PAPER 2009-047

Estimation of Steam-Chamber
Extent Using 4D Seismic
M. TANAKA
Waseda University

K. ENDO
Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited

S. ONOZUKA
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation

This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 16‐18 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals.
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction.

Abstract temperature and to gently decrease with an increase in pore

The Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process has
been successfully implemented to produce ultra-viscous bitumen
from the Athabasca oil-sands in the Province of Alberta,
Canada. In the Hangingstone area, 15 pairs of SAGD wells had
been drilled by 2006 in the reservoir of maximum 30 m
thickness and about 300 m depth. The production reached an
average of 8,000 BOPD in recent years. The reservoir is
geologically characterized as stacked incised valley fills in
fluvial to upper-estuarine channels. Thin mudstone layers and
abrupt changes in facies caused by the sedimentary deposits
present complexities and difficulties for SAGD implementation.
A 3D seismic survey was conducted in 2002 to obtain a
clear view of geology that was fully utilized for planning
additional wells. In order to evaluate SAGD efficiency and
performance, a time-lapse 3D seismic survey was carried out in
2006. In this paper, P-wave velocity (Vp) maps transformed
from the seismic travel-time maps were interpreted with a new
methodology for evaluating the areal extent of the steam-
chamber zone created by the SAGD process. In the previous
experimental study of seismic velocity measurements with oil-
sands cores, Vp was found to steeply drop with an increase in
pressure.
Based on the experimental results, a petrophysical model
was formulated to express Vp as a function of temperature,
pressure, and water saturation. The high pressure and high
temperature zone of the SAGD process should generate
differences between the first (2002) and second (2006) Vp maps
from which we can estimate the area of the reduced bitumen
viscosity with a temperature increase. As effects of pressure are
probably more areally extensive than effects of temperature,
these two effects on the Vp maps need to be segregated. As a
new method, a scaling factor for the Vp reduction was first
estimated to adjust the laboratory scale and field scale. We then
calculated a distribution of Vp reduction corresponding to
steam-chamber conditions in order to decouple composite
effects of temperature and pressure based on the petrophysical
model. Distinguishing high temperature and high pore-pressure
zone from low temperature and high pore-pressure zone, we
could determine a steam-chamber distribution.
The bitumen volume in the steam-chamber zone was
estimated and compared with the actual production. The
methodology, interpretation procedures, and the results
obtained are presented in detail.

1
Introduction In this paper, we focus on the western area of the reservoir
and estimate the steam-chamber extent generated by the
Although the oil price has dropped rapidly after the horizontal well pairs from H to Q. Steam injection start time for
financial crisis in 2008, the development of unconventional oil each well of the western area is listed in Table 1.
resources like extra-heavy oil and oil shale still remains
significant in the quest for increasing reserves or energy
security (Stark et al. 2008). Such bituminous and heavy oil,
however, complicates their production using normal techniques.
Then, a variety of methods are developed to decrease high
viscosity. The injection of heat or solvents is used extensively.
The SAGD technique which was first designed by Butler
(1992, 1994) is one of the most effective steam injection
methods and it has been widely applied in Canadian oil-sand
reservoirs. The steam movement is highly influenced by
complex substructure in reservoirs. In order to monitor the
three-dimensional steam movement, the time-lapse (or 4D)
seismic survey has been developed. In the oil-sands located in
Western Canada, several cases have been studied (e.g.
Figure 1 – Hangingstone area well configuration map
Matthews 1992; Eastwood et al. 1994). All have shown that
repeated seismic surveys can detect the decrease of seismic P-
Table 1 – Steam injection start time for each well
wave velocities which occur due to steam injection.
Schmitt (2004, 2005) showed a basic idea about quantitative Well Name Steam Injection Start
interpretation of 4D seismic on heavy-oil reservoirs by applying H, I Feb., 2002
Gassmann’s relation which is often used to estimate the
properties in sand reservoirs. Zhang et al. (2007) presented J, K Aug., 2003
reservoir architectures and steam-chamber growth at the L, M, N Jun., 2004
Christina Lake oil-sand reservoir by applying the above idea.
However, what is important is that seismic wave velocity O, P, Q Aug., 2005
depends on both temperature and pore pressure. Steam injection
causes pressure increases as well as temperature increases. Thus,
4D seismic let us merely imply the composite effects of
pressure and temperature rises and one cannot identify steam- Time-Lapse 3D Seismic Survey
chamber growth quantitatively. In order to decouple the
composite effect, a sequential rock physics model was The time-lapse 3D seismic surveys, acquired in February,
constructed (Mochinaga et al. 2006; Kato et al. 2008). The 2002 and March, 2006, show distinct response changes around
model describes a seismic wave velocity as a function of pore the SAGD well pairs. Since the oil-sand reservoir of the
pressure, water saturation and temperature. Nakayama et al. Hangingstone area contains complex structures like thin
(2008) introduced several methods to monitor oil-sand mudstone layers and abrupt changes in facies caused by
reservoirs by applying the model. In this paper, we will discuss sedimentary deposits, the first 3D seismic was acquired in 2002
quantitative estimation of steam-chamber extents using the to construct a detailed 3D geologic model for reservoir
sequential rock physics model based on the above previous characterization.
studies. From the first 3D seismic, we obtained structural depths
called “Top Wabiskaw” which is about 5 m shallower than the
reservoir top (Top McMurray) and the reservoir bottom depths
SAGD Operation called “Top Devonian”, respectively.
Figure 2 shows interpreted horizons along the north-south
Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited (JACOS) has been line, as drawn with the red broken line in Figure 1, for the 2002
developing an oil-sand reservoir in the Hangingstone area and 2006 surveys. The southern half of each section intersects
located in Alberta, Canada since 1997. The selection of SAGD with the SAGD well pairs H, I, K, L, M and N. The northern
technology for the Hangingstone project was based on the part does not pass through the steam-injected areas.
success of the Underground Test Facility (UTF) project. The Figure 3 and Figure 4 shows averaged interval P-wave
SAGD technology uses hot steam to decrease bitumen viscosity velocity (Vp) maps in 2002 and 2006, respectively, when the
and allow it to flow. Steam is delivered to the reservoir through reservoir interval was treated as one homogeneous oil-sands
a long horizontal well, and hot bitumen is brought up through a layer. These maps were calculated using depth structure
second horizontal well located approximately 5 meters below information and two-way travel-time maps of the reservoir.
the injection well. Since we will use Figure 3 and Figure 4 through this study, we
JACOS currently operates a SAGD demonstration project call them Vp2002 and Vp2006 hereafter.
with 19 horizontal well pairs. The horizontal wells range in
length from 500 to 750 meters long. Wells will be added as
required to maintain production at between 8,000 and 10,000
barrels per day for the next years. Figure 1 shows the horizontal
well configuration of the Hangingstone project. Solid lines
represent SAGD well paths. The well pairs labeled as A-E
located in the eastern area of the reservoir started their SAGD
operations between 1999 and 2002.

2
 constant. At Step-18 (200 ºC), where the movable bitumen is
largely replaced by the hot water (Sw from 20 % to 80 %), the
P-wave velocity slightly increases because the hot water has a
faster P-wave velocity than the bitumen. Between Step-20 and
Step-21, there is a phase change from liquid to vapor of the
water component. Thus, the Vp reduction upon the growth of
steam-chamber can be indicated by Step-21. Applying the
model to 4D seismic results, we can determine the boundary of
the steam-chamber quantitatively.

Figure 2 – Interpreted horizon along the north-south line

(Nakayama et al. 2008)

Sequential Rock Physics Model

This paper aims to estimate the steam-chamber extent by
determining the boundary of the steam-chamber area where
temperature is over 260 ºC. 4D seismic can imply the property
changes in the oil-sand reservoir caused by steam injection but
it is the composite effect of pore pressure and temperature rises.
In order to detect the steam-chamber area, a quantitative study
about P- and S-wave velocity is required. Kato et al. (2008)
summarized behavior of Vp reduction as a sequential rock
physics model by the core velocity measurement results. The
model is described as a function of pore pressure, temperature
and fluid saturation.
Kato et al. (2008) separated the sequential rock physics
model into 23 steps from low to high values of pressure,
temperature and water saturation (Figure 5). Each step
represents the specific stage of the SAGD operation and defines
corresponding state of oil-sand reservoirs. Both Step-0 and
Step-1 correspond to the initial condition of the reservoir (pore
pressure = 300 psi and temperature = 10 ºC), which corresponds
to the reservoir state before steam injection or at the first 3D
seismic survey. The difference is caused by velocity dispersion.
Step-0 represents the sonic interval velocity (well log scale) and
Step-1 represents the seismic interval velocity. According to the
previous studies, the seismic velocities are lower than the sonic
velocities. The interval velocity difference is 7.6 % on average
(Kato et al. 2008). The P- and S-wave velocities slightly
decrease during the pressure changes from Step-1 to 5. The
calculation is expressed as the following equations:
V p  0.0593 ln(900  Pp )  0.375  V p 0
…………………(1)
Vs  0.0780 ln(900  Pp )  0.495  Vs 0
………………….(2)
For the temperature increase from Step-5 to 8, the P- and S-
wave velocities decrease as follows:
V p  ( 0.0043T  1.0433)V p1
…………………………...(3)
Vs  (0.0239T  1.2393)Vs1
…………………….…........(4)
For T>=25 ºC (Pp = 700 psi), Gassmann’s equation can predict
velocity change. Fluid properties are based on the FLAG
program.
After Step-8 (25 ºC), the P-wave velocity continues to
decrease until Step-18 while the S-wave velocity is virtually

3
Figure 3 – Layer P-wave velocity map in 2002 (Vp2002)

Figure 4 – Layer P-wave velocity map in 2006 (Vp2006)

4
 Figure 5 – Sequential rock physics model (Kato et al. 2008)

Scale Adjustment
Using the above model, we can know a Vp at 260 ºC. The
model is based on the laboratory experiments and geophysical
theories. Thus, we first have to validate the consistency with the
observed seismic results. The procedure of validation is as
follows:
1) Read Vp’s at the vertical temperature observation wells
(OB-wells) from the first 3D seismic survey map Vp2002.
2) Read Vp’s at OB-wells from the second 3D seismic survey
map Vp2006.
3) Collect grain density and temperature data at OB-wells in
2002.
4) Collect temperature data at OB-wells in 2006.
5) Assume that each OB-well has the temperature given in
the step 4, and calculate the Vp reduction for each OB-well
by using the petrophysical model and information obtained
in the steps 1 and 3. We call these Vp’s Vp2006Calc.
6) Compare the values from Vp2006 and Vp2006Calc to
validate the model.

We can prepare a cross-plot between the values from

Vp2006 and Vp2006Calc to evaluate the feasibility of the petro-
physical model. If plots of Vp2006 vs. Vp2006Calc lie around
the line of the best fit, we can use the petrophysical model
directly without any adjustment, or else, we have to consider a
modification coefficient to match them. Figure 6 is a cross-plot
between Vp2006 and Vp2006Calc which gives a good
correlation though an adjustment is necessary. Once we obtain a
cross-plot chart with good correlation, then we can apply a
modification coefficient easily. According to Figure 6, the
coefficient is estimated at 1.15.
Figure 6 – P-wave velocity cross-plot chart
4D-Seismic-Data Analysis and
Interpretation
Figure 7 demonstrates how to estimate the steam-chamber
area where temperature is over 260 ºC. We assume that the
reservoir is modeled as a 2D grid system which has 252
divisions for in-line direction and 102 divisions for cross-line
direction. Two maps, Vp2002 and Vp2006, are raw data of the

5
 Figure 7 – How to determine the steam-chamber area

seismic surveys. Next, assuming that all grids of Vp2002 are Table 2 – Interpretation of temperature affected area
heated to 260 ºC, which is the lowest temperature of steam- Vp2006-VpBoundary
chamber at pressure 700 psi, we calculate their reduced Vp by
the petrophysical model. Notice that the calculated Vp needs to Positive (+) Vp Vp2006 > VpBoundary
be adjusted. The modification coefficient discussed in the
Temp. T2006 < 260 ºC
previous section is multiplied. This calculation result is shown
as VpBoundary. Then Vp2006 is compared with VpBoundary Zero (0) Vp Vp2006 = VpBoundary
in order to determine the boundary of the steam-chamber area
Temp. T2006 = 260 ºC
as of the second seismic survey. We subtract the values in
VpBoundary from corresponding observed P-wave velocities in Negative (-) Vp Vp2006 < VpBoundary
Vp2006 for all grid-blocks and we can know the boundary of
Temp. T2006 > 260 ºC
the steam-chamber area at the time of the second seismic survey.
Steam2006 in Figure 7 is valuable for estimating the extent of
the steam-chamber, and our interpretation of Steam2006 is
summarized in Table 2. Our interpretation of Steam2006 is as
follows; negative grid-blocks show the areas higher than 260 ºC, Eliminating Pressure & Temperature
and zero-value grid-blocks approximately correspond to the Effects due to Steam Circulation
boundary of the steam-chamber areas.
We can estimate the steam-chamber extent from the
negative area of Steam2006 in Figure 7. The deeper blue area
indicates higher temperature zones but we obtained relatively
weak signals around the H horizontal well pair. The H and I
pairs started having steam injection in February, 2002, so the
area around these well pairs should be the most affected. This
was caused by the pre-heating process before the first seismic.
The process is termed “steam circulation” which enables a

6
smooth SAGD operation. It was started before the first 3D
seismic survey, so the area around the H and I pairs must have
been affected by higher temperature and pressure in 2002. If the
effect of the steam circulation is large, 4D seismic results would
have shown us weak steam-chamber signals in the
corresponding area because Vp had been reduced already in
2002.
In order to eliminate pressure effects due to the steam
circulation in 2002, we assumed a pressure rise model as shown
in Figure 8 and Figure 9. We located two band-like areas of 50
m each over the H and I well pairs which have 700 psi pore
pressure. The pressure effect reaches 100 m away from each Figure 9 – Assumed pressure rise around H and I well pairs in
well. Initial pore pressure is 300 psi. A high pore-pressure grid 2002 (plan-view)
which had been affected by steam circulation in 2002 had a
reduced Vp already, so we have to restore the Vp to the initial
conditions (10 ºC, 300 psi). The following equation was used to
eliminate the pressure effect:
V1  V press  0.375  0.0593 ln(900  Pp ) ........................ (5)
where V1 is a Vp at the initial condition corresponding to Step-1
of the petro-physical model, Vpress is an observed Vp by the
seismic survey and Pp is assumed as pore pressure up to 700 psi.
Using this model, we can determine the initial Vp and eliminate
the effect of pressure rise due to steam circulation.
Also, we have to eliminate the temperature effect as well.
First of all, we should determine a temperature-affected area
due to the steam circulation in order to eliminate the steam
circulation. According to observations of the temperature
observation wells, the temperature effects due to the steam Figure 10 – Temperature affected model along H and I well
circulation reached 7 m away from injectors. In other words, a pairs
temperature affected area has 15 m width at most. This width
corresponds to the size of each grid-block so the temperature
affected area by the steam circulation is estimated like Figure
10. The black bold lines stand for horizontal well pairs labeled Estimation of Steam-Chamber Volume
as H and I, and white circles stand for vertical observation wells.
Colors of each grid represent averaged grid temperatures. We Figure 11 implies a steam-chamber extent in 2006. The
constructed a database table including the temperature grid-blocks which have negative values are assumed as high
distribution in 2002 and recalculated a Vp reduction model. temperature steam-chamber area. We analyzed the results and
Figure 11 was obtained by subtracting VpBoundary, in which summarized them in Table 3. According to Table 3, the
temperature and pressure effects due to the steam circulation estimated steam-chamber area covers 5.67 % of the whole
were all eliminated, from Vp2006. assumed area and we call this value “steam-chamber area ratio”
defined as:
n
700 psi p ……...................................................................... (6)
600 psi n
Pore Pressure

500 psi where n- is the number of grid-blocks with negative value and n
50m 50m 50m 400 psi is the number of all grid-blocks. Using the steam-chamber area
300 psi (Initial)
ratio, the steam-chamber volume (m3) is computed as follows.
Vsc  p (l I  n I )(l X  n X ) he …………………..........…… (7)
100m 100m 100m where he is the net thickness, l is the width of each grid-block
H-Injector I-Injector and subscripts I and X mean In-line and Cross-line, respectively.
In this paper, the following values were assigned to the
parameters:
Figure 8 – Assumed pressure rise around H and I well pairs in
nI = 252 (grids)
2002 (cross-sectional schematic image)
nX = 102 (grids)
lI = 12 (m)
lX = 15 (m)
Also, the bitumen recovery volume corresponding to the
estimated steam-chamber volume can be obtained by Eq. 8.
Vb  VscS o R ………..………………………….….... (8)
where  is the average field porosity, So is the average oil
saturation and R is the estimated recovery factor. We assigned
the following values as a reservoir state based on geology and
log interpretations:

7
 Figure 11 – Estimated steam-chamber area

 = 0.33 looks reasonable, and also that 4D seismic can be used for the
So = 0.77 estimation of the high temperature area in oil-sands.
R = 0.72
he = 17 (m) Table 3 – Steam chamber area ratio
The recovery factor is higher than those for conventional oil Bin (Delta Vp km/s) Frequency
reservoirs, but this is based on the special estimation for SAGD
x≦-0.2 31
operations in oil-sand reservoirs. We consider a cross sectional
image of two well pairs as shown in Figure 12 where the 0.2＜x≦-0.1 152
chamber width and net thickness are set as 100 m and 17 m, -0.1＜x＜0 1275
respectively. We assumed that bitumen below the producer
x =0 (including Null) 5995
level was not recovered, and that the unswept zone as shaded in
Figure 12 is 10 % of the original bitumen in place (OBIP), or 0＜x 18251
the areal sweep efficiency, EA, of 90 %. Also, we assumed that Total 25704
initial oil saturation, Soi, and residual oil saturation, Sor, are 0.77
and 0.05, respectively. Thus, R is calculated as
S  S or
E A  oi  0.84 Table 4 – Comparison of estimated and produced bitumen
S oi volume as of March 31, 2006
Total recovery factor for OBIP is as follows: Cumulative bitumen production (m3) 895,532
 h  2.5m  3
R e   0.84  0.72 Estimated bitumen recovery (m ) 821,576
 he 

Using the total recovery factor, Eq. (8) leads Vb as follows:

Vb  821,576 (m 3 )
This seems to be a reasonable value for the estimation of steam-
chamber extent. In order to validate the value, we can compare
it with the cumulative bitumen production volume until March
31, 2006. We estimated the steam-chamber extent for the
horizontal well pairs labeled as H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q
located in the western area of the field. The comparison
between the cumulative bitumen production until March 31,
2006 and the estimated bitumen recovery is summarized in
Table 4. Table 4 shows that our steam-chamber estimation

8

Figure 12 – Recovery factor of oil-sand reservoir
Conclusions
1. A quantitative method to interpret 4D-seismic data for a
SAGD process was demonstrated, and the steam-chamber
extent was estimated successfully.
2. The estimated steam-chamber extent was validated by
further estimating the bitumen recovery, and then by
comparing it with the cumulative production.
3. A procedure to apply a petrophysical model was
demonstrated first by scaling laboratory measurements to
field-scale applications, and then by decoupling pressure
and temperature effects.
4. The first 3D seismic data in this study were already
affected by higher pressures and temperatures. We
eliminated both effects before applying the petrophysical
model.
Acknowledgements
The 4D seismic study in 2006 was conducted jointly
between Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited (JACOS) and Japan
Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC). We
would like to thank JACOS and Japan Petroleum Exploration
Co., Ltd (JAPEX) for the fruitful suggestions and the
permission of the data usage for this paper. Special thanks also
to JOGMEC for the permission of publishing this paper.
Period Using 4D Seismic Attributes and Production
Data – Duri Field Indonesia; paper SPE 54269
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 20-22
April 1999.
6. MOCHINAGA, H., ONOZUKA, S., KONO, F.,
OGAWA, T., TAKAHASHI, A. and TORIGOE, T.,
Properties of Oil sands and Bitumen in Athabasca;
paper presented at the 2006 CSPG-CSEG-CWLS
Convention, Calgary, AB, Canada, 15-18 May 2006.
7. NAKAYAMA, T., TAKAHASHI, A., SKINNER, L.
and KATO, A., Monitoring an oil-sands reservoir in
northwest Alberta using time-lapse 3D seismic and 3D
P-SV converted-wave data; The Leading Edge, Vol. 27,
Issue 9, pp. 1158-1175, 2008.
8. SCHMITT, D.R., Rock Physics of Heavy Oil Deposits;
paper presented at the Canadian Society of Exploration
Geophysicists National Convention, Calgary, AB,
Canada, 17-21 May 2004.
9. SCHMITT, D.R., Rock Physics and Time-Lapse
Monitoring of Heavy-Oil Reservoirs; paper SPE/PS-
CIM/CHOA 98075 presented at the 2005 SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, AB, Canada, 1-3 November 2005.
10. STARK, P., CHEW, K. and JACKSON, P., Importance
of Unconventional Oil Resources in Shaping the Far
East Energy Future; paper IPTC 12743-MS presented at
the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December 2008
11. ZHANG, W., YOUN, S. and DOAN, Q.,
Understanding Reservoir Architectures and Steam-
Chamber Growth at Christina Lake, Alberta, by Using
4D Seismic and Crosswell Seismic Imaging; paper SPE
97808 presented at the 2005 SPE/PE-CIM/CHOA
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, AB, Canada, 1-3 November 2005.

REFERENCES
1. BUTLER, R.M., Gravity Drainage to Horizontal Wells;
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 31, No.
4, pp. 31-37, 1992.
2. BUTLER, R.M., Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of
Oil, Gas and Bitumen; Petroleum Society of the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum,
Calgary, AB, Canada, 1994.
3. EASTWOOD, J., LEBEL, P., DILAY, A. and
BLAKESLEE, S., Seismic Monitoring of Steam-based
Recovery of Bitumen; Leading Edge of Exploration, Vol.
13, No. 4, pp. 242-251, 1994.
4. KATO, A., ONOZUKA, S., and NAKAYAMA, T.,
Elastic Property Changes in a Bitumen Reservoir during
Steam Injection; The Leading Edge, Vol. 27, Issue 9, pp.
1124-1131, 2008.
5. MOORE, D., SIGIT, R. and WIDYANTORO, A.,
Evaluating a Steam Flood Performance over a 7-10 Year