You are on page 1of 16

CSUG/SPE 138054

Dynamic SAGD Well Flow Control Simulation


T.W. Stone, Schlumberger; B. Guyaguler, Chevron ETC; W.J. Bailey, C.E.P. Damas, P.F. Naccache, A. Morton,
Schlumberger
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1921 October 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by a CSUG/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
An investigation is presented on the use of Flow Control Valves (ICVs, FCVs) to control steam placement in the early stages of a
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process. The two parts of this process that are examined in this paper are the steam
circulation preheating period and the early stages up to one year of injection/production in which the steam chamber is beginning
to form. Steam injection and production in this and other thermal processes can be difficult to control because steam has a high
mobility ratio and tends to establish flow paths that may be difficult to break once established. This is especially pronounced in
heterogeneous reservoirs. Two SAGD case studies have been designed that accurately model the initial preheating period in which
both wells circulate steam through an inner tubing and outer annulus in order to conductively and, to a lesser extent convectively,
heat the region around the well pair in order to establish communication. After this initial circulation period, the wells switch to
injection and production. Both cases have the same base configuration but differ in the degree of reservoir heterogeneity. In the
injection well, ICV devices are placed to control steam/water flow through the outer screens. In the producer, FCV valves are used
to flatten the production profile along the well. Two methods are examined to change valve apertures. One uses proportionalintegral-derivative (PID) controllers while the second applies an optimization algorithm directly on each individual connection
productivity index. A preliminary investigation is presented here into using feedback controllers and optimization with
instantaneous reservoir parameters to improve a SAGD process in the presence of reservoir heterogeneity.
Introduction
Complex wells often involve the use of dynamic FCVs and static Inflow Control Devices (ICDs). In order to effectively improve
performance from such wells and also to design completions which incorporate such devices, reservoir simulation is often required
prior to field operations. Models of complex wells require good resolution of their flow paths which can be achieved through
application of an advanced multisegment well model. Such a model simulates the effects of constrictions (such as static or
dynamic nozzles, sliding sleeves, etc.) and contains devices used to model various chokes and valves.
Thermal steam injection processes pose unique challenges in establishing accurate simulation-based predictions. Steam has a
high mobility ratio which causes injected fluids to find regions of the reservoir that are most favourable for injection. Once
steam/water flow paths have been established, these can be difficult to change. A SAGD process is a low pressure operation with
low pressure gradients and typically small fluid rates. This process is known to be susceptible to heterogeneity (Boberg 1988).
The ability of a multisegment well model to capture in situ wellbore multiphase flow effects improves segment inflow calculations
thereby better capturing any local heterogeneities that may exist along the wellbore.
Thermal studies which simulate horizontal and vertical wells have been discussed by many authors. A brief review of recent
work in this area was presented by Stone et al. (2010).
This paper is structured as follows: first a description of the FCV model used in this study. This is followed by an outline of
the PID controller and optimization algorithms. Lastly, the remaining part of this paper is devoted to two case studies and the
beneficial impact of the injection and production control on the evolution of the SAGD process.

CSUG/SPE 138054

A Generic Flow Control Device Model


A unified device model that contains the functionalities of various device models used in a commercial simulator (Schlumberger
Device Keywords, 2009) was created by Holmes and Neylon (2010).
If a segment in a multisegment well model contains a flow control device, the pipeflow friction pressure drop across the
segment is replaced by the sum of a friction component and a form component

Pd = Pfric + Pform

(1)

The frictional component is the standard term for the pressure loss in a conduit (Bird, Stewart & Lightfoot, 1960),

Pfric = 2cu f

L
mix
D

(2)

The form component accounts for any additional pressure loss due to the geometry of the device including the effect of the
constriction in a valve and is expressed as

Pform = S mix q q

(3)

where q is the volumetric flow rate of the fluid mixture,

S is the base strength of the device and is a strength multiplier.

Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) Controller


This algorithm is the most commonly used feedback controller (strm, K. and Hgglund, 1995). For the purpose of this study,
we use the following formulation:
te

e( )d

d
ts
S = St s + K p e(t ) +
K d e(t )
(4)
Ti
dt

The purpose of the St s term is to stabilize cases where the recovery process undergoes a dramatic change. Such a change

occurs in the work presented here with the switchover from circulation to injection/production. At this time, the PID controller
algorithm Eq. (4) is reset. Increasing the proportionality constant K p may help the control variable to reach its target more
quickly but if too high a value is specified, oscillations in the process variables may result. Increasing the integral time constant
Ti helps to reduce the tendency for the process variables to oscillate but will slow down the rate at which the valve strengths will
reach the target values. Derivative gain K d slows the rate of change of controller output including overshoot and may be
important when the control variable is near the target.
The magnitude of the proportionality constant K p for the generic FCVs has a wide variation depending on the valve aperture
size. For instance, a wide open configuration has a value of 10-20, and a valve that is almost shut has a value of 10-5.
Optimization Algorithm
As an alternative to the PID controller, an optimization algorithm was also used to control the injection and production volume
flow rates in the first case study. At every time step, the FCV settings were optimized so that all flow rates in segments with
reservoir connections were equal. This was achieved by minimizing the standard deviation of the segment flow rates along the
well, done separately for the injector and producer.
The idea is to find

1, , ) that minimizes:
(5)

CSUG/SPE 138054

where:
the productivity index (PI) multiplier for each connection to segment
the number of FCVs (4 per well for this case)
the rate at segment
average rate of the segments

The downhill simplex method (Nelder and Mead, 1965) was used for optimization since it requires only the function values and
not the derivatives, which in this case, are not available using analytic methods. Powells algorithm and the conjugate-gradient
algorithm (with numerical derivatives) were also experimented with, producing similar results.
Before embarking on optimization, the segment rates when all the FCVs are fully open are determined. The FCV associated
with the lowest segment rate is then anchored at fully open, and only the three remaining FCV settings are modified by the
optimization algorithm. Anchoring one of the FCV settings is crucial for two reasons:

0. This is clearly not the desired


The obvious minimum to the optimization problem (as defined in Eq. (5)) is at
solution, and so, without anchoring, the optimization algorithms tend to converge to this solution.
Anchoring one of the FCV settings removes many of the local optima, making it more likely for the optimization
algorithm to locate a better (hopefully global) optima.

The initial guess for the optimization algorithm is estimated from the initial fully open rates of the segments. If the algorithm finds
itself stuck in a local minimum, optimization is restarted with a random initial guess which should allow it to jump out of the local
and find a better optimum.
The overall algorithm is presented in Figure 1. The objective function was plotted and is well behaved, i.e. smooth.
Description of Case Studies
Originally described in Stone et al. (2002, 2010) and repeated here for clarity, the base case follows a published engineering
simulation field study in Western Canada. Many of the reported parameters were accounted for including wellbore design,
placement, injection rates and rock parameters such as absolute and relative permeabilities.
Sheppard et al. (1998) reviewed the operations of Husky Oil at the Pike's Peak heavy oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada. This
field is part of the Lloydminster deposit and features a 12 API oil, GOR of 15 m3/m3 and a gas-free viscosity of 25000 cP at 18
C. Case studies used in this paper are based on these properties with the addition of absolute permeability heterogeneity in the
well region described at the end of this section.
Two 400 m horizontal undulating wells with a 5 m vertical separation have been simulated. Net pay thickness is 20 m. A
schematic showing a section of the upper injector and lower producer is presented in Figure 2. The two horizontal wells initially
circulate steam for 60 days in order to heat the region of reservoir near the wells for the purpose of establishing hot communication
(the preheating or circulation stage). Both wells are open during this time so that some of the circulating steam may enter the
reservoir and reservoir fluids may be produced. Subsequently, after 60 days, circulation is stopped. The upper horizontal well is
converted into an injector, while the lower well becomes the producer.
Both wells are modeled with inner tubing and outer annulus segments for fluid and energy flow. During the startup period,
65% quality steam at 250 C is injected at the heel of the inner tubing of both wells and circulated back along the annulus. An
external sink is defined at the heel of the annulus of both wells where fluids are removed to a specified external pressure.
Heat transfer is modeled between the inner tubing and outer annulus as well as from the annulus to formation. An annulus to
formation heat transfer coefficient was obtained from Prats (1986) who calculates this coefficient for heat loss from a steam
injection well to undisturbed formation. For the purpose of this study, heat transfer coefficients from inner tubing to outer annulus
were estimated to be an order of magnitude larger than those to the formation because of the lower thermal resistance.
Lloydminster oil-water and oil-gas relative permeability curves and endpoints were obtained from Wang and Chen (1999) who
also did a simulation study of a field in this region. The P-T solution gas K -value function is taken to be that of methane
(Edmister 1983). The heavy component is non-volatile.
The study is symmetric along the axis of the wells. To simulate half of a multisegment well, half cross-sectional flow areas for
the tubing/casing and the full hydraulic diameters for each was used. The retention of the original diameters was necessary to
correctly calculate the multiphase (mixture) Reynolds number in the pressure drop calculation, while the flow areas and volumes
were halved to account for the symmetry. Overall heat transfer coefficients were also halved. Injection rates as noted in Sheppard
et al. (1998) were halved. The size of the first grid cell in the direction orthogonal to the well axis and well PI were also halved to
account for the symmetry. Table 1 contains further details of this case including reservoir properties, well design, well operation
and simulation parameters.

CSUG/SPE 138054

Figure 3 shows the heterogeneous permeability distribution for the two cases. Overall reservoir permeability is 5 Darcys,
however for the first case exhibited in Figure 3a, two vertical permeability streaks of 2 and 4.5 Darcys intersect both wells in
columns J = 3 and 5. Additional vertical permeability streaks of 4 and 0.5 Darcys are present in the second case shown in Figure
3b, located in the column of cells J = 6 and 7.
Multisegment Well Segmentation
Figure 4 shows the segmentation used in the two case studies with each well having an inner tubing and an outer annulus
specified. In Figure 4, segments 1 5 model the inner tubing, segments 6 10 model the outer annulus and segments 11 14
capture flow from the reservoir to the well through flow control valves. Segments 11 14 essentially act as gathering points for
both injection and production in the two wells. An example of a flow control device is shown in Figure 5. Segments 11 14 are
modeled based on this device, i.e. the shape of these segments can be thought of as a sleeve around the outer annulus with
appropriate outer area and thickness, and not as a normal cylindrical pipe. The symbol in Figure 4 (shown at segments 11 14)
depicts the flow control valves. The dashed lines between these segments represent an additional flowpath of reduced constriction
and volume whose role is to provide a small amount of flow during the circulation period in order to bring these segments up to
temperature.
Figure 4 also shows the k-layer location of the two horizontal wells at K = 11 and K = 14. Segment 11 has completions in J = 7
and 8, segment 12 is completed in J = 5 and 6, segment 13 in J = 3 and 4 and segment 14 is completed in J = 1 and 2.
SAGD with PID Controllers
During the startup period of 60 days, steam is circulated through both wells and the reservoir gains heat mostly through conductive
heat transfer from well to the formation. Additionally there is some minor injectivity from both wells. Any injection that does
occur will be strongest at the toes with little fluid exchange in the mid region and a small production may occur closer to the heel.
After the startup period, the well pair is switched to SAGD mode with injection/production from 60 to 365 days. With control
valves in the connecting segments remaining wide open (with no control up to 365 days), temperature contours for Case Study 1 at
times 60, 65, 70, 100 and 365 days are shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows total volume flow rates (TVFR) and average TVFR in
segments 11 to 14 of the injector and producer during the same time period. Completions near the toe (which are gathered in
segment 11) are seen to be injecting strongly with almost no steam being injected in the mid and heel regions of the well
(completions connected to segments 12, 13 and 14). However, just after the switchover at 60 days, these mid and heel regions cool
down, a dominant flow path is established in the higher permeability vertical streak at the toe and it remains unbroken until 365
days. For the plots displaying flow rates, injection is denoted by a ve number, with production described as +ve.
PID controllers were then used to control the valve strengths in segments 11 14 in both the injection and production wells.
The same parameters were used for each well. Total volume flow rate in these segments was monitored and the PID controller
target was the average TVFR over all four segments. Figure 8 shows temperature contours (the same time sequence shown in
Figure 6) for the case when both wells are PID controlled. PID parameters are also shown. Figure 9 shows the corresponding
TVFR for both wells. The controller has improved the total volume flow rates for both the toe in segment 11(light blue curve) and
further towards the mid region in segment 12 (orange curve). Segments 13 and 14 continue to exhibit little flow because flowpaths are established mainly through segments 11 and 12. The temperature contours in Figure 8 also show a broadening of the
established flow paths in the toe region when compared with the wide open case in Figure 6.
An attempt was made to push the PID parameters to the point where the process variables would begin to oscillate. This was
done to establish practical operational upper-bounds. Increasing the proportionality constant K p by a factor of 5 resulted in the
temperature contours shown in Figure 10. Although temperature contours at 100 days are similar to those shown with the first set
of PID parameters in Figure 8, a second new flow path has opened up near the heel. Injection and production TVFR rates are
shown in Figure 11. First note that flow rates in the heel region (as gathered in segment 14) show a dramatic increase at 275 days.
Also note that some of the TVFR are beginning to oscillate at this point of time. Further attempts to increase the PID parameters
only resulted in slightly hotter temperatures near the heel but the process TVFR variables were becoming quite oscillatory and
ragged.
For the second Case Study, Figure 12 shows a comparison of temperature contours at 365 days in the uncontrolled, wide open
case with contours where a set of PID parameters was pushed towards oscillation. Figure 13 shows the corresponding segment
TVFR. Although no improvement is seen in the toe region (segment 11), an improvement can be seen in the mid region where the
PID controllers have improved injection both in the higher permeability column at J = 4 and in the reduced permeability (4.5
Darcy) column at J = 5. The TVFR process variables are seen to be drawing closer together towards the target average TVFR but
are beginning to oscillate in Figure 13.

CSUG/SPE 138054

SAGD with Optimization Control


The optimization algorithm described above was used on Case Study 1 and is able to even out injection and production as shown
in Figure 14. Optimized valve settings for the injector are shown in Figure 15. Temperature contours at 365 days are shown in
Figure 16. Although the SAGD process parameters at switchover were a little different than those used in the above PID
controlled cases, this method was able to open up a flowpath in the higher permeability column at J = 4 which was not achieved in
any of the PID cases. Also, despite no flow at segment 14, as in the case of PID control, the optimizer does a better job of evening
out the rates in the remaining flowing segments after the switchover (Figure 14).
Further Discussion
The strategy of evening out the flow profile is an engineering heuristic that predicts that such a profile will lead to a more stable
steam chamber and help mobilize a larger volume of heavy oil, which in turn means better use of the injected energy. Further work
is necessary to establish the economic benefit of FCVs which were shown to help realize this even flow profile. Note that, at least
initially, evening out segment rates reduces the well flow rate of injected/produced fluid because the flow in segments with high
rates are suppressed to bring them in line with lower rate segments.
Establishment of steam flow paths happens soon after the well is switched over from circulation to production/injection. Once
established, such flow paths can be difficult to break and may endure through the life of the asset. This leads to the question of
whether benefits could be obtained by also controlling the slight injectivity that occurs during the circulation/startup period.
During this period, steam tends to inject nearer the toe and produce nearer the heel. Attempts were made to control this but no
conclusions were drawn as to the effect of this on the subsequent switchover to injection/production.
Despite showing some improvement compared to the uncontrolled cases, given the well design in the case studies, PID control
and optimization were unable to fully prevent, and later break the dominant flow-paths. Further work is needed to investigate
whether more or less gathering points and whether more grid and segment resolution would improve the control.
The overhead involved in running either the PID controllers or the optimization was negligible.
The average TVFR along the well as a PID controller target appeared to work well. Attempts to use a multiple of this target
did not show any improvements. Also no attempts were made to optimize the PID parameters.
Another important process variable is the BHP limit in both wells. It is unknown whether the PID controller could be used
with several process variables and targets or whether an optimization algorithm is better suited for this task. It may also be worth
investigating if a hybrid control method would have merit and whether either control method is better suited for different periods
of production.
Downhole control valves may be difficult to adjust on a continuous basis so a strategy based on period changes to the apertures
could also be examined.
Conclusions
1. A preliminary investigation into controlling and improving steam injection and production conformance in the early stages of
a Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage process in a heterogeneous reservoir was undertaken.
Two test cases that accurately model the physical process both in the startup/circulation period and in the subsequent
injection/production period were used. These cases included heterogeneous permeability regions around both wells.
2. A Proportional-Integral-Derivative feedback controller was used to control injection and production profiles in both horizontal
wells.
Process variables for the controller were total volume flow rates at gathering points along both wells.
The controller adjusted flow control valve apertures at these gathering points.
The same controller parameters were used for both wells.
The target for the process variables was the average total volume flow rate along the entire well.
Improvements over the uncontrolled, wide open cases were noted. These included (i) broadening of existing flow paths
and (ii) opening up of new flow paths around the wells.
Better results were obtained by pushing the PID control parameters to the point where the process variables were
beginning to show oscillations.
No improvement was made in establishing flow paths in the lowest permeability regions around the wells.
3. A second optimization method was also investigated with promising early results.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Schlumberger and the Intersect HOT Project partners Chevron Energy Technology Company and
TOTAL E&P for permission to publish this work.

CSUG/SPE 138054

Nomenclature

cu
D
e(t )
f
Kd

Kp
L
q
S
ts

te
Ti
S
Vs
Pd

mix

unit conversion factor in friction pressure loss Eq. (2)

=
=
=

hydraulic diameter of the flow channel in Eq. (2)


the error term in the PID controller algorithm, the difference between the process variable and the target (i.e. the
total volume flow rates in the valve device and the target)
Fanning friction factor used in pressure loss Eq. (2)

the derivative gain constant in the PID controller algorithm, dimension days

a proportionality constant, dimensions valve strength/volume flow rate

=
=

a friction length of the device, may be different than the physical length
the volumetric flow rate of the fluid mixture flowing through a device, Eq. (3)

=
=

the base strength of the flow control device, dimensions of inverse area squared, Eq. (3)
the start time of the period in which the PID controller is used (days)

the end time of the period in which the PID controller is used (days)

the integral time constant in the PID controller algorithm (days)

=
=

the PID controller variable, the base strength of the form pressure loss in the control valve, Eq. (3)
the initial PID controller variable at a start time for the period in which the controller is used

the pressure drop across the device, i.e. across the segment containing the device

=
=

a strength multiplier used in the form pressure loss across a generic flow device, Eq. (3)
density of fluid mixture in friction pressure loss Eq. (2)

the mixture flow velocity in the friction pressure loss Eq. (2)

References
strm, K. and Hgglund, T. 1995. PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning. Instrument Society of America. ISBN 1-55617516-7.
Boberg, T. C., 1988. Thermal Methods of Oil Recovery: An Exxon Monograph. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, ISBN 0-47163300-3.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., Lightfoot, E. N., 1960. Transport Phenomena. John Wiley and Sons, New York. ISBN 0 471 07392 X,
copyright 1960.
Edmister, W. C. and Lee, B. I., 1983. Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamics, Volume 1. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
Texas.
Holmes, J. A., Neylon, K., 2010. INTERSECT Technical Description, Section 10.4, Downhole Devices, 2010.
Nelder, J., Mead, R., 1965. A Simplex Method for Function Minimization. Computer Journal, 7, pp 308 313.
Prats, M. 1986. Thermal Recovery. SPE Monograph Series Volume 7, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New York.
Schlumberger Device Keywords 2009. ECLIPSE Reference Manual, keywords WSEGVALV, WSEGLABY, WSEGSICD,
WSEGAICD,
Sheppard, G. L., Wong, F. Y. and Love, D., 1998. Husky's Success at the Pikes Peak Thermal Project. Manuscripts No. 210,
Unitar Conference, Beijing, China, 1998.
Stone, T. W., Bennett, J., Law, D.H.-S. and Holmes, J.A. 2002. Thermal Simulation With Multisegment Wells. SPEREE 5
(3):206-218, 2002 and SPE 66373 presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, February,
2001.
Stone, T. W., Naccache, P., Neylon, K., Damas, C. E. P., Rowan, D., 2010. Dynamic and Static Thermal Well Flow Control
Simulation. SPE 130499 presented at the 2010 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona,
Spain, June, 2010.
Wang, Y. and Chen, C. C., 1999. Improved Production and Sand (Cold) Production in Conventional and Heavy Oil Reservoirs - A
Field Case and Simulation. SPE 57290 presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference held
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 25-26.

CSUG/SPE 138054

Figures

Figure 1: Overall optimization algorithm

CSUG/SPE 138054

Figure 2: Schematic of the SAGD Case Study. Flow directions are shown for operation after the 60 day startup period, well heel is on
the left and well toe is on the right

Figures 3a, 3b: Left (Figure 3a) Vertical permeability streaks of 2 and 4.5 Darcys (Case Study 1) and Right (Figure 3b) additional streaks of
4 and 0.5 Darcys (Case Study 2).

CSUG/SPE 138054

J=1

J=2

14

J=3

J=4
13

J=5

J=6
12

J=7

J=8
11

K=11 10

14

13

12

11

K=14 10

Figure 4: Segmentation for horizontal injector and producer. Segment node index is next to node.

Figure 5: An inflow control device

10

CSUG/SPE 138054

60 days

70 days

65 days

100 days

365 days
Figure 6: Case Study 1: Temperature contours at 60, 65, 70, 100 and 365 days, wide open, no PID control, in Y-Z plane containing the
wells

Horizontal Injector. Injection rates are ve.

Horizontal Producer. Production rates are +ve.

Figure 7: Case Study 1: Total volume flow rates in injector and producer. Valves are uncontrolled, i.e. wide open.

CSUG/SPE 138054

11

60 days

65 days

60 days

65 days

70 days

100 days

365 days
Figure 8: Case Study 1: Temperature contours at 60, 65, 70, 100 and 365 days, PID controlled. Kd = -2 days, Kp = 10-12, Ti = 30 days

12

CSUG/SPE 138054

Horizontal Injector. Injection rates are ve.

Horizontal Producer. Production rates are +ve.


-12

Figure 9: Case Study 1: Injection and production total volume flow rates, PID (1) controlled. Kd = -2 days, Kp = 10 , Ti = 30 days

100 days

365 days

Figure 10: Case Study 1: Temperature contours with second set of PID parameters. Kd = -2 days, Kp = 5 10 , Ti = 30 days
-12

Horizontal Injector. Injection rates are ve.

Horizontal Producer. Production rates are +ve.

Figure 11: Case Study 1: Injection and production total volume flow rates, PID (2) controlled. Kd = -2 days, Kp = 5 10 , Ti = 30 days
-12

CSUG/SPE 138054

13

wide open

PID controlled
-12

Figure 12: Case Study 2: Temperature contours at 365 days, wide open and PID controlled. Kd = -2 days, Kp = 10 , Ti = 30 days

wide open

PID controlled
-12

Figure 13: Case Study 2: Segment TVFR, wide open and PID controlled, Kd = -2 days, Kp = 10 , Ti = 30 days

14

CSUG/SPE 138054

Horizontal Injector. No FCVs, wide open.

Horizontal Producer. No FCVs, wide open.

Horizontal Injector. FCVs controlled by optimization.

Horizontal Producer. FCVs controlled by optimization.

Figure 14: Case Study 1: Segment TVFR, wide open and with optimized FCVs.

Figure 15: Case Study 1: Optimized valve settings for the horizontal injector.

CSUG/SPE 138054

Figure 15: Case Study 1: Temperature contours at 365 days using optimized valve settings for the horizontal injector.

15

16

CSUG/SPE 138054

Tables
Table 1 - SAGD Case Study
Reservoir Properties
Depth
(m)

Max Dip
(m)

Porosity
(%)

Perm
(d)

Oil Sat
(%)

500

34

89

Initial
Pressure
(bar)
33.5

Well Design
ID Tubing
(m)
.076

OD Tubing
(m)
.089

Well Operation
Water
Max Inj BHP
Injection Rate (bar)
(m3/D) CWE
1200
50

ID Casing
(m)
.219

OD Casing
(m)
.241

Completion
Length (m)
400

Liquid
Prod Rate
(m3/D)
1200

Min Prod
BHP
(bar)
30

Circulation Rate
(m3/D)
120

Simulation Parameters
Gridding

Time Simulated

Max Time Step Size

20 X 12 X 15

365 days

20