HISTORY OF HEAVY OIL

Although the oil sands of Alberta have only been developed

commercially since the late 1960s, their documented history dates back
nearly three centuries to 1717, when Waupisoo of the Cree people brought
samples of the oil sands to the Hudsons Bay Company trading post at Fort
Churchill (ERCB 2008b). Decades later, Peter Pond documented the oil
sands at the confluence of the Clearwater River and the Athabasca, and in
1790 the oil sands region was visited and described by the European
explorer, Sir Alexander Mackenzie. In 1875, a Geological Survey of Canada
(GSC) expedition into the area allowed John Macoun, a botanist, to note that
water washed the oil out of the oil sands. Seven years later, Robert Bell
headed a second GSC survey in the area. Bell was the first to recognize that
there was a potentially valuable petroleum resource in the area, and gave
samples to a chemist named G. Christian Hoffman, who was successful in
separating bitumen from the oil sands using water. Bell believed that there
must be large reservoirs of oil deep under the ground, and that drilling
would be required to extract it (Ferguson 1952). Based on Bell's view, 24
wells were drilled between 1906 and 1917 to locate the poolswith no
success.During this period, experiments using the oil sands for road
surfacing were conducted by Sidney Ells, an engineer with the mining
branch of the GSC. Ells also found a company in California capable of
extracting bitumen from sand using hot water (ERCB 2008), and conducted
several experiments with the hot water flotation method.During and after
World War 1 (1914-1918), Canada became increasingly aware that it was
almost entirely dependent on foreign oil. This produced a sudden interest
in discovering the nations oil resources. After World War 1, the Alberta
Research Council (ARC) was formed by the provincial government to
support oil sands research, among other projects. In the 1920s, an ARC
scientist named Dr. Karl Clark developed a hot water flotation method that
involved mixing oil sands with hot water and aerating the resulting slurry,
which led to separation of bitumen froth from the sand. A field-scale oil
sands separation plant, based on Dr. Clarks design, was built near Fort
McMurray in 1924. In 1928, Dr. Clark and his associate Sidney M. Blair
were awarded a Canadian patent for the hot-water extraction process, a
process still used today (Syncrude 2006).
The first commercial sale of bitumen from the oil sands occurred in
1930. Robert Fitzsimmons had constructed a small hot-water separation
plant, based on the design of Dr. Karl Clarks experimental plant, on the
Bitumount site, and produced about 300 barrels of bitumen with a seven-
man crew during the summer of 1930. After a series of owners and
financial problems, the Bitumount site was taken over by the provincial
government in 1948. While the site was eventually closed because the
government was not interested in a commercial venture, data collected
during the brief period of operation was used to evaluate the commercial
viability of the oil sands. In 1950, the provincial government announced
that it was indeed a viable undertaking.The beginning of modern-day
commercial oil sands development began in 1953, when the Great
Canadian Oil Sands consortiumwhich would become Suncor Inc. in
1979was formed. Construction of the Great Canadian Oil sands plant
began in 1964, and production began in 1967.The Syncrudeconsortium
was formed in 1964, with an initial objective of researching the economic
and technical feasibility of mining oil from the Athabasca oil sands
(Syncrude 2006). Construction of the Mildred Lake facility began in 1973,
and the first barrel was shipped in 1978.Imperial Oil began production at
the first commercial in situproject, in Cold Lake, in 1985, with production
exceeding 140,000 barrels per day by 1989. Before that time, natural gas
liquids and their byproducts dominated production; Imperial Oil was
largely responsible for increasing the production of bitumen five-fold from
1984 to 1996.Other companies or consortiums that have joined the Alberta
oil sands boom, and that are now members of RAMP, include:Albian Sands
Energy Inc., Shell Canada Limited, Canadian Natural Resources
Limited, Petro-Canada Oil and Gas,OPTI Canada Inc., Nexen Inc., Husky
Energy, Total E&P Canada Ltd., and Birch Mountain Resources Ltd. Through
projects developed by these and other companies, bitumen production
from the oil sands reached 1.255 million bpd in 2006 (AEUB 2007).







INTRODUCTION

Heavy oil is generally defined using API gravity and may also include
viscosity in the definition. API gravity was established as a uniform way of
characterizing the density or specific gravity of oil by the American
Petroleum Institute. API gravity is an arbitrary scale expressing the gravity
or density of liquid petroleum products. The measuring scale is calibrated
in terms of degrees API. It is calculated as follows:

API Gravity () = (141.5 specific gravity of the oil at 60F) 131.5

Higher API gravity ratings reflect lighter types of crude oil. The boundaries
between different classes of oil (e.g., light, intermediate, heavy, extra
heavy) all follow the same trend, but different authors choose slightly
different boundaries between categories. Several examples are listed
below.

DOEs Energy Information Administration (EIA) Petroleum Navigator tool
on the EIA website 1 offers the following definitions:

Light crude has a gravity of greater than 38 API.

Intermediate crude ranges from 2238 API.

Heavy crude has a gravity of less than 22 API.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also considers the viscosity of the oil and
provides the following definitions in Meyer and Attanasi (2003).

Light oil, also called conventional oil, has an API gravity of at least 22
and a viscosity less than 100 centipoise (cP).
Heavy oil is an asphaltic, dense (low API gravity), and viscous oil that is
chemically characterized by its content of asphaltenes (very large
molecules incorporating most of the sulfur and perhaps 90 percent of the
metals in the oil). Although variously defined, the upper limit for heavy oil
has been set at 22 API gravity and a viscosity of 100 cP.

Extra-heavy oil is that portion of heavy oil having an API gravity of less
than 10.

Natural bitumen, also called tar sands or oil sands, shares the attributes of
heavy oil but is yet more dense and viscous. Natural bitumen is oil having a
viscosity greater than 10,000 cP.
According to the Canadian Centre for Energy Information, 2 the Canadian
industry defines terms as follows:

Light crude oil has API gravity higher than 31.1.

Medium oil has API gravity between 31.1 and 22.3.

Heavy oil has API gravity between 22.3 and 10.

Extra heavy oil (bitumen) has API gravity of less than 10.

The Canadian Centre for Energy Information also notes that the Canadian
government has only two classifications:

Light oil has API gravity of greater than 25.7.

Heavy oil has API gravity of less than 25.7.

Dusseault (2001) recommends that viscosity be measured in situ, and that
heavy oil has viscosity greater than 100 cP. He further suggests that the
definition for heavy oil could also be expressed in terms of produceability.
Heavy oil should have some mobility under naturally existing conditions
and can flow to wells and be produced economically. In contrast, extra
heavy oils, oil sands, and bitumen typically have both low API gravity and
high viscosity, such that they do not flow naturally. They are typically
produced through thermal processes or solvent addition.
World conventional oil (light oil, >20API) production from natural
sources must eventually peak and enter into decline because of increasing
world demand, inexorable reservoir production rate decline, a fixed
resource base, and the indisputable fact that few new sedimentary basins
remain to be exploited. Many believe this will occur in the period 2005-
2010. Current consumption is approximately 77 MBOD (Oil and Gas
Journal), Canada produces about 2.2 MBOD. This is about 3.3% of the world
total, but a disproportionate amount of this figure comes from <20API
heavy oil, more than of 45% of Canadian oil production, or about 1.5% of
the worlds total oil production. Of world production, about 7-8 % of the
total comes from heavy oil.After the peak in world conventional oil
production rate is passed, perhaps about 5 years from now, light oil
production will gradually decline at a rate that will be somewhat tempered,
but not reversed by the gradual introduction of, among others, the new
Canadian-developed technologies such as gravity drainage and pressure
pulsing. The advent of superior 3-D seismic methods and geochemistry
analysis in the last 20 years, combined with the knowledge generated from
the huge database that is now extant for hundreds of basins world-wide,
mean that when a new basin is explored, the potential resource capacity of
the basin can be well-bounded, even if only a few exploratory wells have
been drilled. Essentially, all land-based basins have been so explored, and
few remote basins remain totally unevaluated. For example, the large
Falkland Islands (Malvina Islands) Basin offshore Argentina has been
explored in the last few years, and it is one of the few remaining large
basins that remained untouched. Incidentally, it has turned out to be
disappointing, based on preliminary exploratory drilling by Phillips and
Shell in the period 1997-2000.Simply put, the world is running out of
conventional oil because the world is running out of new basins to explore
and exploit. Furthermore, the remaining basins are remote, and remote
resources are quantity and cost-limited: exploitation costs are high in deep
and remote basins(deep offshore, Canadian Pacific Coast, Antarctic fringe,
Arctic basins), therefore only larger finds will be developed, and recovery
ratios will be less than for easy basins. It is unlikely that these basins will
provide any more than another 10-15% of the conventional oil already
known to be in place in explored basins.




Types and Significant Deposits of Heavy Oil

The two main forms of heavy oil typically described in the literature are
viscous heavy oil and oil sands (bitumen). While some examples of each are
clearly distinct, there is a gradient in properties that blurs the boundary
between viscous crude found in a sandstone formation and oil sands.
Several examples of each are described below.

Viscous Heavy Oil
The first type of heavy oil described here is liquid or semi-liquid but is
very viscous. In many parts of the world, heavy oil seeps to the surface
and accumulates in pits or other depressions.

California
When Spanish explorers landed in California in the 1500s, they found
Indians using asphaltum (very thick oil gathered from natural seeps) to
make baskets and jars, to fasten arrowpoints to shafts, and for ornaments.
The explorers, in turn, used asphaltum to seal seams in their ships (Ritzius
et al. 1993). The history of oil development in California is documented in
Ritzius et al. (1993) and through an interesting website of the San Joaquin
Geological Society.
3
Another well known example of natural accumulations
of viscous heavy oil in California is the La Brea tar pits located near Los
Angeles.California proved to have abundant oil reserves. By the late 1800s,
oil was being produced through drilled wells. Exploration throughout the
state found at least six giant oil fields, three of which contain heavy oil. The
Midway-Sunset, Kern River, and South Belridge fields have produced more
than 1 billion barrels of oil each (Curtis et al. 2002). DOEs EIA reports that
California produced nearly 217 million bbl of crude oil in 2007.
4
The EIA
website does not differentiate between heavy oil and other forms of oil.
The Kern River field began production prior to 1900 and continues today
(Figure 1). Curtis et al. (2002) report that the Kern River field has an API
gravity of 10 to 15 and a viscosity of 500 to 10,000 cP. These features,
along with the low initial reservoir temperature and pressure, led to a
modest primary recovery. In the 1960s, the industry began trying steam
injection to help the heavy oil flow more readily. Kern River crude oil
reacted well to steam flooding, and the production rates increased
substantially.

Venezuela
Venezuela is home to several large heavy oil fields (Figure 2). The western
part of the country, around Lake Maracaibo, holds large reserves of heavy
oil. The API gravity of the crude oil in the Maracaibo region ranges from 9
to 33 (Dusseault 2008a).But the largest accumulation of extra heavy oil in
the world is found in a zone in central Venezuela known as the Faja
Petrolifera del Orinoco (often shortened to Faja del Orinoco or just Faja).
Dusseault et al. (2008) note that the Faja is estimated to hold almost 1.3
trillion barrels of oil in place. The extra heavy crude oil here has a typical
API gravity of 7 to 10. However, unlike many other low API-gravity
crudes, the viscosity of Faja crude is somewhat lower, thereby allowing the
crude to be partially produced without thermal techniques. Later
technology advances have allowed greater production of the Faja.




















Figure 1. Map of Kern River Oil Field in California

















Figure 2. Map of Venezuela showing major heavy oil fields


Conspicuously absent from most of the heavy oil literature is oil shale. Oil
shale in its natural state contains kerogen, a precursor to petroleum.
Kerogen is the solid, insoluble, organic material in the shale that can be
converted to oil and other petroleum products by pyrolysis and distillation.
The kerogen in oil shale does not flow naturally and must be subjected to
heat treatment to be released from the shale. Nevertheless, the world will
never run out of oil, for several reasons.
First, conventional oil comprises a small fraction of hydrocarbons in
sedimentary basins (Table 1). As price pressure increases in the future, and
as now extraction methods and processing technologies are developed and
perfected (such as coal conversion and shale oil extraction), these
resources will become available. The time frame for these, including the
methane hydrate resource in the deep ocean, is probably several
generations.



Second, as technology evolves, other energy sources (hydrogen
cycle?) will displace oil just as oil displaced coal. Even now, natural gas is
displacing oil in fleet vehicles in many cities (Toronto, Los Angeles, Beijing),
and this trend will continue. However, natural gas is a valuable resource,
and it too is limited. Albertas production rate of natural gas is expected to
peak in the next two years, and for the entire world, the peak should arrive
in about 15-18 years.
Third, there are new technologies emerging for greater energy
efficiency and energy recycling.For example, in 2002, the City of Los
Angeles will likely start disposing of municipal biosolids through deep
injection. At the high temperatures at depth (50-80C), anaerobic
methanogenic bacteria can degrade all the free hydrogen in the
carbohydrate-rich organic wastes into CH4, within several years, and if the
wastes are placed into a suitable geological formation, the evolved gas can
be collected and re-used. This emerging technology is suitable not only for
municipal biosolids, but can be used for any organic material (animal
wastes from feed lots,sawdust, etc.). Not only will this technology generate
CH4, it seems to be environmentally benign and cost competitive with
current waste treatment methods, even without factoring in the value of
the gas that is generated.



World and Canadian Heavy Oil Resources
This chat below show the distribution of oil below




The world resource is about 121012 bbl,or about 2000 cubic kilometres
of volume, a cube with sides 12.6 km long. Apparently, there is more than
twice as much resource available in <20API oil as in conventional oil
>20API.
Furthermore, it is widely believed that the heavy oil resource is somewhat
underestimated in comparison to the conventional oil resource because of
poorer-quality data. Note that this amount of heavy oil does not include
shale oil, a resource that is vaster, but much less
concentrated in terms of unit volume, and also much less accessible
because of inherent low permeability. Heavy oil resources are found
throughout the world, but Canada and Venezuela are singularly endowed.
The two countries appear to share 35-40% of the world resources of
<20API heavy oil, approximately 2.51012 bbl in the Canadian HOB and
Oil Sands regions, and 1.51012 bbl in the Venezuelan Faja del Orinoco tar
sands belt (based on recently published estimates in the 2001 Margarita
Conference). The specific amount, particularly in Venezuela, is to a degree
conjectural: it depends on the definition of what is an oil stratum in terms
of thickness and oil saturation level. Nevertheless, given that similar
uncertainties exist for such estimates around the world (the oil industry in
many regions is only beginning to take an interest in heavy oil), the actual
amounts quoted here are reasonable estimates. Other countries with
appreciable heavy oil resources include Russia, Nigeria, Indonesia and
China, as well as several of the Middle East nations (well-endowed with
conventional) where more shallow heavy oil has been ignored because of
the large production capacity of their conventional oil reservoirs. To put
the available heavy oil resource into an understandable context, its size in
Canada alone is so large (~350-400109 m3, more than 20% of the World
total) that, at a stable combined US and Canadian consumption rate of
~1.2109 m3/yr, there is enough heavy oil in Canada to meet 100% of this
demand for over 100 years if the overall extraction efficiency is ~30%. In
the best strata, the new extraction technologies in Canada are already
approaching, and in some cases exceeding, this recovery ratio of 30%. Oil
sands mines approach 85% extraction. Imperial Oil Limited at Cold Lake is
approaching 25% extraction. The four new SAGD projects initiated in
Canada in 2001 (Foster Creek AEC; MacKay River Petro-Canada;
Surmont Gulf Canada, now Conoco;Primrose CNRL) expect to achieve
>50% extraction. In good reservoirs, CHOPS can exceed 20% recovery.
An informal poll of Canadian petroleum engineers and scientists involved
in new production technologies in 2001 yielded the following estimates of
ultimate recovery of Canadian heavy oil (including present, emerging, and
yet-to-be developed technologies):
1. 20% extraction with 95% certainty
2. 35% extraction with 50% certainty
3. 50% extraction with 5% certainty
Evidently, even given the persistent optimism of engineers, the
expectations for reasonable recovery ratios are clear: a large percent of the
heavy oil is currently economically and technologically available, and more
will become so. Using a factor of 35%, and assuming (optimistically) that
the recovery ratio from conventional oil will eventually reach 60%, there is
still more heavy oil available as a future resource than all the conventional
oil that has been or will be produced.

Canadian Heavy Oil Belt Resources

Canada is blessed with huge heavy oil resources in Alberta and
Saskatchewan (Figure 3). The northern deposits are true tar sands (or oil
sands) with combinations of extra-heavy crude oil and bitumen (<10API)
of high viscosity (>50,000 cP in situ) filling the sandstone interstices. These
are discussed in a later section. Other deposits can be considered as viscous
heavy oil and are therefore mentioned here.
























Figure 3. Location of Canadian oil sands and viscous heavy oil deposits


The more southerly and easterly deposits make up a large region of
heavy oil deposits (known as the Heavy Oil Belt), found in a series of
blanket sands and channel sands extending all the way from southwest
Saskatchewan to zones overlying the Cold Lake Oil Sands near Bonnyville,
(located about 120 km north of Lloydminster). The oil is considerably
lighter in density (11 to 18 API gravity) and of much lower viscosity (500
to 20,000 cP) as compared to the major oil sands deposits to the north,
therefore it is easier to produce, which is why it is the focus of much of the
recent increases in heavy oil production. There are perhaps 300 billion
barrels of oil in place in the Heavy Oil Belt, and it is estimated that at least
5060 billion barrels may ultimately be recoverable (Dusseault 2001).
The recent NEB report on Conventional Heavy Oil resources of the Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin (2001, see footnote 1) has identified 50109 m3
(~350109 bbl) of heavy oil in place in the HOB. This is about 15% of the
total <20API resource in Alberta, exclusive of the ill-defined Carbonate
Triangle. They estimate that 21% of this, ~74109 bbl, can be recovered
with current technology. This is 1000 days of supply for the entire world at
current consumption rates. Given Canadas light population, it is of huge
economic importance, with a current commodity value somewhat below
CAN$31012 at a world price of US$25.00. Given the technological
progress that is ongoing, referring to the 50% probability estimate of
Canadian industry engineers, the NEB estimate of technologically
accessible reserves in the HOB is conservative, perhaps by a factor of two.
The writer believes that a reasonable estimate of the recovery from the
HOB in Canada is on the order of 150109 bbl. Importantly, based on
interaction with many producers, the NEB published estimates of the
amount of economically produceable oil. If operators can accept total costs
of ~CAN$13.00/bbl, ~80% of the HOB resource is economically accessible.
This can be compared to the average price of about CAN$18.00 25.00 that
producers received in the period Jan-Sept 2001 (bitumen at Cold Lake from
$9.62 to $28.80/bbl in this period, and Lloyd blend at Hardisty from $22.00
to 34.00/bbl). Apparently, primary heavy oil production through CHOPS
methods is currently quite profitable, despite the historically high
differential price between conventional feedstock and heavy oil.

Heavy Oil Production Technologies

Heavy oil deposits are found in many parts of the world in many different
geological and climatic settings. These factors, along with the viscosity and
API gravity of different heavy oil deposits, lead to a wide array of
technologies for producing the oil. The technologies differ in several
important ways:

Mining vs. in situ processes,

Cold (ambient temperature) vs. thermal processes,

Technologies already in common use vs. emerging technologies.

The following sections include brief descriptions of the key technologies.
Heavy viscous oil and oil sands share comparable technologies; these are
described together. Some of the technologies employed to produce oil shale
follow different processes; therefore, oil shale is included in a separate
section.

CHOPS
Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) is a production technique
that operates contrary to the conventional wisdom that sand should be
blocked from entering a well. Perhaps the most thorough discussion of
CHOPS technology is found in Dusseault (2001). Readers are encouraged to
consult that reference for much more detailed information on CHOPS.
CHOPS technology encourages production of sand from unconsolidated
sandstone reservoirs. As the produced sand moves from the formation into
the well, it leaves behind channels referred to as wormholes. This
increases permeability near the wellbore and allows more oil to reach the
wellbore. Heavy oil production has increased 10- to 20-fold after
converting wells from traditional production to CHOPS production (Hart
Energy 2006).CHOPS technology typically uses vertical wells fitted with
PCPs to move the large volume of sand to the surface (Figure 8). PCPs are
more effective for pumping the sand-laden material to the surface. PCPs
typically include a stainless steel rotor mechanism that moves inside of an
elastomer-lined helical cavity. Sand production initially can be as high as
40% by volume of the produced material. Later, the sand concentration
drops but still remains high at 0.5% to 10% by volume (Dusseault 2001).
Dusseault (2008a) provides many examples of the dramatic increase in
heavy oil production from individual wells in the Luseland and Edam fields
in Saskatchewan that had been previously operated for primary
production. For an example, see Figure 9. When the wells were converted
to CHOPS configuration and operation, the oil production increased
dramatically and resulted in large incremental production over the life of
the well. Dusseault also notes that there are hundreds of CHOPS fields in
the Heavy Oil Belt of Canada. In 2003, those wells contributed about
700,000 bbl/day of oil production. The oil had a viscosity range of 50
15,000 cP (most fields are >1,000 cP). Wells were completed at depths
from 360 to 900 m (Dusseault 2008a). Collins et al. (2008) report on the
use of CHOPS in the Karazhanbas Field, a giant shallow heavy oil field in
western Kazakhstan. The heavy oil deposit is less than 460 m deep and
contains heavy oil (~400 cP) in seven reservoir zones. PCPs are used to lift
the oil, and sand is allowed to enter into perforated zones. Production of
about 38,000 bbl/day was reached by January 2004, an increase of over
25,000 bbl/day within 4 years. Sand flux is far lower than in Canadian
cases because of low oil viscosities.























The major heavy oil production technology discussed will be CHOPS: Cold
Heavy Oil Production with Sand. CHOPS involves deliberate initiation of
sand influx into a perforated oil well, and continued production of
substantial quantities of sand along with the oil, perhaps for many years.
CHOPS requires management of large quantities of sand in all phases of
production; this is a radically different concept to conventional oil well
production management. Also, there are physical processes occuring in the
reservoir that are completely foreign to conventional oil production
engineers (foamy oil behavior, massive stress redistribution, liquefaction of
sand, flow of a four-phase slurry). Because CHOPS requires a radically
different approach to oil field management and because scientific and
engineering personnel have to learn new physical principals and apply
them, CHOPS qualifies as a new oil production technology. It is a primary
production method because it exploits natural energy sources in the
reservoir: energy from dissolution and expansion of gas (compressional
energy), and energy from the downward motion of the overburden
(gravitational energy). It is now widely understood in heavy oil
exploitation that the exclusion of sand during primary production through
use of screens or gravel packs in vertical wells3 means that the oil cannot
be produced economically. Individual vertical well rates will be only a few
cubic metres per day (0.5 5 m3/d), and the best of these rates will be
attained only in the lower viscosity heavy oils (<1000 cP) and the better
reservoirs (k > 2 D, t > 10 m). If sand ingress is initiated and sustained in
reservoirs that have the right characteristics, oil production rates as high as
15-50 m3/day canbe achieved in almost all cases. Such rates have also been
achieved without large-scale sand influx in some heavy oil reservoirs
exploited with long horizontal wells. However, the cost of a horizontal well
is and will remain about 3 to 5 more expensive than a vertical well, and
well intervention costs are extremely high in horizontal wells. These
horizontal wells usually have a life-span of 3-6 years only, and typically no
more than 10% of the original oil in place (OOIP) is produced. Data will
also be presented later to show that in most cases CHOPS wells are more
profitable and produce more total oil than horizontal wells. CHOPS
produces large quantities of oily sand as well as various categories of fluid
wastes: chloride-rich water (dissolved NaCl), water-oil-clay emulsions,
slops, tank bottom sludges, and soil-fluid mixes arising from spills. The
handling of all these wastes, including the massive volumes of produced
sand, can add as much as $3.00/bbl to the operating costs (OPEX) for
CHOPS. Waste management is considered to be the major cost factor for
CHOPS operations,resulting in about 15-35% of OPEX, depending on oil
and sand rates. Understanding and minimizing these costs are fundamental
to planning and executing a heavy oil project using CHOPS methods. The
other large OPEX costs category is the cost of well workovers. CHOPS wells
need far more frequent workovers than conventional oil wells, and this
results in about 15-25% of OPEX, depending on the field and the wells.
Reducing not only the fraction of OPEX absorbed by workovers, but also
reducing all OPEX costs from the current level of about $7.00/bbl could
increase profits, open up more marginal fields for development, and also
allow the redevelopment of currently inactive (but not abandoned) wells.
Before 1985-1990, heavy oil production was based largely on thermal
stimulation (T changes in temperature) to reduce viscosity and large
pressure drops (p changes in pressure) to induce flow. Projects used
cyclic steam stimulation (huff-n-puff), steam flooding, wet or dry
combustion using air or oxygen injection, and combinations of these
methods. Until recently, these technologies employed arrays of vertical to
mildly deviated wells (<45). Only three projects in Canada still use these
old techniques. Some methods have never proven viable for heavy oil:
these include solvent injection, biological methods, cold gas (CH4, CO2)
injection, polymer methods, and in situ emulsification. Up to about 1985-
88, marginally economical non-thermal production with vertical wells was
used in a limited manner in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but these wells
produced less than 10 m3/d, recovery was invariably less than 5-8% OOIP
(Original Oil In Place), and small amounts of sand generally entered the
wellbore during production. Note that all high-pressure methods
experience advective instabilities such as viscous fingering, permeability
channeling, water or gas coning, and uncontrolled (upward) hydraulic
fracture propagation. These instabilities result in bypassing oil, isolating
bodies of the oil by sweeping permeable channels clear of oil, early loss of
wells because of excessive water production or gas production, early loss of
reservoir energy, and so on.


Slurrified heavy oil recovery process
In at least one specific embodiment, a method for recovering heavy oil
includes accessing, from two or more locations, a subsurface formation
having an overburden stress disposed thereon, the formation comprising
heavy oil and one or more solids. The formation is pressurized to a
pressure sufficient to relieve the overburden stress. A differential pressure
is created between the two or more locations to provide one or more high
pressure locations and one or more low pressure locations. The differential
pressure is varied within the formation between the one or more high
pressure locations and the one or more low pressure locations to mobilize
at least a portion of the solids and a portion of the heavy oil in the
formation. The mobilized solids and heavy oil then flow toward the one or
more low pressure locations to provide a slurry comprising heavy oil and
one or more solids. The slurry comprising the heavy oil and solids is flowed
to the surface where the heavy oil is recovered from the one or more solids.
The one or more solids are recycled to the formation.Embodiments of the
invention relate to in-situ recovery methods for heavy oils. More
particularly, embodiments of the invention relate to water injection
methods for heavy oil recovery from sand and clay. Bitumen is a highly
viscous hydrocarbon found in porous subsurface geologic formations.
Bitumen is often entrained in sand, clay, or other porous solids and is
resistant to flow at subsurface temperatures and pressures. Current
recovery methods inject heat or viscosity reducing solvents to reduce the
viscosity of the oil and allow it to flow through the subsurface formations
and to the surface through boreholes or wellbores. Other methods breakup
the sand matrix in which the heavy oil is entrained by water injection to
produce the formation sand with the oil; however, the recovery of bitumen
using water injection techniques is limited to the area proximal the bore
hole. These methods generally have low recovery ratios and are expensive
to operate and maintain.In another approach, the method described in
commonly assign utilizes separate bore holes for water injection and
production. That method first relieves the overburden stress on the
formation through water injection and then causes the hydrocarbon-
bearing formation to flow from the injection bore hole to the production
bore hole from which the heavy oil, water, and formation sand is produced
to the surface. Once the heavy oil is removed from the formation sand, the
hydrocarbon-free sand is reinjected with water to fill the void left by the
producing the slurry. Although the '631 method is a significant step-out
improvement over conventional water injection techniques, there is still a
need for further improved methods for continuously and cost-effectively
recovering bitumen from subsurface formations.Embodiments of the
present invention provide improved methods for continuously and cost-
effectively recovering heavy oils from subsurface formations.In at least one
specific embodiment, the method includes accessing a subsurface
formation having an overburden stress disposed thereon from two or more
locations, the formation comprising heavy oil and one or more solids. The
formation is pressurized to a pressure sufficient to relieve the overburden
stress. A differential pressure is created between the two or more locations
to provide one or more high pressure locations and one or more low
pressure locations. The differential pressure is varied within the formation
between the one or more high pressure locations and the one or more low
pressure locations to mobilize at least a portion of the solids and a portion
of the heavy oil in the formation. The mobilized solids and heavy oil then
flow toward the one or more low pressure locations to provide a slurry
comprising heavy oil and one or more solids. The slurry comprising the
heavy oil and solids is flowed to the surface where the heavy oil is
recovered from the one or more solids. The one or more solids are recycled
to the formation.In at least one other specific embodiment, the method
includes accessing, from two or more locations, a subsurface formation
having an overburden stress disposed thereon, the formation comprising
two or more hydrocarbon-bearing zones containing heavy oil and one or
more solids; injecting a fluid into the formation at two or more depths
within the formation and pressurizing at least one of the two or more
hydrocarbon-bearing zones within the formation to a pressure sufficient to
relieve the overburden stress; causing a differential pressure within the
formation to provide one or more high pressure locations and one or more
low pressure locations within the at least one of the two or more
hydrocarbon-bearing zones within the formation; varying the differential
pressure within the formation to mobilize at least a portion of the heavy oil
and a portion of the one or more solids; causing the mobilized one or more
solids and heavy oil to flow toward the one or more low pressure locations
to provide a slurry comprising heavy oil and one or more solids; flowing
the slurry comprising the heavy oil and one or more solids to the surface
and recovering heavy oil from the slurry comprising heavy oil and one or
more solids. Then recycling the one or more solids to the formation.In yet
another specific embodiment, the method includes accessing, from two or
more locations, a subsurface formation having an overburden stress
disposed thereon, the formation comprising two or more hydrocarbon-
bearing zones containing heavy oil and one or more solids; injecting a fluid
into the formation at two or more depths within the formation;pressurizing
at least one of the two or more hydrocarbon-bearing zones within the
formation to a pressure sufficient to relieve the overburden stress; causing
a differential pressure within the formation to provide one or more high
pressure locations and one or more low pressure locations within the at
least one of the two or more hydrocarbon-bearing zones within the
formation; varying the differential pressure within the formation to
mobilize at least a portion of the heavy oil and a portion of the one or more
solids, thereby providing mobilized one or more solids and heavy oil;
causing the mobilized one or more solids and heavy oil to flow toward the
one or more low pressure locations to provide a slurry comprising heavy
oil and one or more solids; flowing the slurry comprising the heavy oil and
one or more solids to the surface; recovering heavy oil from the slurry
comprising heavy oil and one or more solids; and recycling the one or more
solids to the formation. A detailed description will now be provided. Each
of the appended claims defines a separate invention, which for
infringement purposes is recognized as including equivalents to the
various elements or limitations specified in the claims. Depending on the
context, all references below to the invention may in some cases refer to
certain specific embodiments only. In other cases it will be recognized that
references to the invention will refer to subject matter recited in one or
more, but not necessarily all, of the claims. Each of the inventions will now
be described in greater detail below, including specific embodiments,
versions and examples, but the inventions are not limited to these
embodiments, versions or examples, which are included to enable a person
having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the inventions, when the
information in this patent is combined with available information and
technology.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a multi-wellbore system 100 for producing
heavy oil from a subsurface formation according to one or more
embodiments described. The multi-wellbore system 100 can include two or
more wellbores 110, 120 (only two shown). Each wellbore 110, 120
extends from the surface through the overburden 130 and accesses a
formation 140 that includes one or more hydrocarbon-bearing zones 145
(only one shown) from which heavy oil is to be produced and recovered.
The term heavy oil refers to any hydrocarbon or various mixtures of
hydrocarbons that occur naturally, including bitumen and tar. In one or
more embodiments, a heavy oil has a viscosity of at least 500 cP. In one or
more embodiments, a heavy oil has a viscosity of about 1000 cP or more,
10,000 cP or more, 100,000 cP or more, or 1,000,000 cP or more.
The term formation refers to a body of rock or other subsurface solids
that is sufficiently distinctive and continuous that it can be mapped. A
formation can be a body of rock of predominantly one type or a
combination of types. A formation can contain one of more hydrocarbon-
bearing zones.The term hydrocarbon-bearing zone refers to a group or
member of a formation that contains some amount of heavy oil. A
hydrocarbon-bearing zone can be separated from other hydrocarbon-
bearing zones by zones of lower permeability such as mudstones, shales, or
shaley sands. In one or more embodiments, a hydrocarbon-bearing zone
includes heavy oil in addition to sand, clay, or other porous solids.
The term overburden refers to the sediments or earth materials overlying
the formation containing one or more hydrocarbon-bearing zones. The
term overburden stress refers to the load per unit area or stress
overlying an area or point of interest in the subsurface from the weight of
the overlying sediments and fluids. In one or more embodiments, the
overburden stress is the load per unit area or stress overlying the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone that is being conditioned and/or produced
according to the embodiments described.The term wellbore is
interchangeable with borehole and refers to a man-made space or hole
that extends beneath the surface. The hole can be both vertical and
horizontal, and can be cased or uncased. In one or more embodiments, a
wellbore can have at least one portion that is cased (i.e. lined) and at least
one portion that is uncased.Referring to FIG. 1, an injection fluid is
introduced to the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 through a first wellbore
110 (injection wellbore) via stream 150. A production slurry exits the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 and is conveyed (produced) through a
second wellbore 120 (production wellbore) via stream 160. The
production slurry can include any combination (i.e. mixture) of heavy oil,
clay, sand, water, and brine. The production slurry can be transferred via
stream 160 to a recovery unit 170 where the heavy oil is separated and
recovered from the solids and water. The recovery unit 170 can utilize any
process for separating the heavy oil from the solids and water. Illustrative
processes include cold water, hot water, and naphtha treatment processes,
for example.The recovered heavy oil (with possibly some residual solids
and water) from the recovery unit 170 is then passed via stream 180 for
further separation and refining using methods and techniques known in
the art. The hydrocarbon-free or nearly hydrocarbon-free solids and
recovered water from the recovery unit 170 can be recycled to the injection
wellbore 110 via recycle stream 190, as shown in FIG. 1. The solids, water,
or mixture of the solids and water can then be re-injected into the
formation 140 via stream 150. Depending on process requirements,
additional water or solids can be added to the recycle stream 190 or water
or solids can be removed from the recycle stream 190 to adjust the solids
concentration of stream 150 prior to injection through the wellbore 110 to
the formation 140. Other fluids or solids including fresh sand or clay can
also be added to the recycle stream 190 as needed.

Conditioning Phase
In operation, the injection fluid is pumped or otherwise conveyed
through the injection wellbore 110 via stream 150 into the hydrocarbon-
bearing zone 145 of the formation 140. One purpose of the injection fluid is
to raise the fluid pressure in the formation 140 and relieve the overburden
stress on the formation 140 (i.e. to condition the formation). Accordingly,
the pressure of the injection fluid should be sufficient to relieve the
overburden 130. Another purpose of the injection fluid is to increase the
initial porosity of the formation 140 and therefore, increase the
permeability of the formation 140 to the injected fluid (generally water or
brine) as well as to partially or totally break up or disaggregate (through
shear dilation) a portion of the shale or mudstone layers that may be
embedded within the hydrocarbon-bearing zones 145 of the formation
140. This could remove those shale or mudstone layers from acting as
baffles or barriers to the fluid flow within the formation 140 between the
injection wellbore 110 and production wellbore 120.Therefore, the
pressure of the injection fluid should also be sufficient to permeate through
the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 and develop a relatively constant
pressure within the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 of the formation 140 at
the end of conditioning. Preferably, the pressure of the injection fluid is at
or above the stress of the overburden 130 exerted on the hydrocarbon-
bearing zone 145 to allow the formation of horizontal or sub-horizontal
fractures in the hydrocarbon-bearing zone. When the stress of the
overburden 130 is relieved or nearly relieved throughout a majority of the
volume of the hydrocarbon-bearing zone from which heavy oil production
is planned, the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 is considered to be
conditioned.
FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of an alternative embodiment of the multi-
wellbore system 100 of FIG. 1 where injection fluid is passed through both
wellbores 110 and 120 for conditioning the formation 140. The injection
fluid can be injected into the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 through both
the injection wellbore 110 and the production wellbore 120 to
substantially reduce the time required to equalize the stress of the
overburden 130, as shown in FIG. 2. For example, the time to relieve the
stress of the overburden 130 can be reduced by as much as half or more.
Further more, the injection fluid can be injected into the hydrocarbon-
bearing zone 145 through both the injection wellbore 110 and the
production wellbore 120 to break or disaggregate (through shear dilation)
a greater portion of the shale or mudstone layers that may be dispersed
within the hydrocarbon-bearing zones 145 of the formation 140. At the
very end of the conditioning process, the injection of fluid at a high rate
through the production wellbore 120 can also help the early onset of slurry
production through the production wellbore 120 by breaking up any near
wellbore shale or lithified rock fragments that may impede the uniform
displacement of the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 and slurrifying the
solids immediately adjacent to the wellbore.Furthermore, the injection
fluid can be emitted either simultaneously or sequentially through both
wellbores 110, 120 as shown in FIG. 3 to create or cause fractures to
propagate from near each wellbore 110, 120 into the formation, thereby
allowing the injected fluid greater access to the formation and increasing
the porosity/permeability throughout a greater area and/or volume within
the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 more quickly. By introducing injection
fluid from multiple locations within the same formation 140, the
hydraulically-induced horizontal (or sub-horizontal) fractures and/or
natural flow conduits 305 can help access and contact a larger portion of
the formation 140 with fluid than could be from the drilled wellbore alone.
In addition, by injection at multiple depths within the formation and
creating horizontal (or sub-horizontal) fractures at those multiple depths,
the distance the injected fluid has to flow to pressurize or condition the
reservoir is greatly reduced. In areas where hydraulically induced fractures
may propagate in directions such that they do not contact a sufficient
volume of the hydrocarbon-bearing zone, man-made or natural conduits to
fluid flow may aid in accelerating the dispersement of injected fluid and
pressure throughout the hydrocarbon-bearing zone. These man-made
conduits could include horizontal wells, channels or wormholes created
from previous fluid and solids production or natural zones of higher
absolute permeability or higher water saturation (and therefore higher
permeability to the injected water). As mentioned, the injection fluid can
dilate, break, or otherwise disaggregate at least a portion of the shale or
mudstone layers 310 that are embedded within the hydrocarbon-bearing
zone 145 of the formation 140 thereby increasing the permeability of these
materials to the injected fluids. If not broken or dilated, such shale or
mudstone layers can act as baffles or barriers that impede the flow of the
injected fluids through the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145. Furthermore,
the injection fluid can more quickly distribute throughout the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 by creating additional paths 305. The
injection fluid can also access a greater surface area or volume throughout
the formation 140. Although the dilation or breakup of interbedded
mudstones or shales is advantageous to speeding up the conditioning
process, certain combinations of thickness of the hydrocarbon-bearing
zone and permeability of the sand and mudstone layers may be such as to
not require the interbedded mudstones or shale to be dilated or broken up
to achieve conditioning in a reasonable amount of time. In any of the
embodiments above or elsewhere herein, the rate at which the injection
fluid is injected into the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 is dependent on the
size, thickness, permeability, porosity, number and spacing of wells, and
depth of the zone 145 to be conditioned. For example, the injection fluid
can be injected into the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 at a rate of from
about 50 barrels per day per well to about 5,000 barrels per day per well.
In any of the embodiments above or elsewhere herein, the injection fluid
can be injected at different depths within the formation 140 to access the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 therein. As mentioned above, the formation
140 can include embedded shale or mudstone layers that create baffles that
prevent flow or that surround or isolate one or more hydrocarbon-bearing
zones 145 within the formation 140. The injection fluid can be used to
create multiple fractures at different depths, i.e. both above and below the
shale or mudstone layers to access those one or more hydrocarbon-bearing
zones 145 within the formation 140. The injection fluid can also be used to
create multiple fractures at different depths to increase the permeability
throughout the formation 140 so the overburden 130 can be supported and
overburden stress relieved more quickly. In any of the embodiments above
or elsewhere herein, the injection fluid can be injected at different depths
using a perforated lining or casing where certain perforations are blocked
or closed at a first depth to prevent flow therethrough, allowing the
injection fluid to flow through other perforations at a second depth. In
another embodiment, the injection fluid can be injected through a
perforated lining or casing into the zone 145 at a first depth of a vertical
wellbore or first location of a horizontal wellbore, and the perforated lining
or casing can then be lowered or raised to a second depth or second
location where the injection fluid can be injected into the zone 145. In yet
another embodiment, a tubular or work string (not shown) can be used to
emit the injection fluid at variable depths by raising and lowering the
tubular or work string at the surface. In yet another embodiment, two or
more injection wellbores 110 at different heights could be used to create
fractures in the formation 140. In general, this would remove the problem
of trying to create multiple fractures from a single wellbore. Considering
the injection fluid in more detail, the injection fluid is primarily water or
brine during the conditioning phase. In any of the embodiments above or
elsewhere herein, the injection fluid can include water and/or one or more
agents that may aid in the conditioning of the formation or in
disaggregating the shales or mudstones or the production of the slurry.
Suitable agents may include but are not limited to those which increase the
viscosity of the injected water or chemically react with the shales or
mudstones to hasten their disagregation. In any of the embodiments above
or elsewhere herein, the injection fluid can include air or other non-
condensable gas, such as nitrogen for example. The ex-solution of the gas
from the water can help dilate and fluidize the hydrocarbon-bearing zones
145 within the formation 140 as the solids are displaced into the lower
pressure region near the production wellbore 120 where the gas could
evolve from the water. In addition, the gas can help reduce the pressure
drop required to lift the solids to the surface by decreasing the solids
concentration and overall density of the slurry stream in the wellbore. The
gas can also help maintain higher pressure near the production wellbore
120 which would minimize the chance of the overburden 130 collapsing.

Transition Phase
Once the stress from the overburden 130 is relieved and the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone is conditioned, a pressure differential or
pressure gradient is created between the injection wellbore 110 and the
production wellbore 120. The developing or varying pressure differential
between adjacent wells will cause water or brine to flow in the formation
which will create fluid drag forces on solids in the formation 140. Once the
pressure gradient in a given portion of the formation near the production
wellbore 120 has increased to the point where it overcomes the friction
holding the sand in place, the heavy oil, formation solids, and water will
move or flow towards the production well. Therefore, this pressure
differential moves or flows the formation 140 (sand, heavy oil, and water)
toward the production wellbore 120. The flow or movement of the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 toward the production wellbore 120 can be
referred to as formation displacement. It has been observed that the
fluids in the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 (e.g., heavy oil and water) tend
to flow relative to the solids and in the direction of the pressure gradient.
The relative motion between the fluid and the solids creates a viscous drag
(drag force), described by Darcy's law, on the solids tending to pull the
solids towards the production well 120. This drag force is resisted,
however, by the friction holding the solids in place (frictional force).
Relieving or nearly relieving the overburden stress greatly reduces this
friction, but the weight of the sand within the hydrocarbon-bearing zone
and a small amount of residual overburden stress lead to a finite friction
holding the sand in place. When the pressure gradient is high enough that
the viscous drag force exceeds the frictional force holding the solids in
place, the heavy oil, water, and solids will move in the direction of the low
pressure areas of the reservoir (e.g. the producing wells). One method to
develop this pressure gradient required to displace or mobilize the
formation is to continue to inject fluid into the injection wellbore as was
done during conditioning, but to reverse flow in the production wells and
produce water rather than inject it as was done during conditioning. The
flow of water into the production well will set up a pressure gradient near
the producing wells and when the pressure gradient is sufficiently large
near the production wellbores a heavy oil, water, and solids slurry will
start to be produced. As production continues, a pressure gradient will
develop away from the production wellbores as a low pressure front
propagates from the production wellbore towards the injection wellbore.
As such, the zone of formation displacement will grow outward from the
producing wells towards the injection wells as the pressure gradient is
varied. When the zone where the pressure gradient is sufficient to cause
formation displacement to occur reaches the injection wells, re-injection of
cleaned sand and water slurry will be commenced. The length of time of
this transition period from the onset of slurry production to the start of
cleaned slurry re-injection will be dependent on slurry production rates,
water injection rates, how the pressure gradient is varied, well spacing, and
the effective permeability of the formation to the injected fluid(s). In
addition to producing fluid from the production wells while continuing
fluid injection in the injection wells, a pressure gradient may be developed
by increasing the rate or pressure at the injection wells above those rates
or pressures used during conditioning while producing some fluid (and
eventually slurry) from the production wells. The relative rates or
pressures of injection and production can be tailored to allow for the
necessary pressure gradients to be developed while minimizing
development of very low pressures around the production wellbores that
could cause problems with slurry production into the wellbore. In any of
the embodiments above or elsewhere herein, a water jetting technique can
be used to emit the injection fluid into the formation 140. Preferably, the
water jetting is a short, transitional step and used intermittently or for
short periods of time. The water jetting technique can be performed
through the injection wellbore 110 or the production wellbore 120 or both.
In one or more embodiments, the water jetting is done through the
production wellbore 120 after the formation 140 is conditioned to fluidize
the sand and clay and create a slurry proximal to the production wellbore
120 opening allowing the slurry to be produced through the production
wellbore 120. In addition, water jetting through the production wellbore
120 can remove any hard rock fragments that are too big to flow up the
production wellbore 120 with the slurry. In addition to fluidizing a portion
of the hydrocarbon-bearing zone proximal to the production wellbore,
water jetting may be used to further break-up or disaggregate shale or
mudstone layers proximal to the wellbore to prevent them from impeding
the flow of slurry toward the production well. During the production
process, the movement or displacement of the formation towards the
production well may allow the build-up of shale or mudstone near the
production wellbore such that the flow of slurry into the production
wellbore is impeded or the pressure gradient needed to move the
formation increases beyond the pressure gradient that can be maintained.
In such cases, additional water jetting in the production wellbore could be
used to further break-up or disaggregate those shales or mudstones
proximal to the production well and allow for them to be produced thereby
allowing for unimpeded slurry flow into the production wellbore.



Production Phase:
As discussed above, the hydrocarbon-bearing solids will move toward
the production wellbore 120 provided the applied pressure gradient is
large enough to overcome the frictional force holding the solids in place.
The frictional force is proportional to the stress of the overburden 130 at
the top of the hydrocarbon-bearing zone that is not balanced by the fluid
pressure in the zone plus the buoyant weight of the solids within the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone. In addition, there is some additional friction
due to shearing forces as the displacing formation converges on the
producing well and some additional friction at the base of the hydrocarbon-
zone due to the viscosity of the heavy oil. Both of these forces in general
will be smaller than the residual overburden and buoyant weight frictional
forces.Furthermore, minimizing the stress applied to the solids by the
overburden 130 minimizes both the pressure differential needed to move
the solids and the injection rate needed to create the required pressure
gradient. In addition, since the pressure gradient needed to displace the
formation does not depend on the fluid viscosity (except slightly at the
base) or on the permeability of the solids, as it does in conventional
techniques of oil recovery, the high viscosity of the heavy oil or low relative
permeability of the injection fluids does not increase the resistance to flow.
As such zones within the hydrocarbon bearing zone that may have lower or
high permeability or lower or higher water or oil saturation (and therefore
variations in fluid mobility in the zones) do not lead to a difference in
slurry production from those zones as in conventional oil recovery
processes.
As mentioned above, the slurry for injection into the formation 140
contains the hydrocarbon-free or nearly hydrocarbon-free solids and
recovered water from the recovery unit 170 and is recycled to the injection
wellbores 110 via recycle stream 190. The solids, water, or mixture of the
solids and water is then injected into the hydrocarbon-bearing zone via
stream 150. Preferably, the injected slurry containing the recovered and
recycled solids, water, or mixture of solids and water (i.e re-injected
slurry) can include from about 35% to about 65% percent by weight of
water, and from 65% to about 35% percent by weight of solids. In one or
more embodiments, the injection fluid containing the recovered and
recycled solids, water, or mixture of the solids and water can include of
from about 40% to about 55% percent by weight of water, and of from
60% to about 45% percent by weight of solids. FIG. 4A is a schematic
illustration to show the fluid dynamics within the formation 140 during an
early production phase. Once the pore pressure (represented by arrows
410) is essentially equal to the overburden load (represented by arrows
420), a pore pressure gradient is developed across the formation by
continuing to inject water into the injection wellbore 110 and produce
slurry from the production wellbore 120. When the pressure gradient
(fluid drag force) exceeds the frictional force holding the formation in
place, the solids (represented by arrows 430) within the hydrocarbon
bearing zone 145 will start to move toward the production wellbore 120,
and a heavy oil-sand-water slurry will start to be produced through the
production wellbore 120. FIG. 4B is a schematic illustration showing the re-
injected slurry from the injection wellbore 110, solids 430 displacement
toward the production wellbore 120, and production through the
production wellbore 120. Once the pressure differential across the entire
hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 has exceeded the frictional force holding
the solids in place, the solids 430 pull away from the injection wellbore 110
creating one or more voids 440. The re-injected slurry emitted from the
injection wellbore 110 fills the voids 440 left by the displaced solids 430
and supplies the water needed to continue the displacement of the solids
430 toward the production wellbore 120 so additional oil-sand-water
slurry can be produced through the production wellbore 120. Accordingly,
the re-injected slurry serves not only to dispose of the solids 430 removed
from the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 but more importantly, maintains
the integrity of the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145. The solids within the
re-injected slurry also suppress the tendency of the injection fluid to
bypass over the top of the in situ hydrocarbon-bearing solids. Moreover,
the re-injected solids will move more slowly once they enter the
hydrocarbon-bearing zone if the permeability to the moving fluids is
increased. This can have consequences for the optimal nature of the
injected material. The permeability to water will typically be lower in the
in-situ hydrocarbon-bearing solids than it would be in the same solids with
the heavy oil removed. Hence, if the same solids are slurried with the water
and used as the injection fluid, the in-situ hydrocarbon-bearing solids will
tend to move faster in the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145 than the
reinjected solids. This can open voids in the hydrocarbon-bearing zone 145
with undesirable consequences. Therefore, it can be beneficial to add
different materials to the reinjected solids to reduce the permeability to
water. Optimally, this would be done in a manner so as to render the
critical velocity of the mixed injected solids as it is in the in-situ
hydrocarbon-bearing solids. In the hydrocarbon-bearing zone before slurry
production begins, the clay, mud, and/or fine solid particles are generally
concentrated in shale or mudstone layers. As such the overall absolute
permeability in the horizontal direction of the formation is often
dominated by the higher permeability sand layers. In some circumstances,
the amount of this clay, mud, and/or fine solids could be such that when
the hydrocarbon-bearing zone is completely disaggregated by flowing as a
slurry up the production well and through the heavy oil removal process,
this clay, mud, and/or fine particles become more evenly disseminated in
the solids that are to be reinjected with recovered water into the injection
wells. The overall absolute permeability of this material once it is
reinjected may be significantly lower than the original hydrocarbon zone
due to the dissemination of the clay, mud, or fine solids throughout the
material. As such, in these circumstances the addition of additional
materials to reduce the effective permeability of the reinjected material
may be significantly lessened when the percentage of clays, mud, or fine
solids is sufficiently high in the original hydrocarbon-bearing zone.
It may also be advantageous to use one or more fluid/slurry injection
techniques to locally (either spatially or temporally) increase the pressure
gradient. The term pulse or pulsing refers to variations or fluctuations
in fluid or slurry injection or production rate or pressure. Such fluctuations
can increase the pressure gradient locally to above the threshold for
displacing the sand.































Stage 1 of SHORE process reservoir conditioning via cold water
injection into and pressurization of the reservoir the through
horizontal fractures






















Stage 3 of SHORE process steady state sand displacement with
bitumen slurry production and cleaned slurry reinjection (after completion
of Stage 2 startup transition with slurry production but water only
injection)





















SHORE process steady state sand flow map view of shape of moving
sand lobes in 5-spot injector-producer pattern (from numerical model
red are sand velocity vectors, blue-green shading shear strain magnitude)

Surface Facilities


Tailings processing
Water reclamation
Bitumen
extractio




Overburn













Schematic of SHORE
closed loop process
including surface
processing of the
bitumen ore















W
e
l
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

W
e
l
l

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n


Physics of the SHORE process
The key underlying concept of the SHORE process is that by relieving
nearly all of the vertical, overburden stress on the reservoir sand, it takes
only a moderate pressure gradient developed from water flow through
the sands between injector and producer to move the sand towards the
production well and then produce the slurry to the surface. The force
balance can be written as:


dp/dx > bg*tan + (2
v
*tan + 2C/h


Where h=interval thickness, =friction angle of the sand, C=cohesion of
the sand, b= buoyant density of the sand pack, dp/dx=pressure
gradient induced by fluid percolation through the sand, and
v
is the
vertical effective stress on the sand.Thus, the pressure gradient to move
the sand decomposes into the force to overcome the intergranular friction
holding the sand in place due to the buoyant weight of the sand, due to the
effective overburden stress on the sand, and due to the cohesion of the
sand. For reservoirs about 10m thick with average mechanical properties
found in the McMurray formation sands of Athabasca, the far right term in
the above equation goes to zero, the middle term can be 2-15 kPa/m with
less than 50kPa stress on the sand and the left term is 5-7 kPa /m due to
the buoyant weight of the sand. Thus, only 10-20kPa/m of pressure
gradient due to percolation of water through the oil sand as the bitumen
is a nearly solid, immobile phase at reservoir temperatures is sufficient
during the steady state flow portion of the process to drag the sand lobe
towards the producing well.The moderate pressure gradients are
important to the process from both a slurry production and overburden
stability perspective. Our modeling shows that the combination of water
dilution and gas lift allows this dense produced slurry (generally 50-55%
sand by volume at the wellbore) to be lifted to the surface for the range of
well depths at which this process is effective. In addition, our modeling
shows that 10-20kPa/m at 120-180m well spacing should not generate
excessive deformation of the overburden from a cap rock integrity
perspective.The reservoir conditioning phase of the process not only
relieves the overburden stress so that the friction from the vertical
effective stress is small, but the increase in permeability to water during
this conditioning is important to developing sufficient permeability to
water in the sands to aid the sand displacement process. As shown in
Yale et al. (2010), volumetric dilation of just 3% of an oil sand with a
1mD initial permeability to water can increase the permeability to water
by a factor of 50. Our modeling shows that dilations on the order of 2-
4% are likely for this process.In map view , the process produces petal
shaped lobes of moving or displaced sand. The in situ bitumen sand
within the lobe moves towards the producer and the re-injected cleaned
sand fills in behind it. Laboratory and modeling results suggest that
sweep efficiencies in excess of 50% are possible during primary
production. As will be discussed later, the evolution of stresses within
the moving sand lobes and in the pillars of non-moving sand are key to
the why this process is effective in achieving high recovery. This
evolution of stress off of the moving sand is also critical to allowing the
process to operate at moderate pressure gradients during steady state
sand displacement.

Experimental validation
The dramatic paradigm shift that the SHORE process represents over
standard in situ recovery process necessitates significant validation of the
process both experimentally and numerically before the field pilots can
be used to assess the feasibility of the process. The process was first
validated at the 25cm scale (Herbolzheimer and Chaikin, 1998) in a
Lucite pressure vessel on loose sands with little to no effective stress on
them. This simulated the process from a post-conditioning state. Large,
symmetric lobes developed between the injector and producer and key
physics of the process were validated.A steel pressure vessel was then
constructed to test the conditioning through startup to steady state under
stress conditions likely in real reservoirs. As shown in figure 6, lobes of
re-injected sand were seen with high sweep of the in situ sand in the
20cm diameter by 2 cm thick sand pack that we similar to Herbolzheimer
and Chaikins (1998) results. Although both sets of experiments validated
the key physics of the process, determining how the process would scale
up, what would be the impact of realistic heterogeneity, and collecting a
dense enough array of data to validate numerical models of the process
suggested another scale of experiments would be appropriate.a large-
scale experimental apparatus was constructed and commissioned to test
the SHORE process in 2m diameter by 5-20 cm thick sand packs under
full reservoir conditions (dubbed LARGE for Large-scale Apparatus for
Reservoir and Geomechanics Experiments). Over 450 sensors on top,
bottom, and within the sand pack have provided detailed insight into the
feasibility and operation of this process. Stress, pressure, acoustic, flow,
temperature, and resistivity sensors allow us not only to assess pressure
gradients and effective stresses throughout the sand pack during the
process, but also the real-time imaging (through conductivity contrasts)
of the advancement, size, and shape of the lobes of
re-injected sand .As the bitumen in the SHORE process does not move
relative to the sand, the process is controlled by the mobility of fluid
movement through the sand pack. As such, all but a couple of small scale
tests were done with a single phase fluid simulating the mobility of water in
a bitumen-saturated sand pack (and thus accurately simulating the fluid
and sand flow physics). However, the scale of the LARGE apparatus has
afforded us the opportunity to test the process with a heavy oil-saturated
sand pack. Although all the 20cm steel vessel and 2m LARGE tests have
been done by compacting the sand to geologic conditions (glacial loading at
depth followed by glacial unloading and uplift) and then conditioned
through fluid injection to overburden stress, only the heavy oil-saturated
tests have afforded us the ability to create a large horizontal fracture in the
vessel and condition the sand pack from this fracture exactly as it would be
in the field.It is also only in the LARGE vessel that the density of pressure
and stress measurements have allowed us to fully understand the
complexity of evolution of stresses and pressures in the reservoir interval
during the startup transition into steady state sand flow. The LARGE vessel
has also afforded us the opportunity to test the process with a simulated
reservoir overburden. The polypropylene spacer that separates the sand
pack from the hydraulic fluid that applies stress to the sand pack has been
designed to mimic the deformation that a real reservoir overburden would
undergo and more important how that deformation would impact the
distribution and evolution of stresses on the sand pack. The similarity in
sweep patterns and lab results between the 20cm and 200cm tests give us
confidence that the process can be scaled to realistic well spacings (100-
150m).



Integration of reservoir flow with well production-
reinjection, surface processing, and caprock integrity
Although the most novel aspect of this process is the massive sand
displacement in the reservoir, the close-loop nature of the process
requires a strong integration of the well, surface, and caprock
integrity. Although the surface processing of the ore to strip off the
bitumen, process the bitumen-water-fines froth, and process the solid
tails is very similar to current aqueous surface mining processes,
several key differences have been investigated to ensure a fully
integrated, closed loop process will work.A key aspect of the surface
processing-reservoir integration is the need for the processed tails to
have a permeability within a range that allows the re-injected sand to
move through the reservoir easily behind the moving bitumen sand.
We have found that for a reasonable range of bitumen reservoirs and
tailings processing schemes, it should be possible to inject most if not
all of the tails into the reservoir interval and still achieve the reservoir
sand flow objectives.We have also found that because of how the
process conditions a reservoir interval, the ore that the SHORE
process brings to surface to be processed may have different
characteristics than the average ore that needs to be processed at
most surface mining projects. As such, total water use and the ability
to use brackish water from the subsurface may be quite different for
this process than most current mining practices We have also found
that wellbore flow needs and caprock integrity needs are surprisingly
congruent. The range of well spacings, depths, and flow rates for
which water dilution and gas lift work best for the process (relative to
the pressures available after reservoir sand flow) are also those that
work best for cap rock integrity.
Impact of geologic heterogeneity
There is a significant decoupling between the effectiveness of the SHORE
process and geologic heterogeneity as compared to other flow through
porous media based recovery methods. Reservoir zones with significant
interbedded mudstones face recovery challenges with steam and solvent
based processes as the mudstones serve as baffles if not barriers to steam
chamber growth, bitumen flow to the producer, and/or solvent contact
with a large reservoir volume. Although a significant fraction of
mudstones can slow down the conditioning process, the conditioning
process itself serves to break up mudstone barriers and create pathways
through the mudstones. Figures 10 a-d show a numerical modeling of the
conditioning process for a potential target reservoir which has a high
degree of geologic heterogeneity. Although it takes over 12 months of
water injection to reach a fully conditioned state deemed suitable to start
sand flow in this case, the uniformity of the pressure field post-
conditioning suggests a robustness of the process even with a significant
level of interbedded mudstones. Models of lesser degrees of geologic
heterogeneity suggest those reservoirs could be conditioned in 3-10
months.In addition, modeling shows that once the reservoir is
conditioned, a fair number of interbedded mudstones will flow with the
sand lenses towards the producer well and be produced up the well with
the bitumen sands. Figures 11a-d show time slices of a reservoir model
with 10% mudstone layers by volume and the small impact they have on
the overall production. Modeling and laboratory work also show that
there are large shearing forces within the moving sand bed as it converges
on a production well. As such, we observe significant shearing of both
sand and mudstone bodies into small enough pieces to be produced up
the wellbore.More work is needed to fully assess the impact of
heterogeneity, but the physics of the process and modeling and lab tests
to date strongly suggest that reservoirs not amenable to a process like
SAGD or those whose recovery may be significantly degraded due to their
heterogeneity may have much more success with a process like SHORE.






Benefits of the SHORE process
This paper is meant as an overview of a promising new process for the in
situ recovery of hydrocarbons from shallow bitumen resources. Our
work to date has validated, from a numerical and laboratory perspective,
that this novel process has significant technical potential to recover a
wider range of bitumen resources than other current in situ technologies.
We have found that the process is likely to operate with significantly
smaller CO
2
footprint than thermal recovery processes, with complete
disposal of tailings back into the subsurface, and has the potential for
near zero fresh water use. Recovery factors are likely to be in excess of
50% with bitumen production rates per well in the range of 1000-2000
bbls/day. Well spacings of 6-8 acres are similar to other in situ processes
such that the high well production rates translate to draining of any given
reservoir volume in 2-3 years.

Due to the physics of the SHORE process and its non-thermal nature,
reservoirs down to 5m thickness should be accessible with this
technology. Work to date also has shown the process has good potential
to work in reservoirs with higher levels of interbedded mudstones or
other geologic heterogeneity than other in situ recovery methods. Both
these points along with observations of recovery factors in excess of 50%
suggest that use of this technology may increase the bitumen recoverable
from many leases over that which would be recoverable with many
current thermal or solvent in situ processes.

The process is still in the early stages of development and faces many
hurdles before its full technical and commercial potential at the field
scale is known. However the process might eventually be shown to be
an alternative in situ recovery method that has significant resource
access and environmental benefits over standard thermal processes.




References
Boone, T. J., Wattenbarger, C., Clingman, S., and Dickson, J. (2011) An
integrated technology development plan for solvent-based recovery of
heavy oil, presented at SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait
City, December 2011, SPE 150706
Boone, T.J. (1995) Exploiting high rate injection and fracturing to
improve areal thermal conformance in cyclic steam operations,
presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium, SPE 79010
Butler, R.M. (1994) Steam-assisted gravity drainage: concept,
development, performance, and future, Jour. Cand. Pet. Tech., vol. 33,
p.44
Coates, R.M., LILLICO, D.A., LONDON, M.J., SAWATZKY, R.P., TREMBL
AY, B.R.,(2002) Tracking cold production footprints, 53rd
Annual Petrol. Soc. CIM Technical Meeting Proc. (Paper #2002-
086)
Dusseault, M.B., LIAN, C.X., MA, Y., GU, W., XU, B., (2002) CHOPS in Jilin
Province, China, SPE 79032
Dusseault, M.B., (2006) Sequencing technologies to maximize recovery,
57th Annual Petrol. Soc. CIM Technical Meeting Proc. (Paper #2006-
135)
Dusseault, M.B. (2007) Cold Heavy-oil Production with Sand, in
Petroleum Engineering Handbook VI: Emerging and Peripheral
Technologies, ed. H. R. Warner Jr., Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Dallas
Fair, D. R., Trudell, C.L., Boone, T.J., Scott, G. R., and Spiers, B.C. (2008)
Cold Lake heavy oil development- A success story in technology
application, presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, December 2008, IPTC 12361.
Gronseth, J.M. (1993) Borehole mining process for recovery for
petroleum from unconsolidated heavy oil formations, US Patent
5249844
Al-Sikaiti, S.H., and J. Regtien, 2008, Challenging Conventional Wisdom,
Waterflooding Experience on Heavy Oil Fields in Southern Oman,
presented at the World Heavy Oil Congress 2008, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, March 1012.

Bethea, R.M., et al., 1983, Effect of Groundwater and pH
Modification on Quality of Leachate from Simulated In-Situ Retorted
Utah Oil Shale, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, SPE 10628
(Oct.):809819.

BLM, 2008, Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management
Plan Amendments to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,
Bureau of Land Management, FES 08-32, September. Available at
http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/index.cfm, accessed August 7,
2008.

Brost, D.F., 2002, "Water Quality Monitoring at the Kern River Field,"
presented at the 2002 Ground Water Protection Council Produced Water
Conference, Colorado Springs, CO,
Oct. 16-17. Available at
http://www.gwpc.org/meetings/meetings_special/PW02/Papers/Dale_Bro
st_PWC2002.pd