A New SAGD-Well-Pair Placement:
A Field Case Review
Kamran R. Jorshari, SPE, and Brendan O’Hara, Husky Energy Incorporated
Summary
Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) has been improved con-
sistently by experimenting with various solutions in both oil sands
and heavy-oil fields in Canada (Butler 1994; Singhal et al. 1998).
The SAGD process consists of two stacked horizontal wells and is
proven technology in heavy-oil fields (Butler and Yee 2000).
Employing the same concept of gravity drainage, SAGD-well-
placement convention has been revisited and challenged many
times (Birrell and Putnam 2000; Edmunds 1991; Parappilly and
Zhao 2009). Known to the industry, the cross-SAGD (also called
XSAGD) (Stalder 2007) and J-shaped well steam-assisted gravity
drainage (JAGD) (Larter et al. 2008) processes are two examples
of fit-for-purpose well design and recovery schemes that require
unique drilling practices. The Celtic pool, located in Lloydminster,
Saskatchewan, is an active Husky Energy Incorporated (Husky)
thermal field that includes 31 SAGD well pairs. In this heavy-oil
pool, one of the SAGD well pairs (I3/I4; Well I3 as producer and
Well I4 as the injector) experienced production downtime soon af-
ter coming into service. Following numerous unsuccessful service
jobs, several re-entry options were suggested in order to recover
remaining reserves. These included sidetracking Well I3, redrilling
a new well from the same pad location, or commencing a new well
from a different surface location. These cases were ranked, and in
2010, on the basis of a drilling-risk assessment, the new horizontal
producer well (I3A) was drilled close to the existing well pair.
Well I3A was placed counter currently below the existing injector
well (I4) and set successfully parallel to the abandoned Well I3.
Steam conditioning was completed in the first quarter (Q) of 2011,
and the new SAGD well pair (I3A/I4) has been put on production
successfully.
The new well pair was positioned in the opposite direction of a
conventional SAGD-well-pair placement. This paper presents the
original I3/I4 pair performance, the challenges, results of redril-
ling Well I3A, reservoir-simulation study, and recent field produc-
tion of the I3A/I4 SAGD well pair.
Introduction
Husky has developed several thermal projects in the Lloydminster
region from pilot to commercial phases, including the well-known
Pikes Peaks thermal project. The area of interest in this paper, the
Celtic field, is in Township 52 Range 23 west of the third merid-
ian in the province of Saskatchewan. The Celtic field is central-
ized in Section 17 (Fig. 1) (Mobile Oil Canada 1996). Since the
beginning of Husky’s SAGD pilot in 2001, the field has been
expanded into a major SAGD field operation. From 2002 until
January 2011, 21 SAGD well pairs in Section 17 consumed
approximately 6.2 million m3 cold water equivalent (CWE) of
steam and produced more than 2 million m3 of oil, which resulted
in a cumulative steam/oil ratio (CSOR) of 3.1 m3/m3. The central
processing facility consists of 16 steam generators, several test
separators, and treating systems, including water-softening plants.
In the Celtic field, high-quality steam is processed and injected
into the reservoir. The advantages of injecting higher-quality
steam include higher thermal efficiency and lower water disposal.
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 149239) was accepted for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–17 November 2011, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 20 January 2012. Revised manuscript received for
review 9 August 2012. Paper peer approved 16 October 2012.
12
This resulted in greater oil recovery in addition to lowering Hus-
ky’s environmental footprint (Saltuklaroglu et al. 2000).
The SAGD process is a thermal recovery scheme in which two
wells are horizontally drilled with a vertical offset of approxi-
mately 4 to 6 m (Fig. 2) (Edmunds et al. 1994). The producer (the
lower well) is placed close to the base of the pay, and steam injec-
tion (the upper well) supports the drainage process by reducing oil
viscosity and maintaining reservoir pressure (Ito et al. 2004). In a
conventional SAGD-well-pair configuration, the horizontal wells
are positioned in the same direction (Tamer and Gates 2009).
The I3/I4 SAGD well pair has been on production since Q4 of
2005. Well I3 is the producer, and I4 is the companion injector
well in the pair. Fig. 1 shows the area of interest and subsurface
well trajectories. In this field, the SAGD well pairs are spaced
approximately 100 m apart. The well pairs have been equipped
with downhole instrumentation: a distributed temperature sensing
(DTS) system with fiber optics. A single point pressure sensor
was installed in the producer also.
Geology
On the basis of seismic interpretation and log analysis, a channel
sequence has been clearly detected in the Sparky and General Pe-
troleum (GP) intervals. The Sparky formation is overlain by the
Waseca formation and underlain by the GP and Rex formations.
The channel top is located at a depth of approximately 470 m and
consists of a sand/shale sequence covering the Sparky and GP for-
mations. The sand is unconsolidated extremely fine grain to fine
grain with little clay content. On the basis of log and seismic data,
the Sparky-GP channel has been recognized and is trending in the
northeast/southwest direction of Section 17. The general trend
and lateral extent of the channel are reasonably well identified in
the section. The channel in Section 17 is trending northeast/south-
west, and it is estimated at approximately 1 km wide and approxi-
mately 30 m thick. Although the reservoir sand quality varies by
location, on the basis of log data, the pay package is fairly blocky
and uniform. The reservoir sandpack is described as having excel-
lent porosity and permeability quality and is highly saturated with
heavy oil. The average reservoir properties are summarized in
Table 1, and the pay definition is as follows:
 Porosity > 24%
 Resistivity > 6–10 X
m
 Gamma < 30 API
 Stable spontaneous potential log (SP)
In the previously discussed Celtic Sparky-GP reservoir, the cur-
rent interpretation uses a wave-dominated estuary. There is also a
belief that the channel sections of the estuary were influenced by
tides in a micromesotidal system. The bulk of the reservoir would
have been built during a transgressive phase (relative sea-level
rise), receiving sediment from both marine and fluvial sources
(Boyd et al. 2006). The relatively low-accommodation setting of the
deposit and multiple transgressive phases can make breaking out fa-
cies stacks difficult, considering both vertical sequences and lateral
extensions of lagoonal sediments and abandonment plugs. 3D- and
4D-seismic interpretations with continually improving acquisition
and processing techniques are providing higher-resolution maps.
The target area is considered as a fluvial/tidal channel, with
sand-bar development and a final abandonment silt/shale plug
located in the final thalweg location within the estuary. This
would have been a higher-energy thoroughfare, with multiple
phases of deposition and erosion. A large siderite/calcite concre-
tion is suspected to have formed at the heel area of Well I3
January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 I3A in blue
I3 and I4 in black
Fig. 1—The Celtic field in the Lloydminster region and Wells I3, I3A, and I4 in SAGD-well-pair placement.
because adjacent wells had experienced drilling challenges when
they penetrated the reservoir from unconsolidated sand into a tight
streak of siderite/calcite. Composition of the sediment is not
known exactly because there have been no core data that inter-
sected the carbonate. However, several striplogs have reported
high-density carbonate in the samples. This could be interpreted
as a facies boundary caused by subaerial exposure during a minor
lowstand tract (e.g., small evaporatic pool). Fig. 3 shows effective
pay and base pay of the formation highlighting I3/I4 in Section 17
Township 52, Range 23, W3.
SAGD-Well-Pair History
Husky had experienced drilling challenges in deeper zones aound
this area up to 600 m. There was also a bottomhole-assembly
(BHA) loss while drilling the build section of adjacent SAGD
well pairs. Well I3 was spudded in February 2005. This well was
one of the 12 wells that formed the second expansion stage of the
Celtic field’s commercial development. The bottomhole-assembly
(BHA) loss was the Sparky formation, in which 463-m true verti-
cal depth [467.5-m measured depth (MD)] was identified as the
Fig. 2—Schematic of SAGD-well-pair placement.
January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
top of the reservoir pay. The surface casing was set at approxi-
mately 129-m MD, and cement return was confirmed.
During drilling of the build section of Well I3, lost-circulation
volumes (8 m3) occurred in the Waseca formation, but were cured
following standard procedure. Then, the drillpipe became stuck in
the Sparky formation (90 inclination at approximately 600-m
MD) near the intermediate-casing point (ICP). Because the fishing
job failed, the BHA was left behind and the hole was plugged back.
The drilling rig successfully sidetracked Well I3 and ran casing to
the ICP. Fig. 4a presents the schematic of the wellbore, which was
submitted to the Ministry of Energy and Resources in Saskatche-
wan. The intermediate casing (95=8 in.) was set at 698-m MD. A
good cement bond was found at approximately 257-m MD, with
one marginal cement bond from 151- through 190-m MD. The
bond-log interpretation confirmed that an adequate zonal isolation
between the Sparky and the upper Mannville zones was achieved.
However, to maintain integrity of the wellbore and safety of the
SAGD operation, a maximum injection pressure of 3900 kPa was
advised for the startup program. Well I3 was rig released in early
April 2005. A cross-sectional view of Wells I3 and I4 is plotted in
Fig. 4b, in which the first leg of Well I3 is illustrated. Effective lat-
eral length of Wells I3 and I4 are 434 and 428 m, respectively.
The pair was completed with a liner completion comprising an
alternating wire-wrapped screen with blank joints in the producer
well and an alternating slotted liner with blank joints in the injec-
tor well. The producer liner was 7 in. with 0.008-in. wire-
TABLE 1—AVERAGE RESERVOIR PROPERTIES IN THE AREA
Formation Sparky-GP
Net pay (m) 10–16
Depth (m true vertical depth) 470
Porosity (%) 32
Oil saturation (%) 80
Permeability (darcies) 3–5
Oil gravity ( API) 12
Initial reservoir pressure (kPa) 3300
Initial reservoir temperature ( C) 16
Dead-oil viscosity at 16 C (mPa
s) 33 000
Oil formation volume factor 1.00
13
 I3 and I4 wells
Fig. 3—Effective pay (left) and base pay (right, in subsea elevation) of the Sparky formation with subject-well trajectories.
wrapped-screen size. A downhole fiber-optics instrumentation
string was deployed inside Well I3 to monitor the subsurface con-
dition and flow assurance.
Steam injection on Wells I3 and I4 began in October 2005,
and first oil was produced in December 2005. In 2006, and as part
of ongoing monitoring of the steam chamber in the new SAGD
pair, a few changes were applied to uniformly condition the well-
bore and workovers were performed to maintain production vol-
umes. As an example, an optimization program was planned to
improve steam distribution along Well I4, and the expected result
was achieved. Figs. 5 and 6 present Well I3 temperature enhance-
ment from January through May 2006 as a result of the plan. By
comparison, it was noted that the steam chamber progressed to-
ward the second part of the Well I3 wellbore. However, the last
50 m of Well I3 was found to be approximately 40 C colder than
the rest of the well, explained by lack of heat support caused by
the landing point of the injection string in Well I4.
In Q4 of 2006, Husky field operations reported frequent pump
failures because of sand problems. In September 2007, a large
amount of baked sand was discovered in the liner of I3 during a
service job. The service rig tagged the solid material close to the
ICP, implying that the liner’s integrity had been compromised at
approximately 760-m MD, approximately 50 m inside the liner.
The liner hanger was tested, but the result was positive. Since
then, Well I3 has experienced numerous pump changes, a sonic
stimulation workover, and an underreaming job. The sanding issue
and production downtime were on the rise. As an example, more
than 20 m3 of fine sand was recovered (November 2008) in one
cleaning job. In Q1 of 2009, and during the underreaming job, the
coil was parted and following an unsuccessful fishing procedure,
the coil assembly was left inside the liner. The well-pair perform-
ance continued to diminish until April 2009, when its operation
was suspended. The producer wellbore was no longer accessible
because of mechanical failure. In November 2009, Husky per-
formed an abandonment job with two plug sets, one inside the liner
and another bridge plug inside the intermediate casing.
Fig. 7 exhibits the I3/I4 well-pair field production history.
Water production did not reach steam injection because of down-
time and mechanical challenges that operations experienced in
2007 and 2008. To date, the SAGD well pair produced approxi-
mately 35 000 m3 of oil and consumed approximately 140 000 m3
CWE of steam, which amounts to a 4.0-m3/m3 CSOR. On the ba-
sis of subsurface pressure and downhole temperature and pressure
(T/P) data, the formation has been well-heated and average reser-
14
I3 and I4 wells
voir temperature was estimated at more than 140 C. However, the
I3/I4 pair has not fully delivered the expected oil recovery
(approximately 50%) because of productivity challenges. In 2009
and when Well I3 was abandoned, the recovery factor was
approximately 18%. Thus, a follow-up process was imperative in
order to recover reservoir energy and produce remaining reserves.
Drilling Well I3A
Husky conducted a risk evaluation on whether to drill a new pro-
ducer well or to commence a sidetrack. The new horizontal well
was to serve as a SAGD producer, using the existing injector well
(I4). Three options were assessed:
 Option 1: Whipstock Well I3 at higher elevation and side-
track 95=8- or 7-in. intermediate casing.
 Option 2: Drill a new well from the surface location of Wells
I3 and I4.
 Option 3: Drill a new well from the opposite side of Well I4.
A few risk factors were addressed, including:
 To position the well, an active ranging tool was considered.
However, the Well I4 wellbore temperature (Fig. 8) was greater
than the tool’s specification. It was advised that applying cool-
down water in Well I4 might cause surface congestion by the
service rig and drilling rig, a simultaneous operation risk.
 Because of the presence of the SAGD well pairs in the area,
anticollision design was essential.
 Circulation losses in the depleted zone could impose opera-
tional risk to the active wells.
 The remaining BHAs and the abandoned well in the area
could impair drilling results.
 There was some degree of uncertainty in encountering multi-
ple steam chambers and oil banks while drilling into the zone of
interest.
The subsurface team reviewed each case and weighted oppor-
tunity vs. impact. The team recommended advancing Option 1:
To perform whipstock drilling through the existing 95=8-in. inter-
mediate casing and sidetrack a new parallel leg approximately 5
m to the north of Well I3. To ensure suitability and safety of the
program, it was suggested running a caliper log or a dummy whip-
stock before plan execution. In February 2010, a multiple-arm
caliper tool was run in Well I3, and results indicated that the inter-
mediate casing near to the ICP was deformed. Therefore, Option
1 was dismissed and Options 2 and 3 were reconsidered. The lat-
ter was realized as a viable option, with lower-risk severity and
January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 SURFACE HOLE (0–120 m)

INTERMEDIATE HOLE (120–647 mKBMD)

MAIN HOLE (647 m–1131 m)
222 mm horizontal hole
Production casing:
244.50 mm, 59.5 kg/m, Set whipstock and Mill window into 244.5 mm casing at 647 m
L-80, QB2 from surface to Mud System: To be advised after temperature surve
698.0 mKBMD.
Possible Problems: sloughing, hole cleaning, differential sticking, lost circulation
Surveys: MWD-AEI
Logging: GR with MWD
Linor: 177.8 mm, L-80. DTC. 34.2 kg/m
Pipe arm configuration 0.007* slotted
Run with two blank joints at the heel for offset
Hanger:
244.5-mm x 177.8-mm
thermal liner packer set at
679.48 mKBMD
PR ICP - 647 mKBMD Liner Set - 627 mKBMD Liner TD - 1131 mKBMD

Whipstock

(a)

450
I3 first leg
455 I4 producer
I4 injector

460
Sparky top pick
Depth (m, true vertical depth)

465

470

475
I3-first leg
480
I4
485 Pump set
I3
490

495

500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
East/west horizontal projection (m)
(b)

Fig. 4—(a) Well I3 completion program in 2005. (b) Wells I3 and I4 trajectories with elevation profile.

higher probability of success. Well I3A was drilled in January
2011 with no major re-entry problems. The I3A wellbore was
secured with good cement returns. The wellbore was completed
and equipped with a rod pump. The Well I3A drilling samples
showed an excellent sand quality in the lateral section of the well.
Fig. 9 depicts 3D views of Wells I3, I3A, and I4 relative to the ad-
jacent SAGD well pairs.
Reservoir Simulation
The objective of reservoir modelling was to generate a static
model representing the reservoir condition and to realize the pro-
duction profile of the new SAGD pair (I3A/I4). A 3D full-field
model was built using the CMG (2007) STARSTM simulator
incorporating the PETRELTM geological maps (Petrel E&P Soft-
ware Platform 2009). The model is heterogeneous, and water satu-
ration, porosity, and permeability are based on geostatistical
distribution of hard data. The horizontal permeability was based
on an established correlation between porosity and permeability
from the core analysis. The kv/kh ratio was varied slightly depend-
ing on the Vsh (shale volume recorded from log data). The ratio
was an input parameter and did not train during the history-match-
ing process, given low variation to the range of the log data. The
grid-cell numbers of the model are 23 in the x-direction (each 25

January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 15

 210
25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
200 25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
190 25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
180
Temperature (°C)

170
160
150
140
130
120
ICP of I3
110 TD of I3

100
2051 2071 2091 2111 2131 2151 2171 2191 2211 2231 2251 2271 2291 2311 2331 2351 2371 2391 2411 2431
Distance from surface DTS box (m)

Fig. 5—Temperature profiles from 28 January through 1 February 2006 in Well I3.

25 May 2006 wellbore temperature

210 25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
200 25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
25 May 2006 wellbore temperature
190
180
Temperature (°C)

170
160
150
140
130
120
110 ICP of I3 TD of I3

100
2051 2071 2091 2111 2131 2151 2171 2191 2211 2231 2251 2271 2291 2311 2331 2351 2371 2391 2411 2431
Distance from surface DTS box (m)

Fig. 6—Temperature profiles from 25 May through 30 May 2006 in Well I3.

350
Field_Oil
325 Field_Water
300 Field_Steam
275
250
225
Rate (m3/d)

200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
May- Aug- Nov- Feb- May- Aug- Nov- Feb- May- Aug- Nov- Feb- May- Aug- Nov- Feb-
05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09
Field Operation (month)

Fig. 7—I3/I4 SAGD-well-pair production profile (actual).

16 January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 140

120

100

80

60
Temperature (°C)

Fig. 8—The Well I4 trajectory and temperature surveys.

I4

I4

I3

I3A

I3A

Fig. 9—3D view of Wells I3, I3A, and I4 with adjacent SAGD pairs in the field (left). Looking south, Wells I3A and I4 with their gamma
ray in green (right).

m), 108 in the y-direction (each 1 m), and 38 in the z-direction
(each 0.5 m). The grid-cell number totals 94,392, covering approxi-
mately 302 400 m3 of pore volume. Fig. 10 (right) shows a 3D
view of porosity distribution with Wells I3A, I3, and I4. The model
was validated by matching the pressure/saturation-dependent prop-
erties with the injection/production rates of I3/I4 and the reservoir
pressure. Although the model could not explain field production
data from January through July 2006, its trend was reasonable.
Demonstrated in Fig. 10 (left), the rest of the I3/I4-pair history was
aligned well with field data, confirming the model’s validity to
forecast production performance of the I3A/I4 pair. In early days,
underpredicted oil production from the model was explained by
data precision and fluid-cut measurement in the field.
Results and Discussion
On the basis of the temperature surveys from 2009 through 2010,
it was expected that the I3A/I4-pair production fluid rate would

350
Field_Oil
325 Field_Water
Porosity 0.50
300 Field_Steam
Model_Oil 0.45
275
Model_Water
250 Model_Steam 0.40
225 0.35
Rate (m3/d)

200 0.30
175 0.25
150 0.20
125 0.15
100 0.10
75 0.05
50 0.00
25
0
May- Aug- Nov- Feb- May- Aug- Nov- Feb- May- Aug- Nov- Feb- May- Aug- Nov- Feb-
05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09
Field Operation (month)

Fig. 10—I3/I4 SAGD-pair production profile comparing field data and the reservoir model (left) and porosity of the reservoir model
with projected well path (right).

January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 17

quickly increase because the formation has been sufficiently
warm for a few years. In March 2011, and before commissioning
the well pair, a new temperature survey was completed in Well
I3A. It was confirmed that the temperature in the lateral section
was more than 100 C, with a maximum record of 130 C near the
heel.
The reservoir model forecasted that the ramp-up rate could
reach a high-rate plateau of 45 m3/d of oil in less than 6 months.
The result indicated that oil rate would start from 15 m3/d and
reach a maximum production level of 100 m3/d after 1 year.
In April 2011, Well I3A was steamed for a 3-week period. It
was recommended to condition the wellbore gradually at a low
steam target to maintain approximately 2500-kPa reservoir pres-
sure. In early May, Wells I3A and I4 were put into SAGD mode
and the oil rate was tested at 9 m3/d. Given its high efficiency, the
Well I3A pump speed increased and the oil-production rate was
measured at 22 m3/d in June and July. The well-pair pressure drop
and the bottomhole subcool were calculated, and steam allocation
was modified accordingly. The oil-production rate increased to 43
m3/d of oil in early August. Further tests and analyses are required
to examine the well pair’s productivity in the long term.
Conclusions
• In the Celtic heavy-oil field, the I3/I4 SAGD well pair gradually
experienced more mechanical challenges while performing as
expected for the first 2 years. The producer well (I3) was shut
in after 4 years in service.
• To capture remaining reserves, a development plan was consid-
ered, including a paradigm shift in the basic assumptions of the
recovery-process setup.
• Conventional SAGD well construction was re-examined, and
an opposite entry point was proposed for trajectory of a new
producer well, I3A.
• Drilling results of a SAGD pair have direct impact on the pair’s
performance, just as the geological signature of the reservoir
does (Aherne and Maini 2008). In the presented case study, pro-
ductivity of the pair was enhanced by executing a proper dril-
ling program and using the existing injector well (I4).
• As a valuable lesson learned in Well I3, it is recommended to
conduct a dummy run before performing a sidetrack job, con-
firming operability of the service tool and also the casing
condition.
• In late 2010, Well I3A was commenced by crossing the steam
zone and while formation was active. The well was placed suc-
cessfully countercurrently below the existing injector well (I4)
and parallel to the abandoned Well I3. Drilling success was a
result of implementing an alternative ranging method, simulta-
neous operation program, control loss management, and well-
defined trajectory survey.
• The I3A/I4 well-pair performance and economic evaluation
were supported by result of a 3D geostatistical simulation
model and validated against the field data to project production
feasibility. This model was also used to optimize the I3A/I4
pair’s operating strategy.
• A modified drainage strategy was designed for the I3A/I4 pair,
resulting in an increase over previous production volume, with
a plateau rate of approximately 100 m3/d of oil in 2012.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Husky for permission to publish
this work. The key success in this project was a collaborative
effort between the drilling, field operations, and development
teams. Also, the authors would like to thank Tim Henderson for
development and planning updates and Cindy Dai for her support
on simulation runs.
References
Aherne, A.L. and Maini, B. 2008. Fluid Movement in the SAGD Process:
A Review of the Dover Project. J Can Pet Technol 47 (1). PETSOC-
08-01-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/08-01-31.
18
Birrell, G.E. and Putnam, P.E. 2000. A Study of the Influence of Reservoir
Architecture on SAGD Steam Chamber Development at the Under-
ground Test Facility, Northeastern Alberta, Canada, Using a Graphical
Analysis of Temperature Profiles. Presented at the Canadian Interna-
tional Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 4–8 June. PETSOC-2000-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2000-104.
Boyd, R., Dalrymple, R.W., and Zaitlin, B.A. 2006. Estuarine and Incised-
Valley Facies Models. In Facies Models Revisited, H.W. Posamentier
and R.G. Walker, No. 84, 171–235. Tulsa, Oklahoma: SEPM Special
Publication, Society for Sedimentary Geology.
Butler, R.M. 1994. Steam-assisted Gravity Drainage: Concept, Develop-
ment, Performance And Future. J Can Pet Technol 33 (2): 44–50.
JCPT Paper No. 94-02-05. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94-02-05.
Butler, R.M. and Yee, C.T. 2000. Progress in the In Situ Recovery of
Heavy Oils and Bitumen. Presented at the Canadian International Pe-
troleum Conference, Calgary, 4–8 June. PETSOC-2000-050. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/2000-050.
CMG. 2011. STARS User Manual, Version 2007.10. Calgary, Alberta:
Computer Modelling Group.
Edmunds, N.R. 1991. Effective Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage to Long
Horizontal Wells. Proc., Petroleum Society of CIM/AOSTRA Techni-
cal Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 21–24 April 1991, Paper No.
91-55.
Edmunds, N.R., Kovalsky, J.A., Gittins, S.D. et al. 1994. Review of Phase
A Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage Test. SPE Res Eng 9 (2): 119–214.
SPE-21529-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21529-PA.
Ito, Y., Hirata, T., and Ichikawa, M. 2004. The Effect of Operating Pres-
sure on the Growth of the Steam Chamber Detected at the Hanging-
stone SAGD Project. J Can Pet Technol 43 (1). PETSOC-04-01-05.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/04-01-05.
Larter, S., Adams, J., Gates, I.D. et al. 2008. The Origin, Prediction and
Impact of Oil Viscosity Heterogeneity on the Production Characteris-
tics of Tar Sand and Heavy Oil Reservoirs. J Can Pet Technol 47 (1).
PETSOC-08-01-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/08-01-52.
Mobile Oil Canada. 1996. Celtic SAGD Pilot Expansion: Celtic Field,
Saskatchewan. Application for an Extension of the Existing Recovery
Project. Submitted to Saskatchewan Energy and Mines (SEM), Regina,
Saskatchewan (November 1996).
Parappilly, R. and Zhao, L. 2009. SAGD with a Longer Wellbore. J Can
Pet Technol 48 (6): 71–77. PETSOC-09-06-71. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/09-06-71.
Saltuklaroglu, M., Wright, G.N., Conrad, P.R. et al. 2000. Mobil’s
SAGD Experience at Celtic, Saskatchewan. J Can Pet Technol 39
(4): 45–51. JCPT Paper No. 00-04-03. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/00-
04-03.
Singhal, A.K., Ito, Y., and Kasraie, M. 1998. Screening and Design Crite-
ria for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Projects. Presented
at the SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, 1–4 November. SPE-50410-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
50410-MS.
Stalder, J.L. 2007. Cross SAGD (XSAGD)–An Accelerated Bitumen Re-
covery Alternative. SPE Res Eval & Eng 10 (1): 12–18. SPE-97647-
PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97647-PA.
Tamer, M. and Gates, I.D. 2009. Impact of Well Configuration on Per-
formance of Steam-Based Gravity Drainage Processes. Presented at
the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 16–18
June. PETSOC-2009-046. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2009-046.
Kamran R. Jorshari is Lead Thermal Reservoir Operations with
Husky, with more than 24 years’ divers experience in the
upstream and downstream oil and gas industry. He focused
on advanced reservoir engineering, field operating strategy,
reservoir management, and thermal recovery applications in
both technical and managerial roles with major operators
where he registered three Patents in Canada and the US.
Before joining Husky, Jorshari worked at Statoil as a Subsurface
Engineering Manager in oil-sands development projects,
where he developed an engineering toolbox supporting new
project qualification with higher predictive accuracy while
reducing prospect evaluation time. The cochair and organizer
for various international technical conferences, and recently
appointed as Chairman of 2013 SPE Heavy Oil Conference-
Canada, Jorshari holds a BSc degree in chemical and
January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
petroleum refining engineering from Tehran University and
MSc and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from the Uni-
versity of Calgary. Currently, he serves as Editorial Review
Board member for the Journal of Canadian Petroleum Tech-
nology and sits on the SPE Editorial Review Committee and is a
registered professional engineer in Alberta.
January 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Brendan O’Hara has been working at Husky Energy since 2008.
He began his career in the field in the North Sea in 2001.
O’Hara pays particular attention to seismic data and local
geomagnetism with regard to wellbore placement in reser-
voirs. He holds a BSc degree in geology from Queen’s Univer-
sity in Belfast, Ireland.
19