SPE-174446-MS

Impact of Formation Dilation-Recompaction on Development of Cyclic

Steam Stimulation (CSS) in an Unconventional Heavy-Oil Reservoir: Seal’s
Cadotte Case
B. Yadali Jamaloei, and A. R. Singh, Murphy Oil Company Ltd.

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 9 –11 June 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Murphy has commenced horizontal CSS at Cadotte (Seal Lake, Peace River Oilsands). Cadotte is an
unconventional reservoir due to compositional gradient, faulting, water pockets, and variations in oil
viscosity, rock dilation/fracturing and pay-zone thickness. Gravity and viscosity are marked by declining
quality with depth, biodegradation and compartmentalization.
High oil viscosity and low water mobility at Cadotte cause low initial injectivity. High injectivity
during CSS is achieved by high pressure injection to fail the formation mechanically and trigger fracturing
and deformation (dilation-recompaction triggers relative permeability hysteresis). Evidence of dilation at
Cadotte includes greater steam injectivity than is expected and surface uplifts (larger than can be attributed
to thermal expansion/tensile fracturing).
History-matching high injectivities is challenging when reasonable fracture lengths/rock compress-
ibilities are used. To match injectivities, most simulations (Cold Lake/California CSS) have either used
larger compressibility (‘spongy-rock’ approach) or long fractures. Spongy-rock approach predicts a steady
increase in injection pressure, whereas in early cycles pressures increase and then level off for most of the
cycle.
We describe enhancements made to a commercially-available simulator to incorporate modeling of
deformation and relative permeability hysteresis to match injection/production pressures at Cadotte that
are otherwise difficult to reproduce. The geomechanical model explains surface heave and high injectivity
caused by dilation due to shear failure, increase in pore pressure/formation compressibility, and decrease
in effective stress: A dilation pressure is specified, below which behavior is elastic (low compressibility)
and above which, higher compressibility is used. Above a maximum porosity, further dilation is not
permitted (low compressibility). The hysteresis model calculates grid-block relative permeabilities that lie
on/between imbibition-drainage curves, making it possible to use laboratory-derived relative permeabili-
ties and still match field WOR.
Impacts of dilation-recompaction factors (fracturing pressure, maximum pressure, dilation pressure,
recompaction pressure, and formation compressibility) are quantified through field results, history-match/
2 SPE-174446-MS

sensitivity analysis, performance optimization, and uncertainty assessment, utilizing reservoir simulation,
Latin hypercube designs and Monte Carlo simulation.
Addressing geological/reservoir/operational variances, this modeling project helps determine optimum
CSS development at Cadotte. It provides insight on how to screen the reservoir/operational parameters for
successful CSS application in geologically-complex unconventional reservoirs with varying PVT behav-
ior.

Introduction
Murphy Oil’s Seal asset in the heart of the Peace River Oil Sands region in North West Alberta presents
a tremendous opportunity for significantly increasing production, reserves and shareholder value at this
property. Murphy has built a solid land position with about 6 billion barrels of oil in the ground. Other
dominant positions in the area are held by Royal Dutch Shell, Penn West and Baytex. Murphy has a
dynamic plan to significantly grow its current Seal production of 8,000 boepd within the next 3 to 5 years.
An equally important parallel goal is to maintain production using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods
to maximize reserves and shareholder value.
To maximize the recovery of hydrocarbons from the reservoirs at Seal, several secondary methods may
be implemented during or after the natural depletion stage from primary production. The secondary
methods or Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques may involve water injection, polymer flood,
alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flood, and steam injection. While primary methods achieve recoveries of
3-7% of original oil in place (OOIP), polymer waterflood an additional 5-15%, and thermal methods
20-60%. Murphy has plans to utilize all the above strategies to maximize recoveries at Seal.
For thermal EOR, Murphy is operating a multi-well CSS project at Seal Cadotte, which is situated at
the extreme North West of Murphy’s Seal land holding. Cadotte is an important area of development for
Murphy as its first Seal thermal operation. Valuable experience and knowledge from this CSS project is
being collected, which may lead to other developments in the Seal area. This CSS project provides
information that will assist in optimizing the operation and economics of in-situ thermal recovery methods
as they apply to Murphy Peace River Oil Sands leases. This work is part of an ongoing dynamic modeling
project to address geological/reservoir/operational variances in order to help determine optimum CSS
development in Cadotte, which is a geologically-complex unconventional reservoir with varying PVT
behavior.

Seal Geology and Reservoir Characteristics

The Seal area (Twp. 80 – 85, Rges. 14 – 18W5) of the Peace River Oil Sands region is characterized by
the presence of late Aptian to early Albian clastics of the target Bluesky Formation within the Bullhead
Group. The Bullhead Group unconformably overlies the variably dolomitized platform carbonates of the
Mississippian age Rundle Group. Along a northeast to southwest trajectory, the preserved Rundle Group
ranges from upper Debolt to the upper Shunda respectively.
SPE-174446-MS 3

Figure 1—Seal geological formations (Bluesky is conformably overlain by marine shales of Wilrich)

The main oil-producting formation in Seal is the Early Cretaceous Bluesky. The reservoir rock and
fluid properties in Seal are highly variable where the average initial reservoir pressure is estimated at 5.2
MPa with an average saturation pressure of 3.1 MPa. The average oil formation voume factor is 1.02
m3/m3 and the average initial solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) is 9.9 m3/m3. Other reservoir fluid properties
in Seal are the oil API gravity which is estimated at 6 to 12 °API and the dead-oil viscosity ranging from
4,000 to 100,000⫹ cp at a reservoir temperature of 20 °C. Also, the formation net pay and depth are
averaged in the range of 5-20 m and 610 m, respectively. The reservoir rock permeability is estimated in
the range of 300 md to 5,800 md with average horizontal and vertical permeabilities of 2,250 md and 225
md, respectively. The porosity and oil saturation in the Bluesky formation are in the ranges of 27-33 %,
and 65-80 %, respectively.

Cadotte CSS
The ultimate oil recovery factor from horizontal-well CSS can be in the range of 15-25% of OOIP, with
thermal recovery steming from vertical flow and gravity drainage on horizontal wells at Seal. The
screening criteria for horizontal CSS are to have a minimum average net pay thickness of 8 m with an oil
viscosity ranging from 5000-100,000 cp (where maximum viscosity has to be reviewed on a case by case
basis) where reservoir needs to have good vertical permeability with little to no shale barriers. In general,
the transmissibility (i.e., {permeability*net pay/viscosity}) needs to be greater than 0.01. These CSS
screening criteria are met in Cadotte, Central, South, West, and some parts of East.
CSS at Seal Cadotte combines cyclic steam stimulation with horizontal technology. In Cadotte CSS,
steam is injected with an injection cycle of few weeks (80% steam quality, with a maximum bottom hole
pressure (BHP) of 12.4 MPa. After the injection period, there will be a soak period of few dyas, followed
by a production period of few weeks. The cycle times will be dependent upon many parameters, most
importantly, the volume of steam injected and the depletion of the drainage area. The current CSS project
in Cadotte includes four horizontal wells.
Bottom hole injection pressures are continuously monitored in order to detect any sudden loss of
pressure or continuous (or increasing) injection rates without corresponding pressure increase. CSS at
Cadotte is conducted in a manner that will not compromise cap rock seal integrity. The Bluesky caprock
is the Wilrich Shale Unit, in excess of 120 m in thickness locally. Mini-frac testing has determined the
Wilrich cap rock fracture pressure. Therefore, BHPs are limited to below cap rock fracture pressure in
order to avoid fracture of the shale cap rock. Thus, fracturing risk is minimal due to the thickness and
integrity of the cap rock and the range of BHP.
4 SPE-174446-MS

Simulation Model and Procedures

Table 1 shows the range of parameters in the simulation model. The simulation model is a corner-point
grid type with total blocks of 500,000⫹. It is a single-type porosity model with a wide range of porosity,
isotropic permeability, pay-zone thickness and oil saturation. One component (water) and three pseudo-
components (dead oil, solution gas, light oil) are used in the black-oil type PVT model. A mixing rule
approach for the oil viscosity is employed in the PVT model to replicate the oil viscosity gradient in
Cadotte.

Table 1—Range of parameters in the simulation model

Parameter Value

Initial Reservoir Pressure 4.5 MPa

Saturation Pressure 3.3 MPa
Formation Volume factor 1.02 m3/m3
Initial Solution GOR 7.00 m3/m3
Average Net Pay 19-25 m
Oil API Gravity 8.6 °API
Oil Viscosity 14,300 - 620,070 cp at 20 ° C
Horizontal Permeability 50 md to 2,400 md
Average Horizontal Permeability 1,452 mD
Average Vertical Permeability 726 mD
Porosity 20-29 %
Oil Saturation 52-83 %
Temperature 20 °C

Two laboratory sets of steam-oil displacement tests at different temperatures (20 °C and 300 °C) were
conducted in order to measure two-phase relative permeability curves. Based on the measured two-phase
relative permeability curves, the three-phase relative permeabilities are estimated using Stone’s Model II.
Rock dilation model along with the ‘spongy rock’ approach are utilized in the simulation model. To
initialize the simulation model, depth-average capillary-gravity method is used.
SPE-174446-MS 5

Figure 2—Oil viscosity gradient in Cadotte has been modeled using a mixing rule

History-Match
Because of the high oil viscosity and low water mobility at Cadotte, low initial steam injectivity may be
a challenge. Therefore, high steam injectivity during CSS must be achieved by injecting at pressures high
enough to fail the formation mechanically and trigger deformation (or dilation). Dilation in CSS will
trigger consequent recompaction during pressure depletion in the production cycle. This cycle of
dilation-recompaction triggers relative permeability hysteresis. Current evidence of dilation during Ca-
dotte CSS includes greater steam injectivity than is expected, which is quite larger than can be attributed
to thermal expansion and/or tensile movements. Enhancements are made in CMG STARS simulator by
incorporating modeling of relative permeability hysteresis to match water injection/production of Cadotte
CSS that are otherwise difficult to reproduce. The hysteresis model employed in CMG STARS calculates
grid-block relative permeabilities that lie on/between imbibition-drainage curves, making it possible to use
laboratory-derived relative permeabilities and still match field water production/injection of Cadotte CSS.
In addition to matching water production in Cadotte CSS, BHPs and high steam injectivities need to
be matched as well. History-matching high injectivities is very challenging when reasonable rock
compressibilities are used. Therefore, to match higher than expected steam injectivities, most published
reservoir simulations of CSS (Cold Lake and California CSS) have either used the ‘spongy-rock’ approach
(in which larger rock compressibility are assigned to the formation rock) or long fractures. The problem
in spongy-rock approach is that it falsely predicts a steady increase in injection pressure, whereas in early
CSS cycles pressures increase and may level off for most of the cycle. Enhancements are included in
CMG STARS simulator to incorporate modeling of dilation-recompaction to match injection BHPs and
high steam injectivities at Cadotte that are otherwise difficult to reproduce. To achieve this, a combination
of spongy rock approach and dilation-recompaction model is used. This combination creates a unique
geomechanical model embedded in CMG STARS: while a larger rock compressibility is utilized in the
simulation model, a dilation-recompaction model is also used that explains surface heave and high
6 SPE-174446-MS

injectivity caused by dilation due to shear failure, increase in pore pressure, and decrease in effective
stress. In dilation-recompaction model, a dilation pressure is specified, below which behavior is elastic
(where there is low compressibility regime) and above which, higher compressibility is used. Above a
maximum porosity, further dilation is not permitted in dilation-recompaction model.
Figure 3 shows match of produced oil and water and injected steam. Also, Figure 4 indicates match of
injector BHP by incorporating the dilation-recompaction model, spongy rock approach, and relative-
permeability hysteresis. The history-matched results demonstrate the success of combining the dilation-
recompaction model, spongy rock approach, and relative-permeability hysteresis in reproducing oil and
water productions, injector BHPs, and higher [than expected] steam injectivities.

Figure 3—Match of produced oil (brown) and water (blue) and injected CWE steam (red)
SPE-174446-MS 7

Figure 4 —Match of injector BHP by incorporating dilation-recompaction and hysteresis

Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Assessment

The effect of formation rock dilation-recompaction is examined through Latin hypercube design and
Monte Cralo simulation. Table 2 shows the ranges of two dilation-recompaction model variables (dilation
and recompaction pressures) and spongy rock approach parameter (rock compressibility), which are
examined in sensitivity study. According to Table 2, dilation onset pressure is varied from 8 to 10 MPa
with increments of 1 MPa. Also, recompaction pressure is varied from 5 to 7 MPa with increments of 1
MPa and rock compressibility after dilation in the sensitivity analysis is 2-times, 5-times and 10-times
higher than the original rock compressibility (which is 4.8e-06 1/kPa). In the geomechanical model,
fracturing pressure and maximum injecting BHP are set at 13 and 12.4 MPa, respectively, and the initial
porosity varies in the simulation model according to log and core data where maximum porosity reached
in model due to dilation is set at 0.36. The impact of formation rock dilation-recompaction on CSS
performance is discussed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. For space reasons, the impacts of fracturing pressure
and maximum injecting BHP are investigated in a future publication.
8 SPE-174446-MS

Table 2—A summary of CSS runs (Latin hypercube design) indicating different combinations of dilation-recompaction model pa-
rameters (dilation and recompaction pressures) and spongy rock approach parameter (rock compressibility)
Dilation Dilation Recompaction
Run Compressibility (1/kPa) Pressure (kPa) Pressure (kPa)

1 2.4e-5 9000 7000

2 9.6e-6 10000 7000
3 2.4e-5 8000 5000
4 2.4e-5 10000 5000
5 4.8e-5 10000 6000
6 9.6e-6 9000 6000
7 9.6e-6 8000 6000
8 9.6e-6 10000 5000
9 4.8e-5 8000 7000
10 9.6e-6 9000 7000
11 4.8e-5 9000 6000
12 9.6e-6 8000 7000
13 4.8e-5 8000 6000
14 2.4e-5 8000 6000
15 4.8e-5 9000 5000
16 4.8e-5 9000 7000
17 2.4e-5 10000 7000

Effect of Dilation-Recompaction Model Parameters on CSS

Linear Model t-ratio Table 3 indicates the effect of dilation-recompaction parameters in linear model on
CSS. Among all dilation-recompaction parameters studied here, increase in recompaction pressure has the
greatest impact on increasing cumulative steam injection and water production, regardless of the type of
model utilized (linear or quadratic). Additionally, in both linear and quadratic models, the effect of
increasing recompaction pressure and rock compressibility on increasing steam injectivity and liquid
production is positive while this effect is negative for dilation pressure.

Table 3—Effect of dilation-recompaction parameters in linear model on CSS

Parameters t-Ratio

Gas Oil Steam Water

Recompaction Pressure (5000, 7000) -1.0944 1.0690 1.4298 1.3771

Dilation Compressibility (9.6e-6, 4.8e-5) -0.6351 1.3221 1.0059 0.9045
Dilation Pressure (8000, 10000) -0.3490 -1.4278 -0.4836 -0.6899

When linear model is used to assess the impacts of dilation-recompaction on CSS (see Table 3), the
parameter with the most significant impact on oil production is the dilation pressure: the higher the
dilation pressure, the lower the cumulative oil production. This is because higher dilation pressure
decreases steam injectivity dramatically. On the other hand, rock compressibility [after dilation] has the
most significant effect on increasing the oil production. Furthermore, the impact of recompaction pressure
on CSS injectivity and productivity seems intriguing: higher recompaction pressure triggers a positive
impact on oil production but not as significant as when increasing rock compressibility. The reason is that
although increasing recompaction pressure has the most significant impact on increasing injectivity, it also
has the most significant impact on increasing water production. Hence increase in oil production by
increase in compressibility, is more significant than when recompaction pressure increases.
SPE-174446-MS 9

Quadratic Model t-ratio Table 4 indicates the effect of dilation-recompaction parameters in quadratic
model on CSS. When quadratic model is used to examine the impacts of dilation-recompaction on
injectivity and productivity in CSS, the effect of increase in recompaction pressure on increasing the oil
and water production and the steam injectivity is the most significant. Increase in rock compressibility has
a positive impact on productivity and injectivity, too. However, positive impact of increasing rock
compressibility is not as significant as that of increasing recompaction pressure. In addition, unlike impact
of increasing dilation pressure on decreasing oil production in the linear model that is the most significant,
the parameter with the most significant impact on increasing oil production in quadratic model is the
increase in recompaction pressure: the higher the recompaction pressure, the higher the cumulative liquid
(oil and water) production and steam injection (see Table 4).

Table 4 —Effect of dilation-recompaction parameters in quadratic model on CSS

Parameters t-Ratio

Gas Oil Steam Water

Recompaction Pressure (5000, 7000) -1.6909 1.3240 1.4180 1.5762

Dilation Pressure*Recompaction Pressure 1.7188 -0.7279 -1.4071 -1.0571
Dilation Compressibility*Dilation Compressibility 0.5597 -1.1645 -0.7445 -0.7627
Dilation Compressibility*Recompaction Pressure 0.5320 -0.7560 -0.7919 -0.7232
Recompaction Pressure*Recompaction Pressure 0.3633 -0.7352 -0.5897 -0.5557
Dilation Compressibility (9.6e-6, 4.8e-5) -0.2580 1.0707 0.7434 0.9448
Dilation Pressure (8000, 10000) -0.1485 -1.0878 -0.3944 -0.6615
Dilation Compressibility*Dilation Pressure -0.0923 -0.4257 -0.2397 -0.2365
Dilation Pressure*Dilation Pressure -0.0746 -0.5042 -0.2157 -0.2375

Table 4 shows that all of the six interactions between the dilation-recompaction parameters (dilation
and recompaction pressures) and spongy rock approach parameter (rock compressibility) have a negative
impact on steam injectivity and liquid production. The most significant interaction parameter with the
highest negative impact on productivity of CSS is the quadratic interaction of spongy rock approach
parameter (Rock compressibility*Rock compressibility).
Conclusion
● Our newly developed geomechanical approach takes into account surface heave caused by dilation
due to shear failure, increase in pore pressure and formation compressibility, and decrease in
effective stress: A dilation-recompaction model is combined with the spongy rock approach to
better history-match injection BHPs and steam injectivities of Cadotte CSS. The utilized hysteresis
model makes it possible to use laboratory-measured relative permeabilities and still match field
liquid and water productions.
● Regardless of the type of model utilized (linear or quadratic), dilation pressure has an inverse
relationship with productivity and injectivity in CSS. As compared, both rock compressibility and
recompaction pressure are directly correlated with productivity and injectivity in CSS. Moreover,
among dilation-recompaction parameters studied, increase in recompaction pressure has the
greatest impact on increasing cumulative steam injection and water production, regardless of
utilizing either linear or quadratic model.
● When using linear model, the parameter with the most significant [negative] impact on oil
production is dilation pressure. Rock compressibility has the most significant effect on increasing
the oil production. Increase in oil production by increase in compressibility is more significant than
when recompaction pressure increases.
10 SPE-174446-MS

● In quadratic model, the effect of increase in recompaction pressure on increasing the oil and water
production and steam injectivity is the most significant. Unlike impact of increasing dilation
pressure on decreasing oil production in the linear model that is the most significant, the parameter
with the most significant impact on increasing oil production in quadratic model is increase in
recompaction pressure.

Nomenclature
BHP ⫽ Bottom-hole pressure
CSS ⫽ Cyclic steam stimulation
CWE ⫽ Cold water equivalent
EOR ⫽ Enhanced oil recovery
GOR ⫽ Gas-oil ratio
OOIP ⫽ Original oil in place
SC ⫽ Standard condition
VSD ⫽ Vertical steam drive
WOR ⫽ Water-oil ratio

Acknowledgments
Authors are thankful to Murphy Oil Company Ltd. for permission to publish this work.

References
Fatemi, S. M., Yadali Jamaloei, B. 2011. Preliminary Considerations on the Application of Toe-to-
Heel Steam Flooding (THSF): Injection Well-Producer Well Configurations. Chemical Engineer-
ing Research & Design, 89(11A), 2365–2379. DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2011.03.007
Fatemi, S. M., Yadali Jamaloei, B. 2011. Injection Well-Producer Well Combinations in Application
of Toe-To-Heel Steam Flooding (THSF). SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhi-
bition, Vienna, Austria. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/140703-MS
Yadali Jamaloei, B., Kharrat, R., Torabi, F. 2010. Analysis and Correlations of Viscous Fingering in
Low-Tension Polymer Flooding in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Energy & Fuels (12), 6384 –6392.
Yadali Jamaloei, B., Singh, A., Solberg, A. 2014. Opportunities and Challenges of Cyclic Steam
Stimulation (CSS) Development in Seal’s Cadotte Area. SPE Heavy Oil Conference, 10-12 June,
Alberta, Canada. DOI: 10.2118/170095-MS