the simulations, the slimholes were
considered to include some disturbed reservoir outside the actual
drilled hole. This is why the slimhole dimensions are quite large
(i.e., 25 cm 25 cm or 50 cm 50 cm), and they are considered
in the simulations to be porous media. It is interesting to examine
how the simulations predict uid-ow behavior through the slim-
holes. For example, consider the gas and oil velocity vectors (Fig.
20) at 360 days. They show the upward motion of gas and the
downward ow of oil through the vertical slimholes. Fig. 21 dem-
onstrates the change in gas and oil velocity with time in a slim-
hole block in the shale layer. In this gure, downward velocity is
positive. The maximum gas velocity through the slimhole was
approximately 3,000 m/d (208 cm/min) upward, and the maxi-
mum oil velocity was approximately 20 m/d (1.4 cm/min) down-
ward. The oil velocity downward and the gas velocity upward in a
slimhole block in the shale layer generally increased or decreased
together because the oil above the shale layer was replaced by
gas. The use of slimholes allowed the release of the excess pres-
sure above the shale layer, which was initially caused by conduc-
tive heating from below the shale layer.
The mechanism by which steam penetrates to the oil sand
above the shale layer and creates a secondary steam chamber
resulting in substantially more oil production is as follows:
1. The pressure builds up in the oil sand above the shale layer
because of conductive heating.
2. Oil starts to be produced (through the slimholes) from above
the shale layer, and the pressure there falls simultaneously.
3. Steam starts to penetrate (through the slimholes) to the
upper oil sand, and a secondary steam chamber is formed.
4. Steam goes to the top of the upper layer and displaces oil
downward, thereby increasing the oil velocity.
The preceding steps are indicated in Fig. 21, and the secondary
steam chamber is shown in Fig. 22.
Effect of Spacing Between Vertical Slimholes Through Shale
Layer. For a homogeneous reservoir with a shale layer, oil recov-
ery after 10 years was improved by 69.5% by the use of 25 cm
25 cm vertical slimholes spaced 12 m apart and by 61.5% if they
were 24 m apart (Table 5). The SOR values for the baseline (no
slimholes), 12-m spacing for 25 25 cm slimholes, and 24-m
Temperature Oil Saturation
C
60 days
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
Temperature indicative of steam
penetrating through shale layer


60 days
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
Oil sand depletion indicative of
steam penetration above shale
b) a)
210
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
189
168
147
126
105
84
63
42
21
0
Fig. 15The (a) temperature and (b) S
O
proles for Reservoir Representation 1 with shale when vertical slimholes were used.
Indicative of steam penetrating through shale layer
3
1

m
b)
a)
C
210
189
168
147
126
105
84
63
42
21
0
Fig. 16Temperature proles at 2 years for Reservoir Repre-
sentation 1 with shale for (a) slimholes and (b) no slimholes.
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 669
spacing for 25-cm
2
slimholes were, respectively, 3.40, 2.13, and
2.25 m
3
CWE/m
3
. Average CDOR values obtained were 5.6, 9.4,
and 9.0 m
3
/d for the 53-m length of the production well. The
increased oil production (Fig. 23) was caused by the recovery of
previously inaccessible oil from above the shale layer.
Effect of Size of Vertical Slimholes Through Continuous
Shale Layer Above the Horizontal Well Pair. When the continu-
ous shale layer was above the injector, increasing the size of the
slimhole cross section from 25 cm 25 cm to 50 cm 50 cm
had little, if any, effect on oil production for 12-m slimhole spac-
ing (Fig. 23). In contrast, increasing the slimhole size had a signif-
icant effect on 24-m slimhole spacing, in which it increased the
average CDOR over 10 years by 17% from 9.0 to 10.5 m
3
/d and
reduced the SOR by 16% from 2.25 to 1.90 m
3
CWE/m
3
.
Effect of Vertical Slimholes When There Was a Shale Layer
Between the Injector and Producer. When there was a shale
layer between the injector and producer, oil production was negli-
gible if vertical slimholes were not used, even though the oil sand
beneath the shale was heated by conduction.
Smaller spacing was important even for large slimholes when
there was a shale layer midway between the injector and producer.
The wells were 10 m apart. The use of slimholes resulted in sig-
nicant oil production (Figs. 24 and 25) in the later SAGD stage
especially for 50 cm 50 cm slimholes, but the oil rate was still
Slimholes No slimholes
0 days
60 days
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
C
210
189
168
147
126
105
84
63
42
21
0
Fig. 17Temperature JK proles at I 5127 (midpoint along the horizontal wells) for Reservoir Representation 1 with shale.
0 days
60 days
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
Slimholes No slimholes
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Fig. 18S
O
JK proles at I 5127 (midpoint of horizontal wells) for Reservoir Representation 1 with shale.
670 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
a)
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

S
t
e
a
m
,

m
3

C
W
E
Vertical slimholes
No slimholes
Maximum pressure
of 2 MPaa reached
Symmetry not used
b)
Symmetrynot used
No slimholes
Verticalslimholes
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
Symmetry not used
Vertical slimholes
No slimholes
0
0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
40,000 20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Fig. 19Effect of slimholes on (a) cumulative steam injected and (b) oil produced for Reservoir Representation 2 with a continu-
ous shale layer.
Grid block where
slimhole penetrates
shale
Slimhole
m/d m/d
Gas Velocity
Positive
Velocity is
down
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
299
269
238
207
177
146
115
85
54
23
7
Injector Layer
Shale Layer
Oil Velocity
Fig. 20Gas and oil velocity vectors at 360 days for Reservoir Representation 2 with a continuous shale layer.
Oil sand above shale
Oil velocity
Gas velocity
Injector BHP
5,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
2,500
1,500
1,000
1,000
500
0
3,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
0
0
0
30
20
10
10
0
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
a
)

1
2
3
4
Pre-heat
O
i
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
d
)

Time, days
Fig. 21Steps in uid penetration through shale layer.
G
a
s

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
d
)

Slimhole X-section area = 25 cm x 25 cm
193
173
152
131
111
90
69
49
28
8
Secondary steam
chamber
C
Temperature at 1,246 days
214
Fig. 22Formation of secondary steam chamber above shale
layer.
TABLE 5EFFECT OF SLIMHOLE SPACING AND SIZE FOR CONTINUOUS SHALE LAYER
ABOVE WELL PAIR (RESERVOIR REPRESENTATION 2)
Slimhole
Size
Slimhole
Spacing
Average SOR
(m
3
CWE/m
3
)
% Oil Recovery
after 10 Years
No slimholes 3.40 46.5
Vertical slimholes 25 cm 25 cm 12 m 2.13 78.8
Vertical slimholes 25 cm 25 cm 24 m 2.25 75.1
Vertical slimholes 50 cm 50 cm 12 m 2.11 79.6
Vertical slimholes 50 cm 50 cm 24 m 1.90 88.1
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 671
low during the early SAGD stage. After the steam broke through
the shale through the slimholes, the oil rate increased dramati-
cally. The initial low oil rate occurred for 4 to 5 years.
Increasing both the SAGD well-pair spacing from 5 to 10 m
and the vertical slimhole size from 25 cm 25 cm to 50 cm 50
cm resulted in earlier and higher oil-production rates. Oil produc-
tion was higher for 12-m vertical slimhole spacing than for 24-m
spacing (Table 6).
Effect of Vertical Slimholes for Low Vertical Permeability
and No Shale Layer. Even in the absence of shale layers, slim-
holes may have applicability if the vertical-to-horizontal perme-
ability ratio (k
v
/k
h
) is low. With a vertical permeability of 640 md,
k
v
/k
h
=0.1, and vertical slimholes (25 cm 25 cm in size and 12
m apart) initially resulted in greater steam injection (Fig. 26a),
which led to greater oil production (Fig. 26b). However, after a
run time of 10 years, the oil production was less than 2% greater
than that obtained without slimholes.
Effect of Vertical Slimholes for Homogeneous Reservoir
With Shale Lenses. The effect of vertical slimholes was eval-
uated for a reservoir with uniform sand apart from four shale
lenses distributed in four different layers (5, 12, 18, and 23)
(Fig. 8). The shale lenses accounted for 16% of Layer 5, 9% of
Layer 12, 36% of Layer 18, and 7% of Layer 23. The shale lenses
in Layers 5 and 12 were 1 m thick, and in Layers 18 and 23 they
were 1.5 m thick. The shale lenses had the same properties as the
shale layer specied in Table 4. The simulations indicated that
vertical slimholes (spaced either 12 or 24 m apart) had little effect
on injected steam (Fig. 27a), oil production (Fig. 27b). Shale
lenses effectively act as bafes and slow down uid ow, effec-
tively creating a reduced vertical permeability, and in this case
the effective permeability in the vertical direction was still high
enough that slimholes had little effect.
Effect of Horizontal Slimholes From Producer. The effect
of horizontal slimholes emanating from the producer at 12-m
intervals was examined for a heterogeneous reservoir with a ran-
domly generated log-normal distribution of oil-sand porosity
Symmetry used
- multiply values by 2
and 0.5 m in size
VSH 24 m in Spacing
and 0.25 m in size
VSH 24 m in Spacing
and 0.5 m in size
VSH 12 m in Spacing
and 0.25 m in size
50 cm x 50 cm
12 m spacing
50 cm x 50 cm
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
25 cm x 25 cm
12 m spacing
24 m spacing
25 cm x 25 cm
24 m spacing
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
16,579
11,579
6,579
1,579
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Fig. 23Effect of slimhole spacing and slimhole size on cumu-
lative oil production for shale located above injector and
producer.
Symmetry used
- multiply values by 2
SAGD Well 10m apart with VSH
Spacing&25 cm x 25 cm in
H 24 m in Spacing&25 cm x 25 cm
SAGD Wells 5 m Apart,
VSH 12 m in Spacing &
25 cm x 25 cm in Size
SAGD Wells 5 m Apart,
VSH 24 m in Spacing &
25 cm x 25 cm in Size
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
0 423 1,423 2,423 3,423
200
0
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
25 cm x 25 cm
12 m spacing
25 cm x 25 cm
24 m spacing
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
Fig. 24Cumulative oil production for 25-cm
2
slimholes with
wellbores 5 m apart for shale located between injector and
producer.
SAGD Wells 10 m Apart,
VSH 12 m in Spacing &
0.5 m in Size
SAGD Wells 10 m Apart,
VSH 24 m in Spacing &
0.5 m in Size
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
Time, date
50 cm x 50 cm
24 m spacing
50 cm x 50 cm
12 m spacing
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
0
Fig. 25Cumulative oil production for 50-cm
2
slimholes with
wellbores 10 m apart for shale located between injector and
producer.
TABLE 6SIMULATION RESULTS FOR SHALE LAYER BETWEEN INJECTOR AND PRODUCER
WELL PAIR (RESERVOIR REPRESENTATION 2)
Reservoir Representation 2:
Shale Between the Wellbores
Average
CDOR (m
3
/d)
Average SOR
(m
3
CWE/m
3
)
% Oil Recovery
after 10 Years
Injector and producer 5 m apart
No slimholes 0.00 0.73 0.2
Vertical slimholes
12-m spacing25 cm 25 cm size 7.2 1.99 60.5
24-m spacing25 cm 25 cm size 4.9 2.65 40.9
Injector and producer 10 m apart
No slimholes 0.0 0.81 0.1
Vertical slimholes
12-m spacing25 cm 25 cm size 0.0 11.27 0.2
24-m spacing25 cm 25 cm size 0.0 11.57 0.2
12-m spacing50 cm 50 cm size 8.0 2.05 66.9
24-m spacing50 cm 50 cm size 7.2 2.07 60.1
672 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
[average =0.33 and a standard deviation of ln (porosity) =0.02].
Similarly, average oil-sand permeability was 6.4 darcies, and the
standard deviation of its natural log was 0.1. The slimholes had
essentially no effect on oil production when their assigned abso-
lute permeability was 1,000 darcies but did marginally increase
oil production by 2.4% when their absolute permeability was
increased to 100,000 darcies (Fig. 28).
At the level of the production well, horizontal ow in the
J-direction (perpendicular to the horizontal wells) was much more
uniform in the absence of horizontal slimholes (Figs. 29a and
29b). When slimholes were used, most of the lateral ow to the
producer was through the slimholes. The fact that the slimholes
had little effect on oil production, despite the difference they
caused in lateral ow to the producer, indicates that most of the oil
owof interest was from the layers above the producer.
The effectiveness of horizontal slimholes from the producer
will depend on the balance between vertical and horizontal per-
meability. Thus, if the vertical permeability is much lower than
the horizontal permeability, then even increasing the effective
horizontal permeability with many horizontal slimholes will have
a limited effect on a drainage process.
Conclusions
On the basis of 3D eld-scale numerical simulations we come to
the following conclusions:
Use of vertical slimholes is an effective technology for SAGD
applications in reservoirs with a continuous shale layer. They
improve SAGD performance by recovering previously inacces-
sible oil from above the shale layer in which a secondary steam
chamber is formed. After approximately 3 years of injection,
the positive effect of vertical slimholes came into play, and oil
production became substantially greater compared with when
there were no slimholes.
Slimhole size had little effect at 12-m spacing but had an
effect at 24-m spacing. The use of 25 cm 25 cm vertical
slimholes with 12-m slimhole spacing resulted in a signicant
improvement in SAGD performance. Increasing the slimhole
spacing from 12 to 24 m reduced the effectiveness of the
slimholes.
At 12-m spacing, 25 cm 25 cm and 50 cm 50 cm vertical
slimholes had a similar positive effect on SAGD performance.
However, the effectiveness of the larger vertical slimholes was
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l


s
l
i
m
h
o
l
e
s
N
o


s
l
i
m
h
o
l
e
s
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l


s
l
i
m
h
o
l
e
s
N
o


s
l
i
m
h
o
l
e
s
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

S
t
e
a
m
,

m
3

C
W
E
Time, days
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l


s
l
i
m
h
o
l
e
s
N
o


s
l
i
m
h
o
l
e
s
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0
0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
a) b)
Fig. 26Effect of slimholes on (a) cumulative steam injected and (b) oil produced for Reservoir Representation 2 with an oil-sand
vertical permeability of 640 md.
Time (days)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

S
t
e
a
m
,

m
3

C
W
E
No slimholes
12 m slimhole spacing
24 m slimhole spacing
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
Time (days)







C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
No slimholes
12 m slimhole spacing
24 m slimhole spacing
Symmetry used
multiply values by 2
30,000
40,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
a) b)
Fig. 27(a) Cumulative steam injected and (b) cumulative oil production for Reservoir Representation 2 with shale lenses.
Horizontal slimholes from
producer (100,000 Darcy)
Time (days)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

m
3
100,000 darcy
horizontal slimholes
Symmetry not used
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Fig. 28Effect of horizontal slimholes from producer on cumu-
lative oil production.
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 673
maintained even when the slimhole spacing was increased from
12 to 24 m.
For 24-m vertical slimhole spacing, increasing the slimhole size
from 25 cm 25 cm to 50 cm 50 cm resulted in a 17%
increase in average CDOR over 10 years and a 16% decrease in
average SOR.
When there was a shale layer between the injector and pro-
ducer, minimal oil production was obtained in the absence of
vertical slimholes. This was despite the fact that the oil sand
beneath the shale layer was heated by conduction. The use of
vertical slimholes resulted in some oil production; the initial oil
rate was still low but increased to a relatively high value for 50
cm 50 cm slimholes after approximately 3 years for 12-m
spacing and after approximately 4 years for 24-m spacing.
Vertical slimholes are a potential solution for SAGD operations
involving lower-quality oil sand or multiple layers of thin pay,
particularly in which the oil sand is at a shallow depth.
The mechanism by which the steam penetrates a shale layer and
forms a secondary steam chamber is as follows:
* Pressure initially builds up above the shale layer because of
conduction and then drives the bitumen down through the
slimholes. This effect will be reduced but is still signicant
if the reservoir is not conned as it was in the simulations
discussed here. A buildup of pressure in this oil sand could
result in signicant geomechanics effects.
* Steam moves upward and oil downward in the slimholes
through the shale layer.
* The steam induces a secondary steam chamber to form
above the shale layer.
Vertical slimholes had a negligible effect on a reservoir with
shale lenses (bafes) and a homogeneous oil sand (k
v
/k
h
tested
from 0.1 to 1).
Horizontal slimholes emanating from the producer had little
effect on SAGD performance even when the absolute perme-
ability of the slimholes was increased from 1,000 to 100,000
darcies.
Nomenclature
kv
1
, kv
2
, kv
3
, kv
4
, kv
5
= coefcients for specic gases
k
v
/k
h
= vertical to horizontal permeability ratio
P = pressure, kPa
S
O
= oil saturation
S
w
= water saturation
T = temperature, K
x
i
= equilibrium fraction of i in oil phase
x
ieqm
= oil phase
y
i
= mole fraction of i in gas phase
l
live oil
= viscosity of the oil phase
l
i
= pseudoviscosity of component i
References
Butler, R.M. 1991a. Developments and Description of Steam-Assisted
Gravity Drainage Using Horizontal Wells. Horizontal Well Technical
Conference, World Oil, Calgary, Canada, 1819 June.
Butler, R.M. 1991b. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Butler, R.M. 1992. Steam-Assisted Gravity DrainageConcept, Develop-
ment, Performance, Future. Paper presented at Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands Tech Symposium, CHOA, University of Calgary, Calgary, Can-
ada, 11 March.
Butler, R.M. and Chung, K.H. 1988. A Theoretical and Experimental
Study of Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process. In Fourth UNI-
TAR/UNDP International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands,
712 August 1988, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, ed. R.F. Meyer and
E.J. Wiggins, Vol. 4, 191210. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Alberta
Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority
Butler, R.M., McNab, G.S., and Lo, H.Y. 1981. Theoretical Studies on the
Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil during in situ Steam Heating. Can.
J. Chem. Eng. 59 (4): 455460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.
5450590407.
Butler, R.M. and Stephens, D.J. 1981. The Gravity Drainage of Steam
Heated Heavy Oil to Parallel Horizontal Wells. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 20
(2): 9096. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/81-02-07.
Chalaturnyk, R. 1997. Geomechanical Response of Heavy Oil Reservoirs
to the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Process. Paper SPE 37569 pre-
sented at the International Thermal Operations Heavy Oil Symposium,
Bakerseld, California, 1012 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
37569-MS.
Chalaturnyk, R. and Li, P. 2004. When Is It Important to Consider Geome-
chanics in SAGD Operations? J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 43 (4): 5361. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/04-04-05.
Chang, J., Ivory, J., and Tunney, C. 2011. Numerical Simulation of
SAGD with Vertical Slimholes. Paper CSUG/SPE 148803 presented
at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 1517 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/148803-
MS.
Collins, P.M. 2002. Injection Pressures for Geomechanical Enhance-
ment of Recovery Process in the Athabasca Oil Sands. Paper SPE
79028 presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium and international Well Technology Conference,
Calgary, Albert, Canada, 47 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
79028-MS.
Collins, P.M., 2005. Geomechanical Effects on the SAGD Process. SPE
Res Eval & Eng 10 (4): 367375. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97905-PA.
Computer Modelling Group. 2012. CMG STARS Software, http://
www.cmgl.ca/soft-stars.
Edmunds, N.R. 1987. UTF Gravity Drainage Process Development.
Advances in Petroleum Recovery & Upgrading Technology Confer-
ence, AOSTRA, Edmonton, 23 June.
Edmunds, N.R. and Gittins, S.D. 1993. Effective Application of Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage of Bitumen to Long Horizontal Well Pairs.
J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 32 (6): 4955. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/93-06-05.
b)
a)
Slimhole
Oil sand
m/d
11.9
9.4
7.0
4.5
2.0
0.4
2.9
5.3
7.8
10.2
12.7
Producer
Producer
Fig. 29Oil velocity vectors and oil velocity in J-direction pro-
le at 315 days at the level of the producer for Reservoir Repre-
sentation 2 without shale (a) for no slimholes and (b) for
horizontal slimholes from producer.
674 December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Edmunds, N.R., Haston, J.A., and Best, D.A. 1988. Analysis and Implemen-
tation of the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Process at the AOSTRA
UTF. In Fourth UNITAR/UNDP International Conference on Heavy
Crude and Tar Sands, 712 August 1988, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
ed. R.F. Meyer and E.J. Wiggins, Vol. 4, 223242. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority
Edmunds, N.R., Kovalsky, J.A., Pennacchioli, E.D. et al. 1994. Review of
the Phase A Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Test: An Underground
Test Facility. SPE Res Eng 9 (2): 119124. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
21529-PA.
Edmunds, N.R. McCormack, M.E. Suggett, J.C. et al. 1987. Design of
Horizontal Well Completions. AOSTRA Underground Test Facility.
Paper presented at the 4th Annual Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
Symposium, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 18
February.
Energy Resources Conservation Board. 2011. June. ST98-2011: Albertas
Energy Reserves 2010 and Supply/Demand Outlook 20112020.
Energy Resources Conservation Board Staff Review and Analysis. 2010.
Total E&P Canada Ltd. Surface Steam Release of May 18, 2006, Jos-
lyn Creek SAGD Thermal Operation, February 11.
Government of Alberta. 2010. Albertas Energy IndustryAn Overview,
June. http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Org/pdfs/Alberta_Energy_Overview.
pdf.
Government of Alberta. 2011. Oil Sands Industry Update, Fall 2011,
Reporting on the Period June 4, 2011 to September 2, 2011.
Hein, F. and Cotterill, D. 2006. The Athabasca Oil Sands, A Regional
Geological Perspective, Fort McMurray Area, Alberta, Canada. Natu-
ral Resources Research 15 (2): 85102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11053-006-9015-4.
Hein, F.J. and Marsh, R.A. 2008. Regional Geologic Framework, Deposi-
tional Models and Resource Estimates of the Oil Sands of Alberta,
Canada. Paper 2008-320 presented at the World Heavy Oil Congress,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1012 March.
Komery, D.P., Luhning, R.W., Pearce, J.V. et al. 1998. Pilot Testing of
Post-Steam Bitumen Recovery from Mature SAGD Wells in Canada.
Paper 1998.214 presented at the 7th UNITAR International Confer-
ence for Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Beijing, China.
Kupsch, N., Hagerman, T., Kennedy, D. et al. 2005. Petro-Canada
MacKay River 2005 Performance Presentation to ERCB, Approval
No. 8668.
Kupsch, N., Hagerman, T., Kennedy, D. et al. 2006. Petro-Canada
MacKay River 2006 Performance Presentation to ERCB, Approval
No. 8668.
Li, P. and Chalaturnyk, R.J. 2005. Geomechanical Model of Oil Sands.
Paper PS2005-430 presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 13 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97949-MS.
Li, P. and Chalaturnyk, R. 2006. Permeability Variations Associated With
Shearing and Isotropic Unloading During the SAGD Process. J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. 45 (1): 5461. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/06-01-05.
Li, P. and Chalaturnyk, R. 2009. History Match of the UTF Phase A
Project with Coupled Reservoir Geomechanical Simulation. J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. 48 (1): 2935. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-01-29.
Li, P., Chalaturnyk, R., and Tan, T.B. 2006. Coupled Reservoir Geome-
chanical Simulations for the SAGD Process. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 45 (1):
3339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/06-01-02.
Li, P., Chan, M., and Froehlich, W. 2009. Steam Injection Pressure and
the SAGD Ramp-Up Process. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 48 (1): 3641. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-01-36.
Pooladi-Darvish, M. and Mattar, L. 2002. SAGD Operations in the
Presence of Overlying Gas Cap and Water LayerEffect of Shale
Layers. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 41 (6): 4051. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/02-
06-04.
Reid, R.C. 1977. The Properties of Gases and Liquids, third edition, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
RPS Energy Canada. 2009. JOGMEC SAGD Performance Study, Final
Presentation, Tokyo, 29 September. http://trc.jogmec.go.jp/pdf/20091002/
1.pdf
Sharpe, J.A., Shinde, S.B., and Wong, R.C. 1997. Cold Lake Borehole
Mining. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 36 (1): 5863. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97-
01-06.
Touhidi-Baghini, A. 1998. Absolute Permeability of McMurray Formation
Oil Sands at Low Conning Stress, PhD Thesis, University of Alberta
(Fall 1998).
Tran, D., Nghiem, L., and Buchanan, L. 2005. An Overview of Iterative
Coupling Between Geomechanical Deformation and Reservoir Flow.
Paper SPE 97879 presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International
Thermal Operations Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
13 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97879-MS.
Tristone Capital Inc. 2007. Industry Update. SAGD: Looking Beneath the
Surface of the Hottest Oil Growth Sector in Canada, July 25.
Wan, R.G. 1991. A Constitutive Model for the effective Stress-Strain
Behaviour of Oil Sands. J. Can. Pet. Tech. 30 (4): 8998. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/91-04-08.
Werniuk, J. 2007. Oil sands debate. Can. Min. J. 128 (3): 5.
Jeannine Chang is a Reservoir Simulation Specialist at Devon
Canada Corporation, and before that she was at AITF. Her
work has primarily focused on reservoir simulation and labora-
tory experiments of enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) technolo-
gies, including cyclic injection processes (solvent, steam,
steam/solvent, and steam/air), SAGD, cold heavy-oil produc-
tion with sand and vapour extraction process. Before AITF,
Chang was an environmental consultant focusing on environ-
mental assessments and petroleum-contaminant remediation.
John Ivory is the Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Subsurface Portfolio
Manager at AITF in the areas of EOR (primarily solvent, steam,
steam/solvent, and in-situ-combustion processes) and leads
AITFs Reservoir Simulation Group. He has extensive expertise
in both designing experiments and performing numerical simu-
lations related to enhanced heavy-oil and bitumen recovery
processes. Ivory also has investigated gas separation/purifica-
tion by use of membranes, adsorption, and absorption
technologies.
Cathal Tunney is responsible for technology transfer in AITFs
Petroleum Division. He has contributed to the development
of several concepts for the preconditioning of oil-sand reser-
voirs to improve the performance of in-situ gravity-drainage
processes and to investigate novel absorption processes for
the separation of CO
2
. Before joining AITF, Tunney worked in a
range of new-product-development projects and business
startups, including microwave-sintered ceramics, fuel cells,
burn-wound dressings, and shape-memory alloy components.
December 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 675