SPE-179853-MS

Effect of Steam Injection Interruption on SAGD Performance

S. M. Farouq Ali, University of Calgary

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 2123 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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
Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is a complex process governed strongly by geology and steam
injection conditions, among other parameters under normal circumstances. At times it may become
necessary to shut down a project temporarily for a variety of reasons, e.g. low bitumen price, high fuel
cost, etc. Later, when steam injection is re-started, the performance may be considerably inferior to that
for continuous operation. It is the intent of this work to examine the effect of steam stoppage for a certain
period on SAGD performance, for a selected set of conditions. Also presented is an analytical approach.
Two different geological models were employed in SAGD simulations - one was that of an actual
reservoir, the other one consisted of a homogeneous reservoir. Steam injection conditions were similar for
the two cases. The principal variables were steam injection time, the point of shut-off and the time of
shut-off, and the steam injection rate. The simulator utilized a thermal compositional approach, treating
the fluids as a three-component system.
It was found that for a given steam injection time, the stoppage time (after which steam injection is
restarted) lowered SAGD performance, as measured by oil recovery and steam-oil ratio, for the same
volume of steam injected. The performance was lowered to a greater degree in the case if a real reservoir
than for the homogeneous case. Steam injection rate reduction further adversely impacted performance.
Another variable is the point of steam injection stoppage. An analytical model was developed to examine
steam condensation during the shut-off period.
The results of this work provide insight into the complex behaviour of SAGD when the process is
interrupted. It provides guidelines on the interruption point and the length of interruption for minimizing
the adverse effects on performance.

Introduction
SAGD (Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage) is a complex process that has been successful in recovering oil
from oil sands of Alberta. SAGD performance (notably steam-oil ratio, SOR, and oil recovery) strongly
depends on geology (horizontal and vertical permeabilities, oil saturation, heterogeneities, water sands,
gas zones, etc.), and also on other variables, such as steam injection rate, pressure, and quality. A SAGD
operation may be shut down for a certain time for one of a number of reasons, e.g. high SOR, low oil
prices, limited steam supply, mechanical problems, etc. The operation may be restarted after a certain
shut-off time. In such a situation, the subsequent performance may be inferior to that in the absence of the
2 SPE-179853-MS

shut-off. The producer may be kept on, or in some cases, it too may be shut off. It is the intent of this paper
to see how much the performance is affected by steam shut-off. Two reservoir situations will be
considered: in one the geology is that of a real reservoir in Alberta, in the other, two sets of constant
properties are employed for good SAGD prospects.

Reservoir Properties and Operating Conditions

Table 1 lists the data used in the simulations for the field case. Capillary pressures were included, and the
oil-water and oil-gas relative permeability end-points were temperature-dependent. Relative permeability
hysteresis was not included - a limitation of this study. Compositional data was for the field bitumen
sample. Three components were simulated: bitumen, solution gas, and water. K-values were functions of
temperature and pressure, and were derived from PVT data. The grid size around the wells in the
cross-section was 1 m, with larger blocks along the length of the 375-m long wells. The number of active
grid blocks was about 17,000. A typical simulation took 2 to 8 hours.

Table 1Formation properties used in the simulations for the

field case
Depth, m 315
Net thickness, m 52
Porosity, % 32-35
Horizontal permeability, darcy 500-2500
Vertical permeability, darcy 100-2000
Oil saturation, % 72-80
Initial pressure, kPa 1300
Initial temperature, C 10
Top water 12
Top gas 1
Well length, m 375
Oil viscosity, cp 1.7106 (10 C)
9.96 (200 C)
Maximum steam injection pressure, kPa 4000
Injection rate, m3/day 200-300

Steam was injected at a nominal constant rate and quality. The production constraint was the maximum
liquid rate and difference between the production well and reservoir pressure.

Simulations Carried Out

Table 2 gives a list of selected simulations carried out out of more than 100. EXOTHERM was used
for all simulations. Notice that in most cases, the SAGD operation was carried out for two or three years,
after which steam injection was shut off, with production continuing. In the case of constant formation
properties, several simulations were carried out for extended times to see if the response returns to that
before shut-off. In general, steam stoppage had a more severe effect on the field case. It was observed that
the effect of steam injection shut-off is complex, and is strongly governed by the geology, and operating
variables.
SPE-179853-MS 3

Table 2Summary of selected simulations

Oil
Shut- Steam Cum recovery Final
Field Shut- off End inj SOR Final to oil
or off length, time, rate, to cum shut- recovery,
Run Const year yr Comments yr m3/day shut-off SOR off, % %

1 SAGD0 No F NA 0 Base field 6 200 3.7 16.3

shut-off run
2 SAGD0-A Shut-off F 3 2 Injector off 8 200 2.9 3.5 11.6 20.1
3 SAGD0-B Shut-off F 7 1 Injector off 7 200 2.9 3.5 11.1 19.2
4 SAGD0-C Shut-off F 1 1 Injector off 7 200 3 3.5 3.5 16.6
5 SAGD0-D Shut-off F 1 2 Injector off 8 200 3 3.5 3.5 16.5
6 SAGD0-D1 Shut-off F 1 8 Both wells 35 200 3 3.4 3.5 60.8
shut-in
7 SAGD1 No C1 NA 0 Base const 6 200 2.4 22.2
shut-off run
8 SAGD1-A Shut-off C1 3 2 Const prop 30 300 2.8 2.9 10.8 23.2
1
9 SAGD2 No C2 NA 0 Const prop 8 300 2.6 79.6
shut-off 1
10 SAGD3 Shut-off C2 2 1 Const prop 30 300 2.4 2.9 25.6 80.7
1
11 SAGD2 Shut-off C2 3 2 Const prop 30 300 2.6 79.6
1

Base Runs
Run 1, SAGD0 (Table 2) was the base run with field properties. Steam was injected for 12 years without
stoppage. The oil and water production and steam injection rates are shown in Fig. 1. The temperature and
oil saturation profiles for this run show that steam reaches top water, and later the steam chamber develops
downwards. Fig. 2 shows the steam-oil ratio and the oil recovery for this run. The steam-oil ratio increases
as steam enters top water, reaching a maximum value of 8, after which it decreases as the drainage occurs
downwards.

Figure 1Base run for the field case, no steam stoppage.

4 SPE-179853-MS

Figure 2Base run for the field case, no steam stoppage.

In Run 2, SAGD0-A, steam was shut off after three years of injection, and re-injected after a shut-off
period of two years. Fig. 3 shows the oil and water production and steam injection curves. The oil
production behaviour following shut-off is quite different from that seen for the previous case (Fig. 1).
This is seen more clearly from the oil saturation distributions shown in Figs. 4 (a) at the point of steam
shut-off, (b) at the point of re-starting steam injection, and (c) at the end of the simulation (12 years). It
is interesting to note that in Fig. 4(b), during steam shut-off, the steam chamber continues to grow
downwards, as the production well is kept on. However, the pressure drops to a very low values - less than
1000 kPa, considerably lower than the initial pressure of 1300 kPa that increased to about 3800 kPa at
steam shut-off. As a result, fluid flow, mostly mobilized oil at the steam chamber rim would flow into the
chamber. When steam injection was re-started, oil rate slowly increased, but only to about one-half of the
pre-shut-off level. This is also reflected in the steam-oil ratio and recovery curves (Fig. 5), with the
steam-oil ratio reaching very high values as a result of steam penetration of the top water.

Figure 3Base run (Run 2) with steam shut off after 3 years for a period of 2 years.
SPE-179853-MS 5

Figure 4(a)Oil saturation distribution in Run 2 (SAGDO-A) at the point of steam shut-off, af ter 3 years of steam injection.

Figure 4 (b)Oil saturation at the end of steam stoppage period (2 years). Notice the development of the chamber because the producer
is still on Also oil re-saturation of the drained areas occurs.

Figure 4(c)Final oil saturation in Run 2 (SAGDO-A). Steam reaches top water, and then the oil drainage occurs downwards. Eventually
the re-saturated regions are drained leading to a late peak in oil production.
6 SPE-179853-MS

Figure 5Oil steam ratio and oil recovery in Run 2 (SAGDO-A), where steam was shut off after 3 years for a period of 2 years.

Other Operating Conditions

Table 2 gives data for Runs 3 to 5, with various steam stoppage times and shut-off periods. Also given
are the cumulative SORs and oil recovery at the end of shut-off and at the end of the simulation. Oil
recovery is longer when the steam injection time is longer before stoppage, as expected. The final
cumulative SORs are similar - around 3.5.
An interesting case is Run 6 (SAGD0-D1), the field case where both the injector and the producer are
shut off after steam injection for 1 year, for a period of 8 years. After that, steam is injected for another
26 years. The objective was to observe the oil saturation changes after a long shut-off, and the final SOR
and oil recovery. Fig. 6 shows the oil production and steam injection curves for the entire period, while
Fig. 7 shows the SOR and oil recovery. Fig. 8(a) shows the oil saturation distribution after one year of
steam injection, while Fig. 8(b) shows the same at the end of 8 years of shut-off. Notice the resaturation
of the steam chamber. The lower oil saturation zone above the wells is the gas pocket formed by the gas
in solution in the bitumen. Fig 9 shows the oil saturation with time in a block inside the steam chamber.
The re-saturation of the chamber is clearly seen

Figure 6 Oil and water production and steam injection rate curves for Run 6 (SAGD0-D1) with a 8 year stoppage of steam.
SPE-179853-MS 7

Figure 7Oil recovery and SOR for Run 6 (SAGD0-D1) with a 8 year stoppage of steam.

Figure 8(a)Oil saturation distribution after 1 year of steam injection in Run 6, after which steam was shut off.

Figure 8(b)Oil saturation distribution at the end of 8 years of no steam injection or fluid production in Run 6. Notice the re-saturation
of the steam chamber. The upper part of the low oil saturation is the gas released from the bitumen.
8 SPE-179853-MS

Figure 9 Oil saturation in the steam chamber with time, in Run 6.

Fig. 10 shows the injection well temperature. The temperature declines to 40 C, but upon re-injection
of steam, it reaches the original temperature of 200 C within a year.

Figure 10 Steam injector temperature with time in Run 6. Notice the quick rise of temperature to the original value within a year upon
re-injection of steam.

The oil recovery in this run was 60.8% at the end of a total of 35 years. The SOR increased to high
values again because of steam penetration into the top water.
Homogeneous Reservoir
All of the previous discussion was for an actual formation. Runs 7 and 8 were for a homogeneous reservoir
with uniform horizontal and vertical permeabilities of 2000 and 1200 md, respectively, and Runs 8-11 for
a homogeneous reservoir with higher permeabilities, viz. horizontal and vertical permeabilities of 6000
and 4800 md, respectively. Table 2 shows the steam injection times and the shut- off times for these
simulations. Runs 8, 10, and 11 were continued for 30 years to observe the performance. The SORs in
SPE-179853-MS 9

all cases were less than 3 at the time steam injection was terminated. The longer runs gave an oil recovery
of about 80%. Fig. 11 shows an example for Run 8 (SAGD1-A) with steam stoppage after 2 year and a
shut-off time of 3 years. In this case, the oil production rate (about 20 m3/day) never came back to the
original rate (about 70 m3/day). Similar behaviour was observed for other runs.

Figure 11Oil and water production and steam injection rates for Run 8 (SAGD1-A) for a homogeneous formation, with steam stoppage
after 2 years, and shut-off time of 3 years.

Example of Steam Rate Reduction in a Reservoir

Fig. 12 shows the oil and water production and steam injection curves for Black Rock well pair 1PI. This
is not a case of complete stoppage of steam, but it is clear that when the steam injection rate was reduced
from 300 to 100 m3/day, there was a drop in the oil production rate from about 50 m3/day to about 20
m3/day. Although the instantaneous SOR varied widely, the cumulative SOR remained constant through-
out at 4 m3/m3.

Figure 12Oil, water production and steam injection rates in the Black Rock 1PI well pair. Notice the drop in the oil rate when steam
injection rate was reduced from about 300 to 100 m3/day.

An Analytical Model of Shut-off of Both Wells

An analytical model of stoppage of steam injection and production was developed. For a given chamber
geometry, heat loss by conduction was calculated on a time step basis, using a variable chamber
10 SPE-179853-MS

temperature, determined by iteration. Steam pressure and quality in the chamber were calculated allowing
for the heat loss in a time step. An example of the results is shown in Fig. 13. It is seen that steam quality
declines rapidly in the first part of shut-in. The chamber pressure declines to a pressure below that of the
partially mobilized bitumen surrounding chamber, which would lead to partial resaturation of the swept
chamber. For example, a mobilized bitumen rim 3 m thick would have enough bitumen to completely
re-saturate the chamber. Such behaviour was observed in the simulated results to varying extents,
depending on the shut-in time.

Figure, 13Chamber steam temperature and steam quality after 4 years of steam injection.

Discussion of the Mechanistic Features

Two situations were considered. In one, steam injection was stopped for a certain time, while production
was continued. In the other one, both injection and production were stopped.
When steam injection is stopped, while production is continued, the steam chamber cools, the pressure
declines, and in time it becomes lower than the pressure around the steam chamber. As a result, oil flows
back into the chamber, re-saturating the drained sand, displacing water and a dimishing steam-gas
saturation. After a very long shut-in (as in Run 6), the oil saturation tends to become more or less uniform,
however, oil viscosity is much lower than the original oil viscosity, when steam injection is restarted.
Given that the distance between the injector and producer depends on viscosity, the existing distance
would be too small, which would affect performance. In a heterogeneous formation, it may lead to
breakthrough of steam at certain points along the well length. In general, steam stoppage would lead to
a delay in the oil production buildup when steam injection is re-started, and overall a decrease in oil
recovery and increase in the steam-oil ratio.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are derived from this study:
1. Steam injection stoppage in a SAGD operation would lead to partial or complete re-saturation of
the steam chamber, the severity of which would depend on the formation geology, time of steam
injection before stoppage, whether only the injection well or both injection and production wells
are shut off, and length of shut-off. Re-saturation by oil is an undesirable effect that would lead
to oil blockage.
2. In general, steam injection shut-off would lead to a loss of oil recovery; the oil production rate
buildup when steam injection is re-started is slow, and does not reach the original level before
SPE-179853-MS 11

shut-off, even after long period. There is a delay of about the same order as the shut-off time in
oil production rate increase.
3. An analytical treatment of the case of shutting off both injection and production wells shows rapid
steam condensation and temperature and pressure drop.

Acknowledgment
Thanks are expressed to Bita Bayestehparvin for her assistance.