SPE 150704

Geomechanical Screening Criteria for Steam Injection Processes in Heavy

Oil and Bitumen Reservoirs
Patrick M. Collins, Petroleum Geomechanics Inc., Calgary

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 12–14 December 2011.

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
Thermal recovery processes such as CSS (cyclic steam stimulation) and SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage) are
affected and limited by reservoir geomechanics. This paper provides new thermal recovery screening criteria based on
geomechanics. The purpose is to provide a means of screening prospective reservoirs to assess the practicality of using
various steam injection recovery processes, and to assess their relative efficiencies in these reservoirs.
The choice of a thermal recovery process is based on the project economics, which are largely determined by the expected
behaviour of the recovery process in the reservoir. Typically, geological hydraulic characteristics, such as the vertical
permeability and the presence or absence of impediments to vertical flow, will be the deciding factors in the choice of the
recovery process.
However, conventional reservoir characteristics are insufficient to determine the probable success of a recovery process.
Reservoir geomechanics can have a significant and even dominant effect on the efficacy of recovery processes.
As a result, the same recovery process in reservoirs with identical conventional reservoir properties can have markedly
different levels of success due to their differing geomechanical properties. Reservoir simulations and reserves evaluations
should consider these differences, given the expected variance in performance in terms of production rates and ultimate
recoveries.
Geomechanical screening provides an additional filter by which recovery processes can be assessed, and perhaps
eliminated, based on their expected performance in any given reservoir. Furthermore, the valuation of the recoverable
reserves of a reservoir is highly dependent on the expected efficiency of a recovery process, and if the geomechanical
characteristics limit the efficiency of recovery processes, that should be known when assessing the value of the heavy oil or
bitumen resource. This is essential for recovery process selection and operation.
Introduction
The rapid development of heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs in western Canada has resulted in a wide variety of reservoir
qualities, recovery processes, and operating conditions. Screening criteria for resource determination and the selection of
recovery processes are more complex for heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs, not only because of the variability in fluid
properties within each reservoir, but because the properties of the reservoir rock and fluids can be altered by the recovery
processes themselves. However, many of these alterations are highly dependent upon geomechanical effects, which can
result in enhanced or reduced reservoir performance, or even the exclusion of a particular recovery process.

Screening Criteria for Heavy Oil Reservoirs

Conventional screening of a heavy oil or bitumen asset certainly requires the quantity and distribution of the hydrocarbon
resource within the reservoir. Appropriate cut-offs are applied to ensure adequate permeability, porosity, and oil saturation
for any given recovery process.
In heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs, there are other considerations particular to them and to steam injection processes.
These must be quantified and evaluated in order to assess the suitability and effectiveness of any given recovery process.
Many of these are geomechanically controlled, a consideration that has not been made historically but is becoming more
common.
Permeability. Permeability cut-offs ensure a minimum level of permeability which allows fluids to flow through the
formation. In addition, variability in permeability can result in barriers or baffles, which preclude or impede vertical flow.
These can affect the choice of recovery process.
2 SPE 150704

Barriers and baffles.. As an example, SAGD generally works well in a reservoir without barriers to vertical flow. Since
the dominant drive mechanism is gravity flow, any impediment to vertical flow adversely affects the process. Baffles
(barriers with a limited areal extent) impede the process but are generally not a concern unless their width exceeds 10% of the
length of the wellpair: heating from below will conduct through thin (1-2m) baffles and thermally mobilize the oil above.
Once a flowpath is established at the edges of the baffle, the oil drains laterally, allowing steam rise above the baffle.
Dilation increases permeability. Geomechanically, permeability may be altered to improve steam injection processes.
SAGD and sub-fracture CSS can be operated at a pressure sufficiently high to induce shearing and dilation within the
reservoir, both within and ahead of the steam front. By operating at an elevated steam injection pressure, the minimum
effective stress can be sufficiently reduced to cause shear failure of the formation, causing a permanent disruption of the
formation’s structure. This increases the porosity which results in an increase in absolute permeability by an order of
magnitude.
Relative permeability increase. Furthermore, pore space created by dilation becomes filled with the most mobile fluid,
usually water, which increases the water saturation, Sw. This increases the effective permeability to water by 3 to 5 orders of
magnitude, thereby increasing the transmissibility of the formation and propagating pressures ahead of the steam front. This
promotes further shearing and dilation which effectively preconditions the reservoir to the encroaching steam injection.
Breaching barriers. Thin barriers may be breached geomechanically if shear failure can be induced by the operating
pressures and in situ stresses.
Geomechanical operating pressure. Geomechanical assessment of the rock strength and in situ stresses are needed in
order to determine the operating pressure at which dilation and shearing occur. Below this threshold pressure, some limited
geomechanical effects will be seen. However, for optimal enhancement, operation at or above this geomechanical operating
pressure is required.
Steam injection recovery processes may be forced to operate at lower pressures. This could be due to the presence of a
thief zone which would rob the reservoir of steam and fluids, or due to a lower fracture gradient. In such cases,
geomechanical enhancement may be severely limited. This would reduce the expected porosity, permeability, and relative
permeability enhancements and therefore reduce the effectiveness of steam injection recovery processes, both in terms of oil
rates and economically viable recovery factors.
Thief zones. CSS above fracture pressure is inefficient in the presence of a thief zone. In trying to pressurize the
reservoir to fracture the reservoir, valuable steam and reservoir fluids will be lost. Not only is this a waste of heat and
possibly oil, but the loss of water may be irrecoverable. In some jurisdictions, water usage is restricted; the loss of water may
result in limitations on injection rates and volumes. This will lower oil production rates.
SAGD can operate in the presence of a thief zone by balancing the steam chamber pressure with the pressure in the thief
zone. A slight overpressure will ensure that steam reaches the top of the pay zone. However, heavy oil and bitumen
viscosities are highly dependent upon temperature; viscosity being an inverse function of temperature to the fourth power.
SAGD oil rates are roughly inversely proportional to the square of viscosity, so proportional to the square of temperature:
μ = f (1 / T 4 ) [1]
Q& o = f (1 / μ 2 ) [2]
∴ Q& o = f T( ) 2
[3]
As such, any reduction in steam chamber pressure due to a thief zone, particularly at the lower pressure range, will result
in much higher oil viscosities and reduced oil rates. An example of this is shown in Figure 1 in which the SAGD recovery
factor is plotted as a function of gas cap (thief zone) pressure (AOSC, 2010). This is in a reservoir with gas wells producing
the gas caps overlying the bitumen, which requires a drop in pressure in the steam chamber pressure in the bitumen to
balance pressures with the gas cap.
A reduction of pressure from 400 kPaa to 150 kPaa would lower the recovery factor at 15 years from 47.5% to 31.9%,
and ultimate recovery from 53.7% to 37.8%. Note that these recovery factors are considerably lower than the typical SAGD
recovery factor of >67%. This is because the low bitumen rates at these low pressures and temperatures result in long-term
production that eventually becomes uneconomical due to heat losses.
 SPE 150704 3

70%

60%
22.7 % drop
(38% loss)
50%
20.9 % drop
Recovery Factor

40%

18.9 % drop
30% (recovery reduced by 44%)

20% Gas Production

Pressure Rebound

10%
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Gas Cap Pressure (kPaa)

Figure 1 Reduced SAGD Bitumen Recovery Factor due to Pressure Loss in the Overlying Gas Cap
Thief Zone

Fluid Properties. The properties of the reservoir fluids are extremely important for the recovery of heavy oil and
bitumen, perhaps more so than for conventional reservoirs. In contrast to conventional reservoirs, there can be orders of
magnitude variation in the oil viscosities, even within one well profile. More refined reservoir quality assessments and
reservoir simulations of steam injection recovery processes will include these spatial viscosity variations.
GOR The solution gas:oil ratio (GOR) is rarely included in an economic evaluation of a reservoir. However, the types of
gas (e.g. methane, carbon dioxide) and their concentrations can have a strong effect on some recovery processes, particularly
for the cold production of heavy oil where high GORs are generally advantageous.
In steam injection processes, the solution gas can help or hinder the process. For CSS, the solution gas adds a significant
drive mechanism upon drawdown. For SAGD, thermal gas exsolution can drive oil out of tighter zones, which helps
overcome capillary pressure effects. However, for deeper reservoirs with more solution gas, the operation of SAGD at low
pressure (LP-SAGD) can result in gas accumulating in the reservoir (Gittins, et al., 2011). This may hinder the development
of the steam chamber.
Fracturing. CSS above fracture pressure can breach barriers and baffles to vertical flow. In depositional environments
where these impediments predominate, CSS may succeed where SAGD may not.
As an example, the Enhanced SAGD (ESAGD) process was attempted in the Peace River oilsands (Gooble and Good,
1994). It was SAGD having a pressure differential between wellpairs at maturity in order to sweep the oil between wellpairs.
At a depth of 550m, this project tried to emulate the success of the UTF SAGD Pilot Project by operating at an identical
steam pressure of 2700 kPaa. However, the UTF project was at a depth of 160m which allowed for geomechanical
enhancement of the process at that pressure, whereas the same pressure at the greater depth of 550m did not. The resultant
steam:oil ratio was ~10; far higher than the 2.5-3.0 expected. The poor performance was attributed to a lack of pressure-
enhanced vertical permeability. The process was abandoned.
An adjacent CSS process was then operated at 11 MPa with a steam:oil ratio of 3.0. This resulted in hydraulically
fractured steam injection, allowing ample injectivity and permeability enhancement.
Operating SAGD at this higher pressure is far less effective because SAGD mainly uses the latent heat, which is only
46% of the steam enthalpy at 11 MPa. CSS uses the latent heat and most of the sensible heat, or 80% to 90% of the enthalpy
at this pressure.
CSS fracture orientation. The optimal orientation for induced fractures for CSS is horizontal. Horizontal fracturing of
these shallow deposits, either from a vertical well or a horizontal well, creates very large “pancake” fractures that are laterally
extensive and which remain contained within the reservoir interval. These horizontal fractures allow for a very large contact
area for steam. A typical horizontal well receives 60 to 80 m3 of steam (CWE) per metre length of the horizontal well for the
first cycle, followed by 20% increases in subsequent cycles.
In contrast, a vertical fracture would have limited contact area for steam because the fracture would be limited to the
height of the reservoir. Fracture half-lengths would be limited because of the relatively low modulus of oilsands.
Furthermore, vertical fracturing from horizontal wells will almost certainly not result in multiple fractures without some
means of distributing steam along the wellbore during injection. Lastly, since the fracture pressure generally decreases as the
4 SPE 150704

fracture grows upwards, there is the concern that steam injection pressures will exceed the fracture pressure in the caprock.
This would likely result in fracture growth into the caprock and above, with the potential loss of reservoir fluids.

In Situ Stress State

The in situ stress state is central to any examination of geomechanical effects because the stresses in the rock drive the
mechanical behaviour of the reservoir and surrounding formations. This mechanical behaviour alters the flow characteristics
of the reservoir, and the capacity of the caprock to function effectively.

Initial Stress State. The initial stress state must be inferred from an understanding of basic physics, the depositional
history of the area, subsequent geological alterations, and man-made changes. A fair predictor of the stress state in a
quiescent, non-tectonic depositional environment can be obtained by assuming zero lateral strain (viz. Appendix). This stress
state is often assumed but rarely seen in practice. However, it reasonably approximates the stress state in younger
depositional basins, although a small anisotropy in horizontal stresses is the norm.
Compressional tectonics impose a compressional strain on all rock formations. This tectonic strain increases rock
stresses in the orientation of the compressional strain. Less appreciated is the fact that stresses also increase in the transverse
horizontal direction, and that these transverse stresses are the fracture pressures in the various rock formations (Collins,
2002). If the compressional tectonic strain is sufficiently high, the two horizontal stresses can exceed the vertical stress
resulting in a reorientation of the preferential fracture orientation from vertical to horizontal. Stress changes are highest in
stiffer rocks.
Compressional tectonics usually occur as a result of tectonic loading in a strike/slip or thrust stress regime. The surface
evidence of tectonic loading, such as mountain-forming faults and folds, can be hundreds of kilometres away, yet the stress
effects are still evident.
Extensional Stress State. This can occur as a result of several phenomena, e.g.: (i) tectonic unloading, which creates
features such as rift valleys or horst and graben formations; (ii) anticlinal folding; (iii) draping and extension of compacting
sediments; (iv) karsting and salt dissolution in the underburden; (v) compaction of coal deposits; and (vi) due to erosion
reducing lateral support, including channelling and infilled paleochannels. Extension will reduce horizontal stresses, and
usually reduce the shear stresses in the rock.
An example of this is seen in the stress profile of Figure 2. Typically, the horizontal stresses in this area exceed the
vertical stress at shallow depths. However, this site is close to a river valley that downcuts through the overburden and
reservoir formations. Not only does this remove lateral support, it also provides a pressure sink. As a result, reservoir
pressures are extremely low, which lowers the fracture pressure even further.
The effect of this geomechanical unloading is to lower the maximum operating pressure to the point where steam
injection alone may not work. Instead, solvent injection or solvent-assisted steam injection may have to be used to lower the
bitumen viscosity sufficiently to achieve commercial oil rates.
Man-made stress changes. Normally, the effects of mankind are minor in comparison with the existing stresses in the
rock. However, given the scale of the recovery processes in heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs, some activities can drastically
alter the stress state.
Adjacent to mining. One example would be where open-pit mining of oilsands results in the total removal of overburden
and reservoir materials in order to recover the bitumen from the oilsands. This creates a stress-free surface on the mine walls,
thereby stress-relieving the formations adjacent to the mine. This stress relief will extend back into the formation for some
distance. Drainage will also occur, resulting in a drop in pressure in the reservoir. These effects are comparable to those of
natural erosional downcutting through the overburden and reservoir.
Contiguous to CHOPS. Another man-made stress alteration could be competing recovery processes in adjacent
formations. As an example, the CHOPS (cold heavy oil production with sand) process actively co-produces formation sand
with heavy oil. Sand production can reduce formation stresses considerably, including the vertical stress. In some instances,
roof collapse of the caprock above the CHOPS reservoir occurs. If this reservoir is next to another reservoir in which steam
injection is planned, it may reduce the fracture pressure in the caprock for steam injection, thereby resulting in a reduction in
operating pressure.
Increased formation pressures can increase the fracture pressure by building up a back pressure in the formation. This
can occur with any injection, including steam. Over a large area of injection, the vertical stress will not increase, but the
horizontal stresses will increase as a result of injection.
If the minimum in situ stress is a horizontal stress, it may be possible to increase the horizontal stresses with injection
such that the vertical stress becomes the minimum in situ stress. This not only increases the fracture gradient in the reservoir,
it flips the preferred fracture orientation from vertical to horizontal. Caution should be exercised, however, since the stress
state in the caprock may not be similarly changed.
Conversely, a drop in reservoir pressure will reduce the fracture pressure and allowable steam injection pressures.
SPE 150704 5

Fracture Pressure
The fracture pressure is the minimum in situ stress in the rock. This is the pressure at which the rock formation would
part along a fracture, as would occur with steam injection processes where high rates and volumes of steam are injected into a
wellbore having a large contact area with the reservoir formation.
The fracture pressure is not the fracture breakdown pressure, which is the wellbore pressure at which the formation at the
wellbore begins to fail in tension. The wellbore itself creates stress concentrations around the wellbore that must be
overcome before the formation can part in tension. This fracture breakdown pressure can be significantly different than the
fracture pressure: where the stresses oriented perpendicular to the wellbore are similar, the stress concentrations can be large,
resulting in a high fracture breakdown pressure. Where the stresses perpendicular to the wellbore are highly anisotropic, the
fracture breakdown pressure can even be less than the fracture pressure. Of course, once a fracture is created having
permanent hydraulic connectivity to the wellbore, these stress concentrations diminish and are usually not a concern.
As an example of how breakdown pressures can differ from pressure closure pressures, Addis et al. (1998) examine the
difference between leak-off test (LOT) pressures and fracture closure pressures. The LOT pressure is the pressure at which
continued injection results in a departure of pressure increase from linearity with time, indicating incipient formation
breakdown. In most formations, for vertical wells, the LOT pressure will exceed the fracture pressure. In contrast, extended
leak-off tests (ELOT, XLOT) continue injection past the LOT limit to formation breakdown, fracture propagation, and shut-
in. Analysis of post-shut-in pressure decline provides the fracture closure pressure. As such, an XLOT test is essentially a
microfracture (minifrac) test that provides a superior measurement of the fracture closure pressure.
The discussion in this paper is restricted to the fracture pressure, i.e. the minimum in situ stress.

Thermal stresses. The significant increase in temperatures resulting from steam injection causes thermal expansion.
Where this thermal expansion is constrained, thermal stresses will develop. Thermal stresses are proportional to the
coefficient of thermal expansion and the temperature change. Most importantly, the stress changes will be strongly correlated
with the volume of rock being heated.
Poroelastic stresses. As formation pressures increase due to the injection of high-pressure steam, the effective stresses
will be reduced. However, due to the compressibility of the grain structure, the net effect will be an increase in total stress.
(Eqn. A9, Appendix)
CNRL’s Primrose HWCSS Project. An example of the changes in reservoir stress as a result of steam injection is
CNRL’s Primrose horizontal-well CSS (HWCSS) project. This very successful project is in the Cold Lake oilsands of
western Canada. The high bitumen viscosities result in formation transmissibilities that are too low for steam injection into
the matrix. To enhance well injectivity, steam is injected above fracture pressure to create fractures into which the steam
flows at accelerated rates. With a vertical stress gradient of 21 kPa/m, the overburden pressure is approximately 10.5 MPa at
a depth of 500 mTVD.
Figure 3 shows the steam pressures and rates for the first cycle of CSS, with injection above fracture pressure. There are
five episodes when the wellhead valve was opened in this one injection cycle. Valve Opening 1 begins at point “A” with a
high rate of injection and at a pressure less than the overburden pressure, which means that the fracture is vertical. The
injection pressure rises and the rates decline until the valve was temporarily closed at point “B”.
Valve Opening 2 begins at point “C”. The initial injection pressure is less than the overburden, indicating a vertical
fracture, but this starting pressure is higher than for Valve Opening 1. This means that the minimum horizontal stress has
increased due to the effects of Valve Opening 1. Injection pressures rise as rates decline. Notably, before the valve was
closed the pressure plateaus around 11,500 kPa WHP, which is interpreted as the fracture flipping into the horizontal
orientation. The valve was closed at point “D”.
Valve Opening 3 begins at point “E” at a pressure that is much lower than for Valve Opening 2 and comparable to that of
Valve Opening 1. This is taken to be a new fracture, which is probable if fractures are not parallel to the wellbore axis.
Injection continues until point “F” where the dense clustering of data points indicates no increase in injection pressures and a
probable initiation of another horizontal fracture. Subsequent injection trends for Valve Openings 4 and 5 at points “G” and
“H” would confirm that injection was into one or more horizontal fractures.
This field case shows that steam injection altered the pre-existing stress state to such an extent that the minimum in situ
stress increased above the intermediate stress, which is the vertical stress in this example. This causes the initial vertical
fracture to re-orient itself to horizontal in order to remain perpendicular to the new minimum in situ stress.
Next, it illustrates the restricted extent of the induced vertical fractures. Once the initial fracture rotated into the
horizontal plane, the pressure needed to propagate that pressure in subsequent cycles exceeded the initiation pressure for a
new vertical fracture. The ability to generate a second vertical fracture means that the wellbore has only limited connectivity
to each vertical fracture, and therefore limited connectivity to the reservoir.
The slightly increasing trend of the propagation pressure for the horizontal fractures, as seen in Figure 3 as the dashed
trend line through the maximum pressures, is a frictional effect. The red “ramp down” points represent the rapidly declining
steam rates at the end of the injection cycle. Their pressure trend is indicative of a horizontal fracture.
Implications. The pressure behaviour during this single cycle of steam injection shows that in situ stresses are being
altered by the injection, to the extent that the orientation of the induced fractures can abruptly change from vertical to
horizontal. It also indicates that multiple vertical fractures had been created during steaming. This likely means that
6 SPE 150704

transverse fractures had been formed rather than a single fracture along the wellbore. As such, the lateral extend of these
fractures are unknown but not likely as connected to the horizontal wellbore as a longitudinal fracture would be.

Conclusions

This study found that:

1. Steam injection processes require screening criteria that are supplemental to conventional ones.
2. Many steam injection criteria are geomechanically controlled. The geomechanics of a prospective reservoir must be
quantified before any rational analysis of the reservoir’s expected performance in response to the recovery process.
3. The maximum operating pressure is strongly dependent upon the fracture pressure, which is affected by tectonics and
subsequent stress history.
4. Steam pressure determines the temperature and oil viscosity. The viscosity strongly affects oil rates and recovery
factors.
5. Reservoir permeabilities can be enhanced by geomechanics.
6. Geomechanical effects can limit the effectiveness of a given recovery process. As such, geomechanical considerations
should be made as part of the assessment of the reservoir and recovery process.
7. The steam injection process itself can alter the geomechanics, sometimes favourably.
SPE 150704 7

Pressure, Top Perfs (kPaa)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
40
Test 4

60 Test 3
Depth (mKB)

Pbd Preo pen

Pprop P ISIP
80 Pc - si g3 Pc - si g2
Pc - si g1 Overburden
sig1 si g3
sig2

100 Test 2
Test 1

120
Figure 2 Low Fracture Closure Stresses (sig3) from Minifracture Tests
due to Erosional Unloading and Lateral Drainage

G
D F
B H

C
A
E

Figure 3 Transition from Vertical Fracturing to Horizontal Fracturing

Well 5A77 Initial Steam Injection Cross Plot
d
8 SPE 150704

References
Addis, M. A., T.H. Hanssen, N. Yassir, D.R. Willoughby, and J.Enever (1998) “A Comparison Of Leak-Off Test And Extended Leak-Off
Test Data For Stress Estimation”, paper SPE/ISRM 47235, SPE/ISRM Eurock '98, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July 1998, 10pp.
AOSC (2010) Application to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board for Shutin of 188 Producing and/or Suspended Gas
Wells, Dover West area of the Athabasca Oil Sands, Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. to Energy Resources Conservation Board, April
15,2010, Calgary, Alberta, 104pp.
CNRL (2010) Primrose, Wolf Lake, and Burnt Lake Annual Presentation to the ERCB; January 26, 2010; ERCB In-situ progress
report: file 2010CNRLPAWCSS9140.pdf on http://www.ercb.ca/
Collins, P.M. (2002) “Injection pressures for geomechanical enhancement of recovery processes in the Athabasca oil sands”, paper
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 79028, proc. SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal
Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 4–7 November, 13pp.
Gooble, L.M.A., and W.K. Good (1994) “Shell/Alberta Department Of Energy Peace River Horizontal Well Demonstration Project - A
Test Of The Enhanced Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Process”, paper 94-41, proc. Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of CIM, Jun 12 - 15, 1994 , Calgary, Alberta, 15pp.
Gittins, S., S. Gupta, and M. Zaman (2011) “Simulation of Noncondensable Gases in SAGD Steam Chambers”, CSUG/SPE149503, proc.
Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 15-17 November, 12pp.
Petroleum Geomechanics Inc. (2010): [stress profile from minifracture tests], publicly released by Carlson, M.R. (2010) “Recent
Perspectives in SAGD”, presentation to Canadian Heavy Oil Association, Oct. 13, 2010, Calgary, Alberta, pg.39 of 65.
Citation
Collins, P.M. (2011) “Geomechanical Screening Criteria for Steam Injection Processes in Heavy Oil and Bitumen Reservoirs”, paper
SPE150704, proc. SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 12–14 December 2011.

Author’s Biography
Patrick M. Collins, P.Eng. is the president of Petroleum Geomechanics Inc., Calgary, Alberta,
and has engineering degrees from the University of Toronto and the University of Alberta. He has
over 25 years’ heavy oil experience in topics such as oil sands, CHOPS, CSS, and
SAGD; as well as in geomechanics related to drilling and completions such as
wellbore stability, rock stress analysis, formation overpressures, hydraulic fracture and
sanding potential.
After working on the seminal AOSTRA UTF SAGD pilots, Patrick consulted in reservoir
engineering and geomechanics internationally for several years. He now consults in
geomechanics and reservoir engineering on projects related to thermal recovery, stress
analysis, fracturing, wellbore stability, and oilsands.
He is an expert witness in geomechanics, and is a member of SPE, CSPG, CWLS, CHOA, AAPG, and APEGGA.
This paper is based on his experience with steam injection processes and on his understanding of the stress regimes in
which these processes are applied.

Nomenclature

~ “approximately”
CHOPS cold heavy oil production with sand
CSS cyclic steam stimulation
CWE cold water equivalent
E Young’s modulus
ELOT extended leak-off test
ESAGD enhanced steam-assisted gravity drainage
G shear modulus
HWCSS horizontal well cyclic steam stimulation
K bulk modulus
P pressure
pf formation pressure
Q& o rate of oil production
SAGD steam-assisted gravity drainage
T temperature
ΔT change in temperature
UTF Underground Test Facility
SPE 150704 9

XLOT extended leak-off test

z depth
α Biot coefficient
αT coefficient of thermal expansion
εx, εy, εz principal strains (x,y,z coordinates)
φ porosity
σ total stress

σ´ effective total stress

σh, σH stress, minimum & max. horizontal
σT thermal stress
ΔσT change in thermal stress
σv stress, vertical (z-axis)
σx, σy, σz principal total stresses (x,y,z coords.)
Δσx, Δσy, Δσz changes in principal total stresses
μ viscosity
ν Poisson’s ratio

Appendix

Initial Stress State. The initial stress state must be inferred from an understanding of basic physics, the depositional
history of the area, subsequent geological alterations, and man-made changes. The combination of these effects, prior to any
exploitation, provides the stress state for the geomechanical setting within the reservoir. The discussion that follows pertains
to a stress regime in which the principal stresses are assumed to be vertical and horizontal; while this is most common, tilted
stress regimes do exist.
Zero Lateral Strain. A good predictor of the stress state in a quiescent, non-tectonic depositional environment can be
approximated by assuming zero lateral strain. In reality, true one-dimensional compaction is rare, but
Vertical Stress calculated from the integration of bulk density from surface:
z
σ z = σ v = ∫ ρ ( z )dz [A1]
0
Uniform Horizontal Stress calculated from the elastic response to overburden loading and formation pressures:
υ
σh = (σ v − αp f ) + αp f [A2]
1 −υ
σh = σH = σx = σ y [A3]
Lateral Strains are compressional or extensional strains in the horizontal plane. Lateral strains are directional and can
either be superimposed or resolved into a single pair of principal strains.
Non-uniform Horizontal Stresses due to a Lateral Strain are calculated from the elastic response to a lateral
displacement in the x-direction that results in a corresponding strain, εx, in the orientation of loading:
E
Δσ = εx
x (1 − ν 2 ) [A4]
vE
Δσ y = ε x = vΔσ x
(1 −ν 2 ) [A5]
Compressional strains (positive) will increase stresses; extensional strains (negative) will reduce them. Note that in a
compressional stress regime where the tectonic loading is parallel to the x-orientation, σx would become the maximum
horizontal stress. In an extensional regime, it would become the minimum horizontal stress. The vertical stress remains
unchanged.
Stresses due to Two Principal Horizontal Strains. In more complex environments, the strains imposed on the reservoir
cannot be described by one strain. More complex loading history will result in multiple strains. These can be resolved into
principal horizontal strains and their stress changes:
E vE
Δσ x = εx + εy [A6]
(1 −ν )
2
(1 −ν 2 )
10 SPE 150704

vE E
Δσ y = εx + εy [A7]
(1 −ν )
2
(1 −ν 2 )
An example of multiple strains occurring would be when a shallow reservoir having compressional tectonic strains is
subsequently subject to lateral unloading in another direction as would occur with nearby erosional downcutting.
Thermal Stress. Rock, subjected to a change in temperature but under laterally constrained conditions, will develop a
horizontal thermal stress:
E
Δσ T = α T ΔT ......................................... [A8]
1 −ν
Localized effects are more complex. In the case where heating within the reservoir is uneven, i.e. the combined effects of
temperature change and heated rock volume vary, vertical stress variations will result, with higher stresses in the thermally
affected areas and lower stresses adjacent to these. Although stresses will vary, the total vertical force exerted by the
overburden on the reservoir will be resisted by the vertical forces in the reservoir.
Variations in the vertical distribution of heated rock will result in non-uniform horizontal thermal stresses. These will add
thermal shear stresses to the reservoir and casing, which could affect well integrity.
Uniform Horizontal Stress calculated from the elastic response to overburden loading and formation pressures:
υ
σh = (σ v − αp f ) + αp f
1 −υ .......................... [A9]

This stress state assumes zero lateral strain, a condition that is often assumed but rarely seen in nature. It reasonably
approximates the stress state in younger depositional basins, although a small anisotropy in horizontal stresses is the norm.