SPE-174521-MS

Nodal Analysis for SAGD Production Wells with Gas Lift

Grant J. Duncan, and Scott A. Young, Suncor Energy Inc.; Phillip E. Moseley, P. E. Moseley and Associates,
Inc.

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
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an enhanced oil recovery process wherein a long horizontal
steam injection well is located above a long horizontal production well. Injected steam forms a steam
chamber above the SAGD well pair, heating the reservoir rock and reservoir fluids. Heated oil (or
bitumen) plus condensed steam flow down the sides of the steam chamber towards the production well.
The condensed steam and bitumen are then lifted to surface with a downhole pump or by gas lift. Due to
a rapidly increasing number of SAGD well pairs, Suncor required a tool that could accurately model these
challenging thermal production wells.
Nodal analysis for well performance is based on the principle that reservoir inflow and wellbore
outflow can be independently characterized as functions of flow rate and pressure. Nodal analysis is used
to design new wells and optimize production or injection on existing wells. Wellbore simulations are
cheaper than instrumentation, meters or single well tests. Well evaluation software is the most popular
engineering package in Suncors production engineering toolkit because it is very accurate and easy to
use. Over the past few years Suncor worked with their software provider to develop nodal analysis for
SAGD production wells. Suncor can now model SAGD producers with electric submersible pumps
(ESPs) and gas lift with a high degree of confidence.
The new SAGD nodal models quite closely match production rates, plus surface and downhole pressure
and temperature data. Reliable and rigorous SAGD nodal models enable improved decisions with respect
to SAGD field development and production optimization. Nodal analysis can be used as a predictive tool
for production optimization, or for a better understanding of what is happening downhole with respect to
temperature, pressure, and flow distribution within the wellbore.
This paper is a logical continuation of SPE 170054, Nodal Analysis for SAGD Production Wells with
ESPs (ref 1). The main difference between modeling wells with gas lift rather than mechanical lift is that
the gas lift models also account for steam lift. Steam lift occurs when some of the produced water (PW)
in the emulsion flashes to steam as pressure is reduced. The resulting vapour significantly augments gas
lift and reduces lift gas requirements.

SPE-174521-MS

Definitions, Specific to SAGD

Enthalpy (H): The sum of the internal and external energies. H is in kJ/kg.
Bubble point: The pressure at which liquid (at a given temperature) will start to boil.
Dew point: The pressure at which vapour (at a given temperature) will start to condense.
Steam quality (X): The proportion or percentage of vapour in a mixture of liquid and vapour,
usually on a mass basis.
Steam flashing: Release of water vapour from liquid water as pressure is reduced. One cubic metre
of water can generate 1694 m3 of steam at standard conditions.
Saturation temperature: The temperature corresponding to a given saturated vapour pressure.
Subcool: The difference between the temperature of the produced fluid and the saturation
temperature of steam at a specific pressure.
Productivity Index (PI): A linear reservoir inflow relationship, suitable for reservoir fluids that
contain very little solution gas. In this paper, PI is in units of rate per unit of length (m3/dm),
divided by the drawdown (reservoir pressure minus flowing bottomhole pressure), or units of
m3/(dkPam).

Table 1 describes MacKay River (MR) operating conditions. Abbreviations in Table 1 are used
throughout the paper.
Table 1Operating Conditions at MacKay River (MR)
Items & Units

Abbrev.

Value

True vertical depth to McMurray top (m)

TVD to McMurray base (m)
Average continuous pay (m)
Steam chamber press (kPag)
Steam chamber temp (C)
Artificial lift by gas lift and steam flashing:
Production rate per well (total liquid, m3/d)
Average water cut (%)
Producer, flowing bottomhole pressure (kPag)
Producer, flowing bottomhole temperature (C)
Producer, flowing wellhead pressure (kPag)
Producer, flowing wellhead temperature (C)
Producer, typical subcool (C)
Bitumen density at FBHT (kg/m3)
Water density at FBHT (kg/m3)
Bitumen viscosity at FBHT (cp)
Water viscosity at FBHT (cp)
Connate water salinity (ppm)
Produced water total dissolved solids (mg/l) (*)
(*) Produced water is mostly condensed steam

TVD
TVD

80 115
120 150
~ 25
1250 1700
193 207
variable
170 500
70
950 1300
150 175
300 400
120 140
20 to 40
925
930
13 25
~ 0.2
30,000
~ 3600

Pres
Tres
QGL & X
Q
WC
FBHP
FBHT
FWHP
FWHT
SC

TDS

Mackay River Steam Injection Wells

1. Surface casing to below the base of Birch Channel (30 to 100 m TVD), cemented in place.
2. Intermediate casing to the end of the build section, ~ 320 to 500 m measured depth (MD),
cemented in place.
3. A long horizontal openhole section is then drilled to about 1000 m MD. A slotted liner is installed
in the open hole section to prevent hole collapse, plus exclude mobile sand particles. The
horizontal section of the steam injection well is 5 m above the production well.

SPE-174521-MS

Phase 1 to 4 injection wells generally have 178 mm slotted liners and just one long tubing landed at
the toe. The long tubing is typically 114.3 mm in diameter to the heel, crossing over to 73 mm a few
meters above the liner hanger.
For Phase 1 to 4 wells, steam is injected down the long tubing from the wellhead (WHD) to the toe
of the well, and down the intermediate casing to the heel of the well. Due to the fact that friction pressure
drop in the long tubing is greater than friction pressure drop in the annulus, approximately (~) 25% of the
injected steam goes down the long tubing to the toe, while ~ 75% of the injected steam goes into the
intermediate casing by tubing annulus.
The friction pressure drop in the 178 mm slotted liner by 73 mm tubing annulus is very low. Steam is
therefore free to flow to wherever it can find higher permeability zones in the formation outside of the
slotted liner. Because more steam is usually injected at the heel of the well, Phase 1 to 4 production wells
typically had hotter heel sections for the first few years.
Phase 5 and later injection wells have dual, parallel tubulars landed at the heel and the toe of the well,
as illustrated in Figure 1. Steam is injected into both long and short tubulars. Due to increased length, the
longer tubing experiences greater friction pressure drop and less steam injection than the short string.
Steam can also be injected into the intermediate casing annulus to help build the steam chamber at the heel
of the well, or to increase overall steam injection.

Figure 1MacKay River Phase 5 steam injector

Phase 5 wells can also inject natural gas at low rates into the annulus between the intermediate casing
and the injection tubulars to provide insulation and bottomhole pressure measurements during circulation
mode. This is also called blanket gas. Low rate steam tests (LRSTs) are regularly scheduled to
determine the reservoir pressure in the steam chamber when there is minimal injection pressure drop from
the liner to the reservoir, and minimal friction pressure drop in wellbore tubulars.

MacKay River Production Wells

1. Surface casing to below the base of Birch Channel (30 to 100 m TVD), cemented in place.
2. Intermediate casing to the end of the build section (~ 320 to 500 m MD), cemented in place.
3. A long horizontal openhole section is then drilled to about 1000 m MD. A slotted liner is installed
in the open hole section to prevent hole collapse, plus exclude mobile sand particles.

SPE-174521-MS

4. Most MR wells are produced with gas lift as the artificial lift mechanism. The gas lift coils are run
to between 85 & 88 degrees inside the parallel production tubulars.
Older production wells (Phases 1 4) do not have downhole pressure and temperature (P&T) gauges.
Bottomhole pressure (BHP) is occasionally estimated by stopping lift gas to the short string coil and
measuring wellhead pressure (WHP). Newer wells (Phases 5) are well instrumented with a bubble tube
to the toe of the long string to measure downhole pressure, plus six thermocouples in the instrument coil,
as illustrated by Figure 2. More recent wells sometimes have fibre optic distributed temperature sensing
(DTS) plus a pressure gauge in the 60 mm extension to the short tubing and do not have bubble tubes in
the long string.

Figure 2MacKay River Phase 5 producer with instrumentation

Produced fluids flow into the slotted liner then enter the two production tubulars. Natural gas is injected
into coiled tubing, concentrically located inside both the short and long production tubulars. This lift gas
lightens the liquids inside the production tubulars and lifts the produced fluids to the wellhead at
surface. The flow split to the short and long tubulars can vary depending on flowing wellhead pressures
and gas lift rates to each string.
As the produced fluid flows to surface, pressure in the fluid stream decreases due to reduced hydrostatic
pressure (head) plus friction pressure drop. As pressure in the produced fluid decreases, some of the
produced water in the emulsion will flash to vapour (steam). This vapour augments gas lift, further
lightening the fluid column and thereby increasing the production rates.
The entire SAGD process can be represented by a Pressure-Enthalpy (P-H) diagram, Figure 3.

SPE-174521-MS

Figure 3MacKay River P-H diagram for water & steam, illustrating SAGD thermodynamics
Table 2Conditions at points noted on Figure 3
Press.

Press.

Temp.

Quality

Enthalpy

kPag

kPaa

kJ/kg

1. Exit steam generator

2. Exit steam separator

9200
9100

9300
9200

305
304

70
96

2320
2700

3. Injector wellhead

1900

2000

212

93

2650

4. Injector heel
5. Tubing inlet

1700
1400

1800
1500

206
180

90
0

2600
775

6. Producer wellhead

600

700

165

725

Position

Comments
30% of fluid is hot liquid water
After removing liquid water phase at
plant.
Pressure stepdown to 2300 at pad
entrance, further reduction at
injector wellhead.
Lower P due to friction
20C subcool to prevent steam
breakthrough
Flowing wellhead pressure, some heat
loss.

The P-H diagram for water/steam illustrates that pressure and temperature lines are horizontal when
between the bubble point line and the dew point line. If one knows the pressure, then one also knows the
temperature in the saturated steam (wet steam) envelope. When to the left of the bubble point line, the
temperature isothermal lines turn vertically upwards. The line from point 4 to 5 on Figure 3 represents the
energy (enthalpy) that is transferred to the reservoir. On this same line, the distance from the bubble point
line to point 5 represents the subcool.
Nodal Analysis for SAGD Producers with Gas Lift
The Well Evaluation Model (WEM) is a well performance program that predicts flow rates to facilitate
optimum completion decisions by; matching field and laboratory data to characterize the well, determin-

SPE-174521-MS

ing optimal artificial lift designs and implementing practical operational decisions for rate control. A
recent development project extends WEMs modeling capability to include SAGD wells.
Principally, the model was adjusted for wellbore flow of bitumen and flashing water. The volume of
steam generated at depth from saturated water depends on the wellbore heat losses from the produced fluid
to the earth. The gas lift completions discussed in this paper consist of dual, non-coaxial tubing strings
with coaxial coil tubing for transporting lift gas to injection depth. Consequently, there are heat flux
considerations from the injected lift gas to each production string, from each production string to the static
fluid in the casing annulus, from the static annular fluid across the casing strings/cement sheath and an
accounting for the loss of heat to the earth. A momentum/energy balance at depth determines the
distribution of heat loss between the bitumen and saturated water. The heat loss attributed to the saturated
water determines the volume of steam generated at each depth.
Secondly, a reservoir inflow model for a horizontal well with a productivity index defined as a function
of distance from the heel was required. The gas-oil ratio (GOR) of bitumen is very low at ~ 3 m3/ m3,
plus the water-oil ratio is typically between 2:1 and 3:1, so the gas-liquid ratio (GLR) of the emulsion is
usually less than 1 m3/ m3. The flowing bottom-hole pressure profile is generated along the annulus
formed by the open hole and slotted liner. The combination of these two factors permits an accurate
representation of inflow into the well. Furthermore, the program can locate the neutral flow point (null
flow point) along the horizontal well where inflow to the left of this point flows to the short string (SS)
and inflow to the right of this point flows to the long string (LS). The location of the neutral point and
distributed drawdown are managed by selection of surface conditions: wellhead pressures and injection
lift gas rates. PI (with respect to distance) can be varied along the length of the horizontal liner to simulate
reservoir regions with different inflow potentials.
With this WEMSAGD technology, well design can be evaluated and optimized, measured data can be
used to adjust the model and characterize the well, and operational decisions can be evaluated to adjust
the neutral point location for desired flow performance from the reservoir.
Inflow rate is governed by chamber pressure, productivity index and drawdown. Drawdown is
controlled (limited) to avoid the presence of steam in the horizontal liner. Steam flashing tends to erode
holes in slotted liners (leading to sand production), and dramatically increases the frictional pressure loss
inside the completion.
Outflow rate is controlled by subcool, flowing wellhead pressure and lift gas injection rates. The
temperature in the horizontal liner must be less than the steam saturation temperature of the produced
water, which is also a function of pressure. How much less is determined by well configuration and
operational experience. If WEM detects steam flashing in the annulus, it will stop calculating and display
a warning.
The Null Flow Point (flow split) in a Dual Completion SAGD Producer
The null flow point in a dual string completion is the flow split boundary in the liner, as illustrated by
Figure 4. Some of the produced emulsion flows inside the liner to the toe of the well, then to surface via
the long string. The remaining emulsion flows to heel of the liner, then to surface via the short string. The
flow split is generally 55% to the short string and 45% to the long string, but the null flow point can be
moved by manipulating wellhead chokes and lift gas injection rates (QGL).

SPE-174521-MS

Figure 4 Null flow point in the slotted Liner when producing both heel and toe

Six Examples
The following figures and text illustrate six scenarios where nodal analysis helped improve Suncors
understanding of flowing conditions in MacKay River SAGD producers with gas lift.
Scenario #1: Both Short and Long Tubulars Flow to a Similar FWHP
This scenario mimics the conditions itemized in the pressure-enthalpy diagram (Figure 3). Both short and
long strings flow to a FWHP 600 kPag. The first step is to determine the location of the null flow point
(flow split) in the horizontal liner, and this is accomplished by running the WEM program in Nodal mode.
Figure 5 illustrates that the natural flow points for the two tubulars occurs at FBHP 1154 kPag. The
flow fraction to the short string is noted in the legend below the graph on Figure 5. Frac to SS 0.541,
meaning that flow from 54% of the horizontal liner length will go to the short string.

Figure 5Nodal run to determine flow split and flow rates, both strings with same FWHP

The WEM program is next run in Gradient mode, using information obtained from the Nodal run. The
following two plots illustrate; i) pressures and cumulative rates (Figure 6), and ii) temperatures and steam
qualities (Figure 7), both with respect to measured depth.

SPE-174521-MS

Figure 6 Pressures and cumulative rates, same FWHP on both tubulars

Figure 7Temperatures and steam qualities, same FWHP on both tubulars

Scenario #2: Short and Long Strings Flowing to Different FWHPs

The following three Figures 8, 9 & 10 illustrate the effect of increasing the SS FWHP by 50 kPa to 650
kPag, and reducing the LS FWHP by 50 kPa to 550 kPag. The legend below Figure 8 indicates that flow
from 35.4% of the horizontal liner length will go to the short string.

SPE-174521-MS

Figure 8 Nodal run to determine flow split and flow rates, different FWHPs on tubulars

Figure 9 Pressures and cumulative rates, different FWHPs on tubulars

10

SPE-174521-MS

Figure 10 Temperatures and steam qualities, different FWHPs on tubulars

Figures 8, 9 & 10 illustrate the following:

1. By changing the FWHP, with wellhead choking or different separator pressures, it is possible to
bias (move) the null flow point in the liner towards the heel or toe of the well.
2. Lower FWHP results in increased steam flashing and reduced FWHT.
3. Although not shown on Figure 10, steam flashing can significantly augment gas lift. The tabular
report indicates that:
a. SS @ WHD: X 2%, lift gas @ FWHP 540 m3/d, steam @ FWHP 584 m3/d.
b. LS @ WHD: X 3.6%. lift gas @ FWHP 679 m3/d, steam @ FWHP 2333 m3/d.
Note that the gas & steam rates are for gas or steam volumes at pressure - not standard
conditions.
Scenario #3: Different lift gas injection rates into short and long tubulars
The following Figures 11 & 12 illustrate the effect of injecting twice as much lift gas into the long string
as into the short string, while leaving the FWHP the same at 600 kPag. In this example, gas lift rate to
the short string (QGL SS) is 1200 sm3/d, and QGL LS is 2400 sm3/d. The null flow point has moved
towards the heel of the well, and the flow fraction is 0.405 to the short string, meaning that flow from
40.5% of the horizontal liner length will go to the short string.

SPE-174521-MS

11

Figure 11Nodal run to determine flow split and flow rates, different lift gas rates into tubulars

Figure 12Temperatures and steam qualities, different lift gas rates into tubulars

Although not shown on Figure 12, steam quality is 2.78% at the wellhead in both strings. The tabular
report indicates that:
a. SS @ WHD: lift gas @ FWHP 321 m3/d, steam @ FWHP 942 m3/d.
b. LS @ WHD: lift gas @ FWHP 613 m3/d, steam @ FWHP 1435 m3/d.

12

SPE-174521-MS

Scenario #4: Effect of changing water cuts on emulsion viscosity and inflow
One MR producer experienced a dramatic drop in production for a six week period late in 2014, as
illustrated by Figure 13.

Figure 13Total fluids, watercuts and oil rates over a six month period

The cause of the production drop was originally thought to be wellbore related, and the team
contemplated a coiled tubing replacement or an acid stimulation to remove plugging fines in the slotted
liner. The decrease in total fluids could be explained, however, by using WEM to investigate the change
in emulsion viscosity due to decreased watercuts. After six weeks, the water cut rebounded to preNovember rates and inflow returned to previous values. As illustrated in Table 3, reservoir pressure was
unchanged over the period, but changing watercuts had a significant effect on total fluid rate and FBHP.
Table 3Total fluids and FBHPs as affected by water cuts
Date

Total fluids, m3/d

Water Cut, %

Gas lift P, SS shut in,

FBHP, kPag

October 1, 2014
October 30, 2014
November 8, 2014
November 22, 2014
December 1, 2014
December 12, 2014
January 7, 2015
January 21, 2015
February 2, 2015
February 13, 2015
February 23, 2015

450
350
450
250
250
250
440
435
425
425
425

63
60
63
53
53
56
65
65
65
66
65

930
855
870
1027
1025
989
835
823
847
841
815

P from Low Rate Steam

Test Pres, kPag

1269
1276
1270
1274
1273

An oil-in-water emulsion essentially has a viscosity approaching that of hot water, as illustrated by
Figure 14. To the left of the inversion point, the produced fluid is a water-in-oil emulsion, with viscosity
increasing rapidly towards the inversion point. To the right of the inversion point, the mixture switches
to an oil-in-water emulsion with dramatically lower viscosity. Figure 14 uses Hatscheks equation (ref 2)

SPE-174521-MS

13

to the left of the inversion point, then uses water and oil viscosity fractions to the right of the inversion
point.

Figure 14 Water-Bitumen emulsion viscosities as a function of temperature

WEM models were run with two conditions, 65% and 53% watercuts, using rates and pressures
described in Table 3. The following, Figure 15, compares pressure gradient plots for these two WCs:

Figure 15Pressure gradient plots for WC 65% (left) and 53% (right)

Left: 65% WC, FBHP 900 kPag, PI .0017 m3/(dkPam), Q 440 m3/d,
Right: 53% WC, FBHP 1025 kPag, PI .0014 m3/(dkPam), Q 250 m3/d.

In addition to the pressure curves displayed in Figure 15, Table 4 summarizes the wellbore conditions,
as calculated by WEM for the two watercut scenarios.

14

SPE-174521-MS

Table 4 Comparing wellbore conditions for 65% & 53% water cut scenarios

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Item/Location

Abbrev.

Units

65% watercut

53% watercut

Reservoir pressure
Reservoir temperature
Productivity Index
SS flow rate
LS flow rate
Total flow rate
SS & LS flowing BHPs
Subcool from Tres to FBHT
Flowing BHT
Liquid viscosity @ FBHT
LS BHP @ 450 mMD
LS BHT @ 450 mMD
SS steam flashing starts @
LS steam flashing starts @
SS/LS Flowing wellhead pressures
Flowing wellhead temperature
SS steam quality @ whd
LS steam quality @ whd

Pres
Tres
PI
Q SS
Q LS
QT
FBHP
SC
FBHT
uL
LS BHP
LS BHT
XSS
XLS
FWHP
FWHT
XSS
XLS

kPag
C
m3/(dkPam)
m3/d
m3/d
m3/d
kPag
C
C
cp
kPag
C
mMD
mMD
kPag
C
%
%

1300
195
0.0017
235.8
203.5
439.3
900
20
175
6.3
890
175
260
317
311/338
145
7.5
7

1300
195
0.0014
134.8
116.6
251.4
1025
20
175
103
890
175
209
295
350/360
148
7
7.4

The data in Table 4 illustrates the following:

1. Decreasing water cut to less than the inversion point significantly increases emulsion viscosity.
2. WEM is calculating an emulsion viscosity that is ~ 20% lower than would be calculated by
Hatscheks equation to the left of the inversion point, but WEM is matching real production data.
3. Friction factor for pressure drop calculations is not directly proportional to viscosity, however, so
the small difference in friction factor has minimal effect.
4. Friction delta pressure (dP) for the 53% watercut case is significantly greater than is immediately
apparent in Figure 15. This is because friction dP is proportional to the square of velocity (rate),
yet flow rate for the low watercut case is only 57% of the high water cut case.
5. To match inflow with steam chamber and production well pressures, it was necessary to decrease
the PI in the 53% WC case implying that inflow was somewhat impaired.
Scenario #5: Straddle Liner in MR Producer with Previous Patch
A MacKay River producer experienced a liner failure in Spring, 2013. A 15 m long patch was installed
from 659.5 to 674.1 m MD, but the well continued to experience steam breakthrough. As illustrated by
Figure 16, the repair plan was to straddle the interval 610 735 m MD with a 114 mm outside diameter
(OD) liner c/w swellable packers at each end, and include two inflow control devices (ICDs) on the
straddle-liner so that the centre portion of the liner can continue to produce. The long tubing string would
be 114 mm OD to 600 m, with 89 mm OD flush joint tubing to 998 m.

SPE-174521-MS

15

Figure 16 Straddle liner in MR producer with previous patch

WEM does not (currently) have the ability to model ICDs in a horizontal liner, but it can divide the
liner into 20 sections, each with a different productivity index. It was assumed that the PI over the straddle
section would be reduced by both the ICDs and the annular space between the slotted liner and the straddle
liner, and split the inflow between the two ICDs. From the heel (intermediate casing shoe) to the toe, Table
5 indicates how the PIs were allocated in the horizontal liner. Figure 17 illustrates the pressure gradients
in the tubulars (left side) plus pressure and rate gradients in the annulus (right side).

Table 5Productivity Index distribution, from heel of liner

1
2
3
4
5

Interval

From (m)

To(m)

PI, m3/(dkPam)

Heel
1stICD
Straddle
2ndICD
Toe

0
217
227
332
342

217
227
332
342
620

0.001
0.00375
0
0.00375
0.001

Figure 17Pressures and cumulative rates, MR producer with straddle liner

16

SPE-174521-MS

Scenario #6: Producer with Numerous Entry Points, Mimicking Inflow Control Devices
Suncor is currently exploring the benefits of ICD completions at MacKay River and needs to be able to
model how these devices will affect overall well performance. Scenario #6 models a production well with
five devices along the horizontal length (Figure 18), with all production flowing through the liner from
toe to heel, then up one production tubing string to surface with gas lift assist.

Figure 18 Production well with five inflow control devices

The model uses a segmented horizontal section with varying PIs to show the effect of the ICDs. Each
ICD is modelled as a two meter segment with a PI greater than zero, separated by a long segment with
a PI of zero (modeling a blank section of pipe), as illustrated by Figure 19. In reality, inflow occurs all
along the slotted liner and fluid flows into the slotted liner by tailpipe annulus between the packers, then
flows towards the ICD. The PI of each inflow point is varied to mimic either geologic variations or
differing ICD resistance ratings, which could result in varying inflow along the horizontal section. Note
that WEM is not capable of modeling steam flashing across an ICD, but it will identify that steam flashing
is occurring.

Figure 19 Inflow and pressure distributions within the wellbore

SPE-174521-MS

17

Summary
With increasing well counts in both MacKay River and Firebag In-Situ projects, Suncor required a tool
that could predict pressure, temperature, and steam quality profiles inside SAGD production wells that are
equipped with either gas lift or ESPs for artificial lift. Suncor has partnered with PE Moseley and
Associates, a developer of nodal analysis software, to modify their conventional oil and gas wellbore
simulation software such that it can now model thermal, SAGD, production wellbores. PE Moseley is
developing thermally capable nodal analysis software for SAGD, while Suncor provides field data, plus
trials the software on realistic field situations.
The new WEMSAGD nodal analysis software models the viscosity of bitumen-water emulsions to
more accurately calculate pressure drop, and includes heat transfer models for temperature predictions.
These mathematical models are combined to predict heat loss from the wellbore to surrounding formations, and calculate the amount of water that will flash to steam (vapour) inside the wellbore as pressure
is reduced.
Suncor has used this tool to history match field data, and make predictions that guide production and
completion optimization decisions. A number of SAGD gas lift scenarios have been presented in this
paper:

Scenario #1: Both tubulars flow to a similar FWHP.

Scenario #2: The short and long strings flow to different FWHPs.
Scenario #3: Different lift gas injection rates into short and long tubulars
Scenario #4: Illustrates the effect of changing water cuts on emulsion viscosity.
Scenario #5: Models a SAGD producer with a long straddle liner to mitigate steam coning.
Scenario #6: Producer with numerous entry points, mimicking inflow control devices.
Suncor continues to identify situations where SAGD capable, nodal analysis software can be
employed.

Disclaimer
Suncor Energy Inc. and its affiliates (collectively Suncor) do not make any express or implied
representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the statements, information,
data and content contained in this presentation and any materials or information (written or otherwise)
provided in conjunction with this presentation (collectively, the Information). The Information has been
prepared solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon.

Acknowledgements
Michelle Wolanski, Raj Bal, Rebecca Drohan, Chris Baker, Fernando Gaviria, Abe Khallad & Eric Jack,
all of Suncor Energy Inc.
Charlie Kastner, Sharon Chen & Conrad Ramirez, all of PE Moseley and Associates, Inc.

Reference
1. G. J. Duncan, R. M. Stahl and P. E. Moseley (2014). SPE 170054, Nodal Analysis for SAGD
Production Wells with ESPs, presented at the 2014 SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Calgary, Canada.
2. Hatscheks Equation and a Comparison with Cold Lake Crude, as described on page 356 of
Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen, by R. M. Butler, 1997.