SPE 50410
Screening and Design Criteria for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Projects
Ashok K. Singhal, SPE, Petroleum Recovery Institute, Yoshiaki Ito, Ito Consulting Ltd., and Mahnaz Kasraie, SPE, Kuwait
Oil Co.
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-4 November 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the authors. Content of this paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
corrections by the authors. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, PO
Box 833836, Richardson, Tx 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Certain insights into screening and design of SAGD projects,
derived from in-depth analyses of three successful field projects
in Canada [Tangleflags, Underground Test Facility (UTF) and
Imperial Oil's Horizontal Well Pilot I (HWPI) projects] are
presented. It was seen that for obtaining attractive oil rates and
oil reserves, one must attempt to obtain as large a confined steam
chamber, as feasible. Towards this end, one can select suitable
sites by carefully scrutinizing various reservoir/ geological
characteristics for their impact on confinement and size of an
expected steam chamber. Important design options include
staggering of the injectors (horizontal and vertical) around the
horizontal producers in pools with mobile heavy oil; injector to
injector spacing so that adjacent steam chambers merge into each
other, thereby providing a more efficient mobilization and
drainage of oil; and using geo-mechanical effects to advantage,
by suitably programming injection and production schedules.
It was seen that for continuous net pay thicknesses of 15 m or
larger, encouraging performance during SAGD could be
expected. Furthermore, for in-situ oil viscosities of 35 000 mPa.s
or lower, staggering of injectors around the producers becomes
feasible. In this case, the "steam trap" constraint on production
can be ignored during early periods of steaming for obtaining
high initial oil rates. If sub-fracture injectivity of steam into the
formation is limited, one can attempt an "intermittent SAGD" or
a "Single Well SAGD" to maximize returns. Other similar ideas
for obtaining an optimal performance are also discussed.
Introduction
With performance of several field projects involving Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) for recovery of heavy oil/ oil
sands, becoming available in the public domain1-4, these data
were analyzed for deriving inferences regarding their screening,
design and operation.
For Tangleflags type projects5 in reservoirs with a mobile
heavy oil (thickness exceeding 15 m and in-situ viscosity less
than 35 000 mPa.s), it was seen that using vertical steam
injectors staggered around horizontal producers, was a feasible
recovery strategy. Optimal spacing between injectors and
producers and between adjacent injectors was seen to be a
function of oil mobility within the pay zone. Several insights on
screening and operation of such projects were also obtained. For
example, presence of thin gas caps or thin aquifers (< 2m) did
not significantly hurt the performance. Also, “steam trap”
constraint on production could be ignored under certain
circumstances, especially during the early periods of steam
injection, in order to achieve an optimal performance (Fig. 1).
For Cold Lake type operations (the prototype was Horizontal
Well Pilot # I, or HWPI), where the in-situ oil viscosity was 65
000 mPa.s, it was desirable to place steam injectors (vertical or
horizontal) directly above a horizontal producer. In HWPI, a
vertical injector was used during 1980-89. During this period,
more than 50 000 m3 oil was recovered at a oil-steam ratio of
0.35. Relatively high steam injection pressures (5 to 10 MPa)
were encountered (February 1980 to July 1982). During a period
of no steam injection (August 1982 to February 1984) oil
production was seen to be strong (Fig. 2), as compared to the
period of steam injection before the shut-in, or since.
Performance deteriorated thereafter in the sense that strong oil
rates could not be sustained for long. The produced energy was
less than expected. It was suspected that geo-mechanical effects
were influencing the performance and to test this hypothesis, the
performance was re-interpreted6, using a thermal reservoir model
in conjunction with a “sand deformation” module.
Sand Deformation Concept. Ito7 in 1984, introduced a concept
of sand deformation to explain the behaviour of injection and
production wells during steam injection. This concept has
resulted in a satisfactory history matching of performance of
several field projects involving steam stimulation and SAGD.
According to this concept:
• Formation dilates (“sand deformation”) during steam
injection if some threshold pressure is exceeded in the
formation;
• Likewise, during production, at low formation pressure,
there is some compaction of the pore volume; the
2 ASHOK SINGHAL, YOSHIAKI ITO, MAHNAZ KASRAIE
deformation is not entirely reversed during depressurization;
• Effective permeabilities to oil and water are modified in the
deformed region, enabling larger than expected steam
injectivity and oil productivity; and
• Convection around a steam injector is significantly
enhanced as a consequence of sand deformation.
Reservoir dilation conditions may be obtained in oil-sands
situations that usually require fracturing in order to inject
economic quantities of steam in vertical wells. However, dilation
could be initiated at much lower pressures than the fracture
pressure. If significant pressure changes are likely to occur due
to injection/ production activities, these could lead to fracturing/
dilation during injection, and compaction during production,
beneficially affecting the performance. It is speculated that
dilation occurs around SAGD injectors and producers during the
phase of initiating heat linkage, especially when the injection
pressures are high. The subsequent flow would be in a
permanently dilated formation.
Using this concept, several aspects of HWPI could be
explained more adequately than using alternate approaches,
although some uncertainties remain. For example, the strong
performance during the shut-in of the steam injector between
1982 and 1984 was due to formation compaction, and the
subsequent deterioration in performance was due to oil
depletion. In this sense, the process was more of a variation of
cyclic steam stimulation than SAGD. Bulk of oil flow was seen
to be occurring adjacent to the steam chamber (Fig. 3),
indicating convection to be an important factor during SAGD. A
combination of SAGD with pressurization/ depressurization
seems to have had a positive effect on oil recovery at Cold Lake.
The application of sand deformation concepts to the UTF
projects, helped explain the shape and location of the steam
chamber, and the strong oil rate performance at the central well
AP2 (Fig. 4), which was mainly due to ceiling drainage of oil
through the steam chamber, rather than gravity drainage along its
sides as the SAGD theory of Butler et al.8 would suggest. Also,
convection was seen to be a significant heat transfer mechanism
during SAGD.
It was concluded that a suitable incorporation of these effects
in other SAGD projects, can also help optimize performance.
One practical way of optimizing performance may be by
examining the feasibility of an "intermittent SAGD" involving
pressure cycling. Furthermore, it may be advantageous to ignore
‘steam trap’ constraints during the early periods.
In more viscous oil (> 65 000 mPa.s) situations, use of
horizontal injectors, as well as steam trap constraints were
determined to be critical.
Since a significant amount of heat was transferred by
convection, as revealed by studies on Cold Lake HWPI6 and
UTF Phase 29 projects, a systematic study on role of convection
in SAGD projects was undertaken by one of the authors9. Using
a fine grid (1m x 1m) and ignoring geo-mechanical effects, a
systematic parametric study was conducted on the role of various
parameters on SAGD performance. It was seen that when the oil
was cold, the bulk of heat transfer was occurring via conduction
but as the oil was heated, convection became more important. At
SPE 50410
low oil viscosity within the heated zone, coupled with a high
permeability, gravity became a dominant factor and steam
chamber tended to rise to the top and spread thereafter. The bulk
of the steam condensate drained along the walls of the steam
chamber, whereas the bulk of the oil drained a couple of meters
away from it (Fig. 5). Thus, the viscosity of heated oil adjacent
to the steam chamber seemed to be determining the relative
amounts of heat transferred by conduction and convection. As
convection developed, its contribution overshadowed that of
conduction. The heated zone, after 2.5 years of heating, spread to
3m from the steam chamber at the top and 9m away from steam
chamber at the base of the steam chamber (Fig. 6). This
convection dominated production has important implications to
screening/ design of SAGD operations, as will be discussed in
the next sections.
Screening Issues
In a previous publication10 reservoir continuity and its internal
connectivity within the target region was seen to be critical for
success of a SAGD project. Intervals with mobile gas/ water
saturations (or having relatively low pressures), or vertical
fractures, if present, may act as thief zones and carry steam
towards unprofitable regions. Similarly, if the steam override is
very severe, some of the mobilized oil may not adequately drain
to the oil producer. On the other hand, reservoir conditions
favouring confinement of steam zone include fining upwards
sequences (channel and bars), stacked sands (fluvial or marine),
and pay zones with high ratios of horizontal to vertical
permeability. For different versions of SAGD applied in heavy
oil situations (>1 000 mPa.s), a minimum pay zone thickness of
15 m is indicated under the current low oil prices. The net pay
thickness could be lower if the oil is relatively mobile. For
relatively mobile oil under reservoir conditions, staggering of
injectors (vertical or horizontal) around the producers, instead of
placing them directly above the producers, seems to mobilize
additional oil.
In a separate study9, it was shown that the stabilized oil rate
during SAGD does not significantly increase for net pay
thicknesses exceeding 30 m (Fig. 7).
As mentioned earlier, presence of aquifers or small mobile
gas bearing regions within the pay zone, does not necessarily
rule out SAGD targets11,12, especially when these are thin (< 2
m). However, as was seen during Tangleflags simulation study
(Fig. 8), significant amount of heated and mobilized oil may end
up in the aquifer. Presence of discontinuous/ numerous shale
breaks (< 2m) may also not be very adverse, and actually could
be beneficial for application of SAGD13,14, especially if the width
of these lenses allows steam to flow around them, or alternately,
if they help in vertically confining steam chambers, after they
have adequately grown. The critical consideration is whether the
resulting oil drainage rate and sizes of steam chambers (modified
by heterogeneity and the operating strategy), are acceptable from
an economic point of view.
For Tangleflags type of exploitation (oil viscosity less than
35 000 mPa.s, horizontal producer and staggered injectors), oil
production performance to specified oil steam ratios could be
estimated as a function of oil viscosity using Fig. 95.
SPE 50410 Screening and Design Criteria for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Projects
It may be recalled that convective heating plays an important
role during SAGD. As a consequence, oil rate is more strongly
dependent on vertical permeability, oil saturation, net pay
thickness and oil viscosity of heated oil adjacent to the steam
chamber9, and the heat utilization would be generally more
efficient than indicated by Butler’s theory15. If the oil behaves as
a “foamy oil”, convection would be facilitated, as steam fingers
would be able to penetrate the heated oil, relatively easily.
Furthermore, expansion of gas bubbles may also contribute to
additional oil displacement. The main implication of convection
is in high-grading the target location for application of SAGD.
Since the target area for SAGD does not have to be very large,
appropriate selection can be based on local absolute and vertical
permeability, continuous net pay thickness and high oil
saturation.
Key Design Issues
The intent is to optimize returns (rates and recovery) with respect
to fixed (well and facilities) and variable (steam and operating)
costs. From an analysis of performance of SAGD projects (as
described above), and from several mechanistic studies available
in the public domain8-19, one can optimize project design. More
specifically, one can attempt to identify the best ways of:
1. Improvising the recovery process to obtain benefits from
drive/ geo-mechanics;
2. Achieving high rates;
3. Ensuring large reserves;
4. Increasing success of the project; and
5. Identifying optimal implementation (well configuration,
injection/ production conditions and well completions).
Improvising the recovery process to obtain any benefits from
drive/ geo-mechanics. The propagation of steam chamber can
be optimized by:
a. Incorporating a combination of drive and drainage. Such
combination would help achieve high rates and returns. The
drive component could be reduced subsequently.
b. Scheduling injection/ production (for a drive/ drainage
combination), and via optimizing completion of horizontal
well producers, especially for situations such as Single Well
SAGD, or where vertical injectors are used. Optimal
production conditions may be identified using reservoir
simulation. Ito and Suzuki20 used this approach to identify an
optimal steam trap condition of 40 0C, whereas Card et al.21
used it to confirm the start-up procedure for a SAGD project.
In order to shorten the lead time for establishing production
from a SAGD project, one may consider using Single Well
SAGD type of approach at the injectors well as, the producer
during establishment of heat linkage between the two wells.
The dominant consideration is to ascertain that a sufficient
sized steam chamber will result.
c. Designing the project around specific reservoir features such
as permeability, fracture trends, geomechanical dilation/
compaction, etc.
d. Ensuring that the lateral pressure drop within the injector will
be small enough so that it does not unduly influence the
performance. Likewise, production liner design should
enable sand exclusion while minimizing lateral pressure
3
variations.
e. Using any shut-in vertical wells within the project area for
injection as they provide additional flexibility in steam
placement during the SAGD project. In the Tangleflags
study5, optimal inter-well spacing (between vertical injectors)
was seen to be 150 m, and between the horizontal producer
and vertical injectors as 75 m.
Achieving high rates.
a. Ignore "steam trap" controls, whenever advantageous,
especially in mobile heavy oil situations during early periods
of steaming, where the steam injection periods prior to
achieving peak oil rates could be significantly reduced,
without unduly sacrificing the ultimate oil recovery.
b. Explore the possibility of delivering steam to the sand face at
as high a quality as feasible. The use of insulated liner to the
top of pay zone for a two well SAGD, and the use of vertical
injectors, if any happen to be in the vicinity of the producers,
are some of the ideas worth examining.
c. Schedule injection/ production so that a well developed steam
chamber is obtained before oil production is increased.
d. Ensuring adequate steam injection and oil lifting/ treating
facilities, so that these do not become limiting factors.
Ensuring large reserves. Creating and propagating as large a
steam chamber as feasible, and capturing as much mobilized oil
as possible, by:
a. Taking advantage of reservoir features such as permeability
trends/ previously created fractures, locating projects in
regions with a continuous thick pay, locating steam chambers
around small (<100 m) shale barriers (< 2m), spreading
steam via any localized and small gas caps, preferably
avoiding regions with thick and/ or active bottom water, etc.
b. For obtaining a laterally large steam chamber, one could
consider locating different well pairs so that individual steam
chambers around them coalesce into fewer/ larger continuous
chambers. This way, there will be a more efficient drainage
of oil from regions that may otherwise remain poorly drained
if smaller individual steam chambers form around well pairs.
This better drainage efficiency will be at cost of the large
steam chamber not adequately growing towards tighter
portions of the reservoir. Also, under suitable geological
conditions, an ESAGD type approach4, where pressures of
individual steam chambers are manipulated to mobilize oil
from regions in-between them, could also be considered.
c. In many situations, steam chambers are unlikely to spread
beyond 50 m lateral to the wells, on either side. In these
cases, one can consider exploitation by 500 m long well
pairs, placed 100 m apart, each draining oil from a 5 Ha area.
d. In bottom water situations, if the oil becomes heavier than
water under warm reservoir conditions, one might end up
losing significant amount of the mobilized heavy oil to the
bottom water zone5. Optimal operating and completion
conditions need to be identified for minimizing such loss of
reserves.
e. Injecting non-condensable gases to promote an easy spread of
steam, and to facilitate formation of a large steam chamber. If
the oil contains sufficient amount of dissolved gases, their
evolution upon heating and rising upwards might result in
4 ASHOK SINGHAL, YOSHIAKI ITO, MAHNAZ KASRAIE
similar beneficial effects. The existence/ creation of such
regions with high gas saturation in the upper parts of a pay
zone, can also potentially reduce steam temperature and heat
losses to the overburden, and lead to “blunting” of the steam
over-ride profile, making the process more efficient22,23. It
must be pointed out that SAGD performance may also suffer,
if the amount of non-condensable gases accumulated within
the steam chamber becomes too much. However, this
situation has so far not been reported from any of the field
projects involving SAGD.
Promoting likelihood of a successful project.
a. Ensuring vertical confinement of the heated zone away from
the formation top, to achieve an efficient utilization of the
injected steam. Locating projects in formations having fining
upwards sequences, or injecting a non-condensable gas with
steam would promote this.
b. Ensuring that steam chambers attain acceptable sizes within a
short period. The shape and location of the steam chamber
would depend, amongst other factors, on oil viscosity, oil
saturation, permeability distribution, net continuous pay
thickness, heterogeneities, existence of intervals with mobile
water/ gas within the pay zone, etc. This reinforces the
concept of designing the project around specific reservoir
characteristics of a given site.
c. Ensuring minimal pressure drops within horizontal sections of
wells, especially the injectors. [It should be pointed out that
economics drives the choice of small well diameters.]
Amount of steam condensate within the injection well, and in
the production well, can significantly impact on the oil
production rate. Presence of any sand/ fines in the production
well, can similarly influence the production behaviour.
Therefore, a proper estimate of lateral pressure drops along
the wells (and of their impact on oil rates) is essential. This
underscores the importance of well layout, drilling/
completion/ equipment aspects that can help minimize lateral
pressure drops within the injectors and producers. It is very
likely that in most practical instances, the effective length of
well pairs during an SAGD project is only a few hundred
metres.
d. Choosing cost-effective well spacings (between injectors and
producers, and between injectors). These choices would
depend upon specific well configurations (e.g. Two Well
SAGD, Single Well SAGD, Horizontal producers aided by
vertical steam injectors, etc.). These, in turn, could be
determined from considerations of oil viscosity, permeability
and pay thickness.
e. Maintaining even pressure drop across the two wells (injector
and producer), by placing them from opposite direction
(‘zipped horizontal wells’).
f. Implementing the project when oil saturation and pressure are
high. A project may become less attractive, if the oil
saturation is depleted. For high grading target locations, other
considerations were discussed earlier.
g. Choosing cost-effective oil lifting options. In many instances
a gas lift/ steam lift may offer attractive options. Potential
flowing conditions during SAGD, if and when they occur,
can be initiated using a gas lift, which can be phased out
SPE 50410
subsequently.
h. Utilizing waste heat of effluent in warming surface facilities.
Identifying optimal implementation (well configuration,
injection/ production conditions and well completions).
a. 'Steam Trap' conditions would help improve performance
under most reservoir conditions when the heavy oil has very
little initial mobility. Too much of this control would
"drown" out the chamber, whereas too little control would
result in an early steam production and destruction of the
steam chamber even if it forms. Injection/ production
scheduling would be the primary control, and monitoring of
effluent temperature would help implement the "steam trap"
control in the field.
b. Specification of operating conditions and the choice of
pumping equipment are critical to maintaining a "steam trap"
control.
c. To shorten periods of establishing a heat link between the
injectors and producers, a combination of well bore
circulation and pressurization/ depressurization or Single
Well SAGD type of operation may be considered. The bulk
of the flow thereafter would occur in a permanently dilated
part of the pay.
d. It was seen that oil viscosity and absolute permeability
determine the shape and location of the steam chamber
(Figures 10 and 11), confirming that gravitational rise of the
steam chamber is facilitated by high permeability and low oil
viscosity. Although steam injectivity may be better, steam
rising to the top would result in heat losses to the over-
burden. These factors need to be suitably incorporated in the
project design.
Potential problems and limitations. Farouq Ali24 points out
sand control, hot effluent/ high water-cut production, frequent
changes in operating regime (making management of SAGD
projects, a labour intensive one), deterioration of production at
late stages, and high operating costs as some of the limitations
to the current technology. Cost of delivering of high quality
steam at the sand face and of conducting work-overs, are some
of the other challenges. With experience and continued
application, some of these will be definitely resolved. For
example designs exist for improved sand exclusion devices25.
Thus, although there is a great potential for this technology,
due care and caution in its judicious use, can never be ignored.
Conclusions
1. For mobile cold oil situations (oil viscosity less than 35,000
mPa.s), staggering of injectors around producers (as opposed
to placing them vertically above them) can help achieve large
oil rates, as well as recovery. Vertical injectors (instead of
horizontal injectors) can be considered as they afford the
flexibility in judicious placement of steam. However, from
cost considerations, steam injection via vertical wells should
be considered only if they are available at favourable
locations, left over from previous operations. For very
viscous oils (>65 000 mPa.s), the use of horizontal injectors
placed directly above producers, is indicated.
2. If it is deemed desirable to use vertical injectors, the spacing
between them along the length of a producer is currently
SPE 50410 Screening and Design Criteria for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Projects
indicated to be of the order of 150 m, and their lateral
distance from the producer should not exceed 75 m.
3. For obtaining a laterally large steam chamber, one could
consider locating different horizontal well pairs up to about
100 m apart, depending upon the continuous pay thickness,
so that the individual steam chambers coalesce to provide a
large continuous chamber.
4. Steam trap constraints can be relaxed for mobile oil situations
for optimizing performance, especially during early periods.
For very viscous oils, such relaxation is not feasible.
5. Minimum net pay thickness, for a 10 000 mPa.s oil is
indicated to be 15 m; and could be even less for lighter oils.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to sincerely thank participants of the multi-
client project on the “Role of Geo-Mechanical Effects in
Improving Performance of Heavy Oil/ Bitumen Recovery
Using Processes Utilizing Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD)”. They were: AOSTRA (now Alberta Department
of Energy), AMOCO Canada, Imperial Oil, Japex Oil Sands
Limited, Wascana Energy (now Canadian Occidental), Ito
Consulting Ltd. and Petroleum Recovery Institute, all of
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Their financial support does not
necessarily imply that they endorse every statement in this
paper. Review and critique of this manuscript by R. Luhning
and Alex Turta of PRI were very helpful in sharpening the
key messages of this document. Assistance of Darryl
Darwent of PRI in giving this document the final shape,
consistent with SPE guidelines, is duly acknowledged.
References
1. Jesperson, P. J. and Fontaine, T. J. C., “The Tangleflags North Pilot:
A Horizontal Well Steam Flood”, JCPT, 32(5), pp. 52-57, May
1993.
2. Adegbesan, K. O., Leute, R. P., and Courtnage, D. E., “Performance
of a Thermal Horizontal Well Pilot”, SPE 22892, presented at the
66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
Oct. 6-9, 1991.
3. O’Rourke, J. C., Yee, C. T., Chambers, J. I., Begley, A. G., Boyle,
H. A. and Luhning, R. W., “UTF Project Status Update, May 1997”,
presented at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society, June 9, 1997.
4. Hamm, R. and Ong, T., “Enhanced Steam Assisted Gravity
Drainage (ESAGD)-A New Horizontal Well Recovery Process for
Peace River, Canada”, HWC94-08, presented at the SPE/ CIM/
CANMET International Conference on Horizontal Well
Applications, Calgary, March 20-24, 1994.
5. Kasraie, M., Singhal, A. K. and Ito, Y.: “Screening and Design
Criteria for Tangleflags Type SAGD Projects”, SPE 37571,
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium,
Bakersfield, Feb. 10-12, 1997.
6. Ito, Y. and Singhal, A. K.: “Reinterpretation of Performance of
Imperial Oil’s Horizontal Well Pilot (HWPI)”, PS 98-18, 48th
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM,
Calgary, June 8-11,1997.
7. Ito, Y., “The introduction of the Micro-Channelling Phenomenon to
Cyclic Steam Stimulation and its Application to Numerical
Simulator (Sand Deformation Concept)”, SPEJ, pp. 417-430,
August 1984.
5
8. Butler, R. M., McNabb, G. S., and Lo, H. Y., “Theoretical Studies
on the Gravity Drainage of Heavy Oil During Steam Heating”, Can.
J. Chem. Eng., vol. 59, pp. 455-460, August 1981.
9. Ito, Y., Suzuki, S. and Yamada, H., “Effect of Reservoir Parameters
on Oil Rates and Steam Oil Ratios in SAGD Projects”, Presented at
the Seventh UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Crude and
Tar Sands, Beijing, China, October 28-31, 1998.
10. Singhal, A. K., Das, S. K., Leggitt, S. M., Kasraie, M. and Ito, Y.,
“Screening of Reservoirs for Exploitation by Application of SAGD/
VAPEX Process”, SPE 37144, A 3 page synopsis appeared in JPT,
(Oct. 1997) 1122.
11. Good, W. K., Rezk, C., and Felty, B. D., “Other Criteria Affecting
SAGD Performance in McMurray Formation”, Alberta Department
of Energy, April 1997.
12. Redford, D. A., and Luhning, R. W., “In Situ Recovery from the
Alberta Oil Sands-Past Experience and Future Potential”, Paper PS
95-24, presented at the 46th Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, Banff, Alberta, May 1995.
13. Singhal, A. K.: “Good and Bad Heterogeneities from an IOR
Perspective”, PS 98-05, presented at the 49th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, June 9-11, 1998.
14. Mukherjee, N. J., Edmunds, N. R., and Gittins, S. D., “Impact and
Mitigation of Certain Geological and Process Factors in the
Application of SAGD at AOSTRA’s UTF”, HWC 94-24, SPE/
CIM/ CANMET International Conference on Recent Advances in
Horizontal Well Applications, Calgary, March 20-23, 1994.
15. Butler, R. M., “Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen”, Prentice
Hall, N.J., 1991.
16. Edmunds, N. R., “The Case of SAGD: Theory and Practice of
Heavy Oil and Bitumen Recovery”, presented at the SPE/ CIM/
CANMET International Conference on Recent Advances in
Horizontal Well Applications, Calgary, March 20-23, 1994.
17. Farouq Ali, S. M., “Is There Life After SAGD”, JCPT, 36(6),pp. 20-
23, June 1997.
18. Sawhney, G., Eddy, D., and Peters, E., “Pressure Controlled Gravity
Drainage (PCGD): Method for Effective Utilization of Steam with
Horizontal Producers in Heavy Oil Pools”, PS 97-97, presented at
the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society,
Calgary, June 8-11, 1997.
19. Kisman, K. E. and Yeung, K. C., “Numerical Study of the SAGD
Process in Burnt Lake Oil Sands Lease”, SPE 30276, presented at
the International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, June
1995.
20. Ito, Y. and Suzuki, S., “Numerical Simulation of the SAGD Process
in the Hangingstone Oil Sands Reservoir”, Paper 96-57, presented at
the 47th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 10-12, 1996.
21. Card, C. C., Oballa, V., Kisman, K., Fu, M. and Wang, X., “Three
Dimensional SAGD Simulation of a Dipping Oil Sands Reservoir”,
Paper 96-56, presented at the 47th Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 10-12,
1996.
22. Singhal, A. K., Das, S., Goldman, J. and Turta, A., “Optimization of
Well Configuration in Single Well SAGD”, Poster Presentation at
the Petroleum Recovery Institute 1998 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibit, Calgary, May 26, 1998.
23. Good, W. K., “Reservoir Blunting in the SAGD Process”, presented
at the Thirty First Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee
and Members’ Annual General Meeting of the Computer Modelling
Group, Calgary, May 21, 1997.
24. Farouq Ali, S. M., “SAGD”, talk to the Petroleum Society, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada on June 17, 1998.
25. Luhning, R. W., Private Communications, 1998.
6 ASHOK SINGHAL, YOSHIAKI ITO, MAHNAZ KASRAIE SPE 50410
SPE 50410 Screening and Design Criteria for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Projects 7