SPE 113234

Performance Analysis of SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO

2
Injection
A.S. Bagci, SPE, S. Olushola, and E. Mackay, SPE, Heriot-Watt University
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract

Thermal recovery methods involving steam injection have long been considered as an effective means of extracting heavy oil
resources. In addition, the high recovery performance of SAGD makes it a popular option for these non-conventional oil
resources. Steam processes are energy intensive and result in generation of emissions which are detrimental to humankind
and the environment. The use of non-thermal processes involving CO
2
as a miscible or immiscible gas phase in combination
with steam for heavy oil recovery is considered as a viable alternative to limit the drawbacks of steam generation. These
processes have the capability to enhance oil recovery through CO
2
utilization during production and also provide an avenue
to dispose CO
2
after production. Numerical simulation studies have been carried out utilizing STARS (a three phase, multi-
components reservoir simulator) to optimize a baseline SAGD process and wind-down process with CO
2
Injection. The
baseline process was operated until maturity then CO
2
injection was used to initiate wind-down after 4, 6 and 8 years of a 12
year production operation. Following each of the wind-down processes, CO
2
disposal was undertaken for 25 years and the
storage potential evaluated. The baseline SAGD process had a recovery factor of 76%. The SAGD wind-down processes with
CO
2
injection after 4, 6 and 8 years had recovery factors of 54%, 77% and 79% respectively. This and other parameters
proved the feasibility of SAGD wind-down process with CO
2
injection and its potential to enhance oil recovery.

Introduction
Heavy oil, extra heavy oil and bitumen resources (generally referred to as heavy crude oil) account for most of the
worlds oil-in-place. A vast amount of these non-conventional oil resources are deposited in Venezuela, Canada, USA and
China. Some estimates expect Alberta, Canadas heavy oil sands production to exceed 1.2 million bbl/day in the near future.
Recoverable bitumen reserves in Alberta are estimated at 300 billion bbl. In Venezuela, Orinoco tar sands could be producing
600,000 bbl/day and it contains about 300 billion bbl of recoverable heavy oil and EOR reserves. In China, CNPC produces
about 150,000 bbl/day of heavy crude and it has about 8 billion bbl of heavy oil reserves. USA has 20-25 billion barrels on
the North Slope of Alaska. As global energy demand continues to rise and production of conventional oil declines, further
development of heavy oil and oil sands (bitumen, sand, clay and water) recovery processes and technologies is integral to
meeting future energy requirements. While conventional oil is easily extracted from the ground by drilling wells into
formations bearing light and medium density oil which flow under natural reservoir pressures, heavy oils and oil sands
require surface mining or in-situ techniques which reduce oil viscosity and increase its mobility using thermal or non-thermal
processes.
Thermal heavy oil recovery processes include Steam Flooding, Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS), Steam-Assisted
Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Toe-to-Heel Air Injection (THAI). Examples of non-thermal methods are Cold Heavy Oil
Production with Sand (CHOPS) and Vapour Extraction Processes (VAPEX). Thermal methods achieve high oil recovery but
are characterized by excessive energy consumption and CO
2
emissions. Non-thermal methods on the other hand, do not
achieve as much recovery as thermal processes but are usually less energy intensive and result in lower CO
2
emissions.
Improved recovery efficiency can be achieved by combining thermal and non-thermal processes. The resulting processes are
referred to as hybrid processes.
Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is a promising recovery process for producing heavy oils and bitumen
resources. The method ensures both a stable displacement of steam and economical rates by using gravity as the driving force
and a pair of horizontal wells for injection/production. In the SAGD process, this is achieved by drilling a pair of horizontal
wells located at a short distance one above the other. Steam is injected into the upper well and hot fluids are produced from
the lower well. This progressively creates a steam chamber, which develops by condensing steam at the chamber boundary
2 SPE 113234
and gives latent energy to the surrounding reservoir. Heated oil and water are drained by gravity along the chamber walls of
the production well
[1,2,3,4]
.
Figure 1 shows a vertical section through a rising steam chamber. During the rise period, the oil production rate
increases steadily until the steam chamber reaches the top of the reservoir. SAGD with horizontal wells not only offset the
effect of very high viscosity by providing extended contact or by heating but also maintain the necessary drive needed to
move the oil, as the reservoir becomes depleted. A steam-assisted gravity drainage process also maintains reservoir drive and
allows high recoveries. However, because of their considerable heat requirements, these processes are limited in their
economic use to higher quality reservoirs
[5]
. In SAGD, horizontal wells are usually employed as injectors as well as for
producers although it is possible to use multiple vertical injectors
[6]
. The SAGD process is characterized mainly by gravity
drainage. The higher steam pressure allows shorter breakthrough time from the injection well to the production well, and
higher spread rate of the steam chamber because higher-pressure drop between two wells may cause driving force for moving
oil. Thus pushing effect or moving oil caused by pressure difference between two wells should be suppressed as little as
possible especially for laboratory experiments with scaled model.
It is generally believed that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of green house gases (GHGs) such as CO
2
,
methane and nitrous oxide over the last hundred years provides a real threat to the environment
[7]
. There is an onus to
develop creative methods of dealing with GHG emissions. It is possible to use GHGs for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and
store them in depleted oil and gas fields. CO
2
has a high absorption capacity and a long atmospheric lifetime and is
considered as a major cause of global warming. CO
2
is also favored for enhanced oil recovery because it significantly reduces
oil viscosity and improves its flow rate. The use of CO
2
for heavy oil recovery provides an opportunity to enhance oil
recovery and provides a solution to growing energy demand. Simultaneously, it supports commitments to reduce GHG
emissions.
The advantage of the SAGD process is its high recovery and oil production rate. However, the high production rate is
associated with excessive energy comsumption, CO
2
generation, and post-production water treatment
[8]
. In the past several
years, modifications have been proposed to improve SAGDs energy efficiency, either through injection of non-condensable
gas (CO
2
, CH
4
) with steam for reducing heat loss or through injection of solvents and steam together for increasing
production rate
[9]
. The injection of non-condensable gas (CO
2
, CH
4
, C
2
H
4
, etc.) is intended to reduce heat loss to the
overburden, and therefore, improve SOR. With this idea, the SAGD wind-down process has been developed. At a certain
stage of the SAGD operation, as instantaneous SOR increases, there is no economic benefit to continue pure steam injection.
At this stage, a wind-down process can be started to utilize energy in place and continue oil production. Previous
experimental and numerical simulation studies showed that a co-injection of steam and non-condensable gas gave the best oil
recoveries. In SAGD wind-down process, steam injection was stopped after a certain amount of steam injection and nitrogen
or non-condensable gas injection commenced as a SAGD wind-down process. At the early stages of the wind-down process,
gas production was negligible. Almost all injected gas was used to maintain pressure, compensating the steam condensation
due to heat loss. For reducing the cost, the injection of CO
2
as a non-condensable gas appears to be an attractive alternative.
The advantage of this low cost alternative is that the solubility of CO
2
in heavy oils is significantly higher than that of
methane.
In this study, SAGD wind-down process with CO
2
injection was investigated by using numerical simulation method.
The effects of steam injection temperatures and steam injection rates on heavy oil recovery in a base SAGD process for
comparison. Optimum parameters were combined to develop a base SAGD model and injection pressure was used to
optimize SAGD wind-down process with CO
2
injection. The effect of CO
2
injection on SAGD wind-down process at diffeent
injection time periods was investigated. Finally, the storage capacity for CO
2
after 25 years of disposal in the depleted
reservoir was evaluated for each of the wind-down processes.

Literature Survey

Butler and Stephens
[1]
reported pioneering work on steam assisted gravity drainage. The important concept of oil
displacement through a thin boundary layer next to an expanding steam chamber was introduced. They further reported
experimental data as well as a semi analytical numerical solution. Their laboratory experimental data are in fairly good
agreement with their theoretical solution. Their results indicate that for maximum oil production efficiency, a continuous
steam injection and continuous oil drainage process is required. However, for the fractured reservoir
[10]
, on the other hand,
concluded that cyclic steam stimulation, using a horizontal well, is the best production technique for fractured reservoirs.
They also reported that vertical fractures are not ideal for steam flooding if horizontal wells are used for production. J oshi and
Therlkeld
[2]
conducted experimental studies on oil production with thermally aided gravity drainage using horizontal wells
and evaluated the effects of various well configuration schemes and vertical fractures. The high initial oil recovery with
vertical fractures helped to improve the economics of the SAGD process.
Griffin and Trofimenkoff
[11]
extended a theory for steam injection from a vertical well situated above the horizontal
production well and presented laboratory results in support of this theory. Both low-pressure visual models and high-pressure
models of steam assisted gravity drainage produce experiments showed a good agreement with the theory. Low-pressure
models show that the theory developed by Butler and co-workers
[1,12]
accurately predicts oil production rate and analyses the
effects of oil viscosity on production rate. The scaled models indicate that the process has a long life span and the steam
SPE 113234 3
override and subsequent overburden heat loss is not as great as initially indicated by the proposed theory.
J oshi
[13]
reported results on using SAGD with vertical and horizontal injectors. He found that vertical injectors with a
horizontal producer gave faster recovery than using a horizontal injector-horizontal producer in reservoirs with shale barriers.
He also indicated that vertical fractures perpendicular to a horizontal injector improved oil recovery rate as compared with a
horizontal injector/horizontal producer. Yang and Butler
[12]
also studied two types of reservoir homogeneities; first,
reservoirs with thin shale layers and second, reservoirs with layers of differing permeability. They found that a short
horizontal barrier does not significantly affect the general performance of the SAGD process. A long barrier however,
decreases the production rate. Faster production was noticed when a higher permeability layer located above a lower
permeability layer than a lower permeability layer located above a higher permeability layer.
The vertical well spacing between injection and production wells is the most important factor for determining the oil
production rate. Sasaki et al.
[14]
reported that the initial stage of production (or vertical rise of the steam chamber) was
observed to be sensitive to the location of the steam injector. The oil production rate increased when the vertical well spacing
became larger, but the breakthrough time increased with increasing well spacing. Thus, the vertical well spacing could be
used as a governing factor for evaluating production rate and lead-time during the initial stage of the SAGD process. Butler
and Stephens
[1]
; Butler
[4]
and Sugianto and Butler
[15]
reported similar performance based on reservoir thickness, these works
focused on the expansion of the steam chamber after it arrives at the top of the reservoir. In summary, the oil production rate
increased with increasing vertical spacing between two wells, but the lead-time to start oil production by gravity drainage
delayed. Ong and Butler
[16]
described an analysis of pressure drop along the horizontal well bore for vertical
injectors/horizontal producers. They showed that the pressure drop in the well bore is to cause a slope in the steam chamber
along the well. Different methods of heating the well bore to reduce the pressure drop were considered, such as indirect
heating (circulating steam in the producer).
Nasr et al.
[17]
provided an in depth analysis of the SAGD process using numerical and experimental tools. They
performed two-dimensional scaled gravity drainage experiments designed to represent heavy/extra heavy oil reservoirs, were
used to calibrate the thermal reservoir simulator STARS. They made visual observations of the development of the steam
chamber during the experiments and compared to numerical model predictions. The numerical simulations performed on the
source/sink visualization configuration illustrate that the use of numerical, experimental and analytical modelling the gravity
drainage process to learn more about the complexities of the process. Chow and Butler
[18]
investigated the feasibility using a
commercial CMG simulator (STARS) to history match the SAGD process, particularly the spreading steam chamber phase
and the rising steam chamber phase. The linear relative permeability curve was employed to simulate the experimental
production results. The numerical results agreed reasonably well with the measured data for cumulative oil production,
recovery percentage and temperature profiles in the model at different times.
Sasaki et al.
[19]
showed the vertical rise of the steam chamber was less than that predicted by the conventional SAGD
numerical model. Also, the lead-time required to generate a steam chamber in near breakthrough condition between two wells
prior to the vertical expansion of the steam chamber was long. It was hypotized that the conventional SAGD process could be
modified to first shorten the time period prior to the vertical rise of the steam chamber, and second enhance the expansion
rate of the steam chamber in consideration of fluids phenomena at the chamber interface
[20]
.
Law
[21]
studied SAGD wind-down processes with CO
2
, flue gas and N
2
injections for pressure maintenance during the
later stage of the SAGD process in an Athabasca bitumen reservoir. The oil recovery performance during the wind-down
period with pure CO
2
injection was slightly better than those with other gas injections such as flue gas (i.e. a mixture of
nitrogen and CO
2
and pure N
2
mainly because solubility of CO
2
in the oil results in the reduction of viscosity of the oil phase.
CO
2
balance indicated that CO
2
stored during SAGD wind-down processes with CO
2
or CO
2
-enriched flue gas injection was
less than the CO
2
emitted from steam generation during the initial SAGD period. CO
2
or CO
2
-enriched flue gas storage
process in SAGD depleted reservoirs is a short-life process because near maximum storage capacity can be reached within
one year of CO
2
or CO
2
-enriched flue gas injection after the oil production process has terminated.
Zhao et al.
[22]
carried out experiments and numerical simulation runs to study a gas injection SAGD wind-down
process. The experimental results showed that an incremental oil recovery could be recovered by a non-condesable gas
injection process following the SAGD process. Temperature measurements demonstrated that the hot gas chamber continued
to grow even after steam injection stopped. This period represents the most effective period regarding oil recovery for the
wind-down process. Gas concentration profiles indicated that the gas was concentrated in the region where oil saturation was
experiencing large changes.

Numerical Simulation of SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO
2
Injection
The thermal reservoir simulator, STARS (2006)
[23]
developed by the Computer Modelling Group (CMG) was used in
this study.

Reservoir Characteristics and Initial Conditions

The reservoir characteristics used in this study are based on the Abathasca oil sands located in northern, Alberta, Canada.
Depth to top of reservoir: 900 ft
4 SPE 113234
Thickness of reservoir: 150 ft
Porosity: 35%
Initial pressure: 220 psi
Initial temperature: 50
o
F
Horizontal absolute permeability: 6000 mD
Vertical absolute permeability: 3000 mD
Initial Saturations: 85% oil, 15% water and 0% gas

Rock Properties

The rock properties are also based on the Abathasca oil sands.
Effective rock compressibility: 4.67 x 10
-7

Rock heat capacity: 35 (Btu/ft
3
-F)
Rock Thermal Conductivity: 24 Btu/ft-day-F
Overburden and underburden heat capacity: 35Btu/ft
3
-F
Overburden thermal conductivity: 24 Btu/ft-day-F
Underburden thermal conductivity: 4 Btu/ft-day-F
Water, oil and gas phase thermal conductivity: 24 Btu/ft-day-F

Fluid Properties

Water, heavy oil and CO
2
are the three components involved in this study. Most water properties are based on default
(=0) in STARS simulator. Alberta Research Council (ARC) parameters have been used for heavy oil (8.6
o
API) and CO
2
.
Heavy oil and CO
2
properties are described as follows:
Oil molecular weight: 500 lb/lbmol
Oil compressibility: 4.56 x 10
-6

Oil thermal expansion coefficient: 3.374 x 10
-4

o
F
-1

First coefficient of gas and liquid heat capacity: 7 Btu/lbmol-F
First coefficient of liquid heat capacity: 218.2 Btu/lbmol-F
CO
2
molecular weight: 44 lb/lbmol
CO2 thermal expansion coefficient: 3.374 x 10-4
o
F
-1

Heavy oil viscosity and viscosity of CO
2
saturated heavy oil are based on Alberta Research Council (ARC) correlation
(Table 1). Equilibrium ratios (K-values) for gas-liquid and liquid-liquid phase equilibrium were generated from Computer
Modelling Groups (CMGs) WinProp software. This is an equation of state (EOS) multiphase equilibrium property package
and was used to produce K-values for CO
2
in oil phase, water in oil phase and CO
2
in water phase between a pressure and
temperature range of 20-1420 psi and 25-740
o
F. Water-oil and gas-oil relative permeability curves for Abathasca type
reservoirs are utilized in this study (Tables 2 and 3).

Reservoir Simulation Model

Simulation Grid
The dimensions of the prototype reservoir are 310 ft wide, 1500 ft long and 150 ft thick (310 ft x 1500ft x 150 ft). For
this study a homogenous model was used. It was desired to simulate a SAGD pattern using a sufficient number of grid blocks
that will provide results with sufficient accuracy without overly long simulation times. A three dimensional (3-D) Cartesian
grid (10x150x10) with 4650 active cells was used for the simulations. The K-direction of the model is down. The utilized
grid has a gross volume of 6.98 x 10
7
ft
3
and formation pore volume of 2.44 x 10
7
ft
3
. The original oil-in-place (OOIP) is 3.72
MMSTB.

Well Configuration
A pair of standard SAGD horizontal wells was used for the simulations. The injection well Injector was located 30 ft
above the production well Producer which was 25 ft from the bottom of the reservoir. The wells each had a radius of 0.3 ft
and lengths of 1500 ft. The wells were centrally located in the width of the model. This was to enable the full SAGD pattern
to be considered in the simulations.

Well and Recurrent Data
Some parameters in the well and recurrent data used in the simulations were unchanged for the SAGD baseline and
SAGD wind-down processes with CO
2
injection. To produce 100% quality steam in an industrial boiler designed to produce
saturated steam is rarely possible and the steam will usually contain droplets of water due to turbulence and splashing as
SPE 113234 5
bubbles of steam break through the water surface. It is anticipated that there will be additional reduction in the quality of
steam due to heat losses in piping infrastructure. Therefore, for all cases involving steam injection, a steam quality of 80%
was used. This was represented in the simulations as the cold water equivalent (CWE) of steam. A maximum steam
production rate of 5000 STB/day was used in all cases. An initial differential of 250 psi between the bottom-hole pressure of
the injector and producer was used to commence all the simulations. An adequate pressure differential between the wells
induces a gentle and uniform drive, accelerating start up and adding a convective component to the heat transfer process
without inducing a preferential flow path between the wells
[24]
. This differential encourages early maturity of the SAGD
steam chamber. The injector and producer well have no skin factor (S=0) and have been completed along their entire length.
A fracture gradient of 1 psi/ft that relates the minimum principal stress to the weight of the overburden was used when
considering operating parameters
[21]
. This makes the fracture pressure within the reservoir model range from 900-1050 psi. It
was intended to keep operating pressures at a maximum of about 90% of the lower limit of the range.

Optimization of SAGD Baseline Parameters

Steam Injection Temperature
Steam injection temperatures of 440, 480, 520 and 560
o
F were considered to determine the temperature that will
optimize the SAGD process thermal efficiency and productivity. The simulations were carried out with maximum surface
steam injection and liquid production rates of 4000 STB/day. Temperatures versus time profiles of the toe of the injection
well (Figure 2) were used to assess the thermal efficiency of the steam injection temperatures. From the profiles it can be
observed that the temperature at the toe of the injection well rises to about 175
o
F in three years for a steam injection
temperature of 440
o
F and two years for a steam injection temperature of 480
o
F. A steam injection temperature of 520
o
F
raised the temperature at the toe of the injection well to 200
o
F in one year whilst a steam injection temperature of 560
o
F
attained the same temperature in slightly under a year. By a year and a half, steaminjection temperatures of 520 and 560
o
F
gave maximum temperatures of about 560 and 580
o
F respectively. Maximum temperature at the toe for steam injection
temperatures of 440 and 480
o
F were attained after about four and three years respectively. The observed trend was an
indication of superior thermal efficiency of steam injection temperatures of 520 and 560
o
F. In addition to thermal efficiency,
cumulative oil production after twelve years of operation was used as a measure of the productivity of the different steam
injection temperatures. It can be observed that steam injection temperatures of 440 and 480
o
F had a cumulative oil
production of 2.69 and 2.75 MMSTB of oil after 12 years of production. Steam injection temperatures of 520 and 560
o
F had
the same cumulative oil production of 2.80 MMSTB. Furthermore, the pressure of saturated steam at 560
o
F is above the
fracture pressure range in the model. Steam injection temperature of 440
o
F had a bottom-hole pressure of producer much
lower than the reservoir pressure. As a result, steam injection temperatures of 440, 480 and 560
o
F were discounted. Based
on the choice of steam temperature of 520
o
F, the bottom-hole pressure of the injector was set at 812 psi. The producer was
operated at a minimum pressure of 562 psi.

Maximum Surface Steam Injection Rate
Maximum surface steam injection rates of 2000, 4000, 8000 and 12000 STB/day were considered to determine an
optimum rate to be used for steam injection in the simulations. Maximum surface liquid production rates identical to the
maximum surface steam production rates were used in each simulation. Steam was injected at the optimum temperature of
520
o
F. The cumulative oil production data after twelve years of production were plotted against the maximum surface steam
injection rates (Figure 3). The cumulative oil productions were 2.07, 2.80, 2.79 and 2.78 MMSTB for steam surface injection
rates of 2000, 4000, 8000 and 12000 STB/day respectively. The maximum surface steam injection rate at the point of
inflexion on the curve was taken as the optimum rate. This corresponds to a rate of 5000 STB/day.

Optimization of SAGD Wind-Down with CO
2
Injection Parameters

Injection pressure was optimised for the SAGD wind-down process with CO
2
injection. Pressures of 500, 650 and 800
psi were considered. Injection pressures lower than 500 psi was not considered. The reason for this was to keep to the initial
bottom-hole pressure differential limit of 250 psi whilst preventing operation of the producer at a pressure much lower than
the initial reservoir pressure. Similarly, injection pressures above 800 psi were not considered to prevent the system from
being exposed to pressures close to or exceeding the fracture pressure range in the model. SAGD wind-down process with
CO
2
injection was initiated after four years in each case. The maximum surface liquid production rate corresponded to the
value utilised in the SAGD baseline and all other parameter in the model remained constant. The cumulative oil production
after twelve years was used as criteria for screening the options. The cumulative oil productions were 2.01, 1.87 and 1.74
MMSTB for CO
2
injection pressures of 500, 650 and 800 psi respectively. Based on the highest recovery after twelve years
of production, an injection pressure of 500 psi was selected for wind-down process with CO
2
. The injector was operated at a
bottom-hole pressure of 512 psi with the producer having a minimum bottom-hole pressure of 262 psi.



6 SPE 113234
Simulation Times
In this study, the SAGD process is operated for 4380 days (12 Years). The SAGD wind-down process with CO
2

injection is initiated after maturity of the SAGD steam chamber at 1460 days (4 Years), 2190 days (6 Years) and 2920 days
(8 Years). In each scenario, the wind-down process is followed by 9125 days (25 Years) of CO
2
injection for GHG disposal.

Simulation Results

The numerical simulation results for the SAGD baseline and wind-down processes followed by CO
2
disposal are as
follows:

SAGD Baseline

Performance Parameters
The SAGD baseline model had a cumulative oil production of 2.82 MMSTB of oil (76% recovery factor). This was
accomplished with a cumulative steam injection of 7.82 MMSTB. The model had a cumulative steam-oil ratio (CSOR) of
2.77 which was a testament of the robust operation of the SAGD model (Table 4).

Average Temperature and Pressures
Average temperature during SAGD operation was maintained around 56
o
F for the first two years before rising steadily
to 476
o
F after 7 years. The average temperature remained within this range till after 8 years, rose to about 508
o
F after 9
years before finally reaching about 513
o
F after 12 years. The average pressure increased to 816 psi after three years and
stayed within this range for the 12 years of production.

Liquid Rates
The steam injection rate reached a maximum value of 4020 STB/day after 4 years of SAGD operation then began to
decline until after 5 years when it reached a value of 3482 STB/day. The rate decreased slightly to 3401 STB/day after 6
years. After this time, it declined to 666 STB/day after 12 years. Oil production rate started to show a significant rise after 3
years up to a value of about 1487 STB/day after 4 years. The rate decreased to 1416 STB/day after 6 years before peaking at
1714 STB/day after 7 years. Beyond this time, the oil production rate declined.

Temperature and Oil Saturation Profiles
The temperature profiles of the SAGD baseline show the steam chamber development and growth (Figure 4). The
highest temperatures of between 474 and 521
o
F existed in the depleted chamber. The temperature at the edge of heated oil
ranged between 285 and 332
o
F. After 6 years the steam chamber had grown to the edge of the model. The oil saturation
profiles show a similar pattern to the temperature profiles which is an indication of depletion in the high temperature regions
of the chamber (Figure 5).

SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO
2
Injection

Performance Parameters
For SAGD wind-down processes with CO
2
injection after 4, 6 and 8 years, the cumulative oil productions were 2.01,
2.85 and 2.94 MMSTB (54%, 77% and 79% recovery). The cumulative steam injections were 2.82, 5.62 and 6.77 MMSTB
for the wind-down processes after 4, 6 and 8 years. The cumulative steam-oil ratios (CSORs) were 1.40, 1.85 and 2.30 for
the processes. During wind-down process, 445.51, 349.84 and 126.27 MMSCF of CO
2
was injected and after wind-down
CO
2
-in-place was 424.03, 342.22 and 125.69 MMSCF for the processes after 4, 6 and 8 years. After 25 years CO
2
disposal,
the CO
2
-in-place was 848.36, 811.79 and 662.39 MMSCF for wind-down after 4, 6 and 8 years (Table5).

Average Temperatures and Pressures
Average temperature after SAGD wind-down with CO
2
injection was 178, 327 and 420
o
F for wind-down initiated after
4, 6, and 8 years. The average pressure for the wind-down processes with CO
2
injection drops to about 500 psi when CO
2

injection is started.

Liquid and Gas Rates
For wind-down with CO
2
injection after 4 years, oil production rate continually decreased from 1419 STB/day to about
71 STB/day after 12 years. Decline in oil production rate continued from the SAGD phase after wind-down processes with
CO
2
injection after 6 and 8 years started. The decline in these cases was not as rapid as decline after 6 and 8 years in the
SAGD baseline. This accounts for the increased productivity of the processes over the baseline. The gas injection rates rose
and reached a peak two years after wind-down with CO
2
was initiated for the processes after 4 and 6 years. For wind-down
with CO
2
injection after 8 years, CO
2
injection rate reached a maximum after three years. The maximum gas injection rates
were 343658, 416947 and 169786 SCF/day for the wind-down processes after 4, 6 and 8 years.
SPE 113234 7

Temperature and CO
2
Gas Mole Fraction Profiles
The shape of the steam chamber is maintained for the wind-down processes (Figures 6, 7 and 8). For wind-down after 4
years, the temperature range of 145- 381
o
F in the chamber is lower than that of SAGD baseline model. When CO
2
injection
is commenced after 6 years, the steam chamber has already matured across the width of the model. The temperature range for
the depleted chamber is 242-531
o
F. For the wind-down process after 8 years, the temperature range in the depleted chamber
is 381-523
o
F. The CO
2
gas mole fraction range in the chamber ranged from 0.5-1.0 for wind-down process after 4 years
(Figure 9). For this process, the highest and lowest mole fractions of CO
2
were at the edge regions of the chamber. This is an
indication of CO
2
being dissolved in the region. The CO
2
gas mole fraction range for the wind-down process after 6 years
showed a similar pattern (Figure 10). The range in this case was 0.3-1.0. For the wind-down process after 8 years, the same
trend was observed with a range 0.1-0.5 (Figure 11).

Economic Worth

SAGD wind-down process with CO
2
injection opens up an avenue to reduce steam consumption for the SAGD process
(reduce energy costs) and improve oil recovery. It also has the potential to reduce CO
2
emissions and levels. CO
2
disposal
after production operations adds to this merit. The economic performance of SAGD process relies greatly on energy
efficiency. The option of using CO
2
as a replacement for steam during the SAGD process will help to reduce the amount of
steam utilized and have an a positive impact on energy costs. The potential for SAGD wind-down process with CO
2
injection
to improve oil recovery during production decline can make the economics of SAGD more favourable. SAGD wind-down
process with CO
2
injection and subsequent disposal of CO
2
can be considered as a carbon project. This implies that the
project can receive funding from relevant authorities. The process can also help gain carbon credit. The sale of the gained
carbon credit can help improve the economics of the integrated process.

Conclusions

The objective of this study included the investigation of the effects of steam injection temperatures and steam injection rates
on heavy oil recovery in a SAGD process. The effects of wind-down with CO
2
injection on a SAGD process, at different CO
2

injection times, have also been evaluated. Storage capacity for CO
2
after 25 years of disposal has been estimated for each
process. From the study the following conclusions have been made:

1. The combination of optimized parameters for SAGD results in an efficient operation of the process and achieves
high oil recoveries.

2. For a SAGD process, steam injection temperature has a bearing on the amount of heavy oil recovered. Oil recovery
increases with temperature until an optimum temperature is attained. Beyond this temperature the process becomes
thermally inefficient. A high steam temperature causes a high rate of change of temperature within the system, but a
lower steam temperature might match oil recovery performance.

3. Due to the pressures associated with steam at high temperatures, there is a limit to the temperature that can be used
in the operation of SAGD process. This is due to the possibility of pressures within the system approaching or
exceeding the fracture pressure within the formation.

4. For a SAGD process, oil recovery increases with steam injection rate, reaches an optimum rate then remains
constant or declines. Beyond this point, additional utilization of resources is unnecessary.

5. For SAGD wind-down processes, better performance is achieved when the parameters associated with the wind-
down process are optimized. This is preferable to carrying over operating parameters from the standard SAGD
phase. The improved performance achieved from this activity provides a good basis for comparison of the wind-
down process with standard SAGD process.

6. For wind-down with CO
2
injection, the oil recovery increases inversely with pressure. Lower pressures may be
prevented by the bottom-hole pressure differential constraints.

7. Oil recovery for SAGD wind-down with CO
2
injection can enhance oil recovery when applied at the right stage of
the SAGD process.

8. CO
2
storage capacity after wind-down processes with CO
2
increases with the amount of oil left in place. This
indicates the additional storage potential underlined by the solubility of CO
2
in oil.

8 SPE 113234
Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to CMG for using STARS and WinProp softwares for simulation runs.

References

1. Butler, R. M. and Stephens, D.J .: The Gravity Drainage of Steam Heated to Parallel Horizontal Wells, J . Can. Pet.
Tech., (April-June, 1981), 90-96.

2. J oshi, S.D. and Threlkeld, C.B.: Laboratory Studies of Thermally Aided Gravity Drainage Using Horizontal
Wells, AOSTRA J . of Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, (1985), 11-19.

3. J oshi, S.D.: A Review of Thermal Oil Recovery Using Horizontal Wells, IN SITU, Vol. 2, No. 1, (1987), 211-
259.
4. Butler, R.M.: Rise of Interfering Steam Chambers, J . Can. Pet. Tech., Vol. 26, No. 3, (1987), 70-75.

5. J oshi, S.D.: Thermal Oil Recovery with Horizontal Wells, J . Pet. Tech., (November, 1991), 1302-1314.

6. Butler, R. M.: Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen, Petroleum Society Monograph No. 2,
CIM, Calgary, Alberta., (1994).

7. Talbi, K. and Maini, B.: Evaluation of CO
2
Based Vapex Process for the Recovery of Bitumen from Tar Sand
Reservoirs, SPE Paper 84868, presented at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia
Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-21 October 2003.

8. Zhao, L.: Steam Alternating Solvent Process, SPE Paper 86957, presented at SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 16-18 March
2004.

9. J iang, Q., Butler, R. and Yee, C.T.,: The Steam and Gas Push (SAGP)-2: Mechanism Analysis and Physical Model
Testing, Paper 98-43, Proceedings of the Petroleum Society 49 th Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, J une 8-10, 1998.

10. Huygen, H.H.A. and Black, J .B.: Steaming through Horizontal Wells and Fractures-a Scaled Model Test, Second
European Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Paris, (November, 1982).

11. Griffin, P.J . and Trofimenkoff, P.N.: Laboratory Studies of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process,
AOSTRA J . of Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, (1986), 197-203.

12. Yang, G. and Butler, R. M.: Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneties on Heavy Oil Recovery by Steam Assisted
Gravity Drainage, 40 th Annual Technical Meeting of CIM, Banff, (1989).

13. J oshi, S.D. : A Laboratory Study of Thermal Oil Recovery Using Horizontal Wells, SPE Paper 14916, presented
at the 1986 SPE/DOE 5 th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, (April 20-23, 1986).

14. Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S. Yazawa, N., Doan, Q. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: Numerical and Experimental Modelling of
the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Process, J . Can. Pet. Tech. Vol. 40, No. 1, (J anuary 2001), 44-50.

15. Sugianto, S. and Butler, R. M.: The Production of Conventional Heavy Oil Reservoirs with Bottom Water Using
Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage, Paper 89-40-33, The Petroleum Society of CIM, (1990).

16. Ong, T.S. and Butler, R.M.: Wellbore Flow Resistance in Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage, J . Can. Pet. Tech.,
Vol. 29, No. 2, (March-April, 1990), 49-55.

17. Nasr, T.N. Golbeck, H. and Lorimer, S.: Analysis fo the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Process Using
Experimental/Numerical Tools, SPE Paper 37116, 1996 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, Canada, (18-20 November 1996).

18. Cnow, L. and Butler, R.M.: Numerical Simulation of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process (SAGD), J .
Can. Pet. Tech., (June 1996), Vol. 35, No.6, 55-62.
SPE 113234 9
19. Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S., Yazawa, N. and Kaneko, F.: Experimental Modeling of the Steam-Assisted Gravity
Drainage Process-Enhancing SAGD Performance with Periodic Stimulation of the Horizontal Producer, SPE
J ournal, (March, 2001), 189-197.

20. Sasaki, K., Akibayashi, S., Yazawa, N. and Kaneko, F.: Microscopic Visualization with High Resolution Optical-
Fiber Scope at Steam Chamber Interface on Initial Stage of SAGD Process, SPE Paper 75241, presented at the
SPE/DOE Improved il Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, (13-17 April 2002).

21. Law, D. H.-S.: Disposal of Carbon Dioxide, a Greenhouse Gas, for Pressure Maintenance in a Steam-Based
Thermal Process for Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen SPE Paper 86958, presented at SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 16-
18 March 2004.

22. Zhao, L., Law, D.H.-S., Nasr, T.N., Coates, R., Golbeck, H., Beaulieu, G. and Heck, G.: SAGD Wind-Down: Lab
Test and Simulation, J ournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, J anuary 2005, Vol.44, no.1, 49-53.

23. STARS User Manual, Computer Modelling Group, Calgary, Canada, 2006.

24. Prada, J., Cunha, L., and Alhanati, F.: Impact of Operational Parameters and Reservoir Variables during the Startup
Phase of a SAGD Process, SPE Paper 97918, presented at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, canada, 1-3 November 2005.


Table 1. Heavy Oil Viscosity
Temperature
(
o
F)
Heavy Oil
Viscosity
(cp)
CO
2

Saturated
Heavy Oil
(cp)
46 3000000.00 800.00
70 296660.00 640.00
80 134660.00 250.00
90 65248.00 127.00
100 33500.00 71.00
125 7839.00 28.40
150 2349.00 13.90
175 835.20 8.00
200 360.70 3.80
250 90.70 1.83
300 31.70 1.00
350 13.90 0.72
400 7.22 0.54
450 4.23 0.35
500 2.71 0.25
550 1.87 0.20
600 1.87 0.20





10 SPE 113234
Table 2: Relative Permeability data for Water-Oil System

S
w
Krw Krow
0.15 0.00 0.99
0.20 0.00 0.86
0.26 0.01 0.72
0.31 0.01 0.59
0.37 0.03 0.46
0.42 0.04 0.35
0.48 0.07 0.25
0.53 0.10 0.17
0.58 0.15 0.11
0.64 0.20 0.06
0.69 0.27 0.03
0.75 0.35 0.01
0.80 0.45 0.00








Table 3: Relative Permeability Data for Gas-Oil System
S
l
Krg Krog
0.15 0.96 0.00
0.20 0.84 0.00
0.26 0.71 0.01
0.31 0.59 0.01
0.36 0.47 0.03
0.42 0.35 0.04
0.47 0.25 0.07
0.52 0.17 0.10
0.58 0.11 0.15
0.63 0.06 0.20
0.68 0.03 0.27
0.74 0.02 0.35
0.79 0.01 0.45
0.84 0.01 0.56
0.90 0.00 0.69
0.95 0.00 0.83
1.00 0.00 0.99











Table 4. Performance Parameters for SAGD Baseline

SAGD Baseline

Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB) 2.82
Recovery Factor (%) 76.0
Cumulative Steam Injection (MMSTB) 7.82
Cumulative Steam Oil Ratio (CSOR) 2.77
Cumulative Water Production (MMSTB) 7.72












SPE 113234 11
Table 5: SAGD Wind-Down results

SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO
2
Injection 4 Years 6 Years 8 Years
Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB) 2.01 2.85 2.94
Recovery Factor (%) 54.0 77.0 79.0
Cumulative Steam Injection (MMSTB) 2.82 5.26 6.77
Cumulative Steam Oil Ratio (CSOR) 1.40 1.85 2.30
Cumulative Water Production (MMSTB) 3.02 5.47 6.86
Cumulative CO
2
Injection for Wind-Down (MMSCF) 445.51 349.84 126.27
Cumulative Gas Production (MMSCF) 21.48 7.26 0.58
CO
2
-in-place after SAGD Wind-Down (MMSCF) 424.03 342.22 125.69
CO
2
-in-place after 25 Years Disposal (MMSCF) 848.36 811.79 662.39





























Steam flows to
interface and
condenses
Heated oil
flows
to well
Steam
injection
well
Production well
oil and condensate
are drained continuously
Oil
reservoir

Figure 1. Schematic representation of SAGD process.


0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Ti me (Years)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
o
F
)
440 oF 480 oF 520 oF 560 oF
0.00E+00
5.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.50E+06
2.00E+06
2.50E+06
3.00E+06
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Maxi mum Surface Steam Inj ecti on Rate (STB/day)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l

(
S
T
B
)

Figure 2. Temperature Profile at Toe of Injector. Figure 3. Optimum Steam Injection Temperature.



12 SPE 113234








Figure 4. Temperature Profile for SAGD Baseline.









Figure 5. Oil Saturation Profile for SAGD Baseline.










Figure 6. Temperature Profile for Wind-Down after 4 Years.
SPE 113234 13

















Figure 7. Temperature Profile for Wind-Down after 6 Years.



Figure 8. Temperature Profile for Wind-Down after 8 Years.

Figure 9. CO
2
Gas Mole Fraction Profiles for Wind-Down after 4 Years.
14 SPE 113234





Figure 10. CO
2
Gas Mole Fraction Profiles for Wind-Down after 6 Years.




Figure 11. CO
2
Gas Mole Fraction Profiles for Wind-Down after 8 Years.