SPE 50429

Targeted Steam Injection Using Horizontal Wells with Limited Entry Perforations
Thomas J. Boone, Daryl G. Youck and Sam Sun
Imperial Oil Resources

Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 14 November 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Limited-entry perforations have been used in vertical wells in
both California and at Imperials Cold Lake field as a method
for distributing steam to different zones. The technology
relies simply upon designing the number, size and placement
of the perforations so that critical or choked flow occurs
across the perforations during steam injection, and steam exits
the well with the desired distribution. This paper describes an
experimental horizontal well where this same technology was
used to replace ten vertical injection wells with a single
horizontal well. The well was located between rows of
vertical wells in reservoir that had been subjected to more than
ten years of operations under cyclic steam stimulation. The
limited-entry perforations enabled steam to be targeted at the
cold regions of the reservoir. A more typical completion such
as a screened or slotted liner would not have provided any
control over the placement of steam in the reservoir. The
1000 m long liner was cemented in place with a completion
design consisting of only 28, 3/8 inch diameter perforations
which were drilled through the casing and cement. The
design injection rate for the well was 2000 to 3000 m3/day of
70% quality steam. This paper presents an assessment of the
performance of the well based on theoretical calculations,
measured injection pressures and rates, and 3D seismic
imaging.
Introduction
This paper presents the results from a pilot at Imperial Oil's
Cold Lake field where a horizontal well with a unique

completion design was employed as a dedicated steam

injector. The well was completed with a liner that was
cemented in place and perforated with only 28 limited-entry
perforations which served to distribute the injection of steam
along the horizontal well.
Limited entry perforations have been used extensively in
vertical wells in thermal operations in California, as a
mechanism for distributing steam to several zones within a
formation[1,2]. More recently limited entry perforations have
been employed in at least one horizontal well in California [3].
The term "limited-entry" implies that the size or area of the
perforations has been specifically selected to limit the flow
rate into a zone at a given injection pressure. This limit
occurs because the velocity of the steam exiting the
perforation is approaching the sonic velocity and is therefore
choked or throttled. Generally, this results in a large reduction
in the number and size of perforations relative to what is
typically used for production purposes. For example, the pilot
well described in this paper has a 1000 m (3300 ft.) long liner
section which was completed with only 28 3/8 inch diameter
perforations. The well was designed for injection of up to
3000 m3/day (18,000 bbls/day) of 70% quality steam (cold
water equivalent volume) with well pressures of 10 MPa
(1500 psi).
The specific application for this well design at Cold Lake is
as a 'follow-up process' where infill wells would be drilled
amidst a regular pattern of vertical wells that had been
operated for ten years under Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS).
These infill wells would then be used for dedicated steam
injection in the future. The original CSS wells would
continue to be used for production purposes. It is anticipated
that this region of the reservoir will continue to be operated in
a cyclic pressure-up and blow-down mode where steam is
injected into the injectors at relatively high rates for a few
months and then the original CSS wells will then produce
back for several years. By contrast, it is more typical in
thermal operations to implement a drive process where the
injectors are on continuous injection and producers produce
continuously as well. Under this mode of operation the
pressure in a region is relatively constant. However, steam
drive processes have not proven to be economically successful

[THOMAS J. BOONE, DARYL G. YOUCK AND SAM SUN]

at Cold Lake in previous field trials. The key reason for not
producing from the newer infill wells in a cyclic mode is to
save the capital cost of the associated production facilities,
completions and tie-ins.
The first trial of this mode of operation was implemented at
Cold Lake in 1988 using vertical wells. Figure 1 shows a 3D
seismic image of three pads at Cold Lake that was shot in
1994 [4]. AA pad, which encompasses 20 CSS wells,
continued to operate under CSS during this period. BB and W
pads encompass 40 CSS wells and 27 vertical, dedicated
injector wells that were drilled on the interior of the pad. The
"hot" regions in this image are depleted reservoir where the
recovery is > 45% of the original bitumen in place (OBIP).
The "cold" regions have typically less than 5% OBIP
recovery. It can be concluded from a comparison of these
images that: (1) there are significant regions on AA pad which
are not effectively being accessed by CSS with the original
well spacing at 1.6 Hectares (4 acres), (2) there has been a
significant conformance increase on the interior of BB and W
pads where the infill wells are located, (3) there is a marked
lack of conformance in the exterior region of BB and W pads
which is not being accessed by the internal injectors, and (4)
the optimal location of the infill wells is not necessarily at the
geometric infill locations since these regions can be hot and
depleted.
The horizontal well design described herein is primarily a
mechanism for implementing the same process as described
for the vertical wells but at a lower capital cost. The savings
arise because one horizontal well can replace 10 vertical
wells. Additionally there are savings in both lease and facility
costs since one pad of four horizontal wells can effectively
replace two pads with a total of 40 vertical wells. A
secondary but important benefit with a horizontal well is that
one has much more flexibility in the number and location of
injection points. Typically, one will log the well during
drilling to locate the perforations based on the measured
resitivities, temperatures and estimates of bitumen saturation,
with the perforations being targeted at the cold, undepleted
reservoir.
The one limitation to the application of horizontal wells is
the presence of tight streaks or zones which might limit the
vertical rise of steam. In this situation vertical wells, with
limit-entry perforations distributed above and below the tight
zones, are possibly a better solution. At Cold Lake, the
previously logged vertical CSS wells, and their production
history can be used to assess the suitability of horizontal
wells. If horizontal wells are appropriate, the same data can
be used to pick optimal target depth for drilling the wells
which is generally at the base of the clean sands.
Hindsight evaluations of the effectiveness of limited-entry
perforations in California have concluded that in some cases
they have not always performed as expected [2]. This has
been attributed to two key factors (i) erosion of the
perforations and (ii) high reservoir pressures that limit the
capability to attain critical flow. These issues are addressed in
the paper as well.

[SPE 50429]

Fundamentals
The methodology presented by Chien [5] has been used
extensively to study the range of flow rates and injection
pressures. The following approximations hold for the range
of operating conditions at Imperial's Cold Lake field:
(1) Critical flow occurs when Pr < 0.61 Pw, where Pr is the
reservoir pressure immediately outside the perforation and Pw
is the well pressure at the inlet of the perforation.
(2) Under critical flow conditions the flow through a
perforation can be approximated as:
Qpc = Cd F Ap Pw

(1)

Where Qpc is the critical flow rate through the perforation,

Cd is the non-dimensional discharge coefficient, F is a
dimensional constant which is dependent on the steam quality,
and Ap is the area of the perforation.
(3) In the subcritical flow regime on a plot of rate vs
pressure, the flow rate through a perforation, Qp, can be
approximated by an elliptical curve connecting the critical
flow line with the point Pr = Pw where Qp = 0:
Qp = Qpc[1-{(Pr/Pw-0.61)/0.39}2]1/2
when 0.61 Pw <Pr<Pw

(2)

(4) Typically, when monitoring a well, one has

measurements of Pw, Q and At where Q is the flow rate into
the well and At is the total area of all perforations in a well.
Under these conditions Equation (1) can be used to estimate
Qpc and Equation (3) can be rearranged to provide a
determination of Pr, the outside the perforations:
Pr = Pw [0.61+0.39*{1-(Qp/Qpc)2 }1/2
when Qp<Qpc

(3)

From a practical perspective Equation (2) implies that

excellent steam distribution can be attained even under
subcritical flow conditions. Even if the reservoir pressure, Pr,
rises to 80% of Pw, the flow rate through a perforation will
have only dropped to 87% of Qpc. At Cold lake the typical
wellhead pressure at Cold Lake is limited by the manifold
pressure of about 12 MPa. For the well design employed
herein the wellhead pressure has been found to be about 0.5
MPa greater than the average bottomhole pressure in the well
when injecting 70% quality steam at rates of 2000 to 2500
m3/day. At the start of steam injection the reservoir pressure
can typically range from 1 to 5 MPa depending on the
operating mode of nearby wells. The reservoir pressure will
then rise during the injection cycle to about 8 MPa and level
off.
Under these conditions the flow rate through a
perforation will be at or very near critical throughout the
cycle. So all perforations would be taking nearly identical
flow rates. On occasion the injection the reservoir pressure

[SPE 50429]

[TARGETED STEAM INJECTION USING HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH LIMITED ENTRY PERFORATIONS]

may increase to 10 MPa at which point fracturing occurs.

Fracturing effectively provides an upper limit to the reservoir
pressure. Even at this point, with a wellhead pressure of 12
MPa and an average bottomhole pressure of 11.5 MPa, 75%
of the critical flow rate will exit a perforation which is
accepting fluid at fracture pressure. However, because
fracturing is only likely to occur for a fraction of the injection
period, the cumulative steam distribution will be better than
indicated by this example.
As will be shown subsequently with field data, it is actually
advantageous to operate in the subcritical flow regime because
it allows one to monitor the reservoir pressure and interpret
reservoir behaviour. This is achieved by employing equation
(3). Experience using Equation (3) on vertical wells has
shown that it produces results consistent with pressures
measured on nearby wells without limited entry perforations.
Two other issues that were considered when designing the
horizontal injection well were (1) the variation in discharge
rate for a perforation due to the pressure drop along the well
and (2) the potential impact of steam quality variation along
the well. The former can be controlled by selection of the
wellbore diameters to control the pressure drop and by
accounting for the impact of the pressure drop when placing
the perforations. Steam quality can also vary along a
horizontal well because higher quality steam will tend to exit
the upstream perforations due to the effect of momentum. The
impact of this variation is offset by the fact that at lower
qualities higher mass rates will exit a perforation given the
same pressure conditions. This is somewhat fortuitous since
the rate at which heat exits each perforation will be practically
constant along the wellbore in spite of potentially large
variations in steam quality.
Field Tests Prior to Drilling the Horizontal Well
It was speculated in a previous paper [2] that limited-entry
perforations might be eroding with time in California fields
and that this might be leading to poor steam distribution. To
test this issue at Cold Lake, a spool piece with a set of limitedentry perforations in a section of pipe was installed in a
flowline to a vertical injection well. The spool piece was
made of the same L-80 type steel typically used for well
casings and liners. After a complete cycle of steam injection,
the spool piece was removed and inspected. There was no
measurable erosion of perforations.
Additionally, a year prior to installing the horizontal well,
twenty-five vertical injection wells were drilled and completed
with limited-entry perforations. Each of these wells was
completed with four limited-entry perforations most of which
were drilled using a commercially available tool that is
basically a modified sidewall coring tool. These wells showed
very consistent injection performance. Early in the injection
cycle the perforations showed some evidence of 'cleaning-up'
as the injectivity (ratio of rate to pressure) of the wells
increased. This was likely some erosion or redistribution of

the sand and cement behind the casing. The injectivity then
leveled off near the theoretically anticipated values with no
evidence of erosion during the injection cycle. Experience
with these wells also confirmed the practical effectiveness of
using Equation (3).
Well Design and Completion
The key feature of the well design is the ability to target the
limited-entry perforations at the cold undepleted reservoir.
Due to steam override the undepleted reservoir tends to be
concentrated at the base of the reservoir between rows of
vertical CSS wells. A key question in piloting this concept
was how effective limited-entry perforations would be in
targeting steam at cold reservoir. The critical concern being
whether steam would channel along the wellbore to the preexisting hot channels or whether it would effectively access
the cold reservoir. For the purpose of evaluating the
effectiveness of the wells it was deemed advantageous to have
a pre-existing seismic image. For this reason the location of
the well was chosen to be on the southern edge of BB and W
pads as shown in Figure 2. As discussed previously, the
seismic image also showed a lack of conformance in this
region and an opportunity for improved steam conformance.
The well design is shown in Figure 3 has a 7 inch diameter
liner cemented in-place. A key concern during the completion
was the effectiveness of the cement placement when the well
crossed through partially depleted reservoir. A cement bond
log was run as part of the completion process and showed
good bond along most of the well leading to the assessment
that hydraulic isolation had been achieved.
Prior to cementing the liner in-place a resistivity log was
run and a temperature log was run in conjunction with the
cement bond log. Figure 4 plots the results of resistivity log
and the temperature log along the well path. The combination
of these two types of data and seismic data were used to locate
the perforations.
The selected locations for the perforations are shown in
Figure 2. The principles used to select the locations and
number of perforations at each location were: (1) each
perforation is designed for an injection rate of 75 m3/day, (2)
steam was to be targeted at cold reservoir and (3) where
possible the perforations were located at least 30 m from the
edge of the heated region to limit the potential for steam
channeling directly into one of the pre-existing heated
channels.
Normally, one would like to see a roughly even distribution
of the steam along the length of the well. However, for the
MH-1 well the CSS wells to the south of the heel section of
the horizontal well are no longer being operated so more
steam was targeted towards the toe. The design basis for
selecting the number (28) and diameter (3/8 inch, 9.5 mm) of
the perforations was to consider an extreme case where half
the perforations were accepting fluids at fracture pressure (i.e.
10 MPa) and the other half were accepting fluids at a

[THOMAS J. BOONE, DARYL G. YOUCK AND SAM SUN]

relatively low reservoir pressure (i.e. 3 MPa). This could

occur early in the operation of the well if some perforations
were feeding cold undepleted reservoir and others were well
connected to hot channels. The design parameters ensured
that in this situation there would be a significant injection rate
into the perforations taking fluid at fracture pressure.
The perforations were drilled using the specially adapted
tool described previously. The key advantage of using the
drilling tool in this horizontal well is that it was possible to
drill all 28 holes with two runs of the tool. The limiting factor
is the sharpness of the bit. An additional reason for running
the drilling tool is that data acquired while monitoring the
drilling tool provides clear confirmation that the casing has
been penetrated. Arguably drilling holes also provides
somewhat better control of the perforation diameter than
shooting perforations.
Evaluation of the Performance
The performance of the well has been evaluated in three ways:
(1) using injection pressures and rates, (2) production data
from nearby wells and (3) seismic imaging early in the
production cycle.
Injection Data. Selected plots of the injection rates versus
estimated bottomhole pressures are shown in Figures 5(a-c).
Each plot contains measurements acquired over approximately
a two week period which were averaged and recorded every
six minutes. The bottomhole pressure is estimated as simply
the wellhead pressure less 0.5 MPa. This estimate is based on
wellbore models and the observed empirical data. Under ideal
conditions with the maximum critical flow rates occurring
through each perforation, the points should all plot along a
line such as the line identified as Cd=0.8, where Cd is defined
in Equation (1). Due to the geometric uncertainty of the holes
through casing, cement and formation, the Cd factor of 0.8 has
been determined from empirical observations of vertical and
horizontal wells. This value of Cd is consistent that expected
for a plate with the same ratio of diameter to thickness as that
for the ratio of the perforation diameter to casing wall
thickness.
If the reservoir pressure exceeds 61% of the wellhead
pressure the flow is in a subcritical regime and the points will
plot below the line Cd=0.8. In fact, the horizontal well has
been operated in the subcritical regime through most of the
steam injection cycle. In the subcritical regime, if the
reservoir pressure is constant along the whole well for the
period plotted, the points plotted in Figures 5(a-c) should fall
along one of the theoretical lines associated with a specific
bottomhole pressure. The trend of the data in Figure 5(c)
clearly illustrates this behaviour as the data falls along the line
for a reservoir pressure of about 7 MPa. This pressure is
consistent with the measured pressures on nearby CSS wells.
The data plotted in Figure 5(a) is less consistent and
difficult to interpret as it is plotted. Figure 6 plots the
wellhead pressure, the injection rate and the reservoir

[SPE 50429]

pressure, Pr,avg, as interpreted using Equation (3). The term

Pr,avg has been used in place of Pr in recognizing that this is
effectively an "average" reservoir pressure along the well
rather than an actual reservoir pressure. When plotted in this
manner , it is clear that the behavior of this well is typical for
the first cycle of infill wells at Cold Lake.
During
approximately the first two weeks of injection the reservoir
pressure is estimated to be about 10 MPa which is indicative
of fracturing. After a couple days the well enters a period of
transition where injection at some of the points is dropping
below fracture pressure. This occurs as heated channels form
in the reservoir and connect the perforations to the previously
developed CSS channels. After about four weeks the
reservoir pressure declines to a minimum value and then
levels off. Subsequently, the reservoir pressure increases due
to normal pressure build-up in the area. It is also influenced
by the bringing of neighbouring wells on and off steam. It
should also be noted that special efforts were made to pressure
up the nearby reservoir prior to initial injection into the
horizontal well. This was done to inhibit or delay the initial
formation of the channels in the reservoir and extend the
period in which horizontal fracturing was occurring.
Production Data. The injection period for this well was
close to three months and the total production period for the
neighboring vertical wells is planned for about three years.
Production has presently been ongoing for about one year.
The first evidence of the impact of the injection into the
horizontal well has been observed as an early ramp up of
bitumen production on the neighboring wells to the north of
the horizontal well on the southern edge of BB and W pads.
Normally, it would be expected that the northernmost wells on
BB and W pads would ramp-up first. Figure 7 shows the
layout of the wells where each row is labeled with average the
total volume of bitumen production per operating well for the
current cycle up to the end of June 1998. The CSS wells to
the south of the horizontal well are delayed in ramping up
because these wells were steamed whereas the production
wells to the north were not steamed.
Seismic Image of the reservoir. The most definitive
evidence of the impact of the horizontal well is a 3D seismic
image that was shot in January of 1998. This image is shown
in Figure 8 with the location of the well and the targeted
perforations included in the figure. Seismic anomalies are
now clearly visible around the targeted sets of perforations at
the toe of the well where previously none were when
compared to Figure 2. At other locations hot channels can be
seen to be initiating at the producers and extending towards
the horizontal well. These channels are expected to further
develop during the production cycle and subsequent injection
cycles. There would appear to be no evidence of heated
channels developing at the two targeted locations at the heal
of the well. This can be attributed to the limited amount of
steam injected at these location and the lack of previously
developed heated zones. It may take one or more injection
cycles to develop heated zones that can be seismically imaged.
Overall, these results are comparable to a seismic image

[SPE 50429]

[TARGETED STEAM INJECTION USING HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH LIMITED ENTRY PERFORATIONS]

attained under similar conditions at another pilot location

where vertical wells were used to target the cold undepleted
zones.
The image provides strong evidence that the
perforations are acting as isolated injection points. As
mentioned previously, there was a concern that in spite of the
best efforts to cement the liner in place, the steam would
simply channel along the horizontal well at not effectively
heat the targeted cold regions. Clearly, this concern has been
addressed.
Discussion
Operations in the Sub-Critical Flow Regime. One of the
key technical hurdles in gaining acceptance for the potential
of this concept was the recognition that one did not have to
reach critical flow conditions everywhere along the wellbore
for the design to be effective. As seen from the injection data,
this was particularly true early in the injection period where it
was necessary to inject at fracture pressures. In spite of the
sub-critical flow, fluid was apparently exiting all long the
wellbore because as clearly shown by the seismic data and
inferred from the subsequent injection rates, pressures and
production data channels have developed from all the
injection points. Most importantly, previously undepleted
areas of the reservoir have been contacted with steam.
Casing Integrity. A critical concern at Cold Lake is the
potential impact of uphole casing failures. Previously, the
release of fluids uphole has lead to multiple casing failures
due to shear movement in shales. As shown in Figures 5(a-c),
the wells completed with limited entry perforations have a
characteristic, nearly linear relationship between their
maximum injection rate and their maximum wellhead pressure
when injecting steam. As can be ascertained from Figure 5(b)
and (c), for the well described herein, if the ratio of Q to Pwh
exceeds 250 m3/day/MPa it would be a strong indication of a
casing failure.
Application to SAGD wellsThis well design has clear
potential for application to wells used in Steam Assisted
Gravity Drainage (SAGD). Typically SAGD injection wells
are designed to limit the pressure differential along the well
which requires relatively large diameter wells. The wells are
completed with slotted or screened sections along the liner.
Even when employing large diameter wells, the channeling of
steam from one point along the injection well directly to the
production well is not prevented. However, the real purpose
of the large diameter well and limiting the pressure drop is to
enable a uniform distribution of steam exiting into the
formation along the length of the wellbore. A wellbore design
similar to that described herein with appropriately spaced
limited entry perforations will achieve the objective of
distributing steam. In addition it will ensure that steam will
not directly channel from one location along the injector to the
producer because steam will be forced to exit each
perforation.
The most significant advantage may be that large diameter
injection wells can be replaced with much smaller diameter,
lower cost wells because significant pressure drops along the

wells can be tolerated when employing limited entry

perforations. To compensate for the pressure drop, which
results in a decreasing flow through perforations along the
well, one can simply adjust the size and spacing of the
perforations. Additionally, it must be recognized that the
pressure within the well, and particularly the pressure drop
within the well, is basically independent of the reservoir
pressure. This well design can be viewed as one that dictates
a specified injection rate at various points along the well
which is a simple but valid flow control model for use in a
simulator. Alternatively, one could employ Equation (3) on a
continuous basis and interpret the average reservoir pressure
from flow rates and well pressures to operate the well in a
manner that mimics a constant injection pressure.
Conclusions
The key conclusions to be drawn from this work are:
1. Limited-entry perforation technology which has been
used extensively in California has been successfully applied to
a horizontal well injector at Cold Lake replacing 10 vertical
well injectors with one horizontal well.
2. Pressure and rate data collected during steam injection,
production data and data from seismic imaging, all support the
conclusion that effective steam distribution along the well has
been achieved.
3. A key factor in the success of this well has been
understanding the impact of sub-critical flow through the
limited-entry perforations and operating the well in the
subcritical flow regime.
4. It has been shown that a simple equation can be used to
determine an average measure of the reservoir pressure from
the injection rate and wellhead pressure when operating in the
sub-critical flow regime.
5. The use of limited-entry perforations provides an
additional mechanism for monitoring for casing failures by
tracking the ratio of injection rate to wellhead pressure.
6. There is significant potential to employ this well design
for SAGD applications as a mechanism for achieving both
improved steam distribution and reduced cost.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the
numerous people at Imperial Oil who contributed to the
success of this program including John Eastwood, Don
Anderson, Kent Bjerkseth, Shane Stark, Mark Rushkowski,
Barry Dawe, Jim Batycky, Jim Hawkins, Murray Lothian and
George Scott.
References
1. G.P. Small, "Steam-Injection Profile Control Using LimitedEntry Perforations," SPE Production Engineering, Sept. 1986,
388-394.
2. R.C.S. Chiou and J.D. Owens, "Field Performance of Steam
Injection Profile Control Using Limited-Entry Perforation," SPE
24081, SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March

[SPE 50429]

[TARGETED STEAM INJECTION USING HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH LIMITED ENTRY PERFORATIONS]

Grou nd Level

406.4 m m Casing
Top of the Colorad oShales

185 m m kB
273.1 m m Casing

1675 m m kB

690 m m kB

Top of the Clearw ater

177.8 m m Casing - 28, 9.5 m md ia. Perfs.

~450 m TVD

Fig. 3. Design of the MH-1 horizontal well injector.

Measured Depth (m)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600
5

45

7.5

35

Perforations

10

30

12.5

25

15
17.5

20
15

Resistivity (ohmm)

Temperature (deg. C)

Resistivity
40

Temperature

20

Fig. 4. Plot of the resistivity, temperature and selected perforation locations along the length of the
horizontal well.

[THOMAS J. BOONE, DARYL G. YOUCK AND SAM SUN]

[SPE 50429]

3000
December 19 to 31, 1996

Fig. 5(a) Cross plot of flowrate versus estimated

bottomhole pressure (WHP - 0.5 MPa) during the
first 12 days of injection.

Flowrate (m3/d)

2500
2000

Temporal
Trend of
the Data

Critical Flow Line

(Cd = 0.8)

1500
1000
500

Subcritical Flow
Curves

0
3

Pr = 6 MPa

7 MPa 8 MPa

9 MPa

6
7
8
9
Wellhead Pressure - 0.5 (MPa)

10 MPa

10

11

12

3000
January 1 to 15, 1997

Fig. 5(b) Cross plot of flowrate versus estimated

bottomhole pressure (WHP - 0.5 MPa) from
January 1 to 15, 1997.

Flowrate (m3/d)

2500
2000

Critical Flow Line

(Cd = 0.8)

1500
1000
500

Subcritical Flow
Curves

0
3

3000
Fig. 5(c) Cross plot of flowrate versus estimated
bottomhole pressure (WHP - 0.5 MPa) from
March 15 to 31, 1997.

Pr = 6 MPa

7 MPa 8 MPa

9 MPa 10 MPa

6
7
8
9
Wellhead Pressure - 0.5 (MPa)

10

11

12

March 15 to 31, 1997

2500
Flo
w r 2000
ate
(m 1500
3/
d)
1000

Critical Flow Line

(Cd = 0.8)

500

Subcritical Flow Pr = 6 MPa

Curves

7 MPa 8 MPa

9 MPa 10 MPa

0
3

6
7
8
9
Wellhead Pressure - 0.5 (MPa)

10

11

12

[TARGETED STEAM INJECTION USING HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH LIMITED ENTRY PERFORATIONS]

Wellhead & Reservoir Pressure

12

4800

Wellhead Pressure

10
8

4000
Average Reservoir Pressure

3200

6
4

2400
Injection Rate

1600

800

17-Dec-96

6-Jan-97

Injection Rate (m3/day)

[SPE 50429]

26-Jan-97 15-Feb-97 7-Mar-97 27-Mar-97 16-Apr-97

Date

Fig. 6. Wellhead pressure, injection rate and interpreted reservoir pressure through the full
cycle of operation.

1410

Fig. 7. Layout of wells on BB/W pads relative to

the MH-1 injector labeled with the average total bitumen
production per operating well to the end of June 1998.

1240
1410

2050

1110

4040

2850
2320

CSS Well
Infill Injection Well
Limited-Entry Perforations

10

[THOMAS J. BOONE, DARYL G. YOUCK AND SAM SUN]

CSS Well
Infill Injection Well
Limited-Entry Perforations
Fig. 8. Plot of seismic image after the first cycle of injection into the MH-1 well.

[SPE 50429]