T/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/97-06-DAS/2170228/petsoc-97-06-das.

pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum &

IS THERE LIFE AFTER SAGD?

S.M. FAROUQ-ALI

this article begins on the next page F

Is There Life After Sagd? S.M. Farouq-Ali is professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Alberta since 1979. Prior to this he served at The Pennsylvania State University for 20 years. He has a B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Karachi University, A B.Sc. (Honours) degree in petroleum engineering from Birmingham University, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in petroleum and natural gas engineering from The Pennsylvania State University. He has authored over 400 papers and two books, and has supervised over 200 graduate theses on oil recovery and numerical simulation. He serves
as consultant to oil companies in Canada, U.S.A., and other countries. The answer depends on what you call -Steam-assisted Gravity Drainage+ or SAGD. In its original, pristine form, it may be the ne plus ultra of the entire repertoire of the EOR methods. In the current usage, just about any field project involving steam injection and a horizontal well, or two, is called -SAGD.+ Furthermore, from the published literature one gets the impression that the application of SAGD is more the rule than the exception. This would naturally lead to misapplications of the SAGD process, with less than
optimal results. Our purpose in this article is to show what the original concept is, what additional factors may distort it, and what are some of the limitations of the process as applied. We will not discuss variations of SAGD, such as Enhanced SAGD and Single Well SAGD. Gravity flow and segregation are an integral part of all oil recovery processes. The role of gravity in steam injection processes was first recognized by Doscher(1) for California reservoirs, typically depleted (~0.5 MPa), with high vertical permeability and gas saturations at the top. Recently, Vogel(2) provided a lucid
comparison of drive and gravity, in the context of such reservoirs. The Original Concept Figure 1 illustrates the original SAGD concept(3). Two horizontal wells, an injector above a producer, are drilled in the lower part of a formation. Both wells are at first heated by means of steam circulation. When communication is established between the two, bitumen and condensate drain along the sides of the -steam chamber.+ The rise of steam and the downward flow of oil and condensate are unsteady state processes. However, once the steam chamber is formed, the pressure (and so the temperature) in the
chamber remain constant, with steamflood residual oil saturation in the chamber. The sideways growth of the chamber is responsible for oil production. Details have been given in several papers (in particular, see Butler(4,5)). Two definitions of SAGD are worth mentioning: -In the Steam-assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process, heated oil drains from around growing steam chambers, driven by gravity to lower horizontal wells.+
Butler(6) -SAGD is counter-current override, where oil moves in a direction opposite to that of steam front advance.+ Edmunds(7) Gravity provides the drive in the processes described above, otherwise the processes are quite different.
Whereas in the first case steam is the only flowing phase inside the steam chamber, in the second, countercurrent flow of steam, oil and steam condensate occurs-something like the segregation drive in conventional oil recovery. Edmund+s description is closer to the observations in numerical simulations. In an earlier paper, Edmunds, Haston, and Best(8) identified two types of drainage processes: ceiling drainage and slope drainage. Butler developed the flow equation for the above concept, as given in Reference (3), as well in previous publications in somewhat different forms. The key
variables are: steam chamber height, permeability to oil, displaceable oil saturation, and oil viscosity at steam temperature. Oil flow rate varies directly with the square root of the first three, and inversely with that of viscosity. Within its premises, the theory is elegant. Important Features and Consequences A few important points to note are: (i) the theory pertains to the flow of a single fluid, (ii) steam pressure is constant in the steam chamber,
(iii) only steam flows in the steam chamber, oil saturation being residual, and (iv) heat transfer ahead of the steam chamber to cold oil is by conduction only. One analogy of the above process is that of a reservoir made of solid wax, where an electric heating element is placed horizontally above a parallel producing well. Some consequences of the theory are:
(i) steam chamber growth is necessary for oil production-i.e., oil production would occur so long as steam is injected;
 Is There Life After SAGD?
,-------------------------'-- --- ----
S.M. Farouq-AIi is professor of petro- :
leum engineering at the University of
Alberta since 1979. Prior to this he I
served at The Pennsylvania State i
University for 20 years. He has a B.Sc.
degree in electrical engineering from
Karachi University, A B.Sc. (Honours)
degree, in petroleum engineering from
Birmingham University, and M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in petroleum and natural
gas engineering from The Pennsylvania State University. He
! has authored over 400 papers and two books, and has super-
vised over 200 graduate theses on oil recovery and numerical
simulation. He serves as consultant to oil companies in
Canada, U.S.A., and other countries.
The answer depends on what you call "Steam-assisted Gravity
Drainage" or SAGD. In its original, pristine form, it may be the ne
plus ultra of the entire repertoire of the EaR methods. In the cur-
rent usage, just about any field project involving steam injection
and a horizontal well, or two, is called "SAGD." Furthermore,
from the published literature one gets the impression that the
application of SAGD is more the rule than the exception. This
would naturally lead to misapplications of the SAGD process,
with less than optimal results. Our purpose in this article is to
show what the original concept is, what additional factors may
distort it, and what are some of the limitations of the process as
applied. We will not discuss variations of SAGD, such as
Enhanced SAGD and Single Well SAGD.
Gravity flow and segregation are an integral part of all oil
recovery processes. The role of gravity in steam injection process-
es was first recognized by Doscher(1) for California reservoirs,
typically depleted (-0.5 :MPa), with high vertical permeability and
gas saturations at the top. Recently, Vogel(2) provided a lucid
comparison of drive and gravity, in the context of such reservoirs.
Mechanism:
• Steam condenses at interface
• Oil and condensate drain to well at bottom
• Flow is caused by gravity
• Chamber grows upwards and sideways
---- -..
Continuous steam
injection into chamber Oil and condensate
G - - - drain continuously
FIGURE 1: Conceptual diagram of the steam-assisted gravity
drainage process. (Courtsey R.M. Butler(6».
20
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/97-06-DAS/2170228/petsoc-97-06-das.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dirie Dhahir on 05 March 2024
The Original Concept
Figure 1 illustrates the original SAGD concept(3). Two horizon-
tal wells, an injector above a producer, are drilled in the lower part
of a formation. Both wells are at first heated by means of steam
circulation. When communication is established between the two,
bitumen and condensate drain along the sides of the "steam cham-
ber." The rise of steam and the downward flow of oil and conden-
sate are unsteady state processes. However, once the steam cham-
ber is formed, the pressure (and so the temperature) in the cham-
ber remain constant, with steamflood residual oil saturation in the
chamber. The sideways growth of the chamber is responsible for
oil production. Details have been given in several papers (in par-
ticular, see Butler(4.5». Two definitions of SAGD are worth
mentioning:
"In the Steam-assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
process, heated oil drains from around growing steam
chambers, driven by gravity to lower horizontal wells. "
Butler<6)
"SAGD is counter-current override, where oil moves in a
direction opposite to that of steam front advance. "
Edmunds(7)
Gravity provides the drive in the processes described above,
otherwise the processes are quite different. Whereas in the first
case steam is the only flowing phase inside the steam chamber, in
the second, countercurrent flow of steam, oil and steam conden-
sate occurs-something like the segregation drive in conventional
oil recovery. Edmund's description is closer to the observations in
numerical simulations. In an earlier paper, Edmunds, Haston, and
Best(8) identified two types of drainage processes: ceiling drainage
and slope drainage.
Butler developed the flow equation for the above concept, as
given in Reference (3), as well in previous publications in some-
what different forms. The key variables are: steam chamber
height, permeability to oil, displaceable oil saturation, and oil vis-
cosity at steam temperature. Oil flow rate varies directly with the
square root of the first three, and inversely with that of viscosity.
Within its premises, the theory is elegant.
Important Features and Consequences
A few important points to note are:
(i) the theory pertains to the flow of a single fluid,
(ii) steam pressure is constant in the steam chamber,
(iii) only steam flows in the steam chamber, oil saturation
being residual, and
(iv) heat transfer ahead of the steam chamber to cold oil is by
conduction only. One analogy of the above process is that
of a reservoir made of solid wax, where an electric heat-
ing element is placed horizontally above a parallel pro-
ducing well.
Some consequences of the theory are:
(i) steam chamber growth is necessary for oil production-
i.e., oil production would occur so long as steam is
injected;
(ii) the higher the temperature, the higher is the oil production
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 ----- -------------------------------------
--- --- ------------ -------- -- - - -
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~~-----------------
Unit H - Umesione
, '
FIGURE 2: The growth of steam chamber observed in Phase A of the UTF project. (Courtsey Ito and Suzuki(lO».
, 'rate(9); and
~, (iii) at a given steam temperature the oil with the lowest vis-
, 'cosity (usually the highest API gravity) would exhibit the
highest production response.
Conclusion (li) follows from the assumption of a constant tem-
perature at the "interface," viz. the steam condensation surface.
Gravity drainage of conduction-heated oillbitumen occurs ahead
of this interface. It matters little how the steam chamber is formed
or what it contains, so long as it contains residual oil, and its tem-
p,erature is constant. Clearly steam injection is the way to achieve
these conditions. Because the latent heat content (fstLv, pressure
dependent) is important for steam zone formation, temperature
(i.e., steam pressure) cannot be increased without limit. According
to the basic equation, the oil rate would be highest at the critical
pressure of steam, at which latent heat is zero, and of course no
steam chamber will form. The experimental and theoretical treat-
ments of steam chamber ,growth from horizontal or vertical wells,
and associated phenomena, summarized in Reference (3), are
based on conductive heat,transfer.
Conclusion (iii) impijes that the oil production response would
be greater in mobile heavy oil formations than in bitumen-bearing
oil sands. This is discussed further in the section on Conventional
Heavy,Oils. ,
Variations of. SAGO
fu qne vari!\tion of the original SAGD concept, the horizontal
steam injector is, t;eplaced by one, or more, vertical injectors.
St~am injec;rion into these, would lead to the formation of a steam
chaml?~r, and oil would'drain into the horizontal producer.
App1,ic,ation of the theory in this case would depend on a number
of additional factors, s1,lch as the geometry of the wells, which
would determine the shape of the steam chamber as well as fluid
flow rate~, steam injection pressure w:ith regard to frac pressure
(formatioI]., failure pr~ss~re), reservoir geology and other factors,
such as the existence of a high gas saturation, or a contiguous
water leg. A few of these situations are discussed in Field
Examples.
Concerns
Condensate Flow
,; ,For6most 'aino~g the concerns with regard to the application of
the original SAGD theorytb oil sands and heavy oil alike is the
role of steam condensate flow, with a volume two to five times as
large' as the volume of oil. 'The condensate will flow inside the
steam charriber-if such a chamber forms-and the heat from the
steam will' be used 'to heat the condensate first, and then the
adjoining oilo~ bitumen. With so much condensate flowing, con-
vection' woulCl be expected to be the dominant heat transfer mech-
anism. Numerical simulations by Ito and Suzuki(lO) clearly show
June 1997, Volume 36, No.6
Unit 8 - MosUy Shale
--- - -
Unit C - 30 "Shale
- ---
--
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/97-06-DAS/2170228/petsoc-97-06-das.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dirie Dhahir on 05 March 2024
------
that convection is far more important than conduction. The
author's own results support that view, and a close examination of
Ito and Suzuki's numerical results shows that the observed con-
vection is not numerical dispersion.
Geology
Geology of the formation can have a profound influence on
steam chamber growth, as the performance of UTF Phase A
shows. The observed steam chamber was oblate, as shown in
Figure 2, and expanded sideways rather than vertically to the top
of the formation. This is attributed to small differences in forma-
tion characteristics, as well as convection in the lower part of the
formation. The pressure gradient in a gravity drive is constant
(rg), but relatively small, and consequently flow would follow the
path of higher conductivity. Ito and Suzuki were able to match the
observed steam chamber.
20 vs. 3D
The SAGD theory, and much of the reported experimental
work, are based on a two-dimensional cross-sectional visualiza-
tion of the process. Two important missing factors are flow in the
two horizontal wells, and the effect of wellbore, when the wells
are drilled from surface rather than from tunnels, as in UTF (one
pair of wells in Phase B is drilled from surface)(lI). Steam and
fluid flow behaviour for the horizontal sections of the two wells
can be observed from numerical simulations, or from approximate
analytical methods. Examples of this type can be seen from the
paper by Edmunds and Gittins(l2). Uneven steam distribution
along the injection well would lead to formation of separate steam
chambers. Moreover, precise production control is important: too
little production would lead to drowning of the steam chamber,
while too much would cause channelling of steam. Such "steam
trap" control is much more difficult when operating the wells
from surface, because of large hydrostatic heads (or lack thereof).
The authors also examined the effect of variability in the spacing
between the two horizontal wells, as a drilling constraint.
Continuous temperature measurements along the length of the
wells could lead to better control of surface drilled wells, but are
not available at this time, although work is in progress in this
direction.
Geomechanical Effects
A different type of problem is posed by geomechanical effects
in steam injection into the viscous oils and bitumens of Alberta.
These not only encompass formation failure and associated
effects, but also the changes in petrophysical properties and in situ
stresses induced by temperature changes. Ito and Suzuki(10) found
such effects to be significant. The extensive instrumentation of
UTF Phase A showed considerable thermally induced stresses and
resulting strains.
21
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/97-06-DAS/2170228/petsoc-97-06-das.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dirie Dhahir on 05 March 2024
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/97-06-DAS/2170228/petsoc-97-06-das.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dirie Dhahir on 05 March 2024
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/doi/10.2118/97-06-DAS/2170228/petsoc-97-06-das.pdf/1 by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dirie Dhahir on 05 March 2024