IPTC-18008-MS

Integration of Geological, PVT and SCAL Data to Reduce Reservoir

Uncertainty of an Unconventional Field in Kuwait
A. K. Jain, H. Ferdous, K. Ahmad, P. K. Choudhary, and T. Al-Mutairi, Kuwait Oil Co

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 12 December 2014.
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 study involves a complex sandstone reservoir characterized by relatively thin stratified viscous
oil-bearing net pays separated by localized shales and baffles in between. Some of the reservoir intricacies
include mappable gas cap intervals overlying net pays at places, water-bearing intervals on top of oil, long
transitional zones, and lateral as well as vertical variation in oil viscosity and API. Based on the
stratigraphy and geological understanding derived from log interpretation of some initially drilled
appraisal wells, the reservoir was divided into four oil-bearing layers: Upper-A, Upper-B, Lower-A, and
Lower-B. Upper Sands are separated by Upper Shale Baffle and Lower Sands are similarly separated by
Lower Shale Baffle; and Middle Shale acts as a regional barrier between Upper and Lower sand units.
Initial reservoir description postulated that all the four oil-bearing layers are separate unconnected units,
with no vertical communication. Several hundred wells have been drilled as of now; in many wells, it was
found that Upper Shale is discontinuous, with Upper-A and Upper-B sands merging into a single net pay
layer. The present study attempts to analyze and integrate various reservoir parameters to understand the
realistic and credible shaliness of the Upper and Lower Shales. Analysis includes PVT and SCAL data
from over 100 wells including viscosity, API gravity, compositional data, and volatiles. Steamflood
experiments were conducted on plugs from Upper and Lower Shales. Many plugs were found to have
appreciable permeability and porosity with limited oil saturation. All these data suggest that Upper and
Lower Shales do not seem to be effective shale barriers and vertical fluid migration can occur. During
cyclic steam stimulation in one of the pilot wells, steam was injected in Upper-B layer. Subsequent
temperature survey suggests that steam has passed through Upper Shale and migrated into Upper-A Sand.
This further corroborates that Upper shale is not acting as an effective barrier.
It is thus concluded that to understand geological heterogeneities and to reduce reservoir uncertainty,
integration of PVT, SCAL, and other reservoir information along with geology is required for optimum
development of an unconventional reservoir.

IPTC-18008-MS

Introduction
Proper understanding of a reservoir is very important for the success of an EOR process. It becomes
crucial when a thermal process such as steam injection is used as an EOR process because cost per
barrel by thermal methods is much higher than for
other EOR processes. If a reservoir is complex then
it is a must prior to application of any thermal
method.
The reservoir under consideration is a complex
one. Its thickness is relatively less with baffles and
shales in between. At places it is having gas cap
which is mappable, some water is also found on top
of oil. Laterally as well as vertically there is an
Figure 1Map of the Field Under Consideration
appreciable variation in oil viscosity and API. After
considering all the thermal EOR processes, steam
injection has been finalised as the optimum method
for the development strategy. Considering the cost
of steam, it is always desirable that it should be
applied thoughtfully in view of reservoir complexity. Therefore, proper understanding of the reservoir
with an integrated approach is critical prior to steam
injection in the field for commercial development
strategy.
Sometimes, only log response of some of the
wells may not be enough to understand the reservoir. An integrated approach is needed to understand it completely. In the present work, an integrated approach was used to understand the exact
Figure 2Stratigraphy of the Field
nature of various shales and cemented rocks and
interconnection between layers by considering all
inputs such as geological, PVT, SCAL and log
correlations. This would help in developing the reservoir in an efficient and disciplined manner.

A Brief Description of the Field

The field under consideration is one of the biggest unconventional fields in the world having areal extent
of over 1200 sq km. Rock and fluid properties vary greatly - laterally and vertically. Based on variation
in rock and fluid properties, the field has been informally divided into three areas North, South and
South-West (Figure-1).
The North area is the deepest part of the field, while South-west is the shallowest. Depth of the
reservoir varies from 450 ft to 800 ft. Total net pay varies from 5 to 60 ft. Porosity is in the range of
30-35% and permeability varies from 500 md to 10 darcy. Average reservoir temperature is on the order
of 88 - 90F and reservoir pressure varies from 50 psi to 275 psi. Large variation in oil gravity and
viscosity has also been observed. In general, oil gravity varies from 11API to 18API, viscosity at
reservoir conditions varies from 200 cp to 2000 cp.
On the basis of log interpretation of some initially drilled appraisal wells and geological understanding
at that time, the reservoir had been subdivided into four main layers Upper-A, Upper-B, Lower-A and

IPTC-18008-MS

Figure 3(a)Log correlation of some of the wells showing either no shale or thin baffle

Figure 3(b)Log correlation of some of the wells showing either no shale or thin baffle

Lower-B (Figure-2). In general, all the four layers are present in the Northern part of the field while in
Southern part only Upper-A and Upper-B are present. In South-West, presence of Lower-A and Lower-B
are seen along with Upper layers. There is a Mid Shale barrier in between main Upper and Lower sand
units, its thickness varies from 30 to 60 ft, however, its barrier competency needs further evaluation.
Upper shale is in between Upper-A and Upper-B and Lower shale is in between Lower-A and Lower-B
(Figure-2). From the geological point of view, it appears that the migration of oil took place at some point
of time during tectonic activities and it migrated into these sand units. Later biodegradation and gravity
segregation took place in the main sand units - Upper and Lower separately.

Log Correlation
On the basis of the initial understandings, it was believed that Upper shale is a barrier between Upper-A
and Upper-B. Upper shale thickness is about 0-10 ft. Later, hundreds of wells were drilled and logging
was done in all the wells. It was found that at many places Upper shale was absent and Upper-A and
Upper-B are merging together. Logs of some of the wells are shown in Figure-3(a) and 3(b).
In these wells either Upper shale is absent or very thin. It raises concern on the nature of the so called
shale competency. We shall try to understand exact nature of the Upper shale using PVT and SCAL data.

Analysis of Reservoir Viscosity and API Gravity Data

PVT sampling was done in more than 100 wells. Four samples were collected in each well in such a way
that at least one sample of each layer was available for the analysis. In many wells it was not possible to
collect samples from all the layers due to technical reasons or absence of some of the layers. It was found
that viscosity increases while oil gravity decreases from top to bottom layers. Some examples are given
in Figures-4 and 5.

Viscosity and oil gravity in all the four layers

were found to be different. Because of this, it was
presumed that all four layers are independent and
isolated by shale barriers. But when two samples
were taken in a single layer at different depths and
analysed then it was found that within the layers
themselves, viscosity increases and oil gravity decreases with depth though the layer is very thin. Out
of 100 wells sampled, in 18 wells two samples were
collected either in Upper-A or in Upper-B. It was
found that there is a considerable variation in reservoir viscosity and API gravity within a single
layer. If these values are compared with the values
of nearest layer, a continuous increasing trend in
viscosity and decreasing trend in API with depth is
observed. This suggests that variation in viscosity
and API may not be because of isolated layers but
because of gravity segregation within the entire
Upper sand unit. This has been seen in other reservoirs as well, such as Kern River (in California,
please use REF) where viscosity varies from 400 cp
to 100,000 cp in a single layer.
In six wells of North area, two samples were
collected in Upper-B. Viscosity variation with depth
within Upper sand (one sample of Upper-A and two
samples of Upper-B) is shown in Figure-6(a). All
the wells show increasing trend in viscosity with
depth. Likewise, API decreases within Upper layer
in all the wells (Figure-6(b)).
In five wells of South Ratqa, two samples were
collected in Upper-B. They show the same trend as
was seen in North wells. Viscosity increases and
API decreases with depth within Upper sand unit
(one sample of Upper-A and two sample of Upper-B) (Figure-7(a) and 7(b)).
In some wells, two samples were collected in
Upper-A and one in Upper-B. Figure-8 shows continuous increasing trend within Upper sands in
Well-5 and Well-18. Likewise Figure-9 shows that
oil gravity decreases with depth within Upper sands
in both the wells.

IPTC-18008-MS

Figure 4(a)Viscosity at Reservoir condition, cp (Upper-A, Upper-B,

Lower-A, Lower-B)

Figure 4(b)Viscosity at Reservoir condition, cp (Upper-A, Upper-B,

Lower-B)

Figure 5(a)API gravity of North wells (Upper-A, Upper-B, Lower-A,

Lower-B)

Volatile and Asphaltene Fractions Trend in Upper-A and Upper-B

Volatiles determined in few recently drilled wells are shown in Table-1(a) and Table-1(b). One sample in
Upper-A and two samples in Upper-B at different depth were analysed. Volatiles are more in Upper-A
than Upper-B and they also decrease with depth within Upper-B layer.
Likewise, asphaltene fraction increases with depth within Upper-B in Well-20 (Table-2).

IPTC-18008-MS

These analyses clearly show that there is a definite trend in viscosity, API gravity, volatile fractions and asphaltene not only within Upper-B or
Upper-A, but within the Upper sand unit as a whole.
This also suggests that these trends are because of
gravity segregation, and perhaps there are some
form of communications between Upper-A and Upper-B units.

Compositional Analysis
As mentioned above, in 18 wells two samples were
collected either in Upper-A or in Upper-B. Compo- Figure 5(b)API gravity of North wells (Upper-A, Upper-B, Lower-B)
sitional analysis was done in all these samples. It
was observed that in a single well, lighter fractions
decrease from top to bottom. One such example is
of Well-18 where two samples were collected in
Upper-A at different depths and one in Upper-B. In
this well, entire lighter fractions are decreasing continuously from top to bottom (Figure-10).
Another example of Well-3 is shown in Figure11. In this well, one sample was collected in Upper-A while two samples were collected in Upper-B. Just like well-18, similar trend is observed in
this well as well.
6(a)Viscosity at Reservoir condition of North wells, cp (UpIn Well-11, one sample was collected in Up- Figure
per-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))
per-A while two samples were collected in Upper-B. It is interesting to note that composition of
Upper-B top sample is quite similar to that of Upper-A. It indicates that the upper part of Upper-B
has the same composition as that of Upper-A (Figure-12).
The case of Well-2 is quite unique. In this well,
two samples in Upper-A and two samples in Upper-B at different depths were collected. Plot of
compositional analysis is shown in Figure-13. It is
seen that compositional analysis of all four samples
are almost the same. It indicates that oil from top of
Upper-A to bottom of Upper-B is very similar.
Figure 6(b)API Gravity of North wells (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), UpAll these analyses confirm that oil composition is per-B (2))
changing from top to bottom within the Upper sand
unit in a definite trend, meaning lighter components
are decreasing with depth. At some places even a same quality of oil is present in all the layers. This again
re-affirms that layers Upper-A and Upper-B are not isolated, and variation in oil properties within them
is caused by gravity segregation.

Steamflood Experiments in Shale-Plugs

Steamflood experiments were conducted in two plugs of Upper shale, one plug of Lower shale and three
plugs of Mid shale units. Upon injecting one pore volume of Cold Water Equivalent (CWE) steam in

plug#1 of Well-8, a recovery of 45% and in plug#1

of Well-22, a recovery of 17.8% was achieved.
However, maximum recovery of 63.7% and 29.1%
respectively was observed in these plugs after injecting more than 10 PV. This clearly indicates that
not only steam can pass through in Upper shale, but
also recovered the oil that is present in it. Same
phenomenon was observed in the plug of Lower
shale also. Steamflood experiment was done in one
plug of Lower shale of well Well-8 (plug#2). 40%
oil has been recovered in only one pore volume
CWE steam injection while maximum recovery was
58.1%. Summary of the results is given in Table-3.
This suggests that so called Upper shale and Lower
shales are not shale barrier but they are baffles
having good permeability that is sufficient to establish communication between Upper-A and Upper-B
and Lower-A and Lower-B.
It is worth mentioning that most of the heavy oil
reservoirs have permeability in the order of darcies.
Air permeability of the plugs of Upper shale and
Lower shale are low ranging from 3 md to 11 md
(except that of plug#2 of Well-8 which is 629 md).
The low permeability sometimes may not allow
heavy oil to pass through them under static reservoir
(cold) condition, but during steaming viscosity of
oil will reduce to below 2 cp and permeability of the
so called shale will increase under dynamic conditions. As such, during cyclic steam stimulation
(CSS) and steamflood, these so-called shales cannot
be considered as a barrier, and significant amount of
heat loss may occur.
Steamflood experiments were also conducted in
three plugs of Mid Shale unit. In two of these plugs,
there was no oil recovery. However, a recovery of
49% was recorded in one of the plugs (plug#3 of
Well-24). This indicates Mid shale acts as a barrier
in the studied area, but regionally it may vary, this
requires further evaluation.

IPTC-18008-MS

Figure 7(a)Viscosity at Reservoir condition of South wells, cp (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))

Figure 7(b)API Gravity of South wells (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))

Figure 8 Viscosity at Reservoir condition, cp (Upper-A (1), Upper-A

(2), Upper-B)

Temperature Survey of Well-21 after Soaking

As mentioned above, a trend in oil properties was observed in Upper Sand not only in North but also in
South. This indicates that Upper Sand as a whole is a single sand unit. Steamflood experiments suggest
that steam can very well pass through Upper Shale and Lower Shale units, and recover the oil from them
as well. It is thus a further confirmed from the temperature survey conducted in one of the cyclic steam
injection (CSS) wells. CSS has been conducted in six isolated wells of the field on pilot basis. Well-21
was the fifth well in which CSS was conducted. This well was completed only in Upper-B considering

IPTC-18008-MS

Table 1(a)Volatile Fractions in Well-l9 (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2)

Well-19
Layer

Depth, ft

Volatiles Fraction (Wt.%)

Upper-A
Upper-B (1)
Upper-B (2)

581
623
641

12.30
9.68
5.08

Table 1(b)Volatile Fractions in Well-20 (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))

Well-20
Figure 9 API Gravity (Upper-A (1), Upper-A (2), Upper-B)

that Upper-B is not connected with Upper-A and is

isolated by intervening Upper Shale. Reservoir
properties of the well are given in Table-4.
Steam injection was initiated in this well 5 ft
below the top of Upper-B. Average steam injection
rate was 500 b/d (CWE) at an average pressure of
450 psi. A total about 18,000 bbl CWE steam was
injected. Thereafter, the well was kept shut in for
soaking. Temperature survey was conducted during
soaking period after 8 days of steam injection. Plot
of temperature with depth is shown in Figure-14.
Maximum temperature against the depth of Upper-B was 391F. Since target sand was only Upper-B and it was considered that there is no communication between Upper-A and Upper-B because
of intervening Upper Shale, it was assumed that the
steam will go into and remain inside Upper-B only.
But the temperature survey shows that the temperature of Upper-A raised up to 384 degree F, very
close to that of Upper-B. Possibility of heat conduction either through casing or through Upper Shale
seems to be quite less because the temperature survey was conducted only after 8 days of soaking.
Conduction cannot be so fast that can raise the
temperature so much. So it seems to be a case of
steam leakage and cross-formational steam migration. This leak may be because of three possibilities:
(1) either cement behind casing was not good, or (2)
a fracture has developed in Upper Shale with time
or (3) so called impermeable Upper Shale in fact
does not act as a shale barrier. CBL indicates that
the cement condition is good in this well. Also
injection pressure was below the fracture pressure
and therefore chances of fracturing shale or creating

Layer

Depth, ft

Volatiles Fraction (Wt.%)

Upper-A
Upper-B (1)
Upper-B (2)

600
636
653

11.75
6.24
4.77

Table 2Asphaltene Fractions in Well-20

Layer

Depth, ft

Asphaltene, wt%

Upper-A
Upper-B (1)
Upper-B (2)

600
636
653

11.9
12.4
12.5

Figure 10 Compositional Analysis of Well-18 samples (Upper-A (1),

Upper-A (2), Upper-B)

Figure 11Compositional Analysis of Well-3 samples (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))

IPTC-18008-MS

Figure 12Compositional Analysis of Well-11 samples (Upper-A, Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))

Figure 13Compositional Analysis of Well-2 samples (Upper-A (1),

Upper-A (2), Upper-B (1), Upper-B (2))

Table 3Steamflood Recovery in Shale/Baffle Plugs

Well No.

Plug No.

Layer

Air Permeability, md

Maximum Recovery, %

Well-8
Well-22
Well-8
Well-23
Well-24
Well-24

1
1
2
1
1
2

Upper Shale/Baffle
Upper Shale/Baffle
Lower Shale/Baffle
Mid Shale/Baffle
Mid Shale/Baffle
Mid Shale/Baffle

3
11
629
9
9
5

64
29
58
0
0
49

Table 4 Reservoir Properties of Well-21

Well No.

Layer

Sand Interval, ft

Perforation
Interval, ft

Permeabi lity, md

Porosity, %

Reservoir
Viscosity, cp

API gravity

Well-21
Well-21

Upper-A
Upper-B

565-594
605-635

Not Perforated
610-635

4000
4123

34
35

420
1912

14
12

cracks are rare. The only possibility is that Upper Shale is not acting as a barrier. Geological interpretation
suggests that so-called Upper Shale is not shale, but a baffle composed of cemented silty sandstone rock
matrix. At static reservoir conditions it appears like a barrier, but in fact the reservoir may become active
at higher temperatures and pressure regime, particularly when dynamic conditions are developed during
steam injection.

Geology of the Upper and Lower Shale-Baffle: Understanding the Barrier

and Baffle Complexity
From geological perspective, the conventional lithostratigraphic subdivisions of the reservoir under
consideration recognize Upper and Lower units as dominantly two sand packages separated by Mid Shale.
At the top of the reservoir, Cap Shale is present overlying Upper Sand as a regional barrier. However, both
Upper and Lower sands are further subdivided into A and B separated by Upper and Lower Shale Baffle
units. Thus, the intended sand package of this discussion Upper Sand is informally divided into Upper-A
and Upper-B separated by Upper Shale baffle. This nomenclature is more useful for detailed reservoir
characterization and petrofacies evaluation to recognizing net-pay, free gas, wet non-reservoir and tight
cemented intervals.

IPTC-18008-MS

Detail geological investigations using about 800

logs, 140 cores, extensive petrography, RCAL and
SCAL data confirm that Upper Shale Baffle is not
an absolute shale facies (like Cap Shale). The
lithostratigraphic nomenclature Upper Shale is a
generalized lithological nomenclature that is often
confused with true shale facies. The term Upper
Shale is used in general to differentiate low porosity/permeable facies between high porosity/
permeability channel sand facies of Upper-A and
Upper-B. In reality, the Upper Shale unit is a dominantly cemented siltstone facies, with relatively
low porosity and permeability (porosity 15-20%,
permeability 10-300 md, and often with low oil
Figure 14 Temperature Survey of Well-21 after 8 Days of Soaking
saturation. Depositionally, it is a siltstone facies
cemented by carbonate/clay minerals, thus, resulting to baffle character. For thermal EOR purpose,
extreme caution must be considered since steam and heat migration (due to convection/diffusion and
conduction processes) across this type of baffle usually occur in the long-term because Upper Shale unit
is not a depositional low-energy marine facies, instead has significant amount of porosity and permeability. Ongoing laboratory experiments of samples of this reservoir suggest that steam and rock interactions would damage and modify reservoir rock properties by enhancing/modifying porosity and permeability. The role and significance of seals and barrier rocks to vertical fluid migration in EOR development
are widely investigated and considered in many Canadian heavy oil reservoirs (Ferdous et al, 2004: Yuan
et al, 2011, Yang et al, 2013).
Extensive lithofacies investigations and sequence stratigraphic analyses suggest that the entire Upper
Sand package is developed by continuous deposition consisting of ascending LST, TST, HST deposits
bounded by two sequence boundaries (type 1 and 2) during a single sea level fluctuation cycle. This
sedimentation pattern could not support any environmental regime for depositing regionally extensive low
energy marine shale facies (Upper Shale) that would favour rocks of seal or barrier characteristics. As
such, the entire Upper-Sand package deposited in one depositional sequence consisting of FluvialDeltaic-Estuarine-shallow marine settings. During this typical basinal setting, Upper-Shale could not
have a distinct regional low-energy deep marine origin. Thus, Upper-Shale unit compositionally (grain
size) varies between shale-siltstone-sandstone lithology both vertically and laterally which is extensively bioturbated and cemented by various degree of diagenetic carbonate and silica minerals, and thus
would always have discontinuous lense or pinch-out type distribution pattern within the Upper Sand
package. As such, Upper-Shale facies has gradational contacts with the underlying Upper-B and overlying
Upper-A channel sands, and does not truly exist as an isolated unit. Detailed reservoir characterization
shows Upper-Shale rocks have reasonable amount of porosity and permeability, and often contain patchy
oil saturation.
Baffles vs Barriers
Effects of vertical permeability anomaly (and their distributions) on cross-formational steam movement
to distinguish barriers and baffles have been the subject of many studies (Fustic, 2011; Pooladi-Darvish
and Mattar, 2002; Li et al., 2008; Shin and Choe, 2009; Heidari et al., 2009; Yang and Butler, 1992, Strobl
et al., 1997; Ito et al., 2001; Yeung, 2009). In these studies, the low permeability layers within the
reservoirs are commonly referred to as barrier or baffle to steam migration based on partial or
extensive steam movement, duration and time scale involved, local or regional distribution of permeability

10

IPTC-18008-MS

obstructions etc. Baffles are commonly considered as low permeability layers that impede or delay fluid
flow, but do not prevent the steam movement in the longer duration. Usually, these low permeability
layers are locally developed (limited extent), so steam can bypass laterally at its outer limits. Thus, baffles
are the temporary obstructions that may act as a barrier for a shorter duration under static conditions due
to relative variability in pore-throat size, capillary pressure, density contrast between water and hydrocarbon etc. However, under dynamic conditions when external energy is introduced under pressure, such
as steam/water/gas/chemical injection to enhance oil recovery, most baffles would rupture and breach with
time to act as fluid conduits for cross-formational heat and fluid migration. Baffles are usually locally
developed and as such, discontinuous, and may act as seals only locally for a short duration. During heavy
oil development strategy, baffles are often considered to act as potential seal/barrier during primary cold
production; however, for any enhanced oil recovery including thermal they are potential thief zones and
their barrier competency is extremely uncertain.
In contrary, barriers are considered as regionally extensive impermeable layers (permeability much less
than 1 md) during typical thermal operation duration; thus, steam usually cannot penetrate through or
laterally bypass a barrier; however conductive heating may reduce the bitumen viscosity above the barrier.
In Many Canadian heavy oil reservoirs the absolute permeability of the barriers and seals are very low,
usually their porosity in the range of 10% to 20% and permeability in the order of micro to nano-Darcy
(Yuan et al, 2011; Yang et al, 2013). Barriers usually compartmentalize the entire reservoir into several
segments distinguished by distinctive pressure regime. Because of their regionally extensive development,
barriers usually have hydrodynamic entity to characterize the entire petroleum migration and fluid flow
system in a basin. Some simulation studies report the possibility of steam dehydrating and fracturing the
impermeable barriers over some extended periods of time after several years of injecting steam due to
exceeding injection pressure or volume. The integrity of impermeable barriers under various reservoir
conditions is a matter of ongoing research by industry and academia (Ito et al., 2001).
Significance of Baffles in Thermal EOR
The ongoing discussions on baffles and barriers focusing on nature, distribution and quality of Upper
Shale and Lower Shale have enormous significance for the thermal development strategy of the
reservoir under consideration. The impact of Upper Shale within Upper Sand Reservoir (Upper-A and
Upper-B) or Lower Shale within Lower Sand Reservoir performing as barrier or baffle, their shale
competency, and the degree of cemented rock characteristics, all these parameters would impact the
physical processes of convection, diffusion, and conduction. They would act as potential Thief Zones
and would influence the steam injection, cross formational fluid flow, heat loss, sweeping efficiency, and
ultimate oil recovery. Likewise, the comprehensive understandings of reservoir geology, acquired laboratory data, reservoir parameters need to be considered to plan and develop the completion design and
production scenario for the long term thermal EOR strategy.
Upper and Lower Shale Baffle Units
Considering the conventional geological characteristics of the stratigraphic traps and barrier rocks (Berg,
1975; Nelson, 2009; Camp, 2011), the Upper and Lower Shale units in order to perform as barrier unit
should be composed of: i) rock materials of primary depositional origin with inherent barrier characters
and integrity, ii) deposits of thinly laminated and fissile low energy marine shale made of clay and very
fine grains, iii) pore-throat size 0.1 um to 0.005 um and very high capillary pressure (Nelson, 2009), and
iv) excessive mercury injection entry pressure, v) additionally, the unit should be regionally extensive
with at least 15 thick shale lithology between Upper-A and Upper-B (as well Lower-A and Lower-B)
to inhibit cross formational steam migration in the long duration under dynamic conditions. Detail
reservoir characterization suggests that Upper and Lower Shale units are locally developed shales with 0
to 10 thickness, dominated by largely siltstone-sandstone-shale rocks. They are associated with extensively cemented lithology, mainly by carbonate (calcite and dolomite), minor silica and clay, and

IPTC-18008-MS

11

occasional hematite and pyrite cements with average thickness of 16 (range 0 to 50). Thus, the baffle
rock materials are of secondary diagenetic post-depositional origin, made of coarser grains of silt to sand,
highly variable range of porosity and permeability (up to 20% and 300 md). Their barrier competency
would be highly controlled by degree of cementation and their intricate bonding. This kind of cemented
interval is highly susceptible to artificial diagenesis during EOR processes as chemical interactions
between minerals, steam, fluid, temperature, and pressure occur. There are many documented evidences
in Canadian heavy oil reservoirs in Cold Lake, Lloydminister, Saskatchewan reservoirs where diagenetic
alterations modify the rock behaviour in cemented zones (Oldershaw, 1983; McKay and Longstaffe, 1997,
Weatherford Report, 2014). Thus, understandings the barrier performance of this kind of cemented zone
is of utmost significance before committing to planning Upper-A and Upper-B (also Lower-A and
Lower-B) as isolated compartments separated by Upper and Lower Shale Baffle. These cemented
intervals will vary on a regional scale from place to place in terms of its homogeneity, integrity etc. These
fundamental geological parameters need to be understood and evaluated for heavy oil field development;
all available technical data and pilot well performances should be assessed prior to committing thermal
recovery scheme. Also, considerations should be given that any rock interval may act as a baffle/barrier
under static conditions, however, may act as potential thief zones and could be breached under dynamic
conditions (during thermal operation) when external heat/pressure/mass introduced into the reservoir
system. Thus proper and continuous monitoring during short and long duration is particularly significant.

Conclusion
1. There is a continuous variation in fluid properties from top to bottom not only in different layers
but also within individual layers of Upper-A and Upper-B. This is observed in North as well as
in South part of the field.
2. Steamflood experiments in plugs of Upper Shale and Lower Shale shows that not only steam but
oil at higher temperature and pressure can pass through them, and oil recovery occur.
3. During CSS, steam injection was performed in Upper-B of Well-21 five feet below the top of
Upper-B presuming that Upper-B is isolated by Upper Shale and steam will not pass through it.
But temperature survey taken 8 days after steam injection suggests that steam has migrated into
Upper-A also. Therefore, Upper Shale is no longer acting as a barrier to steam flow under dynamic
conditions.
4. Log correlation shows that at many places there is no distinction in Upper-A and Upper-B as both
sands merge together. It also proves that Upper Shale is not a permanent barrier.
5. Geological interpretation suggests that so-called Upper Shale and Lower shale are not a shale
barrier on a field scale. They are baffles and therefore locally at some places they may act as
barrier to oil under static reservoir conditions, but may not be a barrier during dynamic steam
injection phase.
6. From above mentioned evidences, we can conclude that Upper Shale and Lower Shale are not
shale barriers but they are baffles on a regional field scale. They are not marine shale but fluvial
in nature, so it cannot be correlatable at regional level. At some places Upper-A and Upper-B oil
zones are separated by tight calcareous/dolomitic sandstone which has porosity in the range of 15
- 25 % and permeability in the range of 10 - 300 md. These shales are mostly deposited in fluvial
environment (as overbank channel), as such, very discontinuously distributed and should not
treated as regionally extensive competent barrier.
7. In cold static conditions they may act as local barrier for a short duration, but at higher temperature
and pressure regime during dynamic steam injection phase they may be communicating with the
net pay intervals. Not only steam but oil at high temperature may also pass through them. Viscosity
of oil at 450F comes down to less than 2 cp that can very easily flow though baffles.

12

IPTC-18008-MS

Acknowledgement
Authors are thankful to Dr. S.M. Farouq Ali for his valuable suggestions.

References
1. Berg, R.R., 1975, Capillary pressures in stratigraphic traps. AAPG 59 (6), p. 939 956.
2 Camp, W.K., 2011. Pore-throat sizes in sandstones, tight sandstones, and shales: Discussion.
AAPG 95 (8), p. 14431447.
3. Ferdous, H., Qing, H., Rott, C., Nickel, E., Garla, G. and Daizhao, C., 2004. Significance of
Secondary Seals in CO2 Geological Storage Sites: Examples from the IEA Weyburn CO2 Storage
and Monitoring Project in Canada. GHGT-7, Vancouver, Canada 2004.
4. Fustic, M., Bennett, B., Hubbard, S., Huang, H., Oldenburg, T., and Larter, S., 2011b Impact
of oil-water contacts, reservoir (dis)continuity, and reservoir characteristics on spatial distribution
of water, gas, and high-water-low-bitumen saturated zones and on the variability of bitumen
properties in Athabasca Oil Sands Deposits, in Leckie, A. D., Sutter, J., Hein, F. and Larter, S.,
eds., Geology of Oil Sands: AAPG Memoir.
5. Heidari, M., M. Pooladi-Darvish, J. Azaiez, B. Maini, 2009, Effect of drainage height and
permeability on SAGD performance, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, v. 68, p.
99 106.
6. Ito, Y., T. Hirata, and M. Ichikawa, 2001, The growth of the steam chamber during the early
period of the UTF phase B and Hanginstone Phase I projects, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, v. 40, p. 29 36.
7. Li, Z., C. Wollen, P. Yang, and M. Fustic, 2008, Potential Use of Produced Oil Sample Analysis
to Monitor SAGD Performance, SPE-117822; International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium (ITOHOS), Calgary, Canada.
8. McKay, J.L. and Longstaffe, F.J., 1997. Diagenesis of the Lower Cretaceous Clearwater Formation, Primrose Area, North eastern Alberta. CSPG Memoir 18, p. 392412.
9. Nelson, P.H., 2009. Pore-throat sizes in sandstones, tight sandstones, and shales. AAPG 93 (3), p.
329 340.
10. Oldershaw, A.E., 1983. Sandstone diagenesis: Mineralogical and textural evolution in natural and
artificial systems. In Clastic Diagenesis, CSPG Short Course 1983, Chapter 5, p. 150.
11. Pooladi-Darvish, M. and Mattar, L., 2002, SAGD operations in the presence of overlying gas cap
and water layer effect of shale barriers, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 41,
p. 40 51.
12. Shin, H., and J. Choe, 2009, Shale barrier effects on the SAGD performance, SPE paper 12511,
p. 10, presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir characterization and simulation conference, Abu
Dhabi, U.A.E., 19-21 October.
13. Strobl, R. S., Muwais, W. K., Wightman, D. M., Cotterill, D. K., and Yuan, L. P., 1997,
Geological modeling of McMurray Formation reservoirs based on outcrop and subsurface
analogues in Pemberton, G. S., and James, D. P., eds., Petroleum of the Cretaceous Manville
Group, Western Canada: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 18, p. 292311.
14. Weatherford Report, 2014. Study of steam effect on clay minerals. 2014 in-house study, 102 p.
15. Yang, B., Xu, B. and Yuan, Y., 2013, Impact of Thermal Pore Pressure on the Caprock Integrity
during the SAGD Operation, SPE Conference, Calgary, Canada, SPE 165448.
16. Yang, G. and Butler, R. M., 1992, Effects of reservoir heterogeneities on heavy oil recovery by
steam assisted gravity drainage, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 31, p. 3743.
17. Yeung, K. C., 2009, The Evolution of Albertas In-Situ Heavy Oil and Oil Sand Development,
APEGGA Technical Presentation, Calgary, Canada.

IPTC-18008-MS

13

18. Yuan, Y., Xu, B. and Palmgren, C, 2011, Design of Caprock Integrity in Thermal Stimulation of
Shallow Oil-Sands Reservoirs, SPE Conference, Calgary, Canada, SPE 149371.