TECHNICAL NOTE

The Best Process for Cold Lake:

CSS vs. SAGD

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/00-08-TN/2164786/petsoc-00-08-tn.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 05 March 2024
J.K. DONNELLY
BlackRock Ventures Inc.

Abstract
Hilda Lake is a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
project. The Mahkeses project is an expansion of the Imperial
Oil Resources Limited commercial Cold Lake project based on
Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS). Both projects are being imple-
mented in the same Clearwater reservoir and will be adjacent to
each other at the lease boundary. The projected performance of
CSS at Mahkeses as given in the Alberta Energy Board
Application for Approval is compared with the predicted and
actual performance of SAGD at Hilda Lake. Parameters to be
compared include: production rates, steam requirements, electri-
cal power requirements, projected recovery factors, and pro-
duced water quality. FIGURE 2: Hilda Lake, steam oil ratio, prediction compared to
actual.

Introduction
The CSS process as operated by Imperial Oil is described in the
application(1) to the Alberta Energy Utilities Board (EUB) for
expansion of the Cold Lake Project which was submitted in
February 1997. The SAGD process is described by Butler(2). In his
1997 paper Batycky(3) compared the actual CSS performance to
numerical simulations of SAGD and concluded that the perfor-
mance parameters for CSS were better in all respects. These para-
meters included cumulative steam oil ratio (CSOR) and ultimate
recovery. Ali(4, 5) has repeated this assertion and in his more recent
presentation has stated that SAGD is not economic. During 1997
two pilot projects were initiated to test the SAGD process in the
Clearwater formation in the Cold Lake area. The first is the Burnt
Lake Project operated by Suncor which consists of three horizon-
tal well pairs. The second is the Hilda Lake Project operated by
BlackRock which consists of one well pair. Baker(6) indicates that
the Burnt Lake Project is meeting expectations. The design of the
Hilda Lake Project is described by Donnelly(7) and the perfor-
mance of the pilot is compared to numerical simulation predic-
tions by Donnelly(8). This comparison given in Figure 1 for pro-
duction rate and in Figure 2 for steam oil ratio indicates that the
pilot is performing as predicted. In this paper parameters that can
be extracted from the predictions for the Hilda Lake Project and
from the actual operating data are compared to the projections for
CSS provided in the Imperial Oil Application(1) and the supple-
mental information submitted to the EUB in January 1998(9).
Reservoir Development
Table 1 compares the typical reservoir properties of the
Mahkeses Cold Lake Expansion with those of the Hilda Lake
Pilot. The Mahkeses properties are based on Figure 2-7 of the of
the expansion application(1) which gives the properties of the well

TABLE 1: Average reservoir properties.

Property Mahkeses Hilda Lake
Permeability (D) Core Analysis 3.6 5.3
Porosity (Volume %) 37 34
Weight per cent Bitumen 10.2 9.8
Gross Thickness (m) 40 38
Depth to Reservoir Top (m) 475 405
FIGURE 1: Hilda Lake, prediction compared to actual. Average (m3 bitumen/m3 reservoir) 0.209 0.208

This paper is being published as a technical note and has not been peer reviewed.

August 2000, Volume 39, No. 8 5

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/00-08-TN/2164786/petsoc-00-08-tn.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 05 March 2024
FIGURE 3: Production forecast. FIGURE 4: Cumulative production from 9.5 hectors.

8-32-64-3 W4. The Hilda Lake properties are based on the 20 m
above the horizontal well for the well 15-17-64-3 W4 which is
located near the project because the other 18 m of reservoir are of
very low quality. The reservoir quality based on permeability and
initial oil saturation at Mahkeses is equivalent to that at Hilda
Lake.
Reservoir Performance
The horizontal wells at Hilda Lake are 950 m long and the
numerical simulation predictions assume that the horizontal well
pair will be placed 100 m apart. Therefore the area exploited by
one well pair is 9.5 ha. The CSS wells planned for Mahkeses are
to be placed on a 3.2 ha spacing. Therefore three Mahkeses CSS
wells will exploit the same area as one Hilda Lake well pair. A
production forecast is given for Mahkeses in Table 3-3 of the
application(1). This forecast is based on over 40 years of operating
experience with the CSS process at Cold Lake. This forecast for
three CSS wells is compared with the SAGD forecast for one
Hilda Lake well pair in Figure 3. The Hilda Lake forecast is based
on numerical simulation, which has been verified with field data
for the first 2.75 years. The Hilda Lake simulation was stopped
afer 5,000 days (13.7 years) when the steam chamber extended 50
m on either side of the well pair. At this time, 230,000 m3 of bitu-
men were forecast to be produced from the single SAGD well pair
which is approximately 40% recovery. This compares with the
CSS forecast of a 23% recovery or 195,000 m3 after 26 years of
operation. The cumulative production for the two projects are
compared in Figure 4. The projected oil recovery for SAGD is
much higher than for CSS and occurs in approximately half the
time.
The forecast steam oil ratios for the two projects are compared
in Figure 5. It is assumed that Mahkeses will inject steam at an
average quality of 80%, at a pressure of between 10 and 14 mPa
and an average enthalpy of 2,450 kJ/kg. The Hilda Lake project
injects 100% quality steam at a pressure of between 4 and 5 mPa
with an average enthalpy of 2,800 kJ/kg. The steam oil ratios in
Figure 4 have been normalized to an enthalpy of 2,800 kPa/kg
which means that the Mahkeses steam rates are reduced by a fac-
tor of 0.875. The steam oil ratio for SAGD is initially higher,
however, late in the life of the wells the CSS steam oil ratio is
higher.
Produced Water Quality
Table 2 compares the quality of the Mahkeses produced water

TABLE 2: Water properties.

Mahkeses Hilda Lake

Produced Treated Boiler Ground Blow Down
Water Feed Water Produced Water Water Water
Parameter

PH not provided not provided 7.1 7.7 12.2

Total Hardness mg/L 150 – 300 <1 9.9 461 <0.1
Silica mg/L 200 – 300 <75 253 24 195

Arsenic mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.27 0.03 0.20

Barium mg/L 1 not detected 0.056 0.047 0.0004
Beryllium mg/L 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.0005 <0.0010
Boron mg/L 85 65 24.4 0.25 2.20
Cadmium mg/L 0.007 0.005 0.0024 <0.0005 0.0016
Calcium mg/L 100 <0.1 3.88 115 <0.1,
Chloride mg/L 5,000 – 10,000 5,000 – 10,000 904 33.3 312
Iron mg/L 1 not detected 0.03 4.64 0.35
Lead mg/L 0.1 not detected <0.004 <0.002 <0.004
Lithium mg/L 10 10 0.929 0.133 0.743
Magnesium mg/L 3 <0.1 0.52 35.5 0.50
Manganese mg/L 0.2 not detected 0.0028 0.114 0.0042
Potassium mg/L 200 200 40.3 5.59 27.3
Silicon mg/L 150 30 118 11 91.2
Sodium mg/L 4,500 4,500 905 134 3410
Strontium mg/L 2 not detected 0.208 0.681 0.0004
Thallium mg/L 0.03 0.03 <0.008 <0.004 <0.008
Uranium mg/L 0.5 0.5 not measured not measured not measured

6 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology


FIGURE 5: Forecast steam oil ratio, steam enthalphy 2,800 kJ/kg.
and boiler feed water with the Hilda Lake produced water, ground
water and blow down water. It is noted that the Mahkeses pro-
duced water shows higher levels for all elements than the pro-
duced water at Hilda Lake except arsenic and uranium which was
not measured at Hilda Lake. The better quality of the Hilda Lake
produced water is a direct result of injecting 100% quality steam
into the formation. The blow down water which is disposed of at
Hilda Lake and injected with the steam at Mahkeses has a high pH
and a high concentration of dissolved ions as shown in Table 2.
When the blow down is injected, at Mahkeses, much of it is also
produced along with any water soluble products of reaction with
the formation rock. The better SAGD produced water quality
should result in lower costs for water recycle. However, make up
water requirements may be higher depending on the magnitude of
the anticipated reduction in backwash requirements.
Electricity Requirements
The major electrical power requirements at the Hilda Lake pilot
are for the boiler feed water pumps, the water disposal pump and
the electrical grid used in the treater. For Mahkeses there is an
additional requirement for artificial lift. Based on the stated power
requirements for the Cold Lake project provided in the Mahkeses
expansion application(1) of 84 MW and a production rate after
expansion of 24,800 cubic metres per day the electrical energy
requirement for CSS is 0.292 GJ per cubic metre of production.
The Hilda Lake Pilot Project requires 0.270 GJ per cubic metre of
oil production. In a commercial project, with water recycle and
other efficiencies the electrical requirements may be reduced by
an estimated 20% to 0.216 GJ per cubic metre.
Field Facilities
With over 2,000 wells in place, the costs of drilling, complet-
ing, and tying in CSS wells should have been fully optimized.
Comparatively, the number of SAGD well pairs that have been
drilled is small. Once fully optimized on a commercial basis, the
cost of drilling, completion, and tying in one SAGD well pair
should be of the same order of magnitude as that for three CSS
wells, which are required to exploit the same area.
Well failures with SAGD operation should be less frequent pri-
marily because they are operated at a more uniform temperature
and pressure but also because the maximum operating pressure is
below the formation breakdown pressure. The lower maximum
pressure and temperature may reduce the cost of well heads and
surface lines.
With CSS, the gas that evolves from the bitumen and water in
the well bore during production is produced through the annulus
which is controlled to near atmospheric pressure. This is required
to maintain acceptable pump efficiency. This annulus gas is then
August 2000, Volume 39, No. 8
compressed so that it can be injected into the production line
which returns to the central plant. For the SAGD process, gas is
produced with the bitumen and water through the production tub-
ing, therefore no produced gas compressor is required. This
should result in reduced capital and operating costs for SAGD
operations.
Conclusions
1. CSS is a proven commercial process for the Clearwater for-
mation at Cold Lake.
2. SAGD predictions and performance to date indicate that this
will be the process of choice in the future.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/00-08-TN/2164786/petsoc-00-08-tn.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals user on 05 March 2024
REFERENCES
1. Application for Approval—Cold Lake Expansion Project; Volume 1:
Project Description, Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utility Board
and to Alberta Environmental Protection by Imperial Oil Resources
Limited, February, 1997.
2. BUTLER, R.M., A New Approach to the Modelling of Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology. pp. 44-50, May – June 1987.
3. BATYCKY, J.P., An Assessment of In Situ Oil Sands Recovery
Processes; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, pp. 15-19,
October 1997.
4. FAROUQ ALI, S.M., Is There Life After SAGD?; Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology pp.20-23, June 1997.
5. FAROUQ ALI, S.M., New Insights into SAGD Processes; SPE
54092, presented at the 1999 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium, March 18, 1999.
6. BAKER, D., Personal communication; April 1999.
7. DONNELLY, J.K., Application of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD) to Cold Lake; presented at the Joint SPE/Petroleum Society
6th One-Day Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, November
1997.
8. DONNELLY, J.K. and HILDA L., A Gravity Drainage Success;
SPE 54093, presented at the 1999 SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, March 18, 1999.
9. Application for Approval—Cold Lake Expansion Project—
Supplemental Information; Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utility
Board and to Alberta Environmental Protection by Imperial Oil
Resources Limited, January 1998.
Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript, The Best
Process for Cold Lake: CSS vs. SAGD, (99-26), first presented
at the 1999 Petroleum Society/CSPG Joint Convention, June 14 –
18, 1999, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review
December 7, 1998; editorial comments sent to the authors May
19, 2000; revised manuscript received July 4, 2000; paper
approved for pre-press July 4, 2000; paper approved for pre-press
June 21, 2000; final approval July 27, 2000.
Author’s Biography
John Donnelly is an independent engineer-
ing consultant specializing in thermal
recovery of heavy oil and oil sands. After
receiving a B.Sc. in chemical engineering
in 1965 and a Ph. D. in 1968 he joined the
department of chemical and petroleum
engineering at the University of Calgary.
During his 13 years at U of C he special-
ized in thermal recovery research. He
joined BP Canada in 1981 where he pro-
vided the technical direction for the Wolf
Lake Thermal Recovery Project which is currently operated by
CRNL. Since 1989 he has been working as a thermal recovery
consultant through Marengo Energy Research Limited. He is cur-
rently providing technical direction for the Hilda Lake Thermal
Project which is operated by BlackRock Ventures Inc. He also
serves as a consultant to oil companies in Canada and other
countries.
7