IPTC 12860

The Field Performance of SAGD Projects in Canada

Jaime Jimenez, Shell International Exploration & Production

Copyright 2008, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 35 December 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The rise of the SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage)
technology over the last ten years as the leading technology to
develop oil sands in-situ is unquestionable. This despite the
youth and questions that still surround this technology.
Therefore, a review of most of the existing operations in
Canada has been undertaken (32 pads in 8 different
operations), which includes an analysis of their current
performance and particularities, trying to understand what
makes a SAGD project successful, and what determines its
performance. Moreover, SAGDs performance has been
compared with the performance of CSS (cyclic steam
stimulation), the other leading in-situ technology for oil sands.
The main finding of this work is that geology and reservoir
properties are by far the most dominant features for a
successful SAGD operation. SAGD targets must be reservoir
areas with average thickness above 15 m, good vertical
communication and no thief zones. Moreover, if the geological
conditions are known, the SAGD process has to be operated
properly as lack of operational excellence can be detrimental
to the performance of any SAGD project. SAGD operations
are badly compromised by lack of steam mainly, but also by
long boiler shutdowns, and by losing confined injectors early
on in the process, which lead to splitting big pads into smaller
ones.
Finally, as long as the steam chamber can grow, the
ultimate recovery of a SAGD operation can be expected to be
in the order of 60 to 70%. The cOSR (cumulative Oil-SteamRatio) can fluctuate between 0.30 and 0.50, with the higher
end values associated with high quality reservoirs (mainly oil
content), excellent operations, and large pads; while
operations at the lower end values have usually a combination
of operational issues, smaller oil content and shale baffles
(poor vertical connectivity).
Introduction
From 1985 to 1987 the government of Alberta, represented by
AOSTRA, built the Underground Test Facility (UTF), whose

purpose was to prove the SAGD concept. The first SAGD

pilot was run from 1987 to 1990 under the name of Phase A.
This proof of concept pilot consisted of three short well pairs
closely spaced (50 m in horizontal length and 25 m apart). The
success of this pilot led to a joint venture between AOSTRA
and industry. This resulted in the first commercial pilot built
from 1990 to 1992 in the same facility called Phase B. This
pilot had three wells pairs as well, which were 70 m apart and
had lengths of 500 m. This pilot was operated until June 2004,
with an ultimate recovery in excess of 65% and an Oil-SteamRatio (OSR) of 0.42.
Since then, more than 10 commercial SAGD projects have
been operating in Canada, mainly in the Athabasca area, while
CSS is used only by three operators (Imperial Oil, Shell and
CNRL) in the two other Alberta oil sands areas. Therefore,
over the last decade SAGD has become the preferred in-situ
technology for developing oil sand leases, mainly in the
Athabasca area. Presently, the biggest in-situ operation in
Canada, Imperial Oil at Cold Lake, uses CSS, with a
production of ~140 kbpd. Similarly, CSS is currently the
technology used at Shells Peace River as SAGD has not
shown its promise there.
Consequently, the rise of SAGD, a fairly young technology
compared to CSS, has raised a lot of questions such as what is
its efficiency, its ultimate recovery, how sound is it, what type
of reservoirs are better suited for SAGD? Therefore, an
analysis of the performance of the current operations must
address whether SAGD is the preferred in-situ technology to
develop oil sands, and under which geological conditions. The
present document reviews a large database of SAGD
operations in Canada (8 operations and 32 pads) and tries to
address some of the questions mentioned hitherto.
Methodology and Analysis Of Operations
Methodology
A total of 32 pads that are part of 8 different SAGD
operations in Alberta, Canada were included in the present
analysis. The analysis of the performance from different
operators uses the following methodology:
All the analyses are made on a pad basis instead of by
well or by field. This is because the coalescence of steam
chambers increases the recovery and energy efficiency,
and allows for optimization. Moreover, recoveries are
better defined over pads rather than single well pairs.
The technology is young, with only two pads over the
spectrum of the analysis that have terminated operation.
Therefore, it is necessary to remove somehow the time
component in order to have a fair comparison of the
different operations. In so doing, the number of

IPTC 12860

hydrocarbon pore volumes injected versus hydrocarbon

recovery will be used as the main assessment criterion.
Most of the information used is public as reported by the
operator to the Alberta Energy Utilities Board (AEUB)1,
in both the annual presentation and the monthly rates of
commercial operations. The rate data available to the
author is up to December 2005.
On the other hand this analysis has some weakness and
short-comings such as:
OOIP is based on the values reported to the AEUB, but
different operators have different criteria, and they are not
always known to the author. The OOIP cut off is based on
the bitumen weight as percentage, which is defined as:

Wt.Bitumen(%) =

So *
* 100
(2.65 * (1 )) + (1.0 * )

where 2.65 (g/cm3) is the density of the reservoir rock and

1.0 (g/cm3) the density of the oil and water.
The detailed geology of every site is not well known to
outsiders.
Operational issues are mostly unknown to outsiders,
therefore some of the conclusions in this regard are
mainly conjectural.
Detailed reservoir properties such as permeability,
saturation and so on, and pad configuration details such as
well spacing, lengths and so on are average, so some
details that may or may not be meaningful could be
missed.
Analysis of Operations
EnCanas Foster Creek
Foster Creek is currently the largest SAGD operation in
Canada with 54 well pairs distributed in 8 pads, and 1 pad that
is a series of infill well pairs (between pads). Out of the 9
pads, one is fairly mature, 5 are mature, and 3 are young.
Production by the first quarter of 2006 was in the order of
40000 bbl/d. The cut-off criterion used by EnCana to estimate
its OOIP is unknown to the author, but due to the high
porosity and saturation in this area of Athabasca, a cut-off of
10% is expected.
PetroCanadas MacKay River
MacKay River is currently the SAGD operation with the
best OSR in Canada. There are 4 pads with 25 well pairs in
operation and 3 more pads are going to be steamed soon.
Production by the second quarter of 2006 was in the order of
25000 bbl/d. PetroCanada uses a 10% bitumen weight as cutoff to calculate the OOIP.
Devons UTF
The UTF has been the laboratory for SAGD, it is
composed of 4 phases, A which was a proof of concept pilot,
B the first commercial demonstration, D the first SAGD wells
drilled from surface, E the first demonstration of a SAGD
operation besides a depleted pad, B. Moreover there are two
more well pairs (phases F&G), and the VapEx pilot called
DoVap.

1 The

AEUB has been re-named to the Energy Resources Conservation

Board (ERCB) in 2007

JACOS Hangingstone
Hangingstone is a unique operation in the sense that it has
not been developed as pads but more as couples of well pairs.
Nonetheless the existing operation is one of the oldest, it has
15 well pairs and a production in the order of 8000 bbl/d by
the end of 2006. Moreover, its oldest pad (2 wells) is finished,
and with the UTF Phase B are the only two pads where
production has been completed.
EnCanas Christina Lake
Christina Lake is EnCanas demonstration pilot and
playground. There are 6 well pairs, which have been drilled
two at a time. EnCana is trying the use of solvent in some of
its wells, and it has used 3D seismic as monitoring tool. The
operation is not commercial so EnCana is not obligated to
report monthly volumes. Therefore cumulative volumes are
known but rates are unknown.
ConocoPhillips Surmont
Surmont is a three well pair pilot, with two relatively short
pairs (350 m) and one long pair (1000 m). It is a pilot and a
significant amount of information has been made public such
as pressures and temperatures. Unfortunately the availability
of steam is limited, which has limited the operation of the pilot
in general, and especially of the long well. Therefore, its
performance is not really representative of a SAGD operation.
Nonetheless some of the data are used for analysis purposes.
Suncors Firebag
Probably the biggest SAGD operation being undertaken in
Canada with 40 well pairs (4 pads) in place by the middle of
2006, 20 more pairs being drilled or prepared (2 pads), and at
least 20 more approved (2 pads). By the middle of 2006 the
production was more than 30000 bbl/d out of 22 wells (steam
is limited presently but more capacity is being built).
Unfortunately the operation is too young to be included indepth in the analysis, so the results shown must be taken
cautiously.
Blackrocks Hilda Lake
Hilda Lake is a two well pair pilot operated in the Cold
Lake area by Blackrock, and recently bought by Shell. Its
performance cannot be compared on a one-to-one basis with
the other operations as the steam chambers of the wells have
not coalesced and there have been issues with steam
availability. The data are included for completeness, and
because it is the only SAGD operation outside Athabasca that
the author has had access data wise. A point worth noting here
is that on the basis of typical saturations and porosities from
Cold Lake, the cut-off to calculate OOIP must be in the order
of 8%, which is what Imperial Oil uses in its Cold Lake lease,
instead in the 10% of Athabasca areas.
Sagd Performance
The ultimate recovery of SAGD and its energy efficiency are
still very controversial issues by reasons such as the current
operation of most of the existing pads, the lack of
predictability of simulators, the variability of results in
contiguous pads, and so on. Table A-1 shows the performance
details and size of the pads analyzed in this report, and Figure
1 shows the current performance of the 32 SAGD pads. In an
attempt to remove the time component, the data are plotted as
hydrocarbon pore volume produced versus hydrocarbon pore
volumes injected. Moreover this plot has an advantage that the
slope of any line in this space is the inverse of the Oil-Steam

IPTC 12860

Ratio (OSR). This OSR is based on dry steam and is

calculated using 96% or more steam quality. Out of the 32
pads analyzed only 2 have terminated operations, the A&B
wells at Hangingstone (2 well pad) and the Phase B at the UTF
(3 well pad). Moreover, the Hilda Lake information is for the
two existing wells, whose steam chambers have not yet
coalesced, so they perform presently as two separate singlewell pads.

Steam Injected (CEW)/OOIP

2.1
1.8

MacKay River
Foster Creek
UTF (Dover)
Hangingstone
Christina Lake
Surmont
Firebag
Hilda Lake

Finished

O
SR

2.4

=0
.2

2.7
0
R=
OS

.3

0
R=
OS

.4

Finished

1.5

=0.5
OSR

1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

So*Phi2 in oil sands is between 0.20 and 0.27, with Cold

Lake and Peace River towards the low end of the
spectrum, and Athabasca towards the high end.
Table 1 shows the overall performance of MacKay River,
Foster Creek and Hangingstone, three of the largest SAGD
operations in Canada. Both MacKay River and Foster Creek
have excellent cOSR, and the recovery is already of the order
of 30% despite the fact that most of their pads only have a few
years of operation. This emphasizes the statement of ultimate
recoveries in the 60 to 70% even over entire field
developments. On the other hand Hangingstone, as explained
before, does not have the same cOSR but it is still fairly good
at 0.31, and its recovery has already reached 37%, with only 2
well pairs out of the existing 15 finished. Notice also that these
recoveries, which already match Imperial Oil Cold Lake, are
achieved faster than the 15 to 20 years that a typical CSS pad
has in their operation [1]. Thus, SAGD does not only look
promising over the selected pads but also over large field
developments. Note that all these field developments have
been started in pay zones that are both thick and with a good
vertical permeabilit, and future expansions try to follow these
nice areas.
Table 1. Overall performance of three of the largest commercial
SAGD operations in Canada

HCPV Produced

Figure 1. Current performance of the 32 SAGD pads used in this

analysis. OSR are calculated for dry steam

There are quite a few interesting aspects that can be

inferred from this figure:
Considering that only two pads are finished, and
observing the trend of the still on-going mature pads, it is
reasonable to expect ultimate recoveries around 60 to
70% for most of the pads.
The OSR can change significantly not only between
projects but also between pads within the same lease (see
MacKay River or Foster Creek), but is consistently
around 0.3 and above, with the best pads operating around
an OSR of 0.5, which is outstanding.
Among the three most mature operations MacKay River,
Foster Creek and Hangingstone, the latest is the poorest
while the other two are alike, although the best pads in
MacKay River are superior to the best pads in Foster
Creek. The reason for the difference in performance
between Hangingstone and the other two operations
seems to be associated with lower permeability in the
reservoir, smaller pads and a slightly smaller oil content.
The average horizontal permeability in MacKay River and
Foster creek is of the order of 6000 mD while in
Hangingstone it is 2400 mD. Both MacKay and Foster
Creek use large pads (6-7 well pairs), while Hangingstone
uses smaller pads with 2-3 wells.
The apparently poor performance of Hilda Lake is mainly
due to two reasons; each dot is a single well pad so the
heat losses are much more significant that in multi-well
pads; and there has been a lack of steam to operate the
wells smoothly, which hurts both the short- and long-term
performance. Moreover it is worth noting that the oil
content in Cold Lake is not as high as in Athabasca; i.e.

Operation

MacKay
River

Foster
Creek

Hangingstone

Well pairs in Operation

Months of Operation Pads
(Youngest/Oldest)
Recovery Factor (%)
cOSR

18
46/46 as of
Sept-06
30
0.46

50
7/108 as of
May-06
27
0.39

15
16/90 as of
Dec-06
37
0.31

In terms of cOSR there is a widespread range of values for

different pads as can be seen in Figure 2. Nonetheless about
55% of the pads have a cOSR above 0.35, and about 30% of
them above 0.40, Figure 2. Moreover, among the worst
performing pads are those of operations such as Surmont,
Hilda Lake and Firebag: all of them have suffered a serious
lack of steam (and they account for 6 of the 14 pads with
cOSR less than 0.35). However, that issue is now being
addressed at Firebag and an important improvement in
performance was observed from 2006 to 2007 when more
steam became available. The rest of the pads with cOSR
below 0.35 are towards the low end of oil content and/or are
small pads (2 or 3 well pairs only).

Oil saturation times porosity is commonly used as an oil content

indicator in thermal projects

IPTC 12860

cOSR
0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.8

0.55

10

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Finished
MacKay River
Foster Creek
UTF (Dover)
Hangingstone
Christina Lake
Surmont
Firebag
Hilda Lake

0.6

HCPV Produced

0.25

Cumulative Probability (%)

Number of Pads (Frequency)

0.20

0.4

0.2

Firebag lack
steam early on

Figure 2. Histogram of COSR for the 32 pads analyzed, and the

cumulative probability of a pad having a given COSR

Another interesting point is the short time over which the

performance of a pad stabilizes, which in practical terms
means that, if there are no serious operational issues or a lack
of steam availability, the performance of a pad can be inferred
within 15 to 25 months after the start of an operation, as can
be seen in Figure 3. Moreover, the cOSR becomes fairly
constant with time to some degree although it gets worse with
time in some of the pads (pad B in Foster Creek), but keeps
improving for others (pad C in MacKay River).
0.6

0.5

COSR

0.4

0.3
Foster Creek - A
Foster Creek - B
Foster Creek - C
Foster Creek - D
MacKay - A
MacKay - B
MacKay - C
MacKay - D
Hangingstone - AB
Hangingstone - CDE

0.2

0.1

0.0
20

40

Hilda Lake and

Surmont have
suffered of a lack
of steam

0.50

cOSR

Finished

60

80

100

Time (months)

Figure 3. Evolution of the cOSR with time

Finally, the rate of recovery of the various projects tend to

be fairly uniform, especially over their entire operation. Thus
trends for most of the pads of either Foster Creek, Dover or
Hangingstone are easily established as shown in Figure 4.
Moreover, there is a general trend in all of the operations
except the ones previously mentioned that suffered from a lack
of steam. Thus, a 30% recovery has been achieved after 40 to
60 months of production for most of the operations.

0.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Months in Production

Figure 4. Rate of production of the different SAGD operations

analyzed

In summary, it seems that as long as the steam chamber

can growth and there are no steam constrains, the SAGD
performance tends to be within a certain range in terms of
cOSR, ultimate recovery and rate of recovery. Nonetheless
there is significant variability in performance between leases,
and between pads within a lease. Consequently, it is worth to
look in detail at some of them to understand what makes a
project a great performer or an average performer. Among the
issues to consider are the geology, operations, pad size, well
spacing, length, and pressure among others.
Geology and Thickness
SAGD is considered by many the perfect process for the
perfect reservoir; but what is the perfect reservoir, and what is
the impact of heterogeneities in its performance?
PetroCanadas MacKay River is a great example that geology
is the dominant control in SAGDs performance. Figure 5
shows the performance of the four operating pads in MacKay
River. All the pads have been operated for the same amount of
time, and have gone through the same steam shortages. They
are contiguous, from East to West, pads A to D. Both A and B
have 7 well pairs while C and D have 6 and 5 well pairs,
respectively (see layout in [2]).
Figure 5 shows the performance of these four pads, from
their start in August 2002 to December 2005. As seen in the
figure, pads B and C have similar performance both reaching
an OSR of around 0.5 over that time period. The performance
of the other two pads was not as good, with pad D reaching an
OSR of about 0.37 and pad A of about 0.3.

IPTC 12860

high. Athabasca is in general a cleaner reservoir with a

clean sand unlike Cold Lake or Peace River that are more
heterogeneous.

60

10

15

20

25

30

Recovery Factor (% )
MacKay - A

MacKay - B

MacKay - C

OSR=0.3

OSR=0.4

OSR=0.5

MacKay - D

OSR=0.2

Figure 5. Pad performance in MacKay River from a start date of

August 2002 to December 2005

Looking at the MacKay River lease geology and the

typical geology of each pad [2], it is clear that different pads
have different geologies and thicknesses. Although pad A is
the thinnest, more importantly the dominant facies is a breccia
rather than a clean sand. Therefore, its oil content and vertical
permeability would be lower than in the other pads, which is
reflected mainly in the OSR, which is of the order of 0.3 rather
than 0.5 for the best pads. On the other hand, pad C is the
perfect reservoir mentioned previously, very thick, rich and
with no apparent shale baffles. The reason as to why pad D
does not behave quite as well as B or C seems to be related to
thinning of the reservoir at the heel, less wells in the pad, and
different length of wells, ranging from 700 to 500 m from
north to south. In summary, a contrast in geology is the main
controlling factor of performance in contiguous pads that have
been operated virtually identically, which highlights why
geology is the key parameter in SAGD.
This brings forward three key points from a reservoir point
of view for a successful SAGD:
A continuous thick reservoir is ideal. However, the
assessment of the SAGD thickness is one of the biggest
challenges in reservoir characterization as thin but
continuous shales can easily bring the vertical growth of
the steam chamber to a halt. Moreover, it is common that
logs miss these thin shales, and with vertical wells, is
quite difficult to establish their horizontal continuity. That
explains why there is little correlation between
performance and reported thickness, as shown in Figure 6.
The larger the oil content, the better the performance. This
point is as simple as the more oil is present in the
reservoir, the less heat is wasted heating the oil sands (oil,
water and sand). Thus, the SAGD projects in Athabasca
will in general always be better than SAGD in Peace
River or Cold Lake as the average saturation in Athabasca
is around 80% and porosity 30-32%, while saturation and
porosity in Peace River or Cold Lake are around 70% and
28-30%, respectively.
Vertical permeability plays a relative role. Shale
laminations within a sand will slow down or even stop the
vertical growth of the steam chamber and the drainage of
both bitumen and condensate. On the other hand, there is
not enough evidence that kv/kh plays a significant role as
long as the vertical continuity exists and permeability is

Steam Injected (CEW)/OOIP

2.1

O
SR

20m
25m
35m
35m

2.4

20

=0
.2

2.7
40

R=
OS

0.3

0
R=
OS

1.8

.4

1.5
=0.5
OSR

1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

HCPV Produced

Figure 6. Average thickness of the different SAGD pads analyzed

and their performance

Operational Excellence and Optimization

While favorable geological conditions are paramount to a
successful SAGD project, the operation in the field, especially
at the pad scale, can either help or hurt the performance. As
examples of both scenarios are pads A and B in Foster Creek
[3], whose performance with time is shown in Figure 7. Pad B
initially looked like a good performer but with time its
performance got worse (OSR around 0.3). On the other hand,
the more mature pad A seemed to have a constant OSR of
0.35, and through optimization, has improved to around 0.42.
Both pads will be reviewed briefly.
140
75 months of
operation

120
Steam Injected / OOIP (%)

Steam Injected / OOIP (%)

80

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Recovery Factor (%)

Foster - A

Foster - B

OSR=0.4

OSR=0.5

Foster - C

Foster - D

OSR=0.2

OSR=0.3

Figure 7. Pad performance in Foster Creek A,B,C and D from start

until December 2005

Pad B, containing 6 well pairs, has been operated for 51

months up to December 2005. The center well pair (both
injector and producer) was on and off constantly early on and
was shut down after 20 months for 10 months. Injection
resumed at higher rate 30 months after startup, but it was shut
down again at about 40 months of operations. Thus, the pore
volume of steam injected into this well pair is fairly small
(8.3% HCPV, which is 10% of the total in the pad). It is
therefore very likely that the steam chambers did not coalesce

IPTC 12860

k
v

The advantages and disadvantages of high pressure SAGD

are:
At high pressure, the latent heat is smaller but the
operating temperature in the reservoir is higher, so the
energy efficiency is lower, and so is the OSR.
At high pressure, the transfer of heat into the formation
has a component of convection due to compressibility,
because the mean effective stress becomes lower. This is
because the pressure front travels ahead of the thermal
front.
Viscosity is lower, therefore the rate of production is
higher.
Therefore the picture is not as straightforward as just latent
heat. Moreover, the definition of high or low pressure is
relative. MacKay River operates at 1750 kPa, which at first
glance may seem like a low pressure SAGD, but MacKay

River is only 125 m deep. This means that the operational

pressure gradient is 14 kPa/m, which is above the hydrostatic
pressure gradient of 10 kPa/m. With this gradient, the process
is trying to take advantage of a small convective flow.
However, a higher pressure than that may be unsafe from a
caprock integrity point of view because of the shallow depth.
On the other hand, Foster Creek operates at 2800 kPa, but
its depth is 380 m. Therefore the pressure gradient is almost 8
kPa/m, lower than hydrostatic, which means that the process
relies mainly on conduction for transfer heat. Thus, from a
geomechanical point of view, MacKay River is a high pressure
operation while Foster Creek is a low pressure operation.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the performance of different
operations according to their injection pressure and pressure
gradient, respectively. Among the issues that these figures
highlight are:
There is no clear trend between either injection pressures
or pressure gradients and performance. The performance
of the different MacKay River pads depends more on the
geology than the pressure.
Both high and low pressure pads each have excellent
performers and relatively poor performers (Figure 8).
High pressure gradient operations are not better than low
pressure ones (Figure 9). Therefore, a convective
component in the heat transfer and a small gain in
absolute permeability due to compressibility do not seem
to be important factors.

2.1

1750 kPa
2250 kPa
2800 kPa
4800 kPa

O
SR

2.4

=0
.2

2.7

Steam Injected (CEW)/OOIP

leading to a decay in performance as the pad was split into a 3

well pair pad and another 2 well pair pad, without the
efficiency and higher recovery that characterize larger pads.
This highlights the need for operational excellence in
successful SAGD operations, especially in steam availability
and the advantage of having larger pads.
On the other hand, as seen in Figure 7, the performance of
pad A improved significantly after 75 months of operation.
Pad A has 4 wells, which were operated with ups and downs
during the first 50 months. At this time, a center pair (both
injector and producer) was shut down permanently for
unknown reasons. However, it is likely that at this point the
steam chambers had coalesced so the pads performance
remained the same. After 75 months the other center injector
was shut down, but the producer of that pair remained in
operation. Thus, by taking advantage of a big single steam
chamber and all the heat stored in the unswept bitumen
between well pairs, a significant improvement in performance
was achieved by injecting steam into the side wells and
producing oil from the side wells plus a center well. Note that
shutting the center injectors in mature pads accelerates the
recovery of unswept oil between chambers, as was observed in
pad A at Foster Creek [3].
Operational Pressure
The issue of high pressure versus low pressure is a
constant debate for SAGD operators. The advantages and
disadvantages of low pressure SAGD are:
At low pressure, the steam has more latent heat and the
operating temperature in the reservoir is lower, so that the
energy efficiency is better, which leads to a better OSR.
At low pressure, heat transfer from the steam chamber
into the formation has to rely mainly on conduction
because the mean effective stress remains unchanged or
increases due to the thermal stresses. Therefore, no
advantage is taken of the non-linear compressibility and
geomechanical behavior of oil sands.
Viscosity is not reduced as much due to the lower
temperature, which means that the drainage rate is
smaller. According to Butler [5], the production rate is
proportional to the square root of the mobility:

R=
OS

0.3

0
R=
OS

1.8

.4

1.5
=0.5
OSR

1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

HCPV Produced

Figure 8. Impact of operational pressure at different SAGD

operations

IPTC 12860

2.1

O
SR

7.4 kPa/m
12.9 kPa/m
14 kPa/m
15 kPa/m
16 kPa/m

2.4

0
R=
OS

.3

R=
OS

1.8
1.5

0.4

at lower pressures, and compare the efficiency of high versus

low pressure. Figure 10 shows the change of viscosity at the
UTF Phase B for different pressures, and how it impacts the
time to achieve 55% bitumen recovery (7.5 years at 2250 kPa
in the field). These times were calculated by adjusting the rate
of recovery proportionally to the change of the square root of
mobility, according to Butlers model [5].
11.5

=0.5
OSR

1.2

11.0

0.9

10.5
Viscosity (cP)

Steam Injected (CEW)/OOIP

=0
.2

2.7

0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

HCPV Produced

Figure 9. Impact of operational pressure gradient at different

SAGD operations

Time to achieve a recovery

factor of 55% for different
viscosities, due to different
operational pressures

10.0
1750 kPa
9.5
9.0
8.5
2250 kPa
8.0
7.0

This raises the question of the SAGD operating pressure of

a project as the results show to be pressure independent. In
order to answer that question, the performance of the UTF
Phase B has been matched to a theoretical model developed by
Edmunds and Peterson [6] that predicts the cOSR as a function
of recovery. This model was calibrated for different
parameters, and a comparison was made with the field data.
In the Edmunds and Peterson model, the steam
consumption is the ratio between the total heat consumption,
H, which is the amount of heat stored in the reservoir plus the
amount of heat loss to the caprock, and the latent heat of
vaporization, Hlv:

S=
where

H
H lv

H = AT Cvr h s + k t C vo t

The cumulative oil production from a fully drained steam

chamber is given by:

O = Ah s ( S oi S or )

Thus, the cSOR is given by:

cSOR =

kC t
S T
C vr + t vo
=
O H lvS 0
h s

where A is the planar area of the steam chamber, h the

height above the producer, s the sweep efficiency, Cvr and Cvo
the heat capacities of the reservoir and overburden,
respectively, kt the overburden thermal conductivity, t the
time, and Soi and Sor the initial and residual oil saturations,
respectively. The model is simple but it captures the essence
of the process based on the recovery factor, geometrical
properties, and reservoir, caprock and steam properties. The
model can only match mature operations because it assumes
that heat losses to the overburden occur from the moment
SAGD starts, so it penalizes the early OSR.
After calibrating the model and knowing that the
operational pressure at the UTF Phase B was 2250 kPa [4], it
was possible to change both the pressure and rate of recovery

1500 kPa

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

Time (years)

Figure 10. Change of viscosity at different pressures and its

impact to achieve 55% bitumen recovery at the UTF Phase B
(Athabasca) assuming that the production rate is proportional to
the square root of mobility

Figure 11 shows the impact of injection pressure on cOSR

at 55% bitumen recovery. The blue line assumes that the
change in injection pressure does not change the production
rate; in this case, low pressure is much more efficient than
high pressure. On the other hand, the pink line also takes into
consideration the viscosity changes; it takes longer to achieve
a 55% recovery factor. In this case, the differences in cOSR
are much smaller between high and low pressures, while the
time to achieve the same recovery is larger. An additional
parameter such as net present value (NPV) would be needed to
make a final decision, but high pressure looks more promising.
Moreover, gains in absolute permeability and thermal
efficiency due to high pressure (heat transfer ahead of the
steam chamber by convection) were not included.
Nonetheless, the author favors high-pressure injection in the
early stages of steam injection. As the steam chambers
coalesce and grow along the full length of the wells, a low
pressure injection might be more efficient, as a large amount
of heat is already stored in the reservoir, and a significant
amount of the recovery comes from unswept areas between
well pairs. Moreover, some of the injector wells can be
shutdown.

IPTC 12860

0.44
7.44 years
cOSR

0.43
0.42
10.45 years
0.41
9 years
0.40
0.39
7.44 years
0.38
1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

Injection Pressure (kPa)

Pressure

Pressure & Adjusted Viscosity (Mobility)

Figure 11. Potential impact on the cOSR at 55 % recovery in the

UTF Phase B by changing the injection pressure

PAD Size
Well pair interaction between pads has been shown to be
important in the different pads analyzed at EnCanas Foster
Creek. Therefore, it is expected that pad size could have a
meaningful impact on the performance of SAGD operations.
Figure 12 shows that most of the best performers are pads with
4 or more well pairs. Thus, the UTF Phase B, which is an
excellent operation with an excellent reservoir quality, is a 3
well pair pad and may not achieve the level of performance of
bigger pads as in MacKay River, which is a nearby operation.
Moreover, it implies that single well pair pilots, such as Hilda
Lake, which are good indicators of whether the steam chamber
can develop and SAGD operations are feasible, are not good
indicators of the full performance of SAGD operations, and
will underestimate the cOSR and ultimate recovery that can be
expected in multi-well pads. The pads with 10 well pairs
belong to Firebag, and they are underperforming due to two
major reasons:
lack of steam for the entire project: not all the 10 well
pairs have been steamed in the pads
distance between well pairs is 150 m (much larger than
the typical 100 m spacing of other operation): the steam
chamber will take longer to coalesce.

2.7
2.4
2.1

=0
.2

0.45

The improvement in performance of large pads is due to

the efficient drainage of bitumen between well pairs. Such an
efficient drainage is the result of both a superposition of heat
sources that warms the oil between well pairs faster, and the
ability to drive that oil toward the producers in mature pads
where the steam chambers have coalesced. On the other hand,
steam chambers can become very flat on the sides, so gravity
drainage is limited even if the steam chamber is still growing
outwards. Thus, in mature pads, the confined wells produce at
larger rates than the side wells, something observed in almost
every mature pad analyzed.
Well Spacing and Length
Well spacing and length are both controversial issues that
the present study was not able to resolve completely as the
information is scattered. The operators, especially for well
lengths, usually present it as averages for field developments.
There is a clear trend for operators to use 100 m as a typical
well spacing, as seen in Figure 13. Figure 13 indicates that
spacing of 150 m leads to poorer performance. The two
operations using 150 m well pair spacing are Firebag, which is
too young to make a judgment yet, and Surmont, which has
suffered from a lack of steam. On the other hand, analysis of
the UTF Phase B shows that a spacing of 90 m seems most
economical, and was the basis for the UTF Phase D [6]. This
seems to indicate that 100 m well spacing is a good choice
unless recovery needs to be accelerated significantly, which
will require closer spacing.

70 m
90 m
100 m
150 m

O
SR

Recovery Factor is 55% for All Cases

7.44 years

Steam Injected (CEW)/OOIP

0.46

0
R=
OS

.3

R=
OS

1.8
1.5

0.4

=0.5
OSR

1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3

Steam Injected (CEW)/OOIP

2.1

2 Wells
3 Wells
4 & 5 Wells
6 Wells
7 Wells
10 Wells

O
SR

2.4

=0
.2

2.7
0
R=
OS

R=
OS

1.8
1.5

0.0
0.0

.3

0.4

=0.5
OSR

0.9
0.6
0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

HCPV Produced

1.2

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.8

HCPV Produced

Figure 12. Impact of number of well pairs per pad on the efficiency
of SAGD operations

Figure 13. The role of well spacing in the performance of SAGD

operations

On the issue of well length, the picture is a lot more

unclear as steam chambers always grow in 3D, and it takes
time to take advantage of the full well length. Moreover, if
insufficient steam is available, it will be difficult to use the full
well length. Thus, there is no point in using very long wells if
the supply of steam is insufficient: it can lead to dramatic
situations such as the 1000 m well pair at Surmont, which is
severely underutilized as shown by their seismic images and
temperature observation wells [7].
Because of the unique relation between steam pressure and
temperature, SAGD projects must be designed for a given
operating temperature or pressure, which will fix the other
variable. Then, 2D simulations can give a first-order estimate

IPTC 12860

of how much steam will be required to operate the early stages

of SAGD. As mentioned earlier, lower temperatures (and
pressures) can be used once the process is mature. Moreover,
once the steam chamber is large, it is almost impossible to
maintain the original pressure, so any SAGD project usually
ends up operating at a lower pressure than at the early stages.
SAGD vs. CSS
The two main technologies to develop oil sand deposities with
viscosities above 104 cp are SAGD and CSS. Both
technologies operate very differently, and rely on different
driving mechanisms (although gravity plays a significant role
in mature CSS). Among the bigger differences in performance
and particularities of each technology are:
Recovery factors in SAGD showed a trend towards the
60-70% as long as the steam chamber develops. On the
other hand, recoveries at Imperial Oil Cold Lake are
between 10 and 60% depending on shale content and
distribution, and oil content [1]. The full field average for
CSS at Cold Lake is 38%, while the current recovery is
30% for the full leases in MacKay River and Foster
Creek. However, in these two projects all the wells are
still in operation, and some of them are even fairly new.
Similarly, Hangingstone has already achieved a 37%
recovery to date with 13 out of 15 well pairs still in
operation. All these SAGD operations are much younger
than Imperial Oils CSS, and a much higher overall
recovery is expected. Notice that the weight cut-off in
OOIP for most of the SAGD operations is 10%, while
Cold Lake uses 8%. Therefore the comparison in recovery
terms is not straightforward, but one way to interpret this
difference is that CSS can be applied in leases that are not
as rich as the leases where SAGD is being deployed.
cOSR in the best CSS (Imperial Oils) is 0.34 (dry steam
basis) on average over the full field, which is comparable
to an average SAGD such as Hangingstone. However, it
cannot compete with the best SAGD projects such as
Foster Creek or MacKay River that have cOSR of 0.39
and 0.46, respectively, in their field developments.
However, SAGD can only be deployed in areas of the
reservoir with good vertical connectivity, no gas cap,
small mobile water zones and relatively thick pay zones.
All of the SAGD operations analyzed except Hilda Lake
are in the Athabasca deposit, whose in-situ viscosity is
around 106 cp, while most of the CSS projects are in
reservoirs with in-situ viscosity around 105 cp or less. It
should be noted that the GOR in both Cold Lake and
Peace River bitumen is between 8 and 10 m3/m3, while
the Athabasca bitumen is mostly a dead oil. In addition,
gas drive has been identified as a relevant mechanism for
recovery in CSS [8]. Therefore, SAGD has been deployed
successfully in reservoirs with a dead oil, while CSS is
unlikely to work in a dead oil reservoir.
Despite the fact that CSS is a more robust process,
especially in the presence of shale baffles, these baffles
affect the energy efficiency and ultimate recovery as well,
and their effect can be significant depending on their
continuity. Evidence of that has been shown by Imperial
Oil [1] where recoveries can fluctuate between 10 and

60% depending on the shale distribution and bitumen

content. Thus, the issue of recovery factor can be seen as:
o SAGD will have a better and faster recovery than
CSS over a single pad where a steam chamber
can be developed.
o CSS will be better than SAGD as a single full
field option because the technology is more
robust. Nonetheless CSS recovery is still
significantly affected by the presence of shale
baffles or thief zones.
It seems that, while SAGD is viable only with thin basal
mobile water and not viable with top water or thick basal
water, CSS is viable but its performance is diminished
substantially. In the case of a gas cap, SAGD is not viable
while CSS is. Imperial Oil has successfully carried out
CSS with a gas cap by injecting steam into all the pads
before any production occurred. However, recovery
expectations are 30 to 40% lower than for similar pads
with no gas cap [1].
A tailored approach to different reservoir areas seems to
be the ideal approach. However, the shortcomings of such
approach are the quality and detail achievable presently
for reservoir characterization, especially when flow
barriers at the reservoir scale have shown to impact
negatively operations of both SAGD and CSS, although in
different degrees. Moreover, the issue of thief zones
remains presently unresolved as CSS, the only viable
technology currently under such conditions, performs
more poorly than when there are no thief zones.
Optimization seems more likely in SAGD as the process
is based on gravity, which is a stable process. On the other
hand, CSS under fracturing conditions, which is necessary
in bitumen reservoirs, is very unpredictable. Steam
distribution is controlled by both reservoir and stress field
heterogeneities, which are impossible to quantify with the
necessary precision and coverage to control the process.
Moreover, fracturing in oil sands is poorly understood, yet
key to CSS.
Conclusions
A review of SAGD field performance has been carried out in
order to understand why SAGD has become the preferred
technology to develop the oil sands in-situ over the last ten
years, and to try and gain insights as to what makes a SAGD
project successful. From this study it was established that:
The key parameter for a successful SAGD process is the
geology. SAGD targets must be reservoir areas with
average pay thickness above 15 m, good vertical
communication and no thief zones. If one of these
conditions is not meet, the performance of a SAGD
project will be hindered up to the point where it may not
be viable. Moreover, slight differences in geology can
easily reveal contrasting performances even over
contiguous pads.
The second most important parameter for a successful
SAGD is the operation itself. SAGD operations
performance is badly compromised by mainly lack of
steam, but also by long boiler shut downs, and by the loss
of confined injectors early on in the process, which has
led to splitting big pads into small pads.

10

The best and large field operations, such as MacKay

River or Foster Creek have a cOSR of 0.46 and 0.39,
respectively, with recoveries already in the 30% with all
the pads still in operation and with a significant life ahead.
Operations with a more average performance, such as
Hangingstone, have a cOSR of 0.31, a recovery of 37%,
and the operation is still on-going. Therefore, despite the
fact that only 2 out of the 32 pads analyzed in this study
are finished, it is not unreasonable to expect ultimate
recoveries of SAGD operations around 60 to 70%.
The dry cOSR of on-going SAGD projects in Canada is
between 0.30 and 0.50, with 55% of the pads above 0.35,
and about 30% of them above 0.40.
If areas of a reservoir are appropriate for SAGD, indeed
SAGD must be the preferred technology to develop these
areas as its performance can be outstanding, superior to
CSS, and with less issues such as wellbore and caprock
integrity, steam production at surface and less sand
production. However, the biggest issue when choosing
SAGD over CSS is whether the reservoir characterization
is good enough to identify the presence of thin shale
baffles that are continuous on a reservoir engineering
scale, and may halt the development of the steam
chamber.
Among specific issues regarding SAGD operations, it was
concluded that:
High pressure seems to be more efficient than low
pressure as drainage occurs faster, so high recoveries are
achieved faster although with a slightly smaller cOSR
than low pressure SAGD. The author likes high pressure
SAGD for start-up, and move to a lower pressure once the
pad is mature and the steam chambers have coalesced.
Larger pads with 5 well pairs or more are in general more
efficient as it is possible to make better use of the heat
trapped between the well pairs, and adapt the operation
when steam chambers coalesce in order to produce the
unswept oil trapped between the well pairs, which is
usually mobile at that point and can be driven towards the
confined producers.
There is a trend among most of the operators to use a 100
m well pair spacing, which is supported by the
observations from the UTF Phase B. Coalescence of the
steam chambers with larger spacing is possible, but may
take a longer time.
The choice of well length must be done jointly with the
development of facilities, as longer wells will require
more steam to make use of their full length. Operations
with well lengths between 500 and 750 m have so far
been successful. However, it is difficult at this time to
make a judgment on those that are 1000 m long. They are
either too young or have had steam availability issues.

IPTC 12860

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Shell International Exploration &
Production B.V. for permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Imperial Oil, 2006. Cold Lake Annual Performance Review.
www.ercb.ca/ November 28, 2006
2. Petro-Canada, 2006. MacKay River Performance Presentation
Approval No. 8668. www.ercb.ca/ October 27, 2006.
3. Encana, 2006. Foster Creek Development. www.ercb.ca/ May 30,
2006.
4. Devon, 2005. Dover SAGD Progress Review. www.ercb.ca/
April 28, 2005.
5. Butler, R. 1997. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen, 528 p.
6. ORourke, J.C., Begley, A.G., Boyle, H.A., Yee, C.T., Chambers,
J.I. and Luhning, R.W., 1997. UTF project status update May 1997.
48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, June 8-11.
7. Edmunds, N. and Peterson, J., 2007. A unified model for
prediction of CSOR in steam-based bitumen recovery. 8th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, June 12-14.
8. ConocoPhillips, 2007. Surmont Pilot Performance and Resource
Management Presentation to the EUB. www.ercb.ca/ April 23, 2007
9. Batycky, J.P., Leaute, R.P. and Dawe, B.A., 1997. A mechanistic
model of cyclic steam stimulation, SPE 37550.

Appendix
Table A-1. Performance and pad details of the SAGD operations analyzed
RF (%)
Water
Project
Operator
PAD
No.
OOIP
Bitumen
Prod.
Wells (1000m3)
Prod.
(1000m3) (1000m3)

Christina Lake

EnCana

Foster Creek

EnCana

Surmont

ConocoPhillips

MacKay River

Petro-Canada

Hanginstone

JACOS

Dover

Petro-Canada

Firebag

Suncor

Hilda Lake

BlackRock

A2+A3
A4
A5+A6
A
B
C
D
E
Exp1
Exp2
F
G
A+B
C
A
B
C
D
A+B
C+D+E
F+H+I
J+K
L+M+N
O+P+Q
Phase B
Phase D
Phase E
Phase F&G
Pad1
Pad2
I1P1
I3P3

2
1
2
4
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
2
1
7
7
6
5
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
10
10
1
1

900
450
683
1746
2844
3114
3237
3133
2690
1960
3502
2574
1128
1214
2073
3578
4358
2581
757
998
949
996
1217
808
1065
851
504
930
19100
18000
509
509

518
159
160
1048
768
1183
1360
1128
565
235
210
180
278
68
490
1171
1169
790
555
460
469
277
280
101
697
440
155
46
2157
1321
170
102

1583
2522
2447
1742
1848
1420
1299
776
662
298
1661
1019
350
125

702
399

42.8
35.3
23.4
60.0
27.0
38.0
42.0
36.0
21.0
12.0
6.0
7.0
24.6
5.6
23.6
32.7
26.8
30.6
73.3
46.1
49.4
27.8
23.0
12.5
65.4
51.7
30.8
4.9
6.5
3.8
33.4
20.1

COSR

0.48
0.38
0.38
0.43
0.29
0.40
0.43
0.36
0.40
0.42
0.50
0.48
0.33
0.25
0.27
0.48
0.53
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.32
0.34
0.39
0.32
0.42
0.35
0.35
0.27
0.32
0.26
0.29
0.22

Start
Latest
Well
Average
HCPV
Well
Steam
Injected/ Produced Spacing Thickness Length Production Data
(m)
(m)
(m)
OOIP
1.21
0.92
0.61
1.41
0.92
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.53
0.28
0.12
0.15
0.75
0.22
0.89
0.68
0.50
0.85
2.52
1.59
1.52
0.82
0.60
0.39
1.57
1.47
0.87
0.18
0.35
0.28
1.15
0.91

0.58
0.35
0.23
0.60
0.27
0.38
0.42
0.36
0.21
0.12
0.06
0.07
0.25
0.06
0.24
0.33
0.27
0.31
0.73
0.46
0.49
0.28
0.23
0.13
0.65
0.52
0.31
0.05
0.11
0.07
0.33
0.20

90
90
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
120
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
90
90
90
150
150
-

25
25
20
30
27
30
30
25
24
26
31
23
47
41
19
25
34
29
20
20
18
20
22
22
16
22
22
22
44
39
23
23

700
700
450
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
300
700
700
700
700
700
500
750
750
750
700
700
500
750
750
750
900
900
1000
1000

Oct-02
Oct-03
Sep-04
May-97
Nov-01
Nov-01
Nov-01
Nov-01
Nov-03
Nov-04
Sep-05
Oct-05
Oct-97
Jun-00
Nov-02
Nov-02
Nov-02
Nov-02
Jun-99
Jul-00
Feb-02
Aug-03
Jul-04
Aug-05
Jan-93
Jun-96
Jun-99
Dec-03
Feb-04
Feb-04
Oct-97
Oct-00

Apr-07
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
May-06
Mar-07
Mar-07
Sep-06
Sep-06
Sep-06
Sep-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Dec-06
Feb-05
Feb-05
Feb-05
Feb-05
Feb-07
Feb-07
May-07
May-07

Months in
Production

54
31
20
108
54
54
54
54
30
18
8
7
113
81
46
46
46
46
90
77
58
40
29
16
145
104
68
14
36
36
115
79