SPE-170109-MS

A Case Study in the Application of Bitumen Geochemistry for Reservoir

Characterization in SAGD Development
J.N. Sereda and B.R. James, Suncor Energy Inc.

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada held in Alberta, Canada, 10 –12 June 2014.

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
Predicting the presence of sealing or baffling shale layers in a reservoir is important as they are detrimental
to the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) recovery process widely used in the Athabasca oil sands.
Baffles and barriers divert or halt steam chamber growth and thus slow oil production, possibly reducing
bitumen recovery. However, predicting whether a shale layer is baffle or barrier is difficult. They are hard
to correlate between appraisal wells as they are highly eroded in the fluvial depositional environment of
the McMurray formation.
Several authors have observed that a barrier or baffle in a reservoir can be detected by discontinuities
in the vertical grading of bitumen viscosity or composition that is caused by intense biodegradation. This
paper presents a case study that tests bitumen geochemistry as a tool for predicting the presence of baffling
or sealing shale at two different Athabasca oil sands fields.
Geochemical analysis of cuttings and core from multiple wells at two fields (Field 1 and 2) were
analyzed to measure spatial variations in geochemical compositional at each field and to determine what
parameters were the most robust in predicting barriers and baffles. Geochemical predictions of barriers or
baffles were compared to barriers and baffles to SAGD steam chamber growth using field production and
other geological data.
Results indicate that geochemistry is valuable for aiding in the characterization of barriers and baffles.
For the wells tested in this study, geochemically predicted baffles and barriers were also baffles and
barriers for SAGD steam chamber growth. Geochemistry is also successful in detecting baffles at thin
shale layers that are difficult to see on gamma logs and in wells with significant lost core where shale
layers cannot be visually examined.
In this study, Field 1 bitumen was more degraded than Field 2, and showed significant lateral
heterogeneity in bitumen composition trends. Field 2 on the other hand had very little lateral variability
in geochemical trends. Alkylnaphthalenes, alkylphenanthrenes, and steranes were found to be effective
indicators of baffles and barriers at both fields, despite the greater heterogeneity at Field 1. Geochemical
analysis from drill cuttings and from core stored at ambient conditions for 10 years provided good quality
data for predicting baffles and barriers. Geochemistry provides a tool to help improve the interpretation
of lateral shale continuity, and has future implications for SAGD design, such as determining pay
thickness, optimal well location, and as a baseline in production allocation studies.
2 SPE-170109-MS

Figure 1—Grading in viscosity and in alkylnaphthalene concentration (geochemical indicator) vs. depth in an appraisal well penetrating the
McMurray formation in the Athabasca oil sands.

Introduction
In the SAGD thermal recovery process widely used in the Athabasca oil sands in Western Canada, a
horizontal steam injection well is typically 5 m above a parallel horizontal producing well. Both wells are
up to 1, 000 m long in the horizontal section. Injected steam reduces the viscosity of the bitumen causing
it to flow by gravity to the producer. A steam chamber grows upwards and outwards from the well pair
as bitumen is produced. Reservoir characterization is an important evaluation step for SAGD. It
encompasses initial identification of the resource quality of a development area, as well as ongoing
evaluations for SAGD performance optimization and reliability.
The success of a SAGD production strategy is strongly reliant on large, vertically connected pay
thickness (Butler, 1997). Shale bodies and inclined heterolithic strata (IHS) can have a large impact on
SAGD performance, either slowing down or preventing steam chamber growth. Accurately predicting the
presence of sealing or baffling shale is critical for optimal well placement, forecasting production, and
estimating reserves. A baffle will slow vertical steam chamber growth whereas a seal or barrier will
prevent a steam chamber from rising. Even thin shale layers can be possible barriers to steam chamber
growth (McKinley et al., 2013). However, they are generally too thin for seismic detection and too
difficult to correlate between delineation wells, because of the erosive nature of the tidally influenced
meandering stream deposits of the reservoir sands in the Athabasca area (Fustic et al. 2011).
For biodegraded oil accumulations such as the heavy oil and bitumen (API gravity of 6-12) in the
Athabasca oil sands, field development can be optimized by using geochemical indicators (McCaffrey et
al. 1996, Larter et. al. 2008). Biodegradation occurring principally at the oil-water-contact has created
grading in viscosity, density, and composition with the lightest, least viscous bitumen at the top of the
reservoir and the most viscous heavy bitumen at the base (Shuquing et al. 2007, Head et al., 2003, Huang
et al., 2003, Huang et. al. 2008, Larter et al., 2008, and Zhou et. al. 2008) (Fig. 1).
Several authors have discussed the use of geochemistry to detect and predict if shale or IHS layers are
barriers or baffles to fluid flow causing reservoir compartmentalization (Adams, 2008, Fustic et al. 2011,
Bennett et al., 2013, and Bennett et al., 2012). Shale or IHS that act as vertical barriers or baffles will
interfere with vertical diffusion related to biodegradation and as a result will cause discontinuities in the
vertical compositional grading profile (Fustic et al., 2011 and Adams 2008). Adams (2008) studied this
effect using 1-D advection-diffusion models. Adams (2008) concluded that a vertically connected
reservoir had monotonically decreasing trends vs. depth of certain components (Fig. 2a), while lower
permeability baffles caused a discontinuity in the compositional profile (Fig. 2b). Barriers that separate
two compartments will have distinctly offset gradients and will result in step changes in the overall
gradient (Fig. 2c). A geochemical baffle is one that slows the diffusion process while a geochemical
SPE-170109-MS 3

Figure 2—Impact of (a) vertically connected reservoir, (b) baffles, and (c) barriers on compositional grading, modified from Adams (2008).

barrier stops the diffusion process; biodegradation will proceed independently above and below the
barrier.
Fustic et al. (2011) extended this work by examining compositional grading at two wells in a SAGD
field in the Athabasca that had extensive layers of IHS. One well had a continuous compositional gradient
across the IHS indicating that it was not a barrier. The other well, however, had a large change in
compositional gradient across the IHS indicating that it was in fact a barrier and could prevent a steam
chamber from rising. Several authors including Fustic et al. (2012) and Bennett et al. (2013) have also
discussed using compositional grading for tracking steam chamber height and allocating production from
horizontal producer wells.
This case study expands on the ideas developed by McCaffrey et al. (1996), Adams (2008), Larter et
al. (2008) and Fustic et al. (2011). In this study geochemical data from multiple wells at two SAGD
properties are analysed collectively to better define the spatial variation in bitumen composition owing to
biodegradation, and to predict the presence of baffles and barriers. The study then tests whether a
geochemical barrier or baffle will act as a SAGD barrier or baffle. Geochemical trends and steam chamber
growth are compared using temperatures measured in observation wells.
The applicability of using geochemistry for tracking steam chamber height and production allocation
along horizontal producers is discussed, as well as the ability to use geochemical data taken from core
stored at ambient conditions. The use of old core is particularly valuable for using geochemistry as a
reservoir characterization tool as sampling every core drilled is cost prohibitive. By using old core,
particular areas of interest can be focused on through a staged analysis.

Description of Study Areas and Parameter Selection

Field 1 and Field 2 are two SAGD projects analysed in this case study to test the application of
geochemistry for reservoir characterization. Both projects produce bitumen from the McMurray forma-
tion, an estuarine channel complex with approximately 84% bitumen saturation, porosity greater than
30%, and permeability of 1-10 Darcies.
Field 1 is located northeast of Fort McMurray, Alberta (Fig. 3). The reservoir is at a depth of 270-350
m subsurface and an average of 37 m thick. Field 2 is located to the northwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta
(Fig. 3) where the McMurray reservoir is at a shallower depth of 98-145 m subsurface. These fields have
been operating for close to or beyond 10 years, providing a wealth of data that is very useful in calibrating
results of geochemistry sampling.
The level of biodegradation severity increases from the southwest towards the northeast of the
Athabasca oil sands (Shuquing et al., 2007). As a result, it was expected that Field 1 bitumen would be
4 SPE-170109-MS

more degraded than Field 2 bitumen. Peters and

Moldowan (1993) developed a scale from 1-10
describing removal of hydrocarbon components at
different severities of biodegradation. This scale is
useful in categorizing geochemistry sample results
and has been modified by several authors to cater it
towards heavy oil analyses (Fig. 4).
Low levels on the PM scale indicate minor
removal of light ends by biodegradation increasing
towards severely degraded heavy and viscous level
10 oils. Simple n-alkanes are removed very early in
biodegradation while complex heavy aromatics are
removed in later stages of biodegradation. De-
graded bitumen in the Athabasca area is expected
to have a PM level of 5 to 8, the Field 1 area being
classified as 6 to 8 and Field 2 as 5 to 7 (Gushor
Inc., 2013).
Due to the severely biodegraded nature of the oil
sands, it is expected that n-alkanes and other light
hydrocarbons are non-existent, having been com-
pletely altered or removed. Heavy aromatics and
hydrocarbons that are very resistant to biodegrada-
tion would not be altered and thus not display
Figure 3—Map of Alberta including SAGD Field 1 and Field 2 locations.
compositional grading with depth. Concentrations
of alkylnaphthalenes, alkylphenanthrenes, steranes,
and the ratio of C29 to C30 hopane were analysed
for compositional grading caused by their gradual removal from the bitumen.
For oils with identical source, the concentration of the alkylnaphthalene, alkylphenanthrene, and
sterane compound classes would be expected to decrease with increasing degree of biodegradation. For
oils with identical source, C29 and C30 hopane are present in roughly equal amounts when there is little
or no biodegradation. The C29/C30 hopane parameter would be expected to increase with increasing
degree of biodegradation, because the denominator is more easily degraded than the compound in the
numerator. Alkylnaphthalenes are most susceptible to removal by biodegradation, followed by alkyl-
phenanthrenes, steranes, and finally hopanes, as displayed in Figure 4.
Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) samples from drill core and cuttings, as well as core
stored at ambient conditions for over 10 years, were taken at multiple wells across each field (Fig. 5). A
detailed description of the GCMS method is explained by Larter et al. (2008). Samples were taken at
different depth intervals within the McMurray channel complex, with approximately 5-10 sample points
per well. GCMS testing returns a detailed composition breakdown of the oil sample, with hundreds of
individual compounds. For simplicity the sum of all compounds in a hydrocarbon class was analysed. This
ensured that overall trends were captured.

Results
Comparing Trends at Field 1 and Field 2
As expected from regional trends, analysis of the results indicates that biodegradation severity varies
between Field 1 and Field 2. Figures 6 and 7 show the response of the sums of the selected compound
class concentrations vs. depth for all wells with GCMS data in each field.
SPE-170109-MS 5

Figure 4 —A biodegradation scale modified after Peters and Moldowan (1993), Wenger et al. (2002) and Larter et al. (2012) shows the extent of
removal of certain hydrocarbon compounds at different stages of degradation.

In both areas, total alkylnaphthalenes, alkylphenanthrenes, and steranes display compositional grading
from a maximum at the top of the reservoir to a minimum at the base where most of the biodegradation
would have taken place. This indicates that they are viable potential parameters for predicting baffles and
barriers. A number of wells at Field 2 exhibit no sterane grading with depth in the upper part of the
reservoir (Fig. 7c). As a result, steranes will not provide a useful signal for baffles and barriers there, as
opposed to Field 1.
The minimal response in C29/C30 hopane ratio at Field 2 (Fig. 7d) suggests this area has not reached
the higher level of biodegradation where these compounds begin to be affected. The ratio is approximately
1:1 with a few exceptions near the base of the reservoir. Field 1 does show a response in hopane
concentrations as the C29/C30 hopane ratio increases with depth (Fig. 6d). Field 1 exhibits lower overall
concentrations of alkylnaphthalenes and complete removal of alkylnaphthalenes near the base of the
reservoir (Fig. 6a), indicating that Field 1 bitumen is evidently more degraded than Field 2 bitumen. Field
1 showed more heterogeneity in the geochemical gradients both within and between wells (Fig. 6). Field
2 compositional gradients were smoother and comparable in wells across the project area (Fig. 7).
The variation in composition of the bitumen will be reflected in fluid property data such as viscosity,
as displayed previously in Figure 1. The general trends exhibited at Field 1 and Field 2 are supported by
the viscosity profiles in the area (Fig. 8). At Field 2 the viscosities vs. height above the base of the
reservoir across 4 km of project area are similar, with smooth trends (Fig. 8b). When comparing viscosity
at Field 1, from wells ~ 400 m apart, much more heterogeneity is seen both laterally between wells and
vertically within individual wells (Fig. 8a). Higher viscosities at Field 1 reflect the higher severity of
biodegradation.
It was also found that there was no apparent difference between compositional trends produced by
geochemical analysis from core or from drill cuttings. Drill cuttings provide reliable trends of composition
vs. depth. However, there will be some additional uncertainty in the exact depth location where the
cuttings were obtained from.
Comparing Analysis from Aged Cores
Geochemical analysis taken from fresh cores and from cores stored for 10 years at ambient conditions
were compared. The similarity in trends vs. depth for total alkylnaphthalenes and steranes indicates that
10 years of storage did not significantly diminish the value of the core in providing samples for GCMS
analysis (Fig. 9). Volatile components of the bitumen that may have been lost over time during storage
do not affect, or have a negligible effect on the specific concentration totals used in this case study.
6 SPE-170109-MS

Figure 5—GCMS sampled well locations at (a) Field 1 and (b) Field 2.

Predicting Vertical Compartmentalization

The vertical profiles of alkylnaphthalenes vs. depth for three different types of wells for both Field 1 and
Field 2 are examined as outlined by Bennett et al. (2013), Fustic et al. (2011) and Adams (2008). In the
Field 2 case shown in Figure 10, clean, vertically-connected sand had a continuous and smooth
SPE-170109-MS 7

Figure 6 —Geochemistry response from wells at Field 1. Each symbol type represents a different well.

Figure 7—Geochemistry response from wells at Field 2. Each symbol type represents a different well.

alkylnaphthalene profile vs. depth (Fig. 10a). A geochemical baffle and a barrier are shown in Figure 10b
and 10c at depths of 120 m and 105 m, respectively. Despite the similarity in thickness and in the gamma
log response, their impact on the compositional grading differs and appears to be effective in differen-
tiating between barriers and baffles. The baffle (Fig. 10b) causes a slight discontinuity in the alkylnaph-
8 SPE-170109-MS

Figure 8 —Bitumen viscosity profiles with depth for (a) four wells in close proximity (~400 m apart) at Field 1 and (b) several wells across Field 2
(up to 4 km apart).

Figure 9 —Alkylnaphthalenes and steranes vs. height above base pay for wells with geochemical analysis on fresh core and core stored at ambient
conditions for 10 years; the wells are approximately 600 m apart.

thalene profile, while the barrier (Fig. 10c) produces a clearer offset. In the barrier case (Fig. 10c) there
are several other indications of shale packages of up to a meter thick on the gamma response that do not
provide the same strong response as the barrier at 105 m depth.
In the case of the geochemically indicated barrier shown in Figure 10c, it was pre-determined using
other geological evidence that there was a shale layer between 105 m and 109 m depth which was laterally
extensive. SAGD well pairs were placed above this layer. The geochemical analysis for this well
corresponds with the geological evidence and therefore supports the approach laid out by Fustic et al.
(2011) and Adams (2008). This correlation provides incentive to investigate geochemistry in well
planning initiatives as a supplementary dataset.
Three similar wells for Field 1 are shown in Figure 11. In the connected sand case (Fig. 11a), the
alkylnaphthalenes have been completely removed indicating the greater degree of biodegradation that
Field 1 has undergone compared to Field 2. In the baffle case (Fig. 11b) what appears on the gamma log
to be a thick shale between 310 m and 315 m shows only a small deviation in the alkylnaphthalene trend.
This suggests that fluid could move through or around this section. The high gamma count in this well
SPE-170109-MS 9

Figure 10 —Alkylnaphthalenes vs. depth for three different Field 2 wells, accompanied by their respective gamma log responses.

Figure 11—Alkylnaphthalenes vs. depth for three different Field 1 wells, accompanied by their respective gamma log responses.

at 320 m is breccia (shale clasts or fragments) which is not a barrier, though it is indistinguishable from
shale or IHS on logs.
The alkylnaphthalene profile in Figure 11c shows a clear barrier between 265 m and 270 m. Note that
there are numerous other shale layers of similar thickness on the gamma response that are not being
flagged as clear barriers. However, the positive values of the alkylnaphthalenes between 270 m 280 meters
indicate multiple baffles there. Again there is nothing on the gamma log to differentiate between a barrier
and a baffle in Figure 11c. The baffles between 270 m and 280 m in Figure 11c appear to be more
significant than the baffle in Figure 11b. The geochemistry is providing a powerful tool for predicting
compartmentalization which could pose a risk to SAGD steam chamber development.
It is concluded at Field 1 that higher concentrations of alkylnaphthalenes at the top of the reservoir are
indicative of barriers and baffles, while vertically connected reservoirs have most of the alkylnaphthalenes
removed.
The value of using multiple geochemical parameters is demonstrated in Figure 12. The alkylnaphtha-
lenes indicate vertically connected reservoir up to 28 m above the base of pay because they are removed.
However, the steranes exhibit offset indicating barriers around 28 m and 22 m. It is hypothesized here that
this contradiction gives information about the lateral continuity of barriers or baffles. Alkylnaphthalenes,
10 SPE-170109-MS

Figure 12—Multiple geochemical profiles in a single well.

Figure 13—4D seismic of a SAGD well pair with three observation wells, and the thickness of the steam chamber in milliseconds.

having less resistance to biodegradation, need a fairly substantial barrier to be “protected” from biodeg-
radation whereas for more resistant sterane a smaller barrier could slow its removal by biodegradation.
Benchmarking Geochemical Predictions
The predictive capability of geochemistry is tested by comparing geochemical indications of baffles vs.
barriers against SAGD performance data. Three vertical temperature observation wells are investigated
that are located along a horizontal SAGD well pair with over 10 years of production history. The three
observation wells are located near the heel, middle and toe of the horizontal. Time lapse (4D) seismic (Fig.
13) shot in 2004 and 2011 shows that the steam chamber is growing more rapidly at the heel than at the
toe. GCMS analysis was done in two of the observation wells, OB B and OB C. The bitumen samples
analyzed here were from 10 year old core stored at ambient conditions.
Observation well OB A located at the heel of the steam chamber is in clean sand (Fig. 14). No GCMS
testing was done for this well because no core was available, however it is used as a benchmark to
compare how fast a steam chamber grows in a vertically connected reservoir vs. reservoir with baffles
and/or barriers. The gamma log response for OB A in Figure 14 shows high quality reservoir with no
visible shale. It is expected that the geochemical profile would be smooth and indicative of vertical
connectivity. The SAGD well pair started steam circulation in November 2002 for three months. The
steam chamber quickly reached the top of the reservoir at this well approximately 10 months after the start
of SAGD.
SPE-170109-MS 11

Figure 14 —Temperature at observation well OB A through time.

Figure 15—Geochemistry and temperature at observation well OB B through time. Red dashed lines on the alkylnaphthalene profile show
observations of shale from core and indicates presence of breccia or lost core.

In contrast to OB A, OB B and OB C have baffles and/or barriers which inhibit steam chamber growth.
The core for OB B has a 3 m thick breccia section just at the injector (Fig. 15). The temperature profile
indicates that the steam chamber grew past this breccia section in a few months. However, the slight bend
in the shape of the temperature profile for June 2003 indicates that it was slightly retarding steam chamber
growth.
12 SPE-170109-MS

Figure 16 —Geochemistry and temperature at observation well OB C through time. Red dashed lines on the alkylnaphthalene profile show
observations of shale from core and indicates presence of breccia or lost core.

There is a thin 5 cm shale layer between 114 m and 115 m depth. This baffle is not apparent on the
scale of the gamma log, but the baffle is indicated on the alkylnaphthalene trend by a slight deviation
similar to the baffle case in Figure 2b. The temperature shows the steam chamber halted here from 2003
to 2004 before vertically advancing. The alkylnaphthalene profile has an offset from 110 to 112 m where
another thin shale layer 20 cm thick exists. The steam chamber halted near this depth from 2006 until
2007, after which no temperature data exists. Based on the 4D seismic (Fig. 13) the steam chamber grew
past this 20 cm shale to reach the top of the reservoir by 2011.
Geochemistry was successful in predicting baffles in OB B. Both of the baffles for the steam chamber
were the same as the predicted geochemical baffles. The geochemistry also predicted baffles that could
not be readily detected by the gamma log.
OB C near the toe of the SAGD well pair has significant sections of lost core, indicated at depths of
120 m to 125 m and at 116 m (Fig. 16). The core loss indicates the potential presence of shale or IHS that
could act as a baffle or barrier. At the locations of lost core, the geochemistry has offsets in the
composition gradient similar to those in the barrier case of Figure 2c, though not as extreme (Fig. 16).
Temperature data indicates that the steam chamber growth was hindered for three years and then halted
from 2006 to 2009 at these offsets, again confirming geochemical barriers correlate to steam chamber
growth. As a result the toe section of this SAGD horizontal well pair was underdeveloped when compared
to the heel section, which was noted previously in the 4D seismic. There is a slight offset in the
alkylnaphthalene profile at 113 m, where a 50 cm shale package exists. The steam chamber grew past this
baffle between 2009 and December 2011, though no temperature data was available for the period
between these dates.
The results from the temperature observation wells support the ability of geochemistry to predict
baffles. Offsets in alkylnaphthalene signatures were indicated in places where the gamma log did not
clearly indicate that a barrier existed. This benchmarking study emphasizes that core stored at ambient
conditions for a long period of time provides valuable geochemical information for predicting barriers and
baffles. Geochemistry can be a valuable resource when there is lost core or an absence of core and only
SPE-170109-MS 13

Figure 17—Plot of average alkylnaphthalene concentrations per well at Field 1, with the blue dashed outlines indicating possible areas of poor vertical
connectivity.

drill cuttings are available. Comparing the geochemistry above and below instances of lost core such as
in Figure 16 indicates whether a baffle or barrier exists there.
Discussion
The approach outlined by Adams (2008) and Fustic et al. (2011) for predicting vertically connected
reservoir, baffles, and barriers is effective in this case study. At Field 2, the total offset in alkylnaphtha-
lenes predicted a vertical barrier which was pre-determined using other geological information (Fig. 10c).
Baffles predicted at observation wells using alkylnaphthalenes correlated to actual baffles that slowed
vertical steam chamber growth. The larger offset in the alkylnaphthalenes at OB C slowed down the steam
chamber for years compared to the small offsets at OB B that slowed steam chamber growth for a few
months.
Alkylnaphthalenes proved to be suitable for displaying compositional grading and predicting baffles
and barriers at both Field 1 and Field 2, despite different levels of biodegradation. At Field 1, the fact that
alkylnaphthalenes could be completely removed in areas of good vertical connection can be used as an
advantage. High concentrations of alkylnaphthalenes, especially towards the top of the reservoir, indicate
barriers because, if there was no barrier, biodegradation would have removed all or most of the
alkylnaphthalenes. Figure 17 shows a pie map of the average alkylnaphthalenes at different Field 1 wells.
The areas within a dashed outline show high alkylnaphthalene concentrations, possibly indicating areas
with laterally continuous barriers. Wells with low concentrations would have good vertical connectivity.
There is valuable information in refining the significance of a barrier or baffle by using the trends in
different parameters that biodegrade at different rates. Barriers indicated by the more susceptible
components to biodegradation are likely more significant that those indicated by components that are less
susceptible to biodegradation.
14 SPE-170109-MS

Figure 18 —Total alkylnaphthalene concentration and C29/C30 hopane ratio vs. depth for a Field 1 well.

Given the erosive nature of the depositional environment of the main McMurray reservoir section, it
is extremely difficult to predict the continuity of shale based on geology alone. Current geophysical
analysis does not have the capability to predict all shale packages within the reservoir section. Compo-
sitional grading can aid in determining if shale or IHS is a baffle or barrier. The method is also useful for
predicting when thick shale is not a barrier. This may provide additional evidence for reserves booking
in areas of thick shale or IHS packages.
An important consideration in the application of this tool is if reservoir compartmentalization equates
to a barrier to steam that is at high temperature and high pressure. There has been discussion that thin shale
and IHS can be penetrated by thermal shearing that occurs during steam chamber growth (Dusseault,
2011). McKinley et al., (2013) showed field evidence of a post SAGD steam core that showed drainage
up to a 1 cm thick shale, while oil saturation above the shale remained unchanged. This indicates that, at
least in that case, the potential for steam to induce fractures in shale layers was not realized. Therefore,
thin, but possibly laterally continuous shale that appears as a barrier based on compositional gradients may
very well also be a barrier to vertical advancement of a steam chamber. In the observation wells
investigated in this case study, shale less than 1 m thick prevented the steam chamber from rising for
months to years.
Several authors including Bennett et al. (2012) have proposed using geochemical analysis of produced
fluids along with knowledge of the vertical variation in the geochemical profile as a tool for allocating
production and monitoring steam chamber height. Developing an understanding of geochemistry behavior
and variability across a project is important prior to initiating production allocation studies. The increased
spatial heterogeneity of the viscosity and compositions at Field 1 compared to the smooth trends at Field
2 indicate that Field 1 has undergone biodegradation that has been far more variable than Field 2.
Increased heterogeneity at Field 1 will make production allocation using geochemistry difficult. Baseline
composition trends can be scattered (Fig. 18), hampering the ability to relate produced oil sample to one
location or depth. Conversely, these applications should be effective at Field 2 as baseline geochemical
trends are consistent between multiple vertical wells.
It is not fully understood why the degree of biodegradation and composition at Field 1 is more
heterogeneous than Field 2. At Field 1, the biodegradation is much more complex. In one well for example
(Fig. 18) the level of biodegradation shown by the C29/C30 hopane ratio is high, and scattered vs. depth.
The total alkylnaphthalenes in Figure 18 do not have the expected compositional grading versus depth.
Possible reasons for the greater level of heterogeneity at Field 1 could be a more complicated filling
SPE-170109-MS 15

history where there were a number of different paleo-oil-water contacts through geological time or
infiltration of recharge water from above.

Conclusions
● Results indicate that geochemistry is a valuable tool for aiding in the characteriza-
tion of barriers and baffles to steam chamber growth in SAGD reservoirs, support-
ing the ideas of Adams (2008) and Fustic et al., (2011). For the limited number of
wells tested in this study, geochemically predicted baffles and barriers were also
baffles and barriers for steam chambers. It is also successfully detecting baffles at
thin shale layers that are difficult to see on gamma logs alone.
● While Field 1 was much more geochemically heterogeneous than Field 2, the
approach was equally useful in both areas.
● Alkylnaphthalenes, alkylphenanthrenes and steranes were useful parameters at both
fields for predicting baffles and barriers. Using sums of components in these classes
vs. individually was robust and effective.
● Utilizing more than one parameter to predict baffles and barriers will help calibrate
the significance of the compartmentalization, particularly if the parameters have
different levels of susceptibility to biodegradation.
● The thickness of shale in an oil sands reservoir may not be good criterion for
determining whether a barrier exists, which then impacts well placement and
reserve booking. “Thick” shale layers may merely act as baffles. “Thin” but laterally
continuous shale layers originally thought to be insignificant could actually impede
steam chamber advancement.
● The heterogeneity in bitumen composition at Field 1 makes it difficult to use GCMS
analysis to track steam chamber height. However, the methodology would likely be
much more robust at Field 2 because of the lateral consistency in the compositional
profiles. A geochemical baseline at Field 2 can be established with relatively few
wells compared to Field 1.
● GCMS analysis of core stored at ambient conditions for 10 years provided data
comparable to that from a nearby fresh core and was able to accurately predict
baffles to a rising steam chamber. This is valuable because it enables a staged
analysis to be carried out.
● In the absence of core or core photos, GCMS analyses of drill cuttings were found
to be valuable and can aid in distinguishing shale and IHS from breccia (indistin-
guishable on logs). However, there will be some degree of uncertainty in the exact
depth locations of the cuttings.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Drs. Barry Bennett, Mark McCaffrey, and Martin Fowler for valuable
discussions, Lee Hansen at Suncor Energy for contributing excellent maps and figures, and Suncor Energy
Inc. for permission to publish this work. The GCMS data was obtained at Gushor Inc. and Weatherford
Laboratories.
16 SPE-170109-MS

References
Adams, J.J. 2008. The Impact of Geological and Microbiological Processes on Oil Composition and
Fluid Property Variations in Heavy Oil and Bitumen Reservoirs. PhD Thesis. University of Calgary
Bennett, B., Marcano, N., Fustic, M. and Larter, S.R. 2013. Exploiting the natural variations in oil
physical and chemical properties in biodegraded petroleum reservoirs. HOLA13-134
Bennett, B., Marcano, N., and Larter, S.R., 2012. Exploiting the natural variation in fluid properties
in oil sands reservoirs: Geochemical fingerprinting supporting heavy oil thermal recovery operations.
WHOC12-252
Butler, R.M. 1997. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen. GravDrain Inc., Calgary, Alberta
Dusseault, M.B. 2011. Personal Communication, Professor of Geological Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
Fustic, M., Bennett, B., Adams, J., Huang, H., MacFarlane, B., Leckie, D.A., Larter, S.R., 2011.
Bitumen and heavy oil geochemistry: a tool for distinguishing barriers from baffles in oil sands reservoirs.
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 59(4): 295–316
Fustic, M., Bennett, B., Hubbard, S.M., Huang, H., Oldenburg, T., Larter, S., 2012. Impact of reservoir
heterogeneity and geohistory on the variability of bitumen properties in the Athabasca oil sands, Canada,
In: Heavy-oil and oil-sand petroleum systems in Alberta and beyond: AAPG Studies in Geology, (Ed.
F. J.Hein, D.Leckie, S.Larter, and J.Suter, eds.), 64: 1–42
Gushor Inc., 2013. Report on Fluid Property and Geochemical Characterization of Standard Core from
Suncor Energy
Head I M, Jones D M, Larter S R. 2003. Biological activity in the deep subsurface and the origin of
heavy oil. Nature. 426: 344 –352
Huang, H., Bennett, B., Oldenburg, T., Adams, J., Larter, S.R., 2008. Geological Controls on the
Origin of Heavy Oil and Oil Sands and Their Impacts on In Situ Recovery. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 47(4)
Huang, H. P., Bowler, B. F. J., Zhang, Z. W., Oldenburg, T. B. P. & Larter S. R. 2003. Influence of
biodegradation on carbazole and benzocarbazole distributions in oil columns from the Liaohe basin, NE
China. Org. Geochem. 34: 951–969
Larter, S., Adams, J., Gates, I.D., Bennett, B. and Huang, H. 2008. The origin, prediction and impact
of oil viscosity heterogeneity on the production characteristics of tar sand and heavy oil reservoirs.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 47: 52–61.
Larter, S., Huang, H., Adams, J., Bennett, B. and Snowdon, L.R. 2012. A practical biodegradation
scale for use in reservoir geochemical studies of biodegraded oils. Organic Geochemistry, 45(4), 66 –76.
McCaffrey, M.A., Legarre, H.A., and Johnson, S.J. 1996. Using Biomarkers to Improve Heavy Oil
Reservoir Management: An Example From the Cymric Field, Kern County, California. AAPG Bulletin
80(6): 898 –913
McKinley, J., Quiroga, S., Shackleton, T., and Newsome, J. 2013. Steam Chamber Development,
Residual Oil Saturation, and Drainage Patterns Associated with Mudstone Beds at Christina Lake. CSEG
CSPG CWLS Conference
Peters, K.E. and Moldowan, J.M. 1993. The Biomarker Guide. Prentice Hall, New York
Wenger, L.M., Davis, C.L., and Isaksen, G.H. 2002. Multiple Controls on Petroleum Biodegradation
and Impact in Oil Quality. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 5: 375–383
Zhou, S., Huang, H., and Liu, Y. 2008. Biodegradation and origin of oil sands in the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin. Petroleum Science 5: 87–94