Geomechanical-Data Acquisition,
Monitoring, and Applications in SAGD
F. Gu, M. Chan, and R. Fryk*, Statoil Canada
Summary
Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) has proven to be a com-
mercially viable method to extract bitumen from oil-sands res-
ervoirs in western Canada. To understand the influence of steam
injection on reservoir and surrounding rocks and potential impacts
of surface deformation on the environment, various types of in-
strumentation and 4D-seismic surveys have been applied in SAGD
projects. The effect of geomechanics on SAGD has been well doc-
umented. Collecting essential geomechanical data, properly in-
terpreting them, and incorporating them into numerical models
are necessary to ensure meaningful history matching and under-
standing of reservoir performances.
This paper outlines geomechanical-data acquisition and field-
monitoring methods from a reservoir-engineering perspective,
and the applications of geomechanics in SAGD analyses. Min-
imal-data-acquisition programs are suggested to collect the neces-
sary geomechanical data for different analysis purposes in SAGD
projects. Primary instrumentation is briefly overviewed, and rec-
ommendations for instrumentation selection are provided. Using
generic Canadian-oil-sands reservoir and rock properties, the sub-
surface and surface changes and deformations are simulated, in-
cluding permeability changes, reservoir movements, and strains and
surface uplifts. Simulations were conducted using a commercially
available simulator. The limitations of the simulator are also noted.
The method to couple the results of geostatistics modelling, reser-
voir simulation, and geomechanics in SAGD simulation and to link
them with a 4D-seismic survey in history matching is provided.
Introduction
SAGD has proven to be a commercially viable method to extract
bitumen from oil-sands reservoirs in western Canada (Butler
1998; Donnelly 2000; Butler 2001). In the SAGD process, high-
temperature steam is injected into reservoirs at pressures close
to or higher than initial reservoir pressures. Steam pressures and
temperatures can exceed 5 MPa and 264C, respectively. This
can cause significant geomechanical effect on the reservoir and
surrounding rocks, and may also affect surface facilities and the
surrounding environment.
The influence of geomechanics on bitumen recovery from oil
sands with SAGD has been investigated by a number of researchers
(Chalaturnyk 1996; Collins 2005; Li 2006), and some of their find-
ings will be referred to in this paper. In addition to ensuring safe
SAGD operations, understanding geomechanics will be necessary
to investigate the potential breaking of interbedded mudstone and
inclined heterolithic stratification (IHS), a commonly found geo-
logical facies that is often a baffle to the upward growth of SAGD
steam chambers. As demonstrated by Li (2006), if IHS can be
broken in the reservoir where IHS is prevalent, bitumen recovery
would increase significantly.
Copyright 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers. This paper (2009-177) was accepted
for presentation at the 10th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 60th An-
nual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society), Calgary, 1618 June 2009, and re-
vised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 2 February 2009. Revised
paper received for review 20 December 2010. Paper peer approved 4 January 2011 as
SPE paper 145402.
Several types of field-monitoring methods have been applied in
SAGD projects to understand geomechanical responses and steam-
chamber dynamics. Piezometers and thermocouples are commonly
used to monitor pressures and temperatures at observation wells
and SAGD injectors and producers (Chalaturnyk 1996). Downhole
extensometers and inclinometers (tiltmeters) were also installed
at the underground test facility to measure the downhole and sur-
face deformations (Chalaturnyk 1996). Tiltmeters were applied to
monitor surface deformations, and triaxial geophones (that have
vibration-sensing elements in three directions) were used to de-
tect microseismic events during SAGD operations (Maxwell et al.
2007). Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) has been
applied to measure surface deformations in Suncors Firebag pro-
ject (Suncor Energy 2008), Shells Hilda Lake project (Shell Canada
Energy 2008), and Totals Joslyn project (Total E&P Canada 2007).
4D-seismic surveys have been used to understand steam conform-
ance during SAGD in Suncors Firebag project (Suncor Energy
2008), ConocoPhillips Surmont project (Forgues et al. 2006), and
EnCanas Christina Lake project (Zhang et al. 2007).
Because geomechanics plays an important role in the SAGD
process, collecting appropriate geomechanical data is crucial for
incorporating geomechanical effect into various studies (reser-
voir modelling, understanding IHS response to steam, improving
the accuracy of geostatistic models, ensuring meaningful inter-
pretation of field observations, understanding the deformations
of oil-sands reservoirs and surrounding rocks, and optimizing the
SAGD process). This paper discusses the essential geomechanical-
data-acquisition program necessary for these studies, through an
example demonstrates coupled reservoir and geomechanical simu-
lation, and proposes a method and work flow to match all meas-
ured data, including 4D-seismic surveys, with coupled reservoir
and geomechanical simulation.
Geomechanical-Data-Acquisition Program
On the basis of the purpose of applications, geomechanics analyses
can be grouped into four broad categories.
1.Ensuring safe SAGD operationanalyzing caprock integrity,
casing integrity, fault reactivation, surface uplift, wellbore stability,
and sand production.
2.Optimizing bitumen recovery in oil-sands reservoirsopti-
mizing startup, ramp-up, and operating conditions.
3.Making integrated history matching and model validation
matching injection/production data (fluid rates, cumulative fluid
volumes, temperatures, pressures, and steam qualities), observa-
tion-well and surface-monitored data (temperatures, pressures, de-
formation, and microseismic events), and 4D-seismic-survey data.
4.Improving SAGD efficiency in the reservoirs with vertical-flow
barriers and thief zonesusing geomechanics to investigate if and
how injection-induced stress alterations can be used to break flow bar-
riers and thus increase oil recovery, and to minimize the influence of
top water, top gas, and basal water by operational optimization.
There is no standardized fit between data-acquisition programs
and geomechanical analyses in the oil-sand industry. Table 1 shows
*Currently with Velvet Energy Ltd.
June 2011 9
 TABLE 1DATA FOR GEOMECHANICAL ANALYSES

Recommended Data Acquisition Program

Purpose of Analysis Essential Rock Mechanical Data Data From Laboratory or Field Testing
Ensuring Caprock integrity MP, PS and RS (CR ) MP, MP, IS, PP, PS and RS (CR )
safe SAGD IS,
operation Surface uplift IS, CT (CR adjacent to OS, OS, UB)
PP
PP,
Wellbore instability and
PS
Sand production CT Strength degradation (OS) and Strength degradation (OS)
(OB,
Fault reactivation PS, RS and k/k 0 (fault) RS PS, RS and k/k 0 (fault)
OS,
(OS)
Casing integrity UB); PS (CM)
Optimization of bitumen recovery k/k 0 (OS) MP, PS, RS, IS and PP (CR );
PS k/k 0 (OS)
and
Integrated history matching and RS k/k 0 (OS); k/k 0 (OS);
model validation MP (different rock facies in OS) MP (different rock facies in OS)
(OS)
Improving Breaking IHS PS, RS and k/k 0 (IHS) PS, RS and k/k 0 (IHS)
SAGD
efficiency Top water/gas issue MP, PS, PP and k/k 0 (rock in top MP, PS, PP and k/k 0 (rock in top
water/gas zone) water/gas zone)

Basal water issue MP, PS, PP and k/k 0 (rock in MP, PS, PP and k/k 0 (rock in basal
basal water zone) water zone)

Abbreviation of Data Type Abbreviation of Material Type in Brackets

CT = coefficient of thermal expansion CM = cement
MP = mechanical properties (Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio) CR = caprock
IS = in-situ vertical, horizontal minimum and horizontal maximum stresses IHS = inclined heterolithic stratification
k/k 0 = permeability ratio of deformed rock to its initial state OB = overburden
PS = peak strength (cohesion, friction angle and dilation angle) OS = oil sand
RS = residual strength (cohesion, friction angle and dilation angle) UB = underburden
PP = pore pressure

the primary data that can be collected from laboratory or field
testing for each analysis in the previously described four groups.
Mechanical properties; in-situ stresses; pore pressures; the coeffi-
cients of thermal expansion of overburdens, oil sands, and under-
burdens; and peak and residual strengths of oil sands are commonly
required for all analyses. For a specific analysis, additional data
may also be needed. For example, to analyze the risk of caprock
failure caused by SAGD operations, the peak strength and residual
strength of caprock are also needed. To analyze IHS breaking, the
peak strength, residual strength, and permeability change with in-
situ conditions of IHS are also necessary. It is desirable to acquire
mechanical properties measured only represent the rock properties
under the specified stress states and temperature conditions.
Dynamic Moduli. To compute dynamic moduli, bulk density
and compressional- and shear-wave velocities of rock are required.
Bulk density can be estimated from the density log or core mea-
surement. Dynamic moduli are calculated with the following equa-
tions (Fjr et al. 1992):
G = u ( vs )2 ..........................................................................(1)
K u = u ( vs )2 [( vps )2 43 ] .........................................................(2)
v

mechanical properties, peak strength, and residual strength for oil

sands through laboratory testing, and collecting in-situ stress and
pressure data by field testing.
Mechanical Properties and Strengths. Mechanical properties
can be obtained from log analyses and laboratory tests on cores.
The dynamic moduli can be derived from logs, and static moduli
from laboratory tests. The former are normally larger than the lat-
ter. Dynamic moduli may be continuous if log data are available,
while static moduli are discontinuous because it is impossible to
test the entire profile. Dynamic moduli can also be derived from
laboratory acoustic measurements with cores. However, it is static
moduli that are used in geomechanical analyses. Dynamic moduli
can be converted to static moduli if the correlation between them
is established.
Note that mechanical properties of rocks are not constant and
may change with the state of in-situ stresses and temperatures. With
triaxial tests, Wong et al. (1993) showed that the mechanical prop-
erties of oil sands change significantly because of the changes of
stresses and temperatures. By measuring the velocities of shear
waves and compressional waves and calculating dynamic bulk and
shear moduli, Zou (2005) demonstrated that the dynamic moduli of
oil sands also vary with stresses and temperatures. This means that
v
3( vps )2 4
Eu = u ( vs ) 2 .........................................................(3)
v
( vps )2 1
v
( vps )2 2 .......................................................................(4)
= v
2[( vps ) 2 1]
It should be noted that the velocity of shear wave may be aniso-
tropic because of the anisotropy of in-situ rocks and stresses
(Chardac et al. 2005).
Static Moduli and Strengths. Static moduli are obtained from
triaxial tests, and the testing process has been more or less stan-
dardized for rock mechanics (Fjr et al. 1992). In triaxial tests,
specimens with a diameter of 1 to 1.5 in. (1 in.=25.4 mm) and a
length of twice the diameter are used. Confining stresses and in-
ternal pore pressures are applied to cylindrical specimens, then the
axial stresses are increased until the failure or yielding of spec-
imens occurs. To quantify a failure envelope (e.g., a Mohr-Cou-
lomb failure envelope), at least three triaxial tests under different
confining-stress levels are necessary. From triaxial tests, Youngs
moduli, Poissons ratios, and peak and residual strengths (cohesion
and friction angle) can be obtained.

10 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 2r
aa
a c (deviatoric stress)
cc
L
peak strength
aa
residual (ultimate) strength
r c
E =
L
1
elastic part of curve
Fig. 1Typical stress/strain curve from the triaxial test.
Fig. 1 illustrates a typical stress/strain curve from a triaxial test
and the determination of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio from
the stress/strain curve.
Fig. 2 shows the determination of a failure envelope from mul-
tiple triaxial tests.
It is worth repeating that the moduli of oil sands and shale vary
with in-situ stresses and temperatures. With sufficient triaxial-test
data, the relation of static moduli with stresses and temperatures
can also be established.
Samples used for geomechanical laboratory testing require
a special core handling and preservation process. Collins (2005)
detailed the potential disturbance during coring, geomechanical
coring, preparation, and other concerns for oil-sands cores. Gen-
erally, oil-sands cores need to be frozen from well sites to before
tests, while mudstone, shale, and high-IHS-content cores need to be
preserved in an unfrozen state (never lower than 5C). The former
is to decrease core disturbance caused by gas release, while the
latter is to decrease core disturbance caused by icing expansion.
Correlation Between Dynamic and Static Moduli. The correla-
tion between dynamic moduli and static moduli can be established
by laboratory tests through measuring acoustic velocities during
triaxial tests. Lacy (1997) gave some examples of such correla-
tions. It is worth noting that there is no universal correlation be-
tween static moduli and dynamic moduli, and correlations also vary
with rock types.
Initial In-Situ Stresses and Pore Pressures. Initial in-situ stress-
es and pore pressures are necessary to build a geomechanical
model. Pore pressures can usually be measured with formation
testers that are widely applied in the petroleum industry. However,
measuring pressures in oil sands and caprock formations with for-
mation testers would be a challenge because the former have little
fluid mobility, while the latter have low permeability. Long-term
measurements with piezometers can provide more-reliable pres-
sure data.
Minimum in-situ stress can be measured in the field with
microfrac tests (Proskin et al. 1990) or minifracture tests (Kular et
al. 1988). If the density log is available from the formation of in-
terest to the surface, the integral of such density log can provide an
estimate of the vertical stress. If the vertical stress is the minimum
stress, the integral of the density log provides approximate min-
imum in-situ stress.
It is challenging to directly measure in-situ stresses other than
minimum stress. Sayers et al. (2007) proposed a method to estimate
the magnitude and orientation of in-situ stresses. In this method,
the variation of elastic wave velocities was expected to be caused
by the damage or failure of rock and was characterized with sonic
logging. In-situ stresses were estimated by matching the velocities
with the calculated velocities. Stress databases of past tests (Bell
et al. 1994; Collins 2002) can provide a first-order estimation of
= 12 (a c )
Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope
cc f =c + f tan( )
slip
planes
planes f
Mohr circle
a c f a
Fig. 2Determination of failure envelope.
in-situ stresses. Caliper data may be used to infer the direction of
stresses (Chardac et al. 2005).
Field-Monitoring Methods
A detailed review of field-monitoring methods is outside the scope
of this paper and can be found in the work of Chalaturnyk (1996),
Dusseault (2007), Lowe and Donovan (1989), and Collins (1994).
Monitoring temperatures and pressures and using 4D-seismic sur-
veys (3D+time) are not new in the oil-sands industry, thus will not
be discussed here. The following subsections summarize the main
categories of field-monitoring methdologies together with some
general guidelines for selecting the fit for purpose monitoring and
fiel data acquisition.
Surface Heave Monitoring Methods and Principles. The major
monitoring methods used in SAGD projects are geophones, tiltme-
ters, InSAR, and the global positioning system (GPS). Geophones
can only detect seismic events and frequency occurring in the SAGD
process because of the shear failure of rocks and casings. The other
three methods can measure or use their data to infer displacements.
Tiltmeters continuously measure tilts along both horizontal
planes (x-axis and y-axis), using an array of tiltmeter instruments.
Surface deformations are integrated from tilt data.
InSAR is a remote sensing technique that uses satellite radar
images to detect surface deformations. Satellites project micro-
wave beams toward the Earths surface and record them when they
bounce back. The signal intensity of the bounced waves can be used
to identify material (e.g., oil vs. water) on the Earths surface, and
the phase difference between two images of the same area captured
at two different times is used to estimate surface/object displace-
ments. Generally, InSAR does not require surface installations. But
for poor ground conditions (wet snow and dense vegetation), re-
flectors are needed. If installing reflectors is impossible because
of poor ground conditions (ponds and muskegs), the data quality
would be degraded. In addition, several surveys need to be car-
ried out before production commences to provide the references for
comparing the displacements during production.
GPS directly measures surface deformations using a network
of surface receivers and a constellation of satellites. The receivers
are fixed high-precision GPS stations that record and interpret the
radio signals broadcast by the satellites. Precision of subcentimetre
scale in horizontal positioning, and approximately 20 mm in z,
is feasible, depending on the spacing and density of the differen-
tial GPS sites.
To our knowledge, two combinations of surface-deformation
monitoring have been applied in SAGD projects (i.e., InSAR com-
bined with GPS and tiltmeters combined with GPS). They were
used in Suncors Firebag project (Suncor Energy 2008, 2006) and
Totals Joslyn project (Total E&P Canada 2007). The results from
InSAR and GPS are in agreement (Suncor Energy 2008).
June 2011 11
 TABLE 2COMPARISON OF FIELD-MONITORING METHODS
Monitoring Monitoring Time Place of Resolution
Parameter Method Coverage Interval Installation Constraint (Dusseault 2007) Cost
8
Deformation Tiltmeter Points Continuous Surface or No 10 radians Expensive
downhole startup
InSAR Extensive area Days Surface Partial 25 mm Least
months expensive
GPS Large area Continuous Surface Partial 110 mm Expensive
Microseismic Geophone Local
event

Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1

9,268
Fully Solve fluid flow and 8,341
Any Process
Coupled deformation as a system 7,414
6,488
implicitly explicitly 5,561
4,634
Time i Time i Time i+1
Sequential 3,707
Coupled S
Soolv
Solvee fluid flow
ve
Any Process 2,780
Sol
Sol ve
Solve d
ve deformation
dee 1,854
927
S olve
Solve
lve fluid flow
flow 0
One Way Any Process
Coupled Solve
Solv
So lve deformation
e de
d efo
forrma
ormat
atio
tio Fig. 4Initial horizontal permeability in Plane i-k.

Fig. 3Methods of coupled reservoir and geomechanical simula-
tion.
Selection of Monitoring Methods. The selection of monitoring
methods depends on various factors, including monitoring purpose,
area coverage, cost, resolution, weather constraint, and field acces-
sibility. Table 2 is a comparison of these characteristics and relative
costs. Of these factors, the dominant one is probably monitoring
purpose. As listed in Table 1, the applications of geomechanics are
categorized into four types. More generally, they can be grouped
into two [i.e., preventing hazards (ensuring safe operations) and
understanding and using geomechanical benefits]. The monitoring
purposes may vary for different reservoirs and operation conditions.
For shallow oil-sands reservoirs (e.g., depths less than 200 m),
preventing hazards should be the first priority; thus, continuous and
accurate monitoring is essential. For this purpose, a tiltmeter com-
bined with GPS stations is recommended.
For deeper oil-sands reservoirs, if the expected surface uplifts
are on the order of centimetres per year, InSAR may be appropriate
because it can provide a reasonable resolution and an overall lower
cost. If there is a need for continuous monitoring in specific areas,
combining InSAR with some GPS stations may be a good solution.
If the expected uplifts on the surface are on the order of millimetres
per year, a tiltmeter combined with GPS stations may be an appro-
priate choice.
Coupled Reservoir and Geomechanical Simulation
An example of coupled reservoir and geomechanical simulation for
a SAGD pad with six well pairs is illustrated with a widely applied
simulator (CMG 2008). The simulators features for coupled simu-
lation are summarized in Appendix A. On the basis of the learning
from these simulations, the suggestions to improve the simulators
geomechanical capabilities for oil-sands applications are provided
in Appendix B.
Method of Coupled Simulation. Coupled reservoir and geome-
chanical simulation is a numerical method often deployed to better
understand the influence of geomechanics on oil sands, surround-
ing rocks, surface facilities, and the environment during the SAGD
recovery process. Coupled simulation can be divided into fully
coupled, sequentially coupled, and decoupled simulation methods
(Settari and Walters 2001; Rutqvist et al. 2002; Tran et al. 2002).
An illustration of these methods is shown in Fig. 3.
In fully coupled simulation, flow variables (e.g., pressure, tem-
perature) and geomechanical variables (e.g., stress, deformation in-
formation) are simultaneously calculated by solving a system of
equations governed by and established on three basic principles:
mass, momentum, and energy conservations.
In sequentially coupled simulation, flow variables and
geomechanical variables are sequentially solved from a reservoir
simulator and a geomechanical simulator and the coupling param-
eters are iterated between two simulators. If coupling parameters
are iterated within each timestep, the simulation is referred to as an
implicitly sequential coupled simulation (Rutqvist et al. 2002) or
iterative coupled simulation (Tran et al. 2002). If coupling param-
eters are assumed to be constant during each timestep and evalu-
ation and iteration are executed at the end of each timestep, the
simulation is called an explicitly sequential coupled simulation.
Decoupled simulation is also called uncoupled simulation or
one-way coupled simulation. The changes of fluid pressures and
temperatures influence stresses and strains, but the changes of
stresses and strains are assumed not to affect fluid pressures and
temperatures. Thus, fluid-flow equations can be solved indepen-
dently and resulting pore pressures inserted into geomechanical
simulation as a time-independent parameter.
According to simulator availability and computer capacities, se-
quential coupled simulation is probably the best solution for the
SAGD recovery process at present. This method is applied in the
simulation of this paper.
Model Setup for Coupled Simulation. Reservoir, Well, and
Operation Conditions. The reservoir properties of the SAGD pad
were obtained from geostatistic modelling. For demonstration pur-
poses, a 2D slice model cut from the 3D geomodel of the pad was
used. The grid counts are 460 (i)1 (j)57 (k, vertical) and the cell
sizes are 2 m (i)800 m (j)1 m (k, vertical). The horizontal wells
stretch in j-direction and perpendicular to Plane i-k. The top depth
of McMurray oil sands is approximately 390 m. The initial reser-
voir temperature and pressure are 12C and 2000 kPa, respectively.
The initial reservoir properties and saturations are shown in Figs. 4
through 7. The initial vertical permeability is assumed to be 50%
of the initial horizontal permeability.

12 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2
Fig. 5Initial porosity in Plane i-k.
Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2
Fig. 7Initial water saturation in Plane i-k.
In Figs. 4 through 7, from right to left, six SAGD well pairs are
sequentially labelled as Inj1/Prod1 through Inj6/Prod6 (injector/
producer). The well length is 800 m, the well-pair spacing is 100 m,
and the injector/producer distance is 5 m.
The maximum injection bottomhole pressure is 3500 kPa (Tsat
=242.6C), the maximum steam-injection rate is 800 m3/d (water
equivalent), and the steam quality is 95%. For the producers, the
minimum production bottomhole pressure is 1000 kPa, the max-
imum live steam-production rate is 5 m3/d (water equivalent), and
the maximum liquid-production rate is 1000 m3/d.
Building Coupled Simulation Models. The following are key
steps for building the simulation models for this study.
Collect geomechanical properties, in-situ stresses, and pore
pressures for overburdens, oil-sands reservoir, and underburdens.
Note that the simulator accepts only effective stresses; thus, they
need to be calculated from stress and pressure gradients.
Build a coupled simulation grid system by adding overburden
and underburden layers and new grids to the reservoir cut from the
geomodel because it does not contain sufficient overburden and
underburden layers needed for coupled simulation. To decrease the
cell number of added layers and increase simulation accuracy, vari-
able grid sizes are used (i.e., using smaller grid sizes in the layers
near the reservoir, while using larger grid sizes in the layers distant
from the reservoir). In the i- and j-directions, the cell sizes are the
same as those generated from geostatistic modelling.
By transferring the properties of the reservoir from the geo-
model to the coupled simulation grid system, the reservoir model
is established. Because the new cells for the added over- and under-
burden layers have no property data or saturations, those data need
to be added. It is crucial to ensure that the number of property
values matches the number of cells for each layer. Set the porosity
of the new over- and underburdens to zero to allow heat to flow
through, but no fluid to flow. Permeability and saturations in the
new over- and underburdens can be set to zero if desired.
Calculate initial effective normal stresses and shear stresses
for each layer in k-direction (the vertical direction) on the basis of
the coupled simulation grid system. If the cells in each layer have
various depths or initial stresses, initial stresses should be compiled
and distributed to each cell rather than to each layer.
Inj1/Prod1 0.40 Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1 1.00
0.37 0.90
0.32 0.80
0.28 0.70
0.24 0.60
0.20 0.50
0.16
0.40
0.12
0.30
0.08
0.20
0.04
0.10
0.00
0.00
Fig. 6Initial oil saturation in Plane i-k.
Inj1/Prod1 1.00
By distributing geomechanical properties and stresses to the
0.90
cells on the basis of their geological layers, the geomechanical
0.80 model is obtained.
0.70 The geomechanical properties for the example case are shown
0.60 in Table 3. The gradients of the effective stresses are simply esti-
0.50
mated by assuming Biots coefficient to be 1.0. The initial effective
normal stresses are indicated in Figs. 8 through 10, and the shear
0.40
stresses are assumed to be zero. In the McMurray reservoir, the
0.30 maximum stress is along the horizontal wellbores, while the min-
0.20 imum stress is normal to the wellbores.
0.10 As shown in Fig. 11, the boundary conditions for the geomechan-
0.00 ical model are rollers at the bottom and on the right, left, front, and
back. These boundary conditions represent the symmetric situation
in which several pads in a big pool are in SAGD operation and the
study pad is located in the middle of the pool. The Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion is applied. The empirical model by Li (2006) is
used for permeability coupling with Cn1=10.33 and *GCOUP-
LING 2 (CMG 2008) for porosity coupling.
Results of Coupled Simulation. With the previously described
reservoir and geomechanical models, and initial conditions, three
scenarios of coupled simulation were simulated. The first scenario
assumes all well pairs are in operation. The second scenario as-
sumes only four middle well pairs (Inj2/Prod2 through Inj5/Prod5)
are in operation and those remaining are shut in. The last scenario
assumes only two middle well pairs (Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4) are
in operation, with those remaining shut in. The analysis will focus
on Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4 because they have produc-
tion data from all scenarios. The results from conventional simula-
tion without geomechanical effect are also plotted for comparison
purposes. In the legends of Figs. 12 and 13, coupling means the
results with geomechanical effect, while no coupling represents
the results without geomechanical effect.
Production Profiles. The influence of geomechanics and the
number of operative well pairs on production is shown in Figs. 12
and 13. Fig. 12 indicates that the influence of geomechanics on
oil rates and cumulative oil production is evident, but the influ-
ence of the number of operative well pairs is small. Fig. 13 shows
that because of geomechanical effect, the oil recovery factor (RF)
increases by 2%-5%, compared with that without geomechan-
ical effect, but influence of the number of operative well pairs is
small. The influence of geomechanics and the number of operative
well pairs on the cumulative steam/oil ratio (CSOR) is negligible.
Overall, the fewer the operative well pairs, the more pronounced
the geomechanical effect.
The influence of geomechanics is not significant in this study.
The following four aspects may be the main reasons. First, the in-
situ effective stresses in the reservoir are relatively high, approxi-
mately 6-8 MPa, while the injection pressure is not high at 3.5
MPa. Shear failure was observed, but was not prevalent. Thus, the
geomechanical effect is less significant. Second, well pairs Inj3/
Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4 are located in relatively high-permeability
clean sand. This means there are no fluid-flow barriers, thus the
geomechanical effect is less important. Third, the permeability
June 2011 13
 TABLE 3GEOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES FOR COUPLED SIMULATION OF SAGD

Grand Beaverhill
*
Parameters Quaternary Viking Rapids Clearwater Wabiskaw McMurray Lake Group

Domain Lithology Glacial Till Shale Shale Shale Mudstone Sand Limestone
/Sandstone /Sandstone
Fluid Type Water Water Water Water Water Oil + Water Water
Formation/Group Top Depth 0 100 205 292 379 390 445
(m, Ground Level)
Thickness (m) 100 104.5 87.3 86.9 11.3 55.3 100
Static Youngs Modulus, E 1.00E+05 1.60E+05 4.50E+05 1.35E+06 1.19E+06 7.20E+05 1.65E+07
(kPa)
Static Poissons Ratio, 0.28 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.30
Coefficient of Linear 2.0E06 1.6E06 1.6E06 1.6 06
E
5.0E06 2.0E05 3.0E06
1
Thermal Expansion, (C )
Peak Friction Angle, p () 30 35 38
Peak Cohesion, cp (kPa) 300 300 100

Peak Dilation Angle, p () 15 15 25

In Situ Stresses and Formation Pressures
Pore Pressure Gradient, Pr /z 9.6 8.5 7.8 7.5 4.7 4.7 7.3
(kPa/m)
Horizontal Stress Gradient, 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.5 20.0 19.0 21.0
h/z (kPa/m)
Horizontal Stress Gradient, 23.0 23.0 23.0 22.5 22.5 23.0 23.0
H/z (kPa/m)
Vertical Stress Gradient, 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.4 21.0 21.0 22.0
v/z
(kPa/m)
Horizontal Effective Stress 9.6 14.5 14.2 13.0 15.3 14.3 13.7
Gradient, h'/z (kPa/m)
Horizontal Effective Stress 9.6 14.5 14.2 15.0 17.8 18.3 15.7
Gradient, H'/z (kPa/m)
Vertical Effective Stress 9.4 10.7 12.2 12.9 16.3 16.3 14.7
Gradient, v'/z (kPa/m)
* The McMurray is an oil-sands formation in Athabasca area

Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1 Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1
7,034 8,153
6,581 7,361
6,128
5,675 6,570
5,222 5,779
4,769
4,316 4,988
3,863 4,196
3,410
2,958 3,405
2,505 2,614
2,052
1,823
1,599
1,146 1,031
693 240
240
Fig. 9Initial effective stresses in j-direction.
Fig. 8Initial effective normal stresses in i-direction.
model applied in the simulation calculated and used only one per- Overall, with the increase of operative well pairs, the vertical dis-
meability multiplier for all three directions. The anisotropic dilation placements increase.
of oil sands is not considered. Thus, the geomechanical influence is It is noted that in this study the influence of the number of oper-
underestimated. In addition, because of the limitation of the simu- ative well pairs on production profiles is less significant than its
lator, shear failure is not properly simulated. This is detailed in influence on the vertical displacement. This is because the three
Appendix B. scenarios have a similar increase of volumetric strain in the
Deformation and Shear Failure. The maximum vertical dis- drainage areas of the middle two well pairs, resulting in a similar
placements for the entire simulation period are shown in Fig. 14. permeability enhancement, thus similar production profiles. How-
The maximum surface uplift when all well pairs are operating is ever, the horizontal expansion is constrained for the scenario with
0.379 m; when only two middle well pairs are in operation, it is six operative well pairs because other well pairs are in operation
0.235 m. The former is approximately 50% more than the latter. and have similar volumetric expansion. Thus, the most volume ex-

14 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1
7,547 Pad Area
Area
J
6,816 I
6,085 K
5,354 Overburden
Overburden
Pad Area
Area
4,622
Oil Sands
Oil Sands
3,891
Underburden
Underburden
3,160 J
(a) Geomechanical Body I
2,429
1,697
(b) Plan View of
966
I Geomechanical Body
235 K under Constraints
Overburden
Overburden
Fig. 10Initial effective stresses in k-direction.
(c) Cross Section of
pands vertically. In comparison, the volume expands not only ver- Oil Sands
Oil Sands Geomechanical Body
tically but also horizontally for the scenario with only two middle Underburden
Underburden under Constraints
well pairs operative, because other well pairs are shut in. Therefore,
the overall vertical movement of the former is much larger than that Fig. 11Geomechanical model of coupled simulation.
of the latter.
The simulation results indicate that the shear failure of oil sands Work Flow. The work flow for proposed integrated history matching
was initiated after approximately 6 years of operation and con- is illustrated in Fig. 16, and major steps are listed as the following.
tinued until the end of simulation in various areas. Fig. 15 shows Build a reservoir model that is based on reservoir-property
two snapshots of failure state at 7.2 and 7.4 years. In the plots, yield output from geomodelling, and build a geomechanical model with
state=1.0 means shear failure state. geomechanical data and the locations of facies from geomodelling.
Implement coupled reservoir and geomechanical simulation
Integrated History Matching using measured pressures (and temperatures) at injectors and pro-
Concept. The integrated history matching of the SAGD process ducers as input data. From reservoir simulation, the temperatures
proposed here is to match all measured historical data with cou- and pressures at observation wells and the rates and volumes of
pled reservoir and geomechanical simulation. The historical data oil, gas, and water at injectors and producers are obtained and used
include injection/production data (fluid rates, cumulative fluid to match the measured values. From geomechanical simulation,
volumes, temperatures, pressures, and steam qualities), observa- strains, displacements or uplifts, and microseismic events are ob-
tion-well and surface-monitored data (temperatures, pressures, de- tained and applied to match the measured historical data. Mean-
formation, and microseismic events), and 4D-seismic-survey data. while, synthetic seismic data are generated and used to match
Coupled simulation models are built by integrating geostatistic, 4D-seismic data.
reservoir, and geomechanical data. The geomechanical model, es- If the matches are good enough, simulation can be stopped.
pecially, should include the mechanical properties of different fa- If the matches are not satisfactory, a new realization from geo-
cies in oil sands identified in geostatistic analysis and modelling. modelling may need to be generated or the geomodel used needs
To do so, the properties of each facies need to be acquired through to be modified. Geomechanical data may also need to be modi-
log analyses and/or laboratory tests. fied. Thus, the reservoir and/or geomechanical simulation models

400
Inj3/Prod3: oil rate (coupling)
Inj3/Prod3: oil rate (no coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: oil rate (coupling)
350 Inj4/Prod4: oil rate (no coupling)
800,000
Inj3/Prod3: cum. oil (coupling)
Inj3/Prod3: cum. oil (no coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: cum. oil (coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: cum. oil (no coupling) 700,000

300 600,000
Cumulative Oil SC, m3

250 500,000
Oil Rate SC, m3/d

200 400,000

150 300,000

100 200,000

50 100,000

0 0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 3,650
(a) Time, day

Fig. 12(a) Comparison of oil rate and cumulative oil production of Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4. All well pairs are operative.

June 2011 15
 400
Inj3/Prod3: oil rate (coupling)
Inj3/Prod3: oil rate (no coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: oil rate (coupling)
350 Inj4/Prod4: oil rate (no coupling)
800,000
Inj3/Prod3: cum. oil (coupling)
Inj3/Prod3: cum. oil (no coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: cum. oil (coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: cum. oil (no coupling) 700,000

300 600,000

Cumulative Oil SC, m3

250 500,000
Oil Rate SC, m3/d

200 400,000

150 300,000

100 200,000

50 100,000

0 0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 3,650
(b) Time, day
Fig. 12(b) Comparison of oil rate and cumulative oil production of Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4. Four middle well pairs
are operative.

400
Inj3/Prod3: oil rate (coupling)
Inj3/Prod3: oil rate (no coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: oil rate (coupling)
350 Inj4/Prod4: oil rate (no coupling)
800,000
Inj3/Prod3: cum. oil (coupling)
Inj3/Prod3: cum. oil (no coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: cum. oil (coupling)
Inj4/Prod4: cum. oil (no coupling) 700,000

300 600,000

Cumulative Oil SC, m3

250 500,000
Oil Rate SC, m3/d

200 400,000

150 300,000

100 200,000

50 100,000

0 0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 3,650
(c) Time, day

Fig. 12(c) Comparison of oil rate and cumulative oil production of Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4. Two middle well pairs
are operative.

should be modified. Coupled simulation and history matching

should be reperformed until satisfactory matches are obtained. vs = G
u
...................................................................................(5)

Incorporating Seismic Data. Unlike matching field historical data

(pressures, temperatures, and displacements), matching seismic- vp =
Ku + 43 G ............................................................................(6)
u
survey data with the results of a coupled simulation is not straight-
forward and additional calculations and data processing to generate
synthetic seismic data are required before matching. The method In Eqs. 5 and 6, bulk density of undrained (saturated) rock is es-
and procedure are described in the following subsections. timated by
Fundamentals. The fundamental links between seismology and
geomechanics are the velocities of P-wave (compressional wave) u = s (1 ) + f ,...............................................................(7)
and S-wave (shear wave). From Eqs. 1 and 2, we have

16 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 90 5.4
85 Inj3/Prod3: RF (coupling) 5.1
Inj3/Prod3: RF (no coupling)
80 Inj4/Prod4: RF (coupling) 4.8
Inj4/Prod4: RF (no coupling)
75 4.5
Inj3/Prod3: CSOR (coupling)
70 Inj3/Prod3: CSOR (no coupling) 4.2
Inj4/Prod4: CSOR (coupling)
65 Inj4/Prod4: CSOR (no coupling)
3.9
60 3.6
55 3.3

CSOR, m3/m3
50 3.0
RF, %

45 2.7
40 2.4
35 2.1
30 1.8
25 1.5
20 1.2
15 0.9
10 0.6
5 0.3
0 0.0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 3,650
(a) Time, day

Fig. 13(a) Comparison of RF and CSOR of Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4. All well pairs are operative.

90 5.4
Inj3/Prod3: RF (coupling)
85 5.1
Inj3/Prod3: RF (no coupling)
80 Inj4/Prod4: RF (coupling) 4.8
Inj4/Prod4: RF (no coupling)
75 Inj3/Prod3: CSOR (coupling) 4.5
70 Inj3/Prod3: CSOR (no coupling) 4.2
Inj4/Prod4: CSOR (coupling)
65 Inj4/Prod4: CSOR (no coupling) 3.9
60 3.6
55 3.3

CSOR, m3/m3
50 3.0
RF, %

45 2.7
40 2.4
35 2.1
30 1.8
25 1.5
20 1.2
15 0.9
10 0.6
5 0.3
0 0.0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 3,650
(b) Time, day

Fig. 13(b) Comparison of RF and CSOR of Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4. Four middle well pairs are operative.

where Bulk modulus of fluid (i.e., the reverse of compressibility) in

Eq. 9 can be calculated with the model proposed by Mavko and
f = So o + Sg g + Sw w ........................................................(8) Mukerji (1998):

Bulk modulus of undrained (saturated) rock is calculated with 1

=
So
+
Sg
+
Sw ...................................................................(11)
Kf Ko Kg Kw
the well-known Gassmanns equation (Gassmann 1951),
(1 KKds )2
K u = Kd + ,..................................................... (9) Correlations Established by Laboratory Tests. Before calculat-

Kf + 1Ks ( KKd)2 ing the velocities of seismic waves during SAGD, the following
s
correlations need to be established from laboratory tests.
and shear modulus is caluclated with The changes of density (rs) and moduli (Ks) of rock grain
solid with the changes of temperatures and pressures during SAGD
Gu = Gd = G .......................................................................(10) operationThe chemical composition of sand grains may be al-

June 2011 17
 90 5.4
Inj3/Prod3: RF (coupling)
85 5.1
Inj3/Prod3: RF (no coupling)
80 Inj4/Prod4: RF (coupling) 4.8
Inj4/Prod4: RF (no coupling)
75 Inj3/Prod3: CSOR (coupling) 4.5
70 Inj3/Prod3: CSOR (no coupling) 4.2
Inj4/Prod4: CSOR (coupling)
65 Inj4/Prod4: CSOR (no coupling) 3.9
60 3.6
55 3.3

CSOR, m3/m3
50 3.0
RF, %

45 2.7
40 2.4
35 2.1
30 1.8
25 1.5
20 1.2
15 0.9
10 0.6
5 0.3
0 0.0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460 1,825 2,190 2,555 2,920 3,285 3,650
(c) Time, day

Fig. 13(c) Comparison of RF and CSOR of Well Pairs Inj3/Prod3 and Inj4/Prod4. Two middle well pairs are operative.

tered because of high-temperature steam and condensate. This Conclusions

change may influence the density and moduli of sand grains. The work of this paper is summarized as follows.
The correlations for calculating the moduli of oil, gas, and Geomechanical-data-acquisition programs are proposed ac-
water with the changes of temperatures and pressuresBatzle and cording to the purposes of intended applications.
Wang (1992) provided one example. The methods to acquire each type of geomechanical data are de-
The correlations for calculating the changes of dry bulk mod- scribed.
ulus and shear modulus of rock with the changes of temperatures Field monitoring methods are reviewed briefly, and suggestions
and pressuresZou (2005) established one example for the oil for selecting monitoring methods are provided.
sands of Pikes Peak field: Coupled reservoir and geomechanical simulations are demon-
strated using a commercial simulator, and suggestions for simu-
K d = 141.18 c 2 .57 T .............................................(12) lator improvement are discussed.
The concept and work flow of integrated history matching are
G = 7.08 c 2 .96 T ..................................................(13) proposed.
The method and procedure to incorporate seismic data into the
Note that Eqs. 12 and 13 were based on dynamic bulk and shear coupled reservoir and geomechanical simulation are established.
moduli that were derived from measured shear- and compressional-
wave velocities. Nomenclature
Procedure To Synthesize Seismic Velocities. For the simulator c = effective cohesion
used in this study, the following procedure can be used to compute Cn1 = a parameter for permeability coupling in STARS
seismic velocities of each cell in one timestep. Eu = Youngs modulus of undrained (saturated) rock
Calculate the density and moduli of rock grain solid at given G = shear modulus of rock
temperature and pressure with the correlations established by labo- Gd = shear modulus of dry rock
ratory tests. If no such correlations are available, assume they are Gu = shear modulus of undrained (saturated) rock
constant as a first-order estimate. k = permeability
Generate So, Sg, Sw, ro, rg, rw, and f from reservoir simula- kH = horizontal permeability
tion. Read the data and calculate fluid density with Eq. 8. Then, kV = vertical permeability
calculate the bulk density of undrained (saturated) rock with Eq. 7. Kd = bulk modulus of dry rock
Estimate the moduli of oil, gas, and water with the correlations Kf = bulk modulus of fluid
established by laboratory tests, then calculate the bulk modulus of Ks = bulk modulus of rock grain solid
fluids with Eq. 11. However, when calculating the modulus of gas, Ku = bulk modulus of undrained (saturated) rock
note that the gas phase in the SAGD process contains water vapour P = pressure
and other gases (CH4, CO2, and H2S). Qg = gas rate
Estimate the changes of dry bulk modulus and shear modulus Qo = oil rate
of rock with the correlations established by laboratory tests. Then, Qw = water rate
compute the bulk modulus of undrained (saturated) rock with Sg = gas saturation
Eq. 9. So = oil saturation
Synthesize seismic velocities using Eqs. 5 and 6. Sw = water saturation
The dynamic undrained bulk modulus and shear modulus cal- T = temperature
culated previously should be converted to static moduli with cor- vs = velocity of shear wave
relations between dynamic and static moduli and also should be Vg = gas volume
applied in geomechanical simulation. Vo = oil volume

18 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 Maximum Surface Uplift=0.379 m Unit: m
Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1
0.43
0.40 Yield
0.37 State
0.34 1.00
0.31
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.20 0.50
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.00 (a)
(a)
Maximum Surface Uplift=0.320 m Unit: m
Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1
0.42
0.39 Yield
0.36 State
0.34 1.00
0.31
0.28
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.50
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.03 0.00
0.00
(b) (b)
Maximum Surface Uplift=0.235 m Unit: m
Inj6/Prod6 Inj5/Prod5 Inj4/Prod4 Inj3/Prod3 Inj2/Prod2 Inj1/Prod1
0.38
Fig. 15Yield state inside reservoir during SAGD of scenario
0.35
0.33 with six operative well pairs. (a) Yield state at 2,640 days (b)
0.30 Yield state at 2,700 days.
0.28
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.18 Acknowledgements
0.15 We thank Statoil for permission to publish this paper.JCPT
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.05 References
0.02 Batzle, M. and Wang, Z. 1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geo-
0.00 physics 57 (11): 13961408. doi:10.1190/1.1443207.
(c) Bell, J.S., Price, P.R., and Mclellan, P.J. 1994. In-situ Stress in the Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin. In Geological Atlas of the Western
Fig. 14Comparison of vertical displacements. (a) All well pairs Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), ed. G.D. Mossop and I. Shetsen,
are operative. (b) Four middle well pairs are operative. (c) Two Chap. 29. Available online from Alberta Geological Survey, http://
middle well pairs are operative.
www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/atlas.html.
Butler, R. 1998. SAGD Comes of Age! J Can Pet Technol 37 (7): 912.
Vw = water volume JCPT Paper No. 98-07-DA. doi: 10.2118/98-07-DA.
= strain Butler, R.M. 2001. Some Recent Developments in SAGD. J Can Pet Technol
a = axial strain 40 (1): 822. JCPT Paper No. 01-01-DAS. doi: 10.2118/01-01-DAS.
n = Poissons ratio Chalaturnyk, R.J. 1996. Geomechanics of SAGD in Heavy Oil Reservoirs.
vp = velocity of compressional wave PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engin-
rf = density of fluid eering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
rg = density of gas Chardac, O., Murray, D., Carnegie, A., and Marsden, J.R. 2005. A Proposed
ro = density of oil Data Acquisition Program for Successful Geomechanics Projects.
rs = density of rock grain solid Paper SPE 93182 presented at the SPE Middle Oil and Gas Show and
ru = bulk density of undrained (saturated) rock Conference, Bahrain, 1215 March. doi: 10.2118/93182-MS.
rw = density of water Collins, P.M. 1994. Design of the Monitoring Program for AOSTRAs
s = stress Underground Test Facility, Phase B Pilot. J Can Pet Technol 33 (3):
sa = axial stress 4653.
sa = effective axial stress (axial stress minus pore Collins, P.M. 2002. Injection Pressures for Geomechanical Enhancement
pressure) of Recovery Processes in the Athabasca Oil Sands. Paper SPE 79028
sc = confining stress presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
sc = effective confining stress (confining stress minus Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Confer-
pore pressure) ence, Calgary, 47 November. doi: 10.2118/79028-MS.
f = porosity Collins, P.M. 2005. Geomechanical Effects on the SAGD Process. SPE Res
j = effective friction angle Eval & Eng 10 (4): 367375. SPE-97905-PA. doi: 10.2118/97905-PA.

June 2011 19
 Donnelly, J.K. 2000. The Best Process for Cold Lake: CSS vs. SAGD. J Can
Pet Technol 39 (8): 57. JCPT Paper No. 00-08-TN. doi: 10.2118/00-
08-TN.
Dusseault, M.B. 2007. Monitoring and modeling in coupled geomechanics
processes. Paper 2007-028 presented at 8th Canadian International
Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 1214 June.
Fjr, E., Holt, R.M., Raaen, A.M., Risnes, R., and Horsrud, P. 1992. Petroleum
Related Rock Mechanics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Forgues, E., Meunier, J., Grsillon, F.X., Hubans, C., and Druesne, D.
2006. Continuous high-resolution seismic monitoring of SAGD.
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 25 (1): 3165-3169.
10.1190/1.2370186.
Gassmann, F. 1951. Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophysics
16 (4): 673685. doi:10.1190/1.1437718.
Kular, G.S., Chhina, H.S., Best, D.A., and MacKensie, W.T. 1988. Multiple
Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Oil Sands. Paper SPE 17534 pre-
sented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyo-
ming, USA, 1113 May. doi: 10.2118/17534-MS.
Lacy, L.L. 1997. Dynamic Rock Mechanics Testing for Optimized Frac-
ture Designs. Paper SPE 38716 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 58 October.
doi: 10.2118/38716-MS.
Li, P. 2006. Numerical Simulation of the SAGD Process Coupled with
Geomechanical Behavior. PhD thesis, The University of Alberta, Ed-
monton, Alberta, Canada.
Lowe, K.W. and Donovan, T.E. 1989. Thermal Zone Monitoring in an Atha-
basca Oil Sands Pilot. Paper SPE 19854 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 811
October. doi: 10.2118/19854-MS.
Mavko, G. and Mukerji, T. 1998. Bounds on low-frequency seismic vel-
ocities in partially saturated rocks. Geophysics 63 (3): 918914.
doi:10.1190/1.1444402.
Maxwell, S.C., Du, J., Shemeta, J., Zimmer, U., Boroumand, N., and Griffin,
L.G. 2007. Monitoring SAGD Steam Injection Using Microseismicity
and Tiltmeters. Paper SPE 110634 presented at the SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 1114
November. doi: 10.2118/110634-MS.
Proskin, S.A., Scott, J.D., and Chhina, H.S. 1990. Current Practice in the
Interpretation of Microfrac Tests in Oil Sands. Paper SPE 20040 pre-
sented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California,
USA, 46 April. doi: 10.2118/20040-MS.
Rutqvist, J., Wu, Y.-S., Tsang, C.-F., and Bodvarsson, G. 2002. A Mod-
eling Approach for Analysis of Coupled Multiphase Fluid Flow, Heat
Transfer, and Deformation in Fractured Porous Rock. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 39: 429442.
Sayers, C.M., Kisra, S., Tagbor, K., Taleghani, A.D., and Adachi, J. 2007.
Calibrating the Mechanical Properties and In-Situ Stresses Using
Acoustic Radial Profiles. Paper SPE 11089 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California,
USA, 1114 November. doi: 10.2118/11089-MS.
Settari, A. and Walters, D.A. 2001. Advances in Coupled Geomechanical
and Reservoir Modeling With Applications to Reservoir Compaction.
SPE J 6 (3): 334342. SPE-51927-PA. doi: 10.2118/51927-MS.
Shell Canada Energy. 2008. In Situ Oilsands Progress Presentation: Hilda
Lake Pilot 8093, Orion 10103. Progress Presentation, Energy Re-
sources Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta (8 April 2008).
STARS User Manual. 2008. Calgary, Alberta: Computer Modelling Group
(CMG).
Suncor Energy. 2006. Firebag Project: Commercial In-Situ Oil Sands Pro-
ject. Annual Review Presentation, Approval No. 8870, Alberta Energy
and Utilities Board, Calgary, Alberta (19 April 2006).
Suncor Energy. 2008 ERCB Annual Review: Suncor Firebag. Annual Re-
port, Energy Resources Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta (30
April 2008).

Qo , Qg , Qw ,
T, P Vo , Vg , Vw
from OW from I/P

Match Match
T, P
I /P
f rom T,P Q,V

Reservoir T, P, So , Sg , Sw , Qo , Reservoir
k ,
, k H, VS Model Qw, Qg , Vo , Vg , Vw Simulation
, g
Geostatistic So, Sw
Modelling P, T
So Good
Modify Models Sg No Yes
k, Match?
Sw
Fa
cie

Geomechanical Geomechanical
s

, Simulation
S Model Simulation End
,R
, PS P
ES I S, P , DS SS

Match Match
Geomechanical
Data
SU, , DS, ME from 4D Seismic
OW and Surface
OW, Survey

Abbreviation of measured data

DS = displacement Q = fluid rate
I/P = injector and producer SS = synthetic seismic data
ME = microseismic events SU = surface uplift
OW = observation well T = temperature
P = pressure V = fluid volume

Fig. 16Work flow of integrated history matching.

20 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Total E&P Canada. 2007. Total E&P Canada 2007 Joslyn Creek Perform-
ance Presentation. Annual Performance Presentation, Approval No.
9272C, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Calgary, Alberta (2 Oc-
tober 2007).
Tran, D., Settari, A., Nghiem, L. 2002. New Iterative Coupling Between a
Reservoir Simulator and a Geomechanics Module. Paper SPE 78192
presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving,
Texas, USA, 2023 October. doi: 10.2118/78192-MS.
Wong, R.C.K., Barr, W.E., and Kry, P.R. 1993. Stress-strain response of
Cold Lake oil sands. Can. Geotech. J 30 (2): 220235. doi:10.1139/
t93-019.
Zhang, W., Youn, S., and Doan, Q. 2007. Understanding Reservoir Archi-
tectures and Steam-Chamber Growth at Christina Lake, Alberta, by
Using 4D Seismic and Crosswell Seismic Imaging. SPE Res Eval &
Eng 10 (5): 446452. SPE-97808-PA. doi: 10.2118/97808-PA.
Zou, Y. 2005. Integration of Seismic Methods with Reservoir Simulation,
Pikes Peak Heavy Oil Field, Saskatchewan. PhD thesis, The Univer-
sity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Appendix A: Features of Simulator
The simulator (CMG 2008) applied in this study has options for
both implicitly and explicitly sequential coupled simulations of
SAGD. Reservoir fluid flow is solved by a finite-difference solver,
while geomechanical deformation is solved by a finite-element
solver. The built-in failure criteria for rock and soil deformation
are the Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager criteria. The constitu-
tive models include elastic, nonlinear elastic, elastic-perfect plastic,
and generalized plasticity models. Geomechanical simulation can
be run in 2D plane-strain and 3D modes. The coupling of porosity
has three modes.
*GCOUPLING 0Porosity does not depend upon deforma- Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), SPE, and the Canadian
tion.
*GCOUPLING 1Porosity is a function of pressure, temper-
ature, and volumetric strain.
*GCOUPLING 2Porosity is a function of pressure, temper-
ature, and total mean stress.
The coupling of permeability has four modes. One is to use the
empirical model proposed by Li (2006), and the other three are to
use tables to specify the permeability multiplier as a function of
mean effective-stress change, total stress change, or volumetric
strain change from their initial states, respectively. In coupled sim-
ulation, the related stresses and strains are calculated by the simu-
lator. The permeability and porosity are calculated on the basis of
the chosen permeability and porosity modes and input data, then
are applied in reservoir simulation. All steps are implemented auto-
matically without user interference.
Appendix B: Limitations of Simulator
The refinements in the following areas will improve the simulators
geomechanical capabilities for oil-sands applications.
It is well understood (Li 2006; Wong et al. 1993) that the me-
chanical moduli, friction angle, and dilation angle of oil sands are
functions of stresses and strains. However, the present constitutive
models in the simulator cannot capture such characteristics fully.
The deformation of oil sands, especially shear failure, is irre-
versible. However, the results of coupled simulation showed that
some previously shear-failed cells became nonfailed in the fol-
lowing timesteps (e.g., in Fig. 15a and 15b). This could not happen
physically. In addition, the deformation of oil sands in the post-
failure stage would be different from the deformation in the pre-
failure stage. Capturing these deformation behaviours can enhance
the simulators geomechanical-simulation capacity.
To avoid simulating fluid flow in over- and underburdens, the
porosity has to be set to zero. However, this ignores the influence of
pore-pressure development on effective stresses, deformation, and
potential caprock failure during the SAGD process.
The initial stresses of each cell or layer must be entered through
effective stresses rather than stress gradients. This makes data entry
and geomechanical-model building slow and inefficient.
When initial stresses are transported into a geomechanical
model, equilibrium may be lost. A feature allowing re-equilibration
would be an improvement.
Authors
Fagang Gu is a senior reservoir engineer at
Statoil Canada. He has worked on various
reservoir-engineering studies of the Corner
SAGD project since joining Statoil in 2008.
Previously, Gu had worked for Golder Asso-
ciates, Weatherford International/Advanced
Technology, and Southwest Petroleum Insti-
tute (SWPI)/China National Petroleum Cor-
poration for 15 years. His technical expertise
includes reservoir simulation of SAGD and
other thermal recovery, coalbed-methane (CBM) and enhanced
CBM (ECBM) recovery, and low-permeability and tight-reservoir
oil- and gas-recovery processes; applications of geomechanics in
reservoir/geomechanical coupled simulation, caprock integrity, and
sand production in SAGD, CBM/ECBM, heavy-oil cold produc-
tion, and sour-gas enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR); optimization of
low-permeability and tight-reservoir development through stimula-
tion (hydraulic fracturing and acidizing); and production optimiza-
tion. Gu holds a PhD degree in geotechnical engineering from the
University of Alberta and MSc and BSc degrees in petroleum engi-
neering from SWPI (now Southwest Petroleum University) in
China. He has published more than 30 technical papers and is a
member of Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and
Heavy Oil Association (CHOA).
Mark Y.S. Chan is a reservoir engineering
lead for the Corner SAGD Project and up-
stream and in-situ oil sands at Statoil
Canada. Before joining Statoil, he worked
for Unocal, Petro-Canada, Chevron, and
Value Creation Inc. In the past 33 years,
Chan has worked in various aspects of reser-
voir management for both conventional and
EOR onshore oil and gas projects in the
western Canadian sedimentary basin and
offshore projects in the Grand Banks and the Scotian Shelf on the
east coast of Canada. He has also managed reservoirs in the North
Sea and has experience with in-situ thermal recovery schemes for
oil-sands and heavy-oil assets in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Chans
primary areas of expertise include numerical reservoir-flow model-
ling, the application of SAGD and cyclic steam stimulation thermal
recovery processes to heavy-oil and bitumen deposits, the applica-
tion of reservoir geostatistics, and reservoir optimization. He holds
a BSc degree in mechanical engineering and a Masters degree in
fluid mechanics from the University of Calgary. Chan is a member
of APEGGA, CHOA, and SPE.
Robert Fryk is a professional engineer with
more than 26 years of combined engi-
neering, operations, and management expe-
rience, with expertise in the areas of
reservoir engineering, exploitation, drilling,
completions, operations, marketing, and
asset and corporate acquisitions. He holds a
BSc degree in chemical engineering from
the University of Calgary and is a member
of APEGGA.
June 2011 21