Pressure Transient Analysis in SAGD
J. RABB, C. PALMGREN
Petro-Canada
Abstract
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an in situ
thermal recovery technique used at Petro-Canada’s MacKay
River Project.
The objective of this study is to develop an analytical well test
method that would allow a measure of steam chamber volume
and potentially the timing and location of steam chamber coales-
cence. This well test method would also prove useful in deter-
mining an analytical solution for near wellbore characteristics
and reservoir boundaries.
A pseudo-compositional thermal simulator was used to gen-
erate reservoir pressure responses by shutting off an injector at
different periods of time and monitoring the pressure fall-off
while continuing with production. Confined, unconfined, and co-
alesced 2-dimensional sink-source well pair models, based upon
the geology and drilling pattern at Petro-Canada’s MacKay River
Project, were used in the study. The effect of the magnitude of
the vertical permeability and the vertical to horizontal perme-
ability ratio on the shut-in pressure response was also studied so
that this method could be applied to other reservoirs of differing
geology. Pressure response type curves were generated and the
relationships between pressure drop at the injector, shut-in time,
and steam chamber volume were determined.
We show that the pressure response type curves are unique for
different types of SAGD wells and levels of steam chamber de-
velopment. This information will aid in determining the timing
of operational conversions and determining recovery factors
and possibly locations of reservoir boundaries, as well as steam
chamber coalescence.
Introduction
In a commercial SAGD project, it can be expected that as the
steam chambers mature and sweep through the reservoir, the well
pairs will begin to interact with each other and the steam cham-
bers will coalesce(1). Coalescence is defined as the point at which
separate adjacent steam chambers merge to form one large steam
chamber. Coalescence is used for timing operational conversions
to secondary recovery schemes, such as solvent injection. As a re-
sult of the planning that is required for the operational conversion,
a method of measuring the volume of the steam chamber would
prove useful in estimating the timing of coalescence and the subse-
quent operational conversions. Considering there are 25 well pairs
at MacKay River, it is also necessary to know which well pairs
have coalesced so as to know the well pairs in which to institute
operational conversions. For this reason, a well test method for de-
termining which well pairs have coalesced is also required.
The distance to and orientation of boundaries, flow regime,
near wellbore characteristics (such as skin factor), and reservoir
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (“REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS” CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
16
characteristics (such as effective permeability) can be determined
through conventional pressure transient analysis. Conventional
horizontal well testing has four different flow regimes that can
be observed in the pressure response: early time radial flow, early
time linear flow, pseudo steady state radial flow, and late time
linear flow(2). The analytical solution is then applied in segments
to the well test based upon the flow regime indicated by the pres-
sure response. This segmental analysis can then be used to deter-
mine the reservoir characteristics.
Using a pseudo-compositional thermal simulator, reservoir
pressure responses were generated by conducting a pressure fall-
off test. In this test, the injector was shut off at different times and
the pressure decrease was monitored at the injector. Shutting in
the injector while the producer is still producing has been done
both at Mackay River and elsewhere. It was expected that the pres-
sure response would be different in models with different netpay,
distances to no-flow boundaries (the edge of the model), perme-
ability, and other adjacent wells. It was also suspected that the dif-
ferent flow regimes exhibited in the pressure response could be
masked by the fluid redistribution that occurs when steam injection
is stopped. The current paper does not include sensitivities on the
effects of near wellbore region variation and/or variability on the
pressure results.
Pressure Testing Concept
Three models were used in the study: a confined (bounded)
single well pair model; an unconfined (unbounded) single well pair
model; and, a two well pair model. All models were 2-dimensional
sink-source well pair models based upon the geology of Petro-
Canada’s MacKay River Project and are illustrated in Figures 1a,
1b, and 1c. Different pressure responses could potentially result
if a discretized wellbore model was used instead of a two-dimen-
sional sink source model.
To determine the impact of steam chamber size and shape on
the pressure response, the injector was shut-in at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 7 years. The simulation results of the confined single well
pair model and the two well pair model are examined in this paper.
The producer was kept on until the flowing bottom hole pressure
in the producer was less than 600 kPa. The rate of pressure fall-off
was observed until the pressure stabilized, at which time the run
was terminated. Figure 2 shows a graph of pressure vs. time that
was obtained from the fall-off test. The pressure response was then
analyzed in order to determine if conventional pressure transient
analysis techniques could be applied to SAGD. The rate fall-off
was not analyzed due to the difficulty in applying well test analysis
techniques to the rate response.
It is possible that an infinite variety of variables can be envis-
aged that could lead to slightly similar results. While field data can
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 2,500
Base Case SI @ 180 Days SI @ 1 Year
SI @ 2 Years SI @ 3 Years SI @ 4 Years
50 m
2,000 SI @ 5 Years SI @ 7 Years

Pressure (kPa)
1,500

1,000

• 500

•
(a) 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Time (days)
FIGURE 2: Steam chamber pressure vs. time for confined well pair
150 m model.

captured by studying a variable vertical to horizontal permeability

ratio. The vertical to horizontal permeability ratio was increased to
0.9 in one scenario and decreased to 0.1 in another scenario. The
resulting pressure fall-off was analyzed and compared to the per-
meability ratio base case of 0.5.
• Coalescence is modelled through the use of a two-dimensional
• two well pair sink-source model. The results of the pressure re-
sponse are analyzed before and after coalescence. By studying
(b)
the pressure fall-off at different stages of steam chamber maturity,
the presence of coalescence can be detected. This scenario was
modelled by monitoring the pressure at the injectors of adjacent
50 m 100 m 100 m well pairs. Injection was stopped in one of the wells and the pres-
sure in both of the injectors was monitored. Production was main-
tained in each producer until the bottom hole pressure was less
than 600 kPa.

• •
• •
(c)
FIGURE 1: a) Confined model; b) unconfined model; and, c) two
well pair model.
not differentiate between different variables, this analysis, in con-
junction with other types of analyses, could provide an approach
in better understanding the process. A combination of different
techniques, [such as (but not confined to) produced oil, injected
steam, and produced water], and observation well temperature
measurements should be combined into a coherent picture using
numerical simulation and analytical tools. Steam chamber volume
determined by pressure transient analysis needs to coincide with or
strongly resemble the volume obtained by other means.
The impact of changing the distance to boundaries, both no-flow
drainage boundaries (the edges of the model) and netpay thickness,
was studied by using the confined single well pair model as a base
case for comparison purposes. Two scenarios of drainage boundary
distance were created from the confined single well pair model.
The drainage was reduced from 50 m to 40 m, and then to 20 m.
Two scenarios of netpay were also created from the confined single
well pair model. The netpay was reduced from 28 m to 20 m, and
then to 10 m. For each scenario of differing netpay and drainage
boundary, the pressure test described above was performed at the
different times. The resulting pressure transient behaviour was
monitored and compared to the base case.
The impact of reservoir permeability was also studied through
changing the permeability ratio and magnitude of the permeability
and comparing the results of the pressure response to the base case.
For this study, a two-dimensional confined one well pair model
was used in the analysis. The impact of reservoir heterogeneity is
September 2005, Volume 44, No. 9
Model Descriptions
The two-dimensional sink-source model orientation is a cross-
section of the well pair. A 1% gas saturation was used in the simu-
lations in order to account for compressibility effects. Solution gas
has been included in a manner similar to previous SAGD studies.
The model contains the following average reservoir parameters
and initial conditions based upon relevant values from the MacKay
River Phase 1 “C” drilling pattern.
Netpay = 28 m Net:Gross = 1.0
Swi = 14% Kv = 2,500 mD
Sgi = 1% Kh = 5,000 mD
µo = 3 × 106 cp Ti = 7° C
φ = 33% Pi = 520 kPa
A scaling factor of 10 was applied to the cell length. Therefore,
the flow rate controls for both the injectors and the producers were
also scaled back by 10. As a result, the model bitumen production
rates are 10 times less than what would be expected in the field.
The following is a brief summary of the boundary conditions under
which the model calculations were performed:
Minimum FBHP = 600 kPa
Maximum Steam Production Rate = 0.8 m3/d
Maximum Liquid Production Rate = 90 m3/d
As is evident by the high maximum steam injection rate, the in-
jector is always on pressure control, not rate control. This was to
ensure a constant pressure could be maintained in all runs before
the injector was shut in.
Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c are schematics depicting the differences
between the models. In the two well pair model, one well pair (C5)
is confined, the other well (C6) has 50 m of drainage on the side
adjacent to the C5 well pair. On the other side of the C6 well pair,
there is 100 m of drainage.
17
 ∆P versus ∆T after shut-in at day 180
∆P versus ∆T after shut-in at day 180
10,000 10,000
20 m Boundary 40 m Boundary 50 m Boundary 10 m Netpay 20 m Netpay 28 m Netpay

1,000 1,000
∆P (kPa)

∆P (kPa)
100 100

10 10

1
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000
∆T (days) ∆T (days)
FIGURE 3a: Boundary impact on pressure response. FIGURE 4a: Netpay impact on pressure response.

∆P versus ∆T after shut-in at year 5

10,000 ∆P versus ∆T after shut-in at year 5
10,000
20 m Boundary 40 m Boundary 50 m Boundary
10 m Netpay 20 m Netpay 28 m Netpay
1,000
1,000
∆P (kPa)

∆P (kPa)
100

10
10

1
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

∆T (days) ∆T (days)

FIGURE 3b: Boundary impact on pressure response. FIGURE 4b: Netpay impact on pressure response.

Results
Reservoir Characteristics (Netpay and
Boundaries)
In order to confirm the impact of different boundaries on the
pressure response, the netpay and drainage distance (distance to
no-flow boundaries) for the confined single well pair model was
reduced.
The results of the sensitivity runs performed for the drainage
distance can be found in Figures 3a and 3b. This figure is a graph
of the pressure drop after steam injection was stopped vs. the time
steam injection was stopped. This figure illustrates the impact on
the pressure response when the steam chamber contacts the no-
flow boundaries of the reservoir. At early times (180 days), when
the steam chamber has not contacted the boundaries in the models,
the pressure response is the same for all sensitivities. Once the
steam chamber has contacted the no-flow boundary, the pressure
response slows. The final equilibrium pressure is the same regard-
less of the model.
Figures 4a and 4b illustrate the impact of changing the netpay.
Based upon these figures, the pressure response is not significantly
affected by the netpay at any time. This is interesting because the
cap rock does behave as a no-flow boundary, but the steam chamber
is still able to propagate horizontally through the reservoir. Hence,
the pressure response can indicate a reduction of steam chamber
growth that occurs when a no-flow boundary is contacted.
This influences the potential applications of conventional hori-
zontal well test analysis to the SAGD recovery mechanism. The
flow regimes of horizontal well test analysis are functions only of
the netpay for the early time linear flow and pseudo-steady state
radial flow. It is not until late time linear flow that the flow regime
pressure is a function of both netpay and the distance to the res-
ervoir boundary. These flow regimes may not exist in SAGD as
the simulation results show no impact on the pressure response
for varying flow regimes. Late time linear flow regime pressure
responses, however, could exist for SAGD as no-flow boundary
18
effects are seen in the simulation. This would require the early time
radial flow regime to exist until the reservoir boundary is contacted
by the steam chamber. This is a reasonable inference considering
that the effective liquid level around the producer could cause the
pressure response to behave as early time radial flow until the
no-flow boundaries of the reservoir are contacted by the steam
chamber.
Reservoir Characteristics (Permeability)
Different ratios of vertical permeability to horizontal perme-
ability were used and the corresponding changes in pressure fall-
off were observed at each shut-in time in order to determine the
controlling reservoir characteristics. The confined single well pair
model was used for this study. Three different permeability ratios
were used. The permeability ratio of the base case is 50%, whereas
a reduced permeability ratio of 10% and an increased ratio of 90%
were used for comparison purposes.
The vertical permeability affects the rate of vertical steam
chamber growth and bitumen drainage; it therefore impacts the
shape of the steam chamber. Figures 5a and 5b show the different
scenarios of permeability ratios and the associated pressure fall-off
at each time of shut-in. Based upon these figures, increasing the
ratio does not have an impact upon the pressure response. How-
ever, decreasing the permeability ratio does affect the pressure re-
sponse, but only at later times. At these later times, the decreased
permeability ratio model exhibits a faster pressure fall-off than the
other models with relatively higher permeability ratios. As previ-
ously discussed, steam chamber contact with the cap rock did not
impact the pressure response. Therefore, the increase in pressure
fall-off at later shut-in times can be attributed to the size of the
steam chamber.
In order to verify the relationship between permeability and
pressure fall-off, a plot of cumulative steam injection vs. time is
illustrated in Figure 6. The volume of the steam chamber is related
to the volume of steam injected into the reservoir. The volume of
steam injected into the reservoir is approximately the same for both
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 ∆P versus ∆T for shut-in at day 180 Cumulative Steam Injection vs. Time
140
10,000
Kv / Kh = 10 % Kv / Kh = 50 % Kv / Kh = 90 %
120

Cumulative Steam
Injection (e3m3)
1,000 100

80
∆P (kPa)

100
60

40
10
20
Kv / Kh = 10% Kv / Kh = 50 % Kv / Kh = 90%
1 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

∆T (days) Time (days)

FIGURE 6: Permeability ratio impact on steam injection.

FIGURE 5a: Permeability ratio impact on pressure response.
Figures 7a and 7b show the different scenarios of permeability and
the associated pressure fall-off at each time of shut-in. Based upon
∆P versus ∆T for shut-in at year 5
10,000
these figures, increasing the permeability does not have an impact
Kv / Kh = 10% Kv / Kh = 50% Kv / Kh = 90% on the pressure response as the reservoir is accepting the same
volume of steam and experiencing the same rate of steam chamber
1,000 growth as the base case. However, decreasing the permeability
does affect the pressure response, but at later shut-in times only.
∆P (kPa)

At later shut-in times, the decreased permeability model exhibits a

100 faster pressure fall-off than the other models with relatively higher
permeability. The increase in pressure fall-off at later times can
10
again be attributed to the size of the steam chamber.

1
0.01 0.1 1 10
∆T (days)
FIGURE 5b: Permeability ratio impact on pressure response.
the base case and the increased permeability ratio. Considering
that the pressure responses are the same for early shut-in times
in the base case and increased permeability models, this further
suggests that the pressure response is again related to the volume
of the steam chamber. This implies an improved reservoir quality
does not have a significant impact upon the pressure response. For
the reduced permeability ratio model, the volume of steam injected
into the reservoir is lower than the base case. For the reduced per-
meability ratio model, the pressure response is consistently higher
than the base case. As a result, the lower the permeability ratio, the
smaller the steam chamber volume and hence, the faster the pres-
sure fall-off.
In order to determine the impact of the magnitude of perme-
ability upon the pressure response, the vertical and horizontal
permeability was increased to 1.5 times the original, and also
decreased by 0.33 times the original. The permeability ratio was
maintained constant at 0.5 for each model. The confined single
well pair model was used for this study. The corresponding
changes in pressure fall-off were observed at each shut-in time.
Boundary Impacts on Steam Chamber
100 1,000 10,000 Volume
The confined and unconfined single well pair models were
used to link the steam chamber volume to the pressure response
and monitor the effects of boundaries. The time at which the in-
jector is shut-in during the producing life of the well pair provides
a method of measuring the volume of the steam chamber at dif-
ferent levels of maturity. As a result, when injection is stopped, the
corresponding pressure fall-off can thereby be linked to the steam
chamber volume. From examining the pressure fall-off, a reason-
able speculation is that the slower the pressure fall-off, the larger
the steam chamber. Gas saturation was used to determine the steam
chamber size as it is a method to estimate steam chamber volume.
Figure 8 is a graph of the change in pressure drop after shut-in
vs. time after shut-in, for the confined single well pair model. This
figure shows that a pressure difference can be observed between
the different scenarios after 30 minutes has elapsed from shutting
in the well. Noticeable differences in the pressure response can be
observed between 1 and 30 days. After 30 days, the difference in
pressure between the shut-in scenarios begins to decrease. There-
fore, the time at which a pressure drop could be measured and cor-
related back to steam chamber could depend upon the sensitivity of
the pressure measurement tool and the maturity level of the steam
chamber. As a result, a time of 30 days has arbitrarily been chosen

∆P versus ∆T for shut-in at year 7

∆P versus ∆T for shut in at day 180 10,000
10,000 1/3 x Perm 1.5 x Perm Base Perm

1,000
1,000
∆P (kPa)
∆P (kPa)

100
100

10 10

1/3 x Perm 1.5 x Perm Base Perm

1 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

∆T (days) ∆T (days)

FIGURE 7a: Permeability impact on pressure response. FIGURE 7b: Permeability impact on pressure response.

September 2005, Volume 44, No. 9 19

 Steam Chamber Volume vs.
SI @ 180 Days SI @ 1 Year SI @ 2 Years Time to Achieve ∆P = 100 kPa
10,000

Steam Chamber Vol (e6m3)

SI @ 3 Years SI @ 4 Years Si @ 5 Years 3.0
SI @ 7 Years
2.5
1,000
2.0
∆P (kPa)

1.5
100 Confined Unconfined
1.0

10 0.5

Early Time Region Mid Time Region Late Time Region 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 ∆T for ∆P = 100 kPa (days)
∆T (days)
FIGURE 10: Steam chamber volume model comparison.
FIGURE 8: Pressure drop vs. time elapsed since shut-in for con-
fined well pair model.

SI @ 180 Days SI @ 1 Year SI @ 2 Years

10,000 SI @ 3 Years SI @ 4 Years Si @ 5 Years
Steam Chamber Volume vs. Pressure SI @ 7 Years
Drop at ∆T = 30 Days
3.0
Steam Chamber Vol (e6m3)

1,000

∆P (Kpa)
2.5
Confined Unconfined
100
2.0

1.5
10
1.0

0.5 1
1 10 100
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
∆T (days)

∆P at ∆T = 30 Days (kPa)
FIGURE 9: Steam chamber volume model comparison.
for the purposes of this study as a time at which the pressure drop
could be measured and correlated back to steam chamber volume.
However, earlier times, as early as 30 minutes depending upon the
maturity level of the steam chamber, could be chosen as an ad-
equate time to measure the pressure fall-off.
Therefore, based upon Figure 8, it is observed that at a time of
30 days, each curve exhibits a unique reduction in pressure after
shut-in. The converse is also applicable where for a pressure drop
of 100 kPa, each curve exhibits a specific time to achieve that pres-
sure drop. Based upon these two points raised in Figure 8, ∆P =
100 kPa and ∆T = 30 days, a relationship between the pressure
drop at a particular time or the time to achieve a particular pressure
drop can be graphed as a function of steam chamber volume.
Figure 9 illustrates the growth of the steam chamber as a func-
tion of the pressure fall-off obtained after the injector has been
shut-in for 30 days for both the confined and unconfined single
well pair models. The curves for both the confined and unconfined
single well pair models are fairly similar until later injector shut-
in times. After approximately one year, the slope of both curves
change. This is due to the steam chamber contacting the cap rock
as both curves are identical and the cap rock is contacted at the
same time in both models.
Figure 10 shows the volume of the steam chamber as a function
of the amount of time required to obtain a pressure drop of 100 kPa
for both the confined and unconfined single well pair models. The
unconfined model exhibits a linear relationship between time and
steam chamber volume at all times. The confined model exhibits
the same linear relationship until the steam chamber hits the no-
flow boundaries of the model (year 5). Reviewing the output grid,
it was observed that after five years of steam injection, the steam
chamber sweeps downwards through the reservoir and thereby is
at its maximum volume in the confined model. This is the probable
cause of the change in slope of the confined single well pair model
and the reason why it deviates from the unconfined model curve.
20
FIGURE 11: Pressure drop vs. time elapsed since shut-in during
mid-time region—confined well pair model.
Based upon Figures 9 and 10, definite changes can be ob-
served in the volume of the steam chamber and the subsequent
pressure behaviour when the steam chamber contacts a boundary.
The different figures provide insight into which boundary is being
contacted by the steam chamber and could further lead to the de-
velopment of equations to account for the different stages of steam
chamber growth.
Dimensionless Type Curves
Dimensionless type curves were generated to further progress
the well testing concept. This was accomplished by shifting the
pressure responses from all scenarios onto a single curve; the first
step in developing an analytical solution. This facilitates further
analysis of the impacts of near wellbore characteristics, reservoir
boundaries, and steam chamber volume on the pressure response.
The first step in determining a dimensionless type curve was
splitting up the pressure response according to the shape of the
curve. Three regions were identified based upon the shape of the
pressure response curve. These regions are highlighted in Figure
8 and are identified as early time, mid time, and late time regions.
The mid time region displays a linear shape on the log-log scale
and was therefore used as a starting point. Figure 11 is a graph
of pressure drop from shut-in vs. time elapsed from shut-in, and
only has the data for the mid time region graphed on it. Since the
slope of all of the curves are very similar, the y-intercept is used
as a value by which the data can either be compressed or stretched
in order to match the earliest case. As a result, an equation based
upon pressure drop and steam chamber volume can be derived.
The constants used for slope could potentially be related to the
near wellbore characteristics. As a result, similar work was com-
pleted for the cases in which the permeability was altered. Using
the same form of equation did not result in a close enough fit for
all scenarios so that the constants in the equation could be accu-
rately analyzed for any possible relationships to permeability and
permeability ratio.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 10,000
2,500
180 day SI: y = -1E-13 x 6 + 4E-10 x 5 - 4E-07 x 4 + 0.0002 x 3 –
0.0567 x 2 + 8.3398 x + 1121.3
R2 = 0.9991 2,000
∆P (kPa)

Pressure (kPa)
1,000 1,500

1,000

500
100
10 100 1,000 10,000
∆T (days) 0
SI @ 180 Days SI @ 1 Year SI @ 2 Years 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
SI @ 3 Years SI @ 4 Years SI @ 5 Years Time (Days)
SI @ 7 Years Poly. (SI @ 180 Days)
C5 SI @ 180 Days: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 180 Days: C6 Inj P
C5 SI @ 1 Yr: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 1 Yr: C6 Inj P
FIGURE 12: Pressure drop vs. time elapsed since shut-in during C5 SI @ 2 Yr: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 2 Yr: C6 Inj P
C5 SI @ 3 Yr: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 3 Yr: C6 Inj P
late time region—confined well pair model. C5 SI @ 4 Yr: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 4 Yr: C6 Inj P
C5 SI @ 5 Yr: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 5 Yr: C6 Inj P
C5 SI @ 7 Yr: C5 Inj P C5 SI @ 7 Yr: C6 Inj P

FIGURE 14: Injection pressure vs. time—two well pair model.

(-A)
1.E+05
y = 2200.3e-0.6305x B
1.E+03 R 2= 0.966 seen in Figure 14. In this figure representing Pressure vs. Time,
(-C)
1.E+01 one well (C5) is shut-in and the other well (C6) is left injecting.
D
Constant Value

1.E-01
1.E-03
1.E-05
1.E-07
1.E-09
1.E-11
1.E-13
1.E-15
1.E-17
0.5 1 2 3 4
Scenario
FIGURE 13: Late time region constants based upon best fit curves.
The late time region was also used to analyze the pressure
testing concept. The results of a sixth order line of best fit for each
scenario is shown in Figure 12. The sixth order polynomial results
in R2 values close to 1, however, a fourth order polynomial results
in R2 values close to 0.98. The constants represented in the best
fit lines were plotted to determine if there are any patterns to the
constants. The graph of the constants can be found in Figure 13.
Unfortunately, no actual patterns could be easily detected nor any
constants recognized. Other equations were explored for the late
time region, but with no direct success.
The early time region was not used to fit any dimensionless
curves against as there is a high degree of error in the later sce-
narios during this region due to rounding of the simulator results.
The difference in the initial pressure drop that occurs during the
first time step of the model was investigated in order to determine
if there was any cause for the spread. No plausible explanation was
found, except for the volume of the steam chamber and contact
with no-flow boundaries.
Coalescence
The two well pair model was used to determine a method of
pressure testing that would aid in determining whether or not co-
alescence has occurred. For this pressure test, both injectors were
operating and one was shut-in. When coalescence occurs, the in-
jector that is not shut-in acts as a source of pressure support be-
cause steam injection is still occurring. As a result, there is no
pressure reduction in either of the steam chambers when coales-
cence has occurred. However, before coalescence occurs, if steam
injection is stopped in either of the wells, the pressure will decline
until it has reached its natural equilibrium pressure. This can be
September 2005, Volume 44, No. 9
At early times, the pressure drops immediately in C5 when
(-E)
steam injection is stopped. Since steam is still being injected in
F C6, its pressure is unchanged. This can be seen in the cases where
G steam injection was stopped after 180 days, 1 year, and 2 years of
Expon. [(-A)] operation.
When coalescence occurs after C5 has been shut-in, the pressure
in the C5 steam chamber slowly rises back up to the injection pres-
sure of the C6 well pair. This can be observed in the cases of 3, 4,
5 7
and 5 years of steam injection.
After coalescence has occurred when steam injection is stopped
in one well pair, the pressure remains constant. This is because the
other well pair acts to support the entire pressure of the coalesced
steam chamber. This is observed in the case where steam injection
was stopped after seven years of injection. As a result, coalescence
can be detected by the respective pressure response in adjacent
wells.
Summary and Conclusions
Considering the lack of published information on this topic, the
authors welcome the publication of similar work for other areas
with different initial conditions and different reservoirs.
Based upon the analysis of simulation results, the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. The pressure response is independent of netpay but is depen-
dent upon the distance to boundaries. As a result, boundary
conditions must be taken into consideration, but only in the
later stages of steam chamber maturity;
2. Based upon horizontal well test theory and the sensitivi-
ties performed, the relationships identified between netpay,
boundaries, and steam chamber maturity could potentially
indicate that early time linear flow and pseudo radial flow
regimes cannot be identified in the pressure fall-off test
in SAGD. Therefore, there is the possibility that only two
flow regimes of conventional horizontal well test theory are
present in SAGD. These are the early time radial and late
time linear flow regimes. This impacts the development of
future relationships relating steam chamber maturity and
boundaries to the pressure response;
3. Changing the permeability and/or permeability ratio will
have an impact on the pressure response when steam injec-
tion is stopped. Increasing the permeability and/or perme-
ability ratio does not have as great an impact on the pressure
21
 response as decreasing the permeability and/or permeability
ratio; Authorsʼ Biographies
4. Steam chamber size and growth rate changes when the steam
Jennifer Rabb works for Petro-Canada
chamber contacts the no-flow boundary and cap-rock. How-
as a production engineer-in-training in the
ever, pressure response changes can only be observed in
Western Canada Conventional Gas Busi-
cases where the steam chamber has contacted the external
ness Unit. Prior to this role, Jennifer worked
no-flow boundary;
for Petro-Canada as a reservoir engineering
5. A dimensionless type curve relating pressure and steam
internship student in Conventional Gas and
chamber volume could potentially be used to determine the
Oil Sands. Jennifer graduated with a B.Sc.
near wellbore reservoir characteristics and reservoir bound-
in oil and gas engineering in 2004 from the
aries. The pressure curve was split into three regions in deter-
University of Calgary.
mining a dimensionless type curve: early time, mid time, and
late time. The mid time region was analyzed and an equation
was fit to the data. The constant used in the equation had to be
changed for the seven-year model. This further supports the
Claes Palmgren works as senior res-
need to develop the pressure response relationships for each
ervoir engineering specialist in the Oil
separate stage of maturity of the steam chamber; and,
Sands Research and Technology Group
6. Coalescence can be detected through monitoring the pressure
at Petro-Canada where his focus is the
response of adjacent well pairs.
DOVAP VapEx Pilot. He has authored
and co-authored some 40 papers mainly
in the area of thermal recovery technolo-
Acknowledgements gies over the last 20 years during a career
The authors wish to thank Petro-Canada for permission to pub- spanning academic research and education
lish this paper. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contri- at the Delft University of Technology in the
butions of the MacKay River Asset team. Special thanks to Mr. Netherlands, applied research at the French
Bruce Slevinsky for the many insightful discussions and helpful Petroleum Institute, and heavy oil, deep sour gas, and bitumen in-
comments throughout this study. dustry operations in Western Canada.

NOMENCLATURE
Swi = Initial water saturation
Sgi = Initial gas saturation
µo = Bitumen viscosity
ϕ = Porosity
Kv = Vertical permeability
Kh = Horizontal permeability
Ti = Initial formation temperature
Pi = Initial pressure at producer
CWE = Cold water equivalent
FBHP = Flowing bottom hole pressure

REFERENCES
1. BUTLER, R.M., Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen; GravDrain
Inc., 2000.
2. JOSHI, S.D., Horizontal Well Technology; Penwell Publishing Com-
pany, 1991.

Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript, Pressure Tran-

sient Analysis in SAGD (2003-120), first presented at the 4th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference (the 54th Annual Technical Meeting
of the Petroleum Society), June 10 – 12, 2003, in Calgary, Alberta. Ab-
stract submitted for review December 2, 2002; editorial comments sent
to the author(s) September 7, 2004; revised manuscript received June 3,
2005; paper approved for pre-press June 30, 2005; final approval August
17, 2005.

22 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology