SPE 53687

SAGD, Pilot Test in Venezuela

Humberto A. Mendoza, Jose J. Finol, PDVSA and Roger M. Butler, GravDrain Inc.

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 2123 April 1999.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
PDVSA, began its first pilot test of a steam assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD) production system in Latin America during
June 1997. The dual well SAGD process requires the
horizontal drilling of two wells one above the other. The upper
well is dedicated to injecting steam in a continuous form and
the lower to produce the reservoir fluids.
The pilot test was carried out in the Tia Juana Field,
Western Venezuelan, where reservoir fluids are highly viscous
(typically 20,000 cp. under reservoir conditions). Reservoir
depth is approximately 1000 ft with a porosity of 38% and a
permeability of 1-2 darcies. The pilot wells consisted of two
pairs of infill wells within an original seven spot pattern with a
well spacing of 231 meters.
The planning and implementation of the test was done
between June and December 1997. Production started on
December 15, 1997. The drilling stage of the pilot required the
use of a Magnetic Guidance Tool (MGT) to drill the
horizontal wells with a 5 meter distance between producer and
injector along the horizontal section.
The paper shows pressure and temperature data acquired
during the SAGD process from both conventional single point
gauges and the latest generation of fibre optic distributed
temperature measurements providing real time thermal
profiles along the complete well bore.
The production results during the first year of operation
show an average production of 700 bopd, which is above the
initial production expected. This performance is promising,
and it is expected that the initial objective of 60% recovery in
the pilot area will be reached approximately 3 years from
the onset of production.
During the first year of production, a history match was
performed using the Stars simulator. The comparison of real

and simulated production shows close agreement and a final

recovery in the order of 60 % of STOIIP has been estimated.
Introduction
To date the use of steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), for
the production of heavy oil has been concentrated in Canada.
The first SAGD was attempted by Imperial Oil in 1978 by Dr.
Roger Butler. The first dual well SAGD was drilled at the
Underground Test Facility (UTF) in Fort McMurray, Alberta
in 1987. Three pairs were drilled from an underground tunnel.
In each horizontal well pair, the lower well was placed 1-2
meters above the limestone with the upper well located 5
meters above the producer. This project was the first
successful field demonstration of the SAGD process and
provided valuable operational know-how necessary for
successful application to commercial production. As of 1997,
some 22 SAGD pilot projects are active (1) showing the need
for optimization of the SAGD process required for economic
and reliable production with a given reservoir.
More recently a new concept of SAGD has been used which
involves only a single well. This single-well SAGD (SWSAGD) (2) in which only one horizontal well is used for both
injection and production has met with some success in
Canada.
This paper describes the planning, implementation, operation
and history matching of the first pilot dual-well SAGD in
Latin America.
Planning of the Test
The area selected for the pilot test was the Tia Juana Field,
Western Venezuela Figure 1; it contains heavy oil with a
relatively high viscosity (10,000-45,000 cp. at 110 F) which
has historically shown low recoveries in the order of 10%
under Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CCS). The CCS process has
been effective in parts of the Tia Juana Field, but in the
northern part of the field where the viscosity is higher the CCS
process has shown lower recoveries than expected. The low
recovery obtained, together with the long steam cycle times
and the problems associated with cold production of a viscous
oil, provided the stimulus for the investigation of other
techniques to improve oil recovery. SAGD is a process that
employs long horizontal wells and can be operated at high
rates with systematic sweep of the reservoir. Recoveries
significantly greater than 50% have been achieved in the UTF
(3) project.

HUMBERTO MENDOZA, JOSE FINOL, ROGER BUTLER.

The proposed dual well SAGD involved the use two

horizontal wells. The horizontal injector well, located close to
and vertically above a horizontal producer, was used to inject
steam along the horizontal portion of the well. The injected
steam tends to rise and forms the underground steam
chamber .The heated oil drains downwards to the horizontal
producer well located vertically below the injector well.
It was decided to drill two parallel pairs as shown in figure 2
perpendicular to the dipping of the reservoir. This decision
was based on the good production performance of the LSE
4703 very close to the pilot area.
Geology of Pilot Area
Heavy Oil deposits in the Tia Juana Field occur in the Lower
Lagunillas Member of the Lagunillas Formation. The reservoir
is composed of channel deposits, with the top of the reservoir
varying from 450 to 1000 ft (TVD). The reservoir structure is
a monoclynal 3 dipping to the southwest with no faults in or
around the pilot area. The total thickness of the lower
lagunillas formation averages 280 ft and is divided into two
main layers. The top layer 40-85ft. was selected for the pilot
test because of the homogenous condition of the rock (99%
quartz).
Drilling and Completions
The SAGD drilling process has become possible with the
advent of technology to drill a horizontal well for steam
injection above and parallel to another horizontal for
production. The magnetic Guidance Tool (MGT), guides the
second well (injector) and keep it a measured distance from
the first. In this drilling method, the first well is drilled using
conventional directional steering. The second well is landed
directly above the first, tracking the magnetic ranging data
from the MGT in the first well. Having drilled certain distance
(30 ft.) in the second well the MGT is moved farther into the
lower well where it is tracked by the directional tool in the
upper well and so on, until the complete measured distance is
drilled. Vertical distance bettwen wells was chosen as 5
meters based on viscosity and past experience from other
pilots in Canada.
All wells were drilled vertically to approximately 200 ft. with
13 3/8 casing, follows by 9 5/8 production casing up to 1300
ft. and 7 0.015x 1.5 slotted liner to final depth of 2350 ft. in
an 10 hole( see figure 3)
The first pair (LSE 5085-5088) was completed with 6
conventional thermocouples at the heel, middle and toe of the
horizontal sections. Capillary tubing was installed to the heel
and toe of the wells to monitor pressure at the same time. The
second pair was completed additionally with a fiber optic
system to measure a complete well temperature profile in real
time. This technology was chosen in part to evaluate the
technology itself but also to evaluate enable monitoring of
steam hanneling into the producer and progressive growth of
the steam chamber with time.

SPE 53687

Production History
First pair LSE 5085-5088 has been on production since
December 15, 1997. Figure 4 shows one year production with
an average oil production of 700 BOPD, 50 % water. The
original expectation was in the order of 300 BOPD and a peak
production of 700 BOPD after one year of operation.
Cumulative production after one year is 230,000 bls, the
cumulative steam injection is 270,000 Bls which indicate a
cumulative Oil Steam Ratio of 0.8 B/B which is consider an
excelent initial performance when is compared to others
SAGD projects.
Pressure measurements from capillary tubing installed at the
heel and toe are shown in figure 5. Several stages are observed
from preheating up to normal operation after december 1997.
Under normal operation we measured a 40 psi pressure drop
bettwen heel and toe sections operating under Steam Trap
conditions with 30 F of subcooling (according to temperature
reading from thermocouples).
Typical Fiber Optic measurements from the second well pair
are shown in Figure 6. Fiber optically acquired thermal
profiles are indicative of the the energy state of the complete
well. This is extremely helpful to detect potentail problems
such as steam channeling and should enable qualitatively
preferential flow and flow patterns along the horizontal
section in the producer to be determined.
Reservoir Fluid Properties
Typically in the Tia Juana Field there are two layers separated
by shale. The in situ oil viscosity exhibits wide variation,
(10,000 to 20,000 cp.), porosity is around 38% and
permeability 2.0 Darcies. Initial oil saturation is 85% and has
a gravity of 9-11API. The reservoir thickness for the first
pair is 40 ft at the heel section of the well. The reservoir
thickness increases to 85 ft at the toe section for a horizontal
distance of 1390 ft. The gas oil ratio is low (60 scf/bl) and was
measured in neighboring wells.
Analytical Simulation
The main parameters used in the analytical recovery
calculations are listed in the following table:
Bottom Hole Quality
70%
Residual Oil Saturation
10%
Reservoir Ther. Cond. Btu/ft.day.F 22.4
Initial Res. Temp.
100F
Steam Chamber Pres.
500 psi
Well spacing
328 ft.
Soi
85%
Swi
15%
Effective Permea.
1.5 D
Ratio of Vert.To Hori. Perm.
0.43
Thickness above producer
30 ft.
Table1: Reservoir Data for Analytical Simulation
The results of the calculation for the selected area using the
Butler (4) equations are shown in figure 4. The peak oil rate is
in the order of 700 BOPD after one year operation. The

SPE 53687

SAGD, Pilot Test in Venezuela

cumulative Oil Steam Ratio was 0.22 B/B for a period of 3.5
years. For the same period of time the estimated Cumulative
Oil recovery was 60% of STOOIP.
Numerical Simulation

A coupled reservoir and wellbore model was constructed

to simulate the two-well SAGD process using an
advance grid option technique called the Discretized
Wellbore Option. This technique treats the horizontal
wells as a second porosity as in the dual porosity
approach for a naturally fractured reservoir. The
Discretized Wellbore Option is implemented in the
advanced CMGs thermal simulator STARS. It should
be noted that the model is in a strip amongst other
interfering and producing wells which have not been
considered. The objective of the numerical simulation
was to gain a better understanding of the fluids flow
inside the strip and to assess several scenarios for
improving oil recovery.
Model Description
The reservoir model consists of a strip according to the
geological section along the horizontal length of SAGD well
pair. This section indicates an increase in the contributory
sand thickness from the heel towards the toe of the well. The
Gamma Ray Log for well LSE-5018 indicates isotropy in the
vertical direction for the principal sand. This has been
respected in the simulation model. Figure 7. depicts the
reservoir/well grid model. It is an 8 25 17 Cartesian grid
representing half of the two-well pattern.
The average reservoir thickness is 74 feet and the seventeen
cells in a vertical direction vary in size from 4 to 8 feet. In the
J direction, the symmetric half model extends 218 feet and has
25 cells of varying width. The reservoir top has been assigned
a value of 785 feet. A porosity value of 0.05 and permeability
value of 1 md. have been arbitrarily assigned to the existing
upper shaly sand. The horizontal permeability of the clean
sand has a base value of 1500 md. However, this permeability
value has been altered during several sensitivity analyses. Fig.
8 depicts sand-shale variance and sand divergence along the
horizontal section of the wells.
Table 2 gives some of the initial reservoir data used in the
simulation.

Thickness,ft.
Horizontal Permeability,md
Vertical Permeability,md
Porosity
Rock heat capacity, Btu/cu.ft-F
Thermal Oil Conductivity Btu/ft.day.F
Thermal Water Conductivity
Thermal Gas Conductivity

Initial Pressure, psi
Initial Temperature,F
Soi
Swi

85
1500
1000
0.37
35
1.8
8.6
0.025
350
100
0.85
0.15

Table 2. Reservoir Data for Simulation

The characterisation of reservoir fluids, particularly

the viscosity vs. temperature table was obtained by
using PVT Builder (CMG Software) which allows
users to interactively define PVT tables. The PVT
data for simulation was generated from well-known
correlations and matched to several real dependent
pressure data points; GOR, Bo, Bg and o, so that
the resulting PVT data was more representative of
actual conditions.
Discretized Wellbore Model
In order to model well flow more accurately the horizontal
injector and producer were defined as a discretized wellbore.
In this case, every wellbore section is treated as a grid block
and the completion to the reservoir is handled as an interblock
connection.
The fluid flow equations and the energy equations were solved
for each discretized wellbore block the same way as equations
describing flow in the reservoir. Fluid properties and relative
permeability tables were assigned to the wellbore while
wellbore porosity was automatically set to one. Initial
permeability was calculated from the Hagen-Poiseuille
2

equation for laminar flow in a pipe as rw / 8. The initial

permeability and relative permeability curves were adjusted to
yield the pressure drop and phase slip from multiphase flow
correlations. Equations for wellbore flow and fluid transfer
between wellbore and reservoir are described in [5].

Well Configuration
The horizontal injector was completed in layer 11 and the
horizontal producer in layer 15, 3 meters above the bottom of
the reservoir. The separation between both wells was exactly 5
meters. Table 2 shows the well data employed in this study.

HUMBERTO MENDOZA, JOSE FINOL, ROGER BUTLER.

to 19 shows how the steam chamber moves from left to right

with time .

Wellbore:
length, ft
inner diameter of tubing, ft
outer diameter of tubing, ft
inner diameter of casing, ft
outer diameter of casing, ft

SPE 53687

1390
0.249
0.291
0.515
0.583

Conclusions
1. - A SAGD pilot test has been successfully implemented in
the Tia Juana Field. After one year, field experience has been
gained in planning, drilling and operating the process.

Table 3. Wellbore Data for Simulation

Steam was initially injected in both wells at 200 psi. through
the tubing, and fluids were produced from the annulus. The
injection temperature and steam qualities were specified at the
tubing inlet, and a minimum bottom hole pressure was
imposed as the main constraint at the annulus outlet.

History Match
The average daily historic oil production and steam injection
were specified for each well throughout the history matching
period and were updated monthly. Modifications were made
primarily to absolute vertical and horizontal permeabilities.
The rock water/oil and gas/oil relative permeabilities were
used with no adjustments. The model was adjusted so that
simulated flowing BHP for the horizontal producer matched
that measured in the field by bottom hole sensors. Figs. 9,10
and 11 show the well history match for the horizontal
producing well of oil rate, water cut and flowing bottom hole
pressure from start-up through July 1998.

Simulation Results
Prediction base case and two sensitivity runs were performed
for gross steam injection rates of 160, 120 and 200 T/D
respectively from July 1998 to Dec. 2000. Fig. 12 shows a plot
of cumulative oil production for the existing producing
horizontal well. The plot shows an ultimate recovery of
6.4 105 STB for the base case, which represents 52% of the
OOIP of the drainage area. Thus far, the incremental oil
recovery under the higher steam injection rate (200 T/D), is
estimated at 6.7 105 STB; it is nearly the same cumulative
gross production rate for the base case (160 T/D), while the
ultimate recovery under the lower steam injection rate (120
T/D) is estimated at 6.1 105 STB.
Fig. 13 exhibits a plot of the cumulative oil-steam ratio for the
horizontal producing well, being the higher cumulative oilsteam ratio at lower steam injection rate.
Fig. 14 shows the steam saturation at the end of the steam
circulatin period and figure 15 illustrates the growth of the
steam chamber, with time, through a vertical plane parallel to
the horizontal wells. It shows the first steam breakthrough
occuring at the beginning of the horizontal section, causing the
steam to heat the surrounding formation by thermal
conduction making the oil less viscous. This effect allows
more steam to be injected, causing the steam to sweep the
reservoir preferentially at the heel of the well pair. Figures 16

2. - Initial production rate was better than expected (700 vs300 BOPD) but in the longer term real production has the
tendency to match the analytical and numerical simulations.
3.- Final recovery are in the order of 52 and 60% for same
simulations which means an increase in ultimate recovery by
more than 40% over the conventional steam soak recovery in
this field.
4.- Steam Injection needed to keep the producer under
Natural Flow, Steam Trap and producing at low water cut
(50%) was in the order of 120 140 T/D. This is close to
70% less steam than expected which provides an OSR of 0.8
B/B
5.- From 3 years simulation, optimal injection rate is about
120 to 140 T/D and oil production was not greatly affected by
by higher steam injection rates.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank PDVSA for supporting this work
and for permission to publish this paper. Planning and
implementation of the pilot were posible due to clear
instructions given by Dr. R Butler, Mr. C. Bhome and
performed by a high quality multidisciplinary team in
PDVSA.
REFERENCES
1.

Corbett, B., Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)

Technologies and the Oil Sands, Alberta Chamber of
Resources Directory 1997, pp-30-36.

2. Nzekwu, N.,Designing Thermal Improved Oil Recovery

with Horizontal Wells, Inernational Heavy Oil Symposium,
Calgary ,Alberta June 1995.
3. Mukherjee,N.J., et al, A Comparison of Field vs Forecast
Performance for Phase B of the UTF SAGD Project in the
Athabasca Oild Sands, 6 ta UNITAR Conference, Feb, 1995
4. Butler,R.M., Baratha, S and Yee,C. T., SAGD Study East
Tia Juana Field, C-7 Project, Internal Report August 15,1996.
5. Oballa, V., Coombe, D.A and Buchanan .L., Aspects of
Discretized
Wellbore
Modelling
Coupled
to
Compositional/Thermal Simulation,JCPT, VOL. 36 N 4,
April 1997.

SPE 53687

SAGD, Pilot Test in Venezuela

6. Edmunds, N.R., and Suggett, J.C., Design a Commercial

SAGD Heavy Oil Project. SPE Paper# 30277.
7. Edmunds, N.R., and Gittins, S.D., Effective Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage to Long Horizontal Well Pairs
Paper# CIM/AOSTRA 91-65.

TIA JUANA FIELD

MARACAIBO
CABIMAS
TIA JUANA
LAGUNILLAS
BACHAQUERO

D-7

LAGO
DE
MARACAIBO

C-7
D-8
C-8

ZO
NA
EN
RE
CL
AM
AC
IO
N

SAGD PILOT TEST

FIG. 1 LOCATION SAGD PILOT TEST

4546
-590'
S4561

UAS-3
-583'

-643'
-646'

-692'

-616'

5092 -649'
4301
5091
-685'
4544

4512

4560

-565'

-621'

4628

4307

-604'

-645'
-704' C7
4258
50065088 5018
-744' -717'5085 -701' -687'
4622
4207
5008
E
4252 5010
-693'
- 765' 4510 -739' -728' -719'
5011 50094517
-744'
-725'
4703
4511
4618
4991 49934211
4995
5027
S
-835'
-707'
-766' -757'1591
-803'
4491 -789'
4994
5029
4999 5004
-812'
-791'
-776' -751'
-824'
-833'
4998 49964274
50054213
4554
-744'

4545

-834' -830' -826' -795'

4445
5030
4277
5002 4902
-840'

4695

-751'
4556
4921
4944

4798

-513' UAUS-2
-483'
4650
4692 4692
UAUS-1
-564'
-513'
E
4693
F 4652
S
E
-554'
-518'
4657
4629

4626
-692'
F 5083
4620

-550'
4648

E
4763

4625
E -634'
4758

4765

F
E
F

4772
-552'

E
-634'

-678'
F 5079
E

S
-427'

4799
-466'

-520'

4270
E-648'

-475'
F

4646

4541

4543

4696

-537'F

4564

4540

4844 F

4567

4654

-498'

1264

UASN-2

4662

5177
4762S
-570'
5175
4399

4768
-692'
4400
F
4398

FIG. 2 PROJECT AREA OF SAGD WELLS

3303

450

150

9-5/8 CAS. @ 1281

200

3-1/2 TUBING @ 2706

250

1100 - 2-7/8 TUBING

300

LINER @ 1176

350

13-3/8 CAS. @
214

TEMPERATURE F

400

7 LINER 0.015 x 292 SLOTS/FT @ 2936 FT

100
50
10 HOLE @ 2936 FT

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

MEASURED DEPH FT.

FIG. 6 TYPICAL FIBER OPTIC TEMPERATURE PROFILE Vs. MEASURED DEPTH, PRODUCER LSE-5091

i
j

FIG. 7 GRID MODEL (8 x 25 x 17), PAIR LSE-5085 / 5088

FIG. 8. SAND-SHALE (POROSITY) DIVERGENCE ALONG THE HORIZONTAL WELLS

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
D

1997

1998
NUM. SIM.

ANAL. SIMU.

ACTUAL DATA

FIG. 9. COMPARISON OF SIMULATED OL PRODUCTION RATE AGAINST TIME

Water Cut (%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
D

1997

1998

FIG. 10. COMPARISON OF SIMULATED WATER CUT AGAINST TIME

400

BHP (PSI)

350
300
250
200
150
100
D

1997

1998

Simulated BHP

Toe Pres s

Heel P ress

FIG. 11. COMPARISON OF SIMULATED BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE AGAINST

TIME

FIG. 16. STEAM SATURATION 17/06/98

FIG. 18 STEAM SATURATION 18/12/99

FIG. 17. STEAM SATURATION 18/12/98

FIG. 19 STEAM SATURATION 18/12/2000