SPE-183721-PA Senlac, The Forgotten SAGD Project - API 12 Close

REE183721 DOI: 10.
2118/183721-PA Date: 28-July-18 Stage: Page: 789 Total Pages: 17
Senlac, the Forgotten SAGD Project

Eric Delamaide, IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc. and the EOR Alliance
Summary
The Senlac steam-assisted-gravity-drainage (SAGD) project in Saskatchewan, Canada, does not have the same name recognition as its
much bigger brothers in the Alberta Oil Sands, but it certainly deserves to be known better. Senlac was the first industrial SAGD project
in Canada, back in 1997, and since then, it has been the site for other technological innovations such as the use of solvent in addition
with steam to increase recovery and reduce the steam/oil ratio (SOR), as well as the testing of wedge wells—wells drilled between
SAGD well pairs to benefit from the heat remaining in the reservoir.
The reservoir in Senlac is the Dina-Cummings of the Lower Cretaceous, and is much smaller than the McMurray formation, the site
of most large-scale oil-sands projects, but the oil is only 5,000 cp; thus, it is mobile at reservoir temperature. This is a significant differ-
ence that allows well pairs to achieve excellent production and recovery even though reservoir thickness is only 8 to 16 m, well below
the standard cutoff for SAGD. The presence of bottomwater under parts of the field is an added challenge to the operations.
The paper will present the field characteristics and production performances as well as the main technological developments such as
the solvent-added process (SAP) and the use of wedge wells.
The paper will present a complete case study of an SAGD project in a heavy-oil reservoir where oil is mobile. Most SAGD projects
so far have been conducted in bitumen, but the paper will show the potential for this technology in thinner and smaller reservoirs.
Introduction
The SAGD recovery process, invented by Roger Butler and colleagues (Butler et al. 1979) in the 1970s when Butler was with Imperial
Oil (Esso), has become one of the most efficient methods to recover heavy oil. SAGD has been described in numerous papers [e.g., in
Butler (1994)], and the concept is presented in Fig. 1. Two horizontal wells are drilled one on top of the other, and steam is injected in
the top well, whereas oil, condensed steam, and formation water drain down and are produced from the bottom well. As the name indi-
cates, the process relies on gravity as the driving force. For more details, the reader is referred to a very good review of the SAGD pro-
cess presented in Albahlani and Babadagli (2008).
Overburden
Steam Chamber
Net-pay
Underburden
Fig. 1—Illustration of the SAGD concept [modified from Tavallali et al. (2012)].
SAGD has been applied extensively in Canada, particularly in the Fort McMurray area in Alberta (the Athabasca oil sands). How-
ever, outside this region, only a few pilots have been successful, and there has been no large-scale SAGD expansion; Alvarez et al.
(2014) briefly summarized some of the projects and pilots in Canada and elsewhere, and were led to wonder whether “SAGD can be
exported.” Similarly, Farouq Ali (2016) remarked–somewhat ungrammatically—in a recent paper that “…there were 18 SAGD projects
in Alberta, and none anywhere.” Perhaps, as a result, SAGD is mostly associated with the oil sands, and it is a process believed to be
solely adapted to the recovery of bitumen. Although there is no doubt that SAGD can work wonders in this type of reservoir, the pur-
pose of this paper is to present a field case in a heavy-oil reservoir with oil mobile at reservoir conditions, with thinner pay than in the
oil sands and with bottomwater in some areas.
Another consequence of the oil-sands focus is that screening criteria have mostly been established for this type of reservoir. Thus,
Alvarez et al. (2014), Jimenez (2008) in his review of SAGD projects, Shin and Polikar (2007), Dickson et al. (2010), and Edmunds
and Chhina (2001) suggest that pay thickness should be greater than 15 m for the process to be economic. Singhal et al. (1998), who
studied SAGD application in heavy oil reservoirs, suggested that a minimum net-pay thickness of 15 m was indicated for a 10,000-cp
oil and “could be even less for lighter oil.” On the contrary, McCormack (2001) suggested a cutoff of 12 m for net pay. One of the aims
of the present paper is to evaluate the effect of net pay on process performances in a heavy-oil—as opposed to an oil-sands—reservoir.
Copyright V
C 2018 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 183721) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 6–9 March 2017, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 15 August 2017. Revised manuscript received for review 13 November 2017. Paper peer approved 16 November 2017.
August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 789
ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

REE183721 DOI: 10.2118/183721-PA Date: 28-July-18 Stage: Page: 790 Total Pages: 17
The title of this paper, “Senlac, the Forgotten SAGD Project,” refers to the fact that Senlac is often omitted from reviews of SAGD
projects—even though it was one of the first commercial projects; it is not mentioned by Farouq Ali (2016), Albahlani and Babadagli
(2008), or McCormack (2001). It is cited by Alvarez et al. (2014), and a brief review of the first years of operations appears in Tavallali
et al. (2012). Butler also mentioned it in his review (Butler 2001) and called it a “pioneering project.” Of course, in terms of size, the
Senlac field cannot compete with the multibillion-bbl oil-sands reservoirs. However, its characteristics and performances make it a
worthwhile SAGD field case.
Reservoir Description
Geology. Senlac field (sometimes called “East Senlac” to distinguish it from another pool farther to the south) is in the Lloydminster area
in southwestern Saskatchewan, close to the border with Alberta (Fig. 2), rather than in the Fort McMurray area (northern Alberta) where
most of the oil-sands deposits lie. The reservoir is the Lower Cretaceous Dina-Cummings formation (Lower Mannville Group), which lies
unconformably (Fig. 3) over the Devonian Duperow Formation (Zaitlin and Shultz 1990). It is overlain by the Lloydminster shale. The
field was delineated by vertical wells as well as 3D- and 4D-seismic surveys [Dequirez et al. (1995) and Rokosh and Schmitt (2004)].
T55
T50
Lloydminster
ALBERTA
Wainwright T45
Edmonton SASKATCHEWAN
Provost T40
Senlac
Hardisty Senlac
Calgary
Macklin
T35
T30
R15 R10 R5W4 R25 R20
Fig. 2—Map of the Saskatchewan/Alberta border showing the location of Senlac field (Southern Pacific Resources 2010).
S 8-6-32-27W3 7-28-35-28W3 5-1-39-27W3 N

14-5-41-2W4
R2 R1W4 R27 R126W3
SP RES SP RES SP RES SP RES N
T41
14-5
SENLAC
VIKING
POOL
UPPER T39
CRETACEOUS JOLI FOU 5-1
4TH MERIDIAN
DATUM
COLONY
LOWER McLAREN T37
CRETACEOUS WASECA
MANNVILLE GROUP
SPARKY 7-28
T35
MISSISSIPPIAN REX
EN LLOYD Vertical
KK
BA SHAWEY CUMMINGS Scale T33
EX VALL
BIG DINA
50 m
164°
DEVONIAN 8-6
S
T31
ALTA. SASK.
12 mile
19 km
Fig. 3—Regional stratigraphy [modified from Zaitlin and Shultz (1990)]. The red oval marks the location of the field on the map.
Reservoir Properties. The reservoir is a high-quality, highly porous and permeable massive sand found at an approximate depth of
750 m. The depositional environment is a fluvial-dominated valley fill consisting of an upward-fining sequence. Fig. 4 shows a type log
of a well in the channel. In total, the reservoir covers parts of 3 sections (1 section ¼ 1 sq mile): Sections 11 and 12 (Township 40 Range
26 W3) and Section 7 (Township 40 Range 25 W3).
790 August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

PCP PCR SENLAC DD 15C7-12-3B6-12-40-26
Correlation Depth Resistivity Porosity
GR TVD Res S(RXOZ) PHIN(N/A)

0 GAPI 150 0.2 Ω·m 200 0.45 –0.15
SP Res M(AF30) RHOB(RHOZ)
–100 MV 50 0.2 Ω·m 200 2000 kg/m3 3000
CALI(HCAL) Res D(AF90) DT

125 IN 375 0.2 Ω·m 200 500 US/M 100
PEF(PEFZ)
0 B/E 10
730
Top of pay
740
750
WOC
760
Fig. 4—Type log of the Dina-Cummings reservoir in Senlac, showing a channel with a fining-upward character and a water/
oil contact.
Fig. 5 presents a net-pay map from the reservoir created from well data obtained from public sources (all log data are public in
Canada). As in any interpretation, there is no unique solution, and particularly, the cutoff for the net pay at the top of the reservoir could
be subject to debate. Although the shallower part of the reservoir is still permeable and oil-bearing, it is of much lower quality than the
main part of the reservoir, and was thus not considered in the net pay. In addition, a transition zone is present in some wells. Thus, both
the net pay and the corresponding original oil in place (OOIP) could be underestimated by 1 to 2 m. The top of the pay for the well in
Fig. 4 is indicated by a green line as an example.
A water/oil contact (WOC) evident in Fig. 4 and corresponding to a limited downdip aquifer can be mapped over parts of the field at
a depth of –83 m subsea (Fig. 6).
A porosity/permeability crossplot (Fig. 7) using available public core data suggests that porosity more than 35% and up to 40% can
be observed, whereas permeability can reach as high as 10,000 md in the best sand intervals. These values correspond to core data;
in-situ data could be lower than that.
No data are available on the vertical permeability; typically, this is not something that can be measured at the core scale because it
depends on the presence of horizontal shale (or tight) baffles in the reservoir. In the present case, because of the high reservoir quality,
vertical permeability is expected to be high.
Reservoir Fluids. The reservoir contains a viscous, 12–13 API oil with a dead-oil viscosity of 3,000–5,000 cp at reservoir temperature
(29 C). Initial reservoir pressure was 5200 kPa [Chakrabarty et al. (1998) and Boyle et al. (2003)]. OOIP in the pool was estimated at
approximately 110 million bbl (Edmunds and Suggett 1995). The main reservoir properties are summarized in Table 1.

12-40-26W3 7-40-25W3
11-40-26W3
Fig. 5—Net-pay map. Green dots with numbers correspond to net pay (meters). Each square is 1 3 1 mile.
0
5
Fig. 6—Water-leg thickness map (meters). Each square is 1 3 1 mile.
100,000
Permeability (md)
10,000
1,000
100
25 30 35 40 45
Porosity (%)
01/11-07-040-25W3 41/03-18-040-25W3 21/04-18-040-25W3
01/14-11-040-26W3 91/06-12-040-26W3
Fig. 7—Porosity/permeability crossplot. Each symbol/color corresponds to a different well.
Field Development
Early Development. The field was discovered in 1968 by Well 01/10-12-040-26W3, which was put on production in 1975 but pro-
duced less than 16,000 bbl of oil at a low rate (less than 10 BOPD) and 73,000 bbl of water. A second well (21/15-12-040-26W3) fared
a little better, producing more than 52,000 bbl of oil at rates up to 30 BOPD. No further development was attempted until 1993 when a
horizontal well (91/08-11-040-26W3/0) was drilled to the south; it produced only 15,000 bbl of oil and almost 68,000 bbl of water.
Later, from 2000 on, longer horizontal wells were drilled, and achieved higher cumulative oil production (up to 217,000 bbl), but no
well achieved peak oil rate of more than 250 BOPD.

Average depth (m true vertical depth) 750

Initial reservoir temperature (°C) 29
Initial reservoir pressure (kPa) 5200
Oil gravity (API) 12–13
Dead oil viscosity at reservoir temperature (cp) 3,000–5,000
Porosity (%) 33–40
Permeability (md) 1,000–10,000
Net-pay thickness (m) 0–16
Average oil saturation (%) 85
Depth of WOC (m subsea) –83
Bottomwater leg thickness (m) 0–5
OOIP (million bbl) 110
Table 1—Senlac main reservoir properties.
SAGD Project. Project Description. In 1992, junior Calgary operator CS Resources started the preliminary studies for the delineation
of the resources including drilling and 3D-seismic acquisition and processing; seismic inversion was used to map reservoir quality
[Chakrabarty et al. (1998) and Dequirez et al. (1995)]. In 1995, CS Resources undertook the construction of a 5,000-BOPD thermal
facility, planning to use SAGD as the recovery method (Edmunds and Suggett 1995). At the time, SAGD had only been piloted in the
UTF (Underground Test Facility) so Senlac was one of the first SAGD field projects using horizontal wells exclusively [Butler (1998)
and Renard et al. (1997)]. According to Edmunds and Suggett (1995), 8 to 21 well pairs were initially planned during the life of the pro-
ject; expected recovery was 20 million bbl, corresponding to 65% of the OOIP in the SAGD area.
Surface Facilities. The surface facilities are described in detail by Edmunds and Suggett (1995) and Chakrabarty et al. (1998), and
a schematic is reproduced in Fig. 8. The process is standard and is composed of water softening, steam generation, and oil/water-separa-
tion facilities.
Water softening 3 × 50-million-Btu/hr Steam

and treating Steam generators
Mix Drum
Fuel gas
Flash
Murphy
treater
pipeline
3-phase gravity
separator
Lift
gas
Ground level
Groundwater
Injector (4)
Producer (4)
Disposal
Fig. 8—Schematic of surface facilities [Chakrabarty et al. (1998)].
Steam is generated by three 50-million-Btu/hr boilers capable of delivering approximately 12,250 B/D of 80% quality steam. The
water fraction in the steam is removed at the outlet of the boiler to improve thermal efficiency in the reservoir. Water is supplied
from the Judith River aquifer by six water-source wells, and is softened before entering the steam generators. Gas is used as fuel for
steam generation.
Produced fluids go through a gravity separator and a flash treater, and clean oil is then evacuated by pipeline. Produced water and
process water are disposed of into the Duperow formation below the Dina/Cummings. Fig. 9 shows an aerial view of the facilities.
Drilling and Completion. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the SAGD process uses horizontal wells drilled on top of each other (injection
well on top). The standard distance between injection and production wells is 5 m in Senlac (Boyle et al. 2003).
The first three well-pairs of Phase A (see next for the description of the various phases) were completed with wire-wrapped screen
to prevent sand production. However, as reported by Chakrabarty et al. (1998) and Boyle et al. (2003), severe sand-production problems
did, in fact, occur in all three well pairs with a negative effect on production. Consequently, future completions used 7-in. slotted liners,

and significant efforts were devoted to designing liner slots to prevent sand intrusion into the liner (Bennion et al. 2009). Eventually, an
adequate design was achieved, and the performances of later SAGD phases in the field confirmed the efficiency of the new liner design.
Both injection and production wells are equipped with slotted liners although the size of their slots differs slightly (Boyle et al. 2003).
Fig. 9—Aerial view of Senlac facilities (Southern Pacific Resource Corporation 2009).
With the relatively high steam temperature involved (approximately 267 C at 5200 kPa), gas lift was initially used as a lifting
method. However, in 2001, Edmunds and Chhina (2001) outlined the advantages of operating SAGD at lower pressures. Operating at
lower pressure reduces the efficiency of gas-lift, and reduces the steam temperature, thereby making the use of high-temperature electri-
cal submersible pumps (ESPs) possible. EnCana (the operator of Senlac at the time) field tested high-temperature ESPs in their other
SAGD operation in Foster Creek in 2002 and then started using them in Senlac (Solanki et al. 2005). Phase D was the first phase to be
equipped with ESPs from the beginning, but ESPs were also installed in wells in Phases B and C (Solanki et al. 2005). This allowed
operating at lower pressure and reducing the cumulative steam/oil ratio (CSOR).
Startup. The aim of the startup phase is to establish communication between the injection and production well. Ideally, the well-
bores should be heated as uniformly as possible to prevent the creation of preferential paths. The startup process in Senlac is described
in detail in Boyle et al. (2003), and consists in alternated circulation of steam in the production and the injection wells, separated by
soaking time and production. Because of its relatively low viscosity, the oil in Senlac is mobile, and thus, startup is much faster (a few
weeks) than in oil sands, where it can take several months.
Phases of Development. The field has been developed in phases to keep the steam-generation facilities as close to full use as possi-
ble. In total, 10 phases have been drilled so far (Fig. 10).
B
G
D C E F A
H
J
K
12-40-26W3 07-40-25W3
11-40-26W3
Fig. 10—Phases of SAGD development.
Fig. 11 shows the historical oil- and water-production rates and steam injection for the project. The figure shows that Phase D
and the following phases were affected by water influx into the reservoir, evidenced by the difference between steam injection and
produced-water rates. This will be discussed further in the paper.

25,000 Phase J
Phase A Phase D Phase F
Phase C
Phase B Phase E Phase G Phase H
Phase K
Production and Injection Rates (B/D)

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
nu 94
5
nu 96
nu 97
nu 98
9
nu 00
Ja ary- 1
nu 02
nu -03
nu 04
nu 05
nu 06
nu -07
nu 08
nu -09
nu 10
nu 11
nu 12
nu -13
nu 14
nu 15
nu -16
17
Ja ry-9
Ja ry-9
nu -0
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ary-
Ja ry-
y-
Ja ary
Ja ary
Ja ary
Ja ary
Ja ary
Ja ary
ar
a
a
nu
nu
nu
Ja
Oil rate Water rate Steam-injection rate
Fig. 11—Historical oil- and water-production rates and steam-injection rate.
SAGD-Project Performances
Performances of the Successive Phases. Oil rate, cumulative oil production, and CSOR per phase can be found in Figs. 12, 13, and
14, respectively, and Table 2 presents a summary of the main characteristics of each phase. The data are from public sources since pro-
duction data are public in Canada.
• Phase A, which consisted initially of three well pairs, was the first phase drilled in 1995, and steam injection started in 1996. Initial
performances were good, with one well achieving a production of close to 1,200 BOPD, but operational problems caused by sand
production soon occurred. As a result, overall performances were poor, with lower than expected recovery and high CSOR. A fourth
well pair was added in 1997 using a new completion strategy (Boyle et al. 2003), with better results and no sand-production issue.
• Phase B started in 1999 with three well pairs. Results were marginally better than for Phase A, with the three producers achieving
peak oil rates of 1,150–1,350 BOPD, but the presence of bottomwater below part of the well pairs created other operational
issues. Specifically, it was difficult to adjust the pressure to prevent water influx (Boyle et al. 2003) while maintaining
overall performances.
• Phase C, which started up in 2001, consisted of two well pairs, and used a different sand-control design (Boyle et al. 2003); its per-
formances were the best experienced to that point, with much higher production (peak oil rate of 2,915 and 2,650 BOPD, respec-
tively) and lower CSOR. This is probably because of the thick pay encountered in this area (Fig. 5). The SAP was also tested in
this phase in 2002 (Gupta et al. 2005); this will be discussed later in the paper.
• Phase D started in 2004 and consisted of three well-pairs; it also performed very well, exhibiting the lowest CSOR of all the
phases: 1.7 bbl/bbl only. This is one of the best performances of any SAGD project although it must be noted that the low CSOR
is partly because the wells are capable of primary production, contrary to SAGD wells in bitumen reservoirs. ESPs operating at a
lower pressure (2500 kPa) than usual were also tested in this phase; this undoubtedly contributed to the low CSOR in addition to
the fact that net pay is very good in this part of the pool. The wells achieved peak rates of 1,450 to 1,750 BOPD.
• Phase E started in 2005 and also consisted of three well pairs; it achieved very good CSOR (1.8 bbl/bbl) and, by far, the best
results in terms of recovery (89.1% OOIP). The very high recovery is probably the result of an underestimation of the net pay in
the area or to the production of oil from outside the estimated drainage area, but the wells undeniably performed very well with
peak oil rates of 1,700 to 1,850 BOPD.
• Phase F, starting in 2007, featured the two longest well pairs but was disappointing compared to the previous phases. It targeted a
much thinner pay (Table 2) as well as an area previously partly depleted during Phase A, which probably accounts for the poor
results; bottomwater is also present in the area (see next). Peak oil rate was 1,200 BOPD for one well pair and only 450 BOPD in
the second one, whereas CSOR was 3.0 and 4.4 bbl/bbl.
• Phase G consisted of three well-pairs, starting production in 2009. This was a very good phase in terms of oil rate (1,300 to 1,550
BOPD peak oil rate), recovery, and CSOR (2.4 to 2.7 bbl/bbl). However peak oil rates were not as high as in the previous phases
probably because the effective length of the wells was shorter, the result of the reservoir being eroded in a large part of the area
(Fig. 5 and Fig. 15).
• Phase H consisted of only two well pairs, each one more than a 1000-m length, the longest of all phases so far. However, as in
Phase G, the effective length of the wells was also reduced (to 400 m), caused by the erosion of the reservoir in the area. Recovery
factor and CSOR were very good although not as good as the three previous phases. Peak oil rate (1,200–1,300 BOPD) was good
but lower than Phases D, E, and F because of the short effective length of the wells. The very high recovery factor is probably
caused by an underestimation of the OOIP in that area.
• Phase J was partly drilled over bottomwater and in thinner pay; as a result, the performances of the three well-pairs were disap-
pointing with lower peak oil (less than 1,000 BOPD) and especially high CSOR (3.5 to 8.2 bbl/bbl).

• Phase K had the poorest performances of all the phases. This was partly caused by a collapsed casing in one of the wells (Southern
Pacific Resources 2013), but other factors are probably at play (see next in text). Production is still ongoing so recovery factor is
expected to increase, but the peak oil rate for the three wells was poor—140 to 380 BOPD only.
6,000
5,000
4,000
Oil Rate (BOPD)
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Months From Startup
Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E
Phase F Phase G Phase H Phase J Phase K
Fig. 12—Oil rate per phase. Refer to Table 2 for the number of well pairs by phase.
5,000
4,500
Cumulative Oil Production (million bbl)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Months From Startup
Fig. 13—Cumulative oil production by phase. Refer to Table 2 for the number of well pairs by phase.
It is interesting to compare the original forecast from Edmunds and Sugget (1995) to the current situation depicted in Table 2:
expected recovery of 20 million bbl for a recovery factor of 65% with 21 well-pairs vs. an actual recovery of 19.4 million bbl (recovery
factor of 47.3%) with 28 well pairs. Piloting new technology is always challenging, and the initial estimates for recovery factor were
quite optimistic.

10
Cumulative Steam/Oil Ratio (bbl/bbl)

8
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Months From Startup
Fig. 14—CSOR by phase.
Average Average Cumulative Oil OOIP Recovery

Startup Number of Well Net Pay Production (1,000 Factor CSOR
Phase Date Well Pairs Length (m) (m) (1,000 bbl) bbl) (%OOIP) (bbl/bbl) Comments
A March-96 3+1 500 12.8 1,491.6 4,512.1 33.4 4.4
B February-99 3 560 10.7 2,054.3 4,785.5 43.4 3.0
C July-01 2 725 15.8 2,302.7 5,460.8 42.6 2.1
D May-04 3 715 14.1 2,517.6 4,666.4 54.5 1.7
E September-05 3 730 16.6 4,392.1 4,977.9 89.1 1.8
F December-07 2 950 10.6 538.7 3,373.7 16.1 3.4
G June-09 3 810 14.0 2,833.8 4,164.5 68.7 2.6 Still producing
H April-11 2 1,055 12.5 1,462.7 1,741.5 84.8 2.9 Still producing
J January-12 3 1,100 10.9 1,481.6 3,294.6 45.4 4.4 Still producing
K March-13 3 Variable 13.1 322.6 4,074.4 8.0 5.2 Still producing
Total 28 19,397.7 41,051.4 47.3
Total excl. K 25 19,075.0 36,977.0 51.6
Table 2—Main characteristics of successive development phases.
Individual-Well-Pair Performances. The next section focuses on the performances of individual well-pairs and the effect of net-pay
thickness. Note that a transition zone is apparent on the log in Fig. 4; thus, net pay could be even less for wells drilled above the water
leg (see section devoted to the impact of the water leg further into the paper).
Fig. 16 presents a plot of peak oil rate vs. net-pay thickness; although there is some scatter in the data, there is a global trend of
increasing rate with net-pay. Operational issues (such as sand production during Phase A) or reservoir issues such as the presence of
bottomwater obviously have an impact on the results. Although the number of samples is small, it is interesting to note that all the wells
with a net pay of more than 15 m have achieved peak oil rates exceeding 1,500 BOPD. Things are not as clear at the other end of the
spectrum where the scatter is large, and the presence of water and other factors seem to create the largest uncertainty. However, at least
two wells have achieved peak oil rates of more than 500 BOPD with a net pay of (approximately) 10 m.
Fig. 17 presents the peak oil rate per unit length of horizontal well vs. net-pay thickness to account for the various well length; as a
result, the performances of the Phase G and H wells appear better, whereas those of Phase C appear more in line with the others.
A reasonably good correlation (R2 ¼ 0.696) can be obtained between cumulative oil production and net pay (Fig. 18), especially if
the first 3 wells of Phase A and the wells of Phase K are removed from the data set. As we will see later in the paper, the poor

performance of the Phase K wells was probably the result of steam losses and the presence of the water leg. With these exceptions,
almost all the wells with a net thickness above 10 m have produced more than 400,000 bbl, with the record (1,617,000 bbl) going to a
well in Phase E.
Fig. 15—Gamma ray readings, red representing low values (sand) and green representing high values (shale).
3,500
3,000
Peak Oil Rate (BOPD)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Net-pay (m)
Fig. 16—Peak oil rate vs. net-pay thickness for individual well pairs.
Peak Oil Rate Per Unit Length of Horizontal
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Well (BOPD/m)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Net-pay (m)
Fig. 17—Peak oil rate per unit length of horizontal well vs. net-pay thickness for individual well pairs.

1,800.0

1,600.0
1,400.0
1,200.0
1,000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Net-pay
Fig. 18—Cumulative oil production vs. net-pay thickness for individual well pairs.
Fig. 19 shows the cumulative oil production per unit length of horizontal well, to better compare the well-pair performances regard-
less of their length. Although it does not alter the picture dramatically, it brings the good results of Phase E wells more in line with the
other phases.
Cumulative Oil Production Per Unit Length
2.5
of Horizontal Well (million bbl/m)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Net-pay (m)
Fig. 19—Cumulative oil production per unit length of horizontal well vs. net-pay thickness for individual well pairs.
Another reasonable correlation (R2 ¼ 0.686) can be obtained between net-pay and CSOR (Fig. 20) if Phases A and K are not consid-
ered. Fig. 20 is particularly interesting because it allows establishing a cutoff for net-pay in Senlac. CSOR is usually the main parameter
on which the economics of a SAGD project are assessed [some authors disagree: Albahlani and Babadagli (2008) for a discussion on
the topic]. Although many economic parameters such as gas and oil prices have changed significantly these past few years, a CSOR of
3 to 3.5 is usually used as a rule-of-thumb cutoff; for Senlac, these values would correspond to 11- to 12-m net pay. According to Figs.
16 and 18, that would correspond to approximately 1,000-BOPD peak oil rate and cumulative productions of 600,000 to 800,000 bbl.
Fig. 21 shows the relation between peak oil rate and CSOR; as expected, better reservoir properties usually translate into lower
CSOR as well as higher peak oil rate.
Effect of Bottomwater on SAGD Performances. As shown in Fig. 6 and as mentioned previously, a water leg is present in the south-
ern part of the field, and some well pairs have been drilled partially above the water. In addition, as noted previously, a transition zone
is present (see Fig. 4). Boyle et al. (2003) discussed briefly the issues caused by bottomwater for Phase B (i.e., the difficulty in the
adjustment of the operating pressure). The issue is particularly severe for Phases J and K, which have, respectively, two and three well
pairs above water; in both phases, the southernmost well pair is completely over water.
Fig. 22 compares the water/oil ratio (WOR) for wells in Phase G where no bottomwater is present and which is used as a reference,
and wells in Phases J and K, which are drilled over bottomwater. For greater convenience, the “hot” yellow, orange, and red colors rep-
resent no bottomwater, whereas the blue colors indicate the presence of bottomwater. As can be observed from the figure, wells with
bottomwater usually produce at higher WOR than when no bottomwater is present.

9.00

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Net-pay (m)
Fig. 20—CSOR vs. net-pay thickness for individual well pairs.
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Peak Oil Rate (BOPD)
Fig. 21—CSOR vs. peak oil rate for individual well pairs.
10
9
Cumulative Water Production/Cumulative
8
Oil Production (bbl/bbl)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Months on Production
Phase G north well Phase G center well Phase G south well

Phase J north well Phase J center well Phase J south well
Phase K north well Phase K center well Phase K south well
Fig. 22—Comparison of WOR for wells with and without bottomwater. Blue colors represent wells with bottomwater.

Fig. 23 is a plot of CSOR vs. time on production for the same group of wells and using the same colors; the figure clearly demon-
strates that the wells with bottomwater have poorer CSOR (sometimes drastically) than wells without bottomwater.
20
18
Cumulative Steam/Oill Ratio (bbl/bbl) 16
14
12
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Phase G north well Phase G center well Phase G south well

Phase J north well Phase J center well Phase J south well
Phase K north well Phase K center well Phase K south well
Fig. 23—Comparison of CSOR for wells with and without bottomwater. Blue colors represent wells with bottomwater.
Fig. 24 shows a plot of the ratio of cumulative water produced to injected steam (CWSR); this ratio is usually approximately 1.0 for
normal SAGD operations. Higher water production suggests higher water saturation in the area or the influx of water from another
source (aquifer), whereas lower than 1.0 ratio, suggests that steam is being lost away from the wells. The CWSR in Senlac is high for
every phase, starting from Phase D (excluding Phase K; see later); this could be because of the influx of water from the aquifer to the
south or to the north or to the production of water from previous phases (e.g., in the cases of Phases D, F, and G).
3.0
Cumulative Water/Steam Ratio (bbl/bbl)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Months From Startup
Fig. 24—Cumulative water-to-steam ratio for each phase.
Phase K exhibits a very low CWSR which suggests that part of the injected steam may be moving away from the well-pairs, which
could explain the poor performances of the phase.

Technical Innovations. Despite the good performances of SAGD, operators are always looking for ways to improve the efficiency
and the economics of the process. In addition to the use of low pressure and ESPs, two other technical innovations have been tested in
Senlac: the use of wedge wells and the use of solvent.
Wedge Wells. In 2007, Cenovus Energy (then operator of Senlac) filed a patent (Canada Patent No. 2,591,498, 2007) for the appli-
cation of “wedge wells” which consists of drilling a horizontal production well low in the reservoir between two fully developed SAGD
steam chambers to benefit from the heat remaining in the reservoir and to recover the undrained oil. Three wedge wells were drilled in
Senlac, one in 2007 and two in 2010 (Fig. 25).
11-40-26W3 12-40-26W3 07-40-25W3
Fig. 25—Location of wedge wells (blue: 2007, orange and green: 2010).
Fig. 26 shows the oil rate and cumulative oil production for the three wedge wells. The first one was quite poor, but the second and
third drilled in Phase G were very good, with the last well achieving a cumulative production of approximately 254,000 bbl. This is
much higher than most of the primary wells in the area where cumulative production averages 90,000 bbl.
500 300
450

250
400
350
200
Oil Rate (B/D)
300
250 150
200
100
150
100
50
50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Well #1 Phase C Well #2 Phase G Well #3 Phase G
Well #1 Phase C Well #2 Phase G Well #3 Phase G
Fig. 26—Wedge-wells production data. Colors correspond to Fig. 25. Dashed lines correspond to cumulative production.
SAP. The SAP is one among other solvent-based processes (Ardali et al. 2012); it was first described by Gupta et al. (2004). It con-
sists of combining the benefits of SAGD and solvent by adding hydrocarbon solvents (propane, butane, pentane, and others) to the
steam late in the SAGD process. Expected benefits are (Gupta et al. 2005):
• Acceleration of production
• Reduction of SOR
• Reduction of API values by precipitation of heavy fractions
• Reduction of residual oil saturation (ROS) and corresponding increase in recovery

The process requires some facility modifications that will not be detailed here but are discussed further by Gupta et al. (2004).
A test of the process took place in Senlac in February 2002 in one of the Phase C well-pairs [Boyle et al. (2003) and Gupta et al.
(2005)] with butane used as the solvent. Because of the short duration of the test and the fact that public production data are only avail-
able monthly, we use Fig. 27 from Boyle et al. (2003) as an illustration.
900 4.5
Steam
800 4.0
700 3.5
CSOR (m3/m3)
Rates (m3/d)
600 3.0
500 2.5
CSOR
400 2.0
300 1.5
Oil
200 1.0
100 0.5
0 0.0
June-01
August-01
October-01
December-01
February-01
April-01
June-01
August-01
October-01
Fig. 27—Performances of SAP test [reproduced from Boyle et al. (2003)]. The red line indicates the start of the test.
As one can see from Fig. 27, the oil rate increased significantly after the injection of solvent. In addition, the SOR decreased from
2.5 down to 1.5 (Gupta et al. 2005). The API gravity increased by approximately 1 API, and 70% of the solvent was recovered (Gupta
and Gittins 2006). The results were judged encouraging by the authors, who went on to test the process further in Christina Lake.
Economics. Although it is not possible to find a detailed assessment of the project economics since its inception, recent data (Southern
Pacific Corp. 2014) provide some useful information (Fig. 28). During the period Q2 2010 to Q2 2014, netbacks ranged from CAD
23.36/bbl to CAD 53.53/bbl, for an average of CAD 39.7/bbl. The corresponding WTI oil price during the same period varied from
CAD 80/bbl to CAD 105/bbl. Costs, including light/heavy oil differential, transportation, and government royalties, varied between
CAD 37.7/bbl and CAD 71.0/bbl. Note that the cost of diluent and the government royalties rate depend on the crude-oil price. Of
course, today’s oil prices are much lower than those experienced in 2010–2014, but it remains that the project was very economic dur-
ing an extended period.
$140.00
$120.00
$100.00
Heavy diff
$80.00 Quality/trans.
Diluent
$60.00 Royalties
Fuel and power
$40.00 Fixed opex

Operating netback
WTI ($C/bbl)
$20.00
$37.45
$41.62
$41.27
$36.63
$37.40
$37.94
$48.34
$38.61
$52.13
$46.14
$36.10
$37.94
$34.75
$23.36
$42.75
$53.53
$29.13
$64.91
$0.00
FQ2 2010
FQ3 2010
FQ4 2010
FQ1 2011
FQ2 2011
FQ3 2011
FQ4 2011
FQ1 2012
FQ2 2012
FQ3 2012
FQ4 2012
FQ1 2013
FQ2 2013
FQ3 2013
FQ4 2013
FQ1 2014
FQ2 2014
FQ3 2014
Fig. 28—Senlac SAGD operating costs and netbacks 2010–2014 [reproduced from Southern Pacific Corp. (2014)]. All numbers
in CAD.
To be economically successful in heavy-oil reservoirs, SAGD requires good reservoir properties (particularly, vertical permeability)
in addition to a minimum net pay as discussed. But with an oil initially mobile, short startup times, lower diluent requirements, and
higher oil price per barrel for heavy oil than for bitumen, SAGD in heavy-oil reservoirs can be an attractive economic proposition.
Conclusions
The paper has presented a very successful SAGD project in a relatively thin heavy-oil reservoir in Western Canada. Oil viscosity is
3,000 to 5,000 cp, and net pay is 13 m on the average. High peak oil rates of 1,000 BOPD up to approximately 3,000 BOPD per well-

pair have been achieved together with CSOR as low as 1.31 bbl/bbl; most well pairs recovered 500,000 bbl to 1.6 million bbl of oil.
This was one of the very first commercial SAGD projects, and although the results were not as good as anticipated initially, the project
has been both a technical and an economic success.
Based on these results, it is suggested that, for heavy-oil reservoirs, a minimum net-pay cutoff of 11 to 12 m might be adequate for
the application of SAGD, rather than the 15 m recommended by most authors for bitumen reservoirs; thinner pay cutoffs could also be
achieved for lower-viscosity oil. This may open the door for application in reservoirs so far deemed too thin for SAGD, both in Canada
and elsewhere.
The paper also showed that even thin water legs can have a detrimental impact on the production performances of SAGD in such
thin heavy-oil reservoirs, with high WOR and CSOR.
Finally, the paper presented some of the new technologies that were introduced or tested very early in Senlac, such as high-tempera-
ture ESPs, wedge wells, and the SAP.
Pioneering a new recovery process such as SAGD is always a challenge, and success may not be immediate; in the case of Senlac, it
took several years of efforts to solve the initial operational problems, but persistence eventually paid off. Beyond the technical aspects
described in this paper, this is the lesson that should be remembered from the Senlac experience.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Tristan Euzen for the geological interpretation and for preparing the maps and logs. Above all, this paper is
dedicated to the pioneering people at CS Resources and its successors who made the project possible: Dennis Sharp, Neil Edmunds,
Simon Gittins, and Subodh Gupta, among many others.
References
Albahlani, A. and Babadagli, T. 2008. A Critical Review of the Status of SAGD: Where Are We and What Is Next?. Presented at the SPE Western Regional
and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 29 March–4 April. SPE-113283-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/113283-MS.
Alvarez, J., Moreno, R., and Sawatzky, R. 2014. Can SAGD Be Exported? Potential Challenges. Presented at the SPE Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Con-
ference: Latin America, Medellı́n, Colombia, 24–26 September. SPE-171089-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/171089-MS.
Ardali, M., Barrufet, M., Mamora, D. et al. 2012. A Critical Review of Hybrid Steam/Solvent Processes for the Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October. SPE-159257-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
159257-MS.
Arthur, J., Gittins, S., and Chhina, H. 2007. Canada Patent No. 2,591,498.
Bennion, D., Gupta, S., Gittins, S. et al. 2009. Protocols for Slotted Liner Design for Optimum SAGD Operation. J Can Pet Technol 48 (11): 21–26.
SPE-130441-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/130441-PA.
Boyle, T., Gittins, S., and Chakrabarty, C. 2003. The Evolution of SAGD Technology at East Senlac. J Can Pet Technol 42 (1): 58–61. PETSOC-03-01-
06. https://doi.org/10.2118/03-01-06.
Butler, R., McNab, G., and Lo, H. 1979. Theoretical Studies on the Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil During In-Situ Steam Heating. Presented at the 29th
Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, 1 October. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450590407.
Butler, R. 1994. Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage: Concept, Development, Performance and Future. J Can Pet Technol 33 (2): 44–50. PETSOC-94-02-
05. https://doi.org/10.2118/94-02-05.
Butler, R. 1998. SAGD Comes of Age! J Can Pet Technol 37 (7): 9–12. PETSOC-98-07-DA. https://doi.org/10.2118/98-07-DA.
Butler, R. 2001. Some Recent Developments in SAGD. J Can Pet Technol 40 (1): 18–22. PETSOC-01-01-DAS. https://doi.org/10.2118/01-01-DAS.
Chakrabarty, C., Renard, G., Fossey, J. et al. 1998. SAGD Process in the East Senlac Field: From Reservoir Characterization to Field Application. Pre-
sented at the UNITAR Conference, Beijing, 27–31 October. Paper 192.
Dequirez, P., Fournier, F., Blanchet, C. et al. 1995. Integrated Stratigraphic and Lithologic Interpretation of the East-Senlac Heavy Oil Pool. Presented at
the 1995 SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, 8–13 October. SEG-1995-0104-MS.
Dickson, J., Leahy-Dios, A., and Wylie, P. 2010. Development of Improved Hydrocarbon Recovery Screening Methodologies. Presented at the SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 24–28 April. SPE-129768-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/129768-MS.
Edmunds, N. and Suggett, J. 1995. Design of a Commercial SAGD Heavy Oil Project. Presented at the SPE International Heavy Oil Symposium, Cal-
gary, 19–21 June. SPE-30277-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/30277-MS.
Edmunds, N. and Chhina, H. 2001. December Economic Optimum Operating Pressure for SAGD Projects in Alberta. J Can Pet Technol 40 (12): 13–17.
PETSOC-01-12-DAS. https://doi.org/10.2118/01-12-DAS.
Farouq Ali, S. 2016. Life After SAGD—20 Years Later. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 23–26 May. SPE-180394-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/180394-MS.
Gupta, S., Gittins, S., and Picherack, P. 2004. Insights Into Some Key Issues With Solvent-Aided Process. J Can Pet Technol 43 (2): 54–61. PETSOC-
04-02-05. https://doi.org/10.2118/04-02-05.
Gupta, S., Gittins, S., and Picherack, P. 2005. Field Implementation of Solvent-Aided Process. J Can Pet Technol 44 (11): 8–13. PETSOC-05-11-TN1.
https://doi.org/10.2118/05-11-TN1.
Gupta, S. and Gittins, S. 2006. Christina Lake Solvent-Aided Process Pilot. J Can Pet Technol 45 (9): 15–18. PETSOC-06-09-TN. https://doi.org/
10.2118/06-09-TN.
Jimenez, J. 2008. The Field Performance of SAGD Projects in Canada. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
3–5 December. IPTC-12860-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/IPTC-12860-MS.
McCormack, M. 2001. Mapping of the McMurray Formation for SAGD. J Can Pet Technol 40 (8): 21–28. PETSOC-01-08-01. https://doi.org/10.2118/
01-08-01.
Renard, G., Morgan, R., Delamaide, E. et al. 1997. Complex Well Architecture, IOR and Heavy Oil. Presented at the 15th World Petroleum Congress,
Beijing, 12–17 October. WPC-29198.
Rokosh, D. and Schmitt, D. 2004. Laboratory Rock Physical and Geological Analyses of a “SAGD” Mannville Heavy Oil Reservoir, Senlac, West-
Central Saskatchewan. In Summary of Investigations 2004, Vol. 1, ed. S. G. Survey.
Shin, H. and Polikar, M. 2007. Review of Reservoir Parameters to Optimize SAGD and Fast-SAGD Operating Conditions. J Can Pet Technol 46 (1):
35–41. PETSOC-07-01-04. https://doi.org/10.2118/07-01-04.
Singhal, A., Ito, Y., and Kasraie, M. 1998. Screening and Design Criteria for Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage (SAGD) Projects. Presented at the SPE
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 1–4 November. SPE-50410-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/50410-MS.
Solanki, S., Karpuk, B., Bowman, R. et al. 2005. Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage With Electric Submersible Pumping Systems. Presented at the SPE
Gulf Coast Section Electric Submersible Pump Workshop, Houston, 27–29 April.

Southern Pacific Resource Corporation. 2009. Presentation. Canadian Heavy Oil Association. Calgary, 10 November.
Southern Pacific Resources. 2010. 2010 Annual Report.
Southern Pacific Resources. 2013. Southern Pacific Provides October Operational Update. (press release).
Southern Pacific Corp. 2014.
Tavallali, M., Maini, B., Harding, T. et al. 2012. Assessment of SAGD Well Configuration Optimization in Lloydminster Heavy Oil Reserve. Presented
at the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 20–22 March. SPE-153128-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/153128-MS.
Zaitlin, B. and Shultz, B. 1990. Wave-Influenced Estuarine Sand Body, Senlac Heavy Oil Pool, Saskatchewan, Canada. In Casebooks in Earth Science—
Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs, pp. 363–387. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eric Delamaide is currently General Manager of IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc. in Calgary as well as the Manager EOR, Ameri-
cas for the EOR Alliance. He is a reservoir engineer with more than 25 years of experience who specializes in enhanced oil recov-
ery (EOR) and heavy oil. Delamaide has worked in more than 25 countries, and has been involved in various capacities in more
than 30 EOR projects including 16 polymer floods. He has published more than 50 papers on reservoir engineering and EOR.
Delamaide has a BSc degree in chemical engineering from the School of Mines in Saint Etienne, and an MSc degree in petro-
leum engineering from the IFP School, both in France. He is a member of the SPE Distinguished Lecturer Committee, associate
editor for SPE Reservoir Engineering, and technical editor for various journals including SPE Journal and SPE Reservoir Evaluation
and Engineering. Delamaide received awards for outstanding services as technical editor for SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engi-
neering in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 as well as one for SPE Journal in 2016. He has been a member of numerous SPE conference
technical committees.

SPE-183721-PA Senlac, The Forgotten SAGD Project - API 12 Close

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-183721-PA Senlac, The Forgotten SAGD Project - API 12 Close

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REE183721 DOI: 10.

2118/183721-PA Date: 28-July-18 Stage: Page: 789 Total Pages: 17

Senlac, the Forgotten SAGD Project

August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 789

ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

S 8-6-32-27W3 7-28-35-28W3 5-1-39-27W3 N

790 August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

PCP PCR SENLAC DD 15C7-12-3B6-12-40-26

Correlation Depth Resistivity Porosity

GR TVD Res S(RXOZ) PHIN(N/A)

SP Res M(AF30) RHOB(RHOZ)

–100 MV 50 0.2 Ω·m 200 2000 kg/m3 3000

CALI(HCAL) Res D(AF90) DT

August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 791

ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Fig. 6—Water-leg thickness map (meters). Each square is 1 3 1 mile.

Fig. 7—Porosity/permeability crossplot. Each symbol/color corresponds to a different well.

792 August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Average depth (m true vertical depth) 750

Table 1—Senlac main reservoir properties.

Water softening 3 × 50-million-Btu/hr Steam

Fig. 8—Schematic of surface facilities [Chakrabarty et al. (1998)].

August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 793

ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Fig. 10—Phases of SAGD development.

794 August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 12:38 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Production and Injection Rates (B/D)

Oil rate Water rate Steam-injection rate

Fig. 11—Historical oil- and water-production rates and steam-injection rate.

August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 795

ID: jaganm Time: 12:39 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Phase F Phase G Phase H Phase J Phase K

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Phase F Phase G Phase H Phase J Phase K

796 August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 12:39 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Cumulative Steam/Oil Ratio (bbl/bbl)

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Phase F Phase G Phase H Phase J Phase K

Fig. 14—CSOR by phase.

Average Average Cumulative Oil OOIP Recovery

A March-96 3+1 500 12.8 1,491.6 4,512.1 33.4 4.4

B February-99 3 560 10.7 2,054.3 4,785.5 43.4 3.0

C July-01 2 725 15.8 2,302.7 5,460.8 42.6 2.1

D May-04 3 715 14.1 2,517.6 4,666.4 54.5 1.7

E September-05 3 730 16.6 4,392.1 4,977.9 89.1 1.8

F December-07 2 950 10.6 538.7 3,373.7 16.1 3.4

G June-09 3 810 14.0 2,833.8 4,164.5 68.7 2.6 Still producing

H April-11 2 1,055 12.5 1,462.7 1,741.5 84.8 2.9 Still producing

J January-12 3 1,100 10.9 1,481.6 3,294.6 45.4 4.4 Still producing

K March-13 3 Variable 13.1 322.6 4,074.4 8.0 5.2 Still producing

Total 28 19,397.7 41,051.4 47.3

Total excl. K 25 19,075.0 36,977.0 51.6

Table 2—Main characteristics of successive development phases.

August 2018 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 797

ID: jaganm Time: 12:39 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180001/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180001

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Phase F Phase G Phase H Phase J Phase K

Phase F Phase G Phase H Phase J Phase K