Paper No. 7
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
`and
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`______________
`
`
`
`MOTION SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO FILE REPLACEMENT
`PETITION AND EXHIBITS AND NEW EXHIBIT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b)
`
`
`
`36147684.1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners seek leave to file: (1) a replacement version of originally-filed
`
`Exhibit 1004 (a prior art article), attached as Exhibit A; (2) new Exhibit 1009,
`
`attached as Exhibit B, which is a declaration attesting to the publication of
`
`replacement Exhibit 1004; (3) a replacement version of Exhibit 1007, attached as
`
`Exhibit C, which is a declaration by Petitioners’ technical expert that has been
`
`updated to correct page citations that will change with entry of replacement Exhibit
`
`1004 and use a cleaner image from the replacement, and to correct two
`
`typographical errors; and (4) a replacement Petition, attached as Exhibit D, which
`
`has been changed to list new Exhibit 1019 and reference same as showing the
`
`publication of replacement Exhibit 1004, and fix some typographical errors.
`
`Petitioners accept whatever new filing date the Board determines should it
`
`grant
`
`this
`
`request, and believe Patent Owner’s Exclusive Licensee’s
`
`characterization of this request as “substantive” is unnecessary but will not dispute
`
`it. However, Petitioners do object to extending the preliminary response deadline
`
`(currently May 25, 2016) by the time between February 25, 2016 and the new
`
`filing date. No additional time is justified because Patent Owner has been in
`
`possession of replacement Exhibit 1004 and new Exhibit 1019 since February 19,
`
`2016, when they were filed as Exhibits 1004 and 1019, respectively, in IPR2016-
`
`00597 and as Exhibits 1003 and 1014, respectively, in IPR2016-00598. Any
`
`36147684.1
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`challenge Patent Owner’s Exclusive Licensee intends to make to the prior art
`
`nature of replacement Exhibit 1004 will logically extend across all three of these
`
`IPRs—the latter two of which have the same original May 25, 2016 preliminary
`
`response deadline—eliminating any need for additional time to do so here.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Counsel of record learned after filing the February 12, 2016 Petition that the
`
`filed version of Exhibit 1004—which is a paper—may not have been the version
`
`included in the bound proceedings associated with the relevant conference, which
`
`version Petitioners subsequently filed as the proposed replacement version of
`
`Exhibit 1004 (in combination with new Exhibit 1019) in other recent IPR petitions
`
`against the same Patent Owner (i.e., in IPR2016-00597 (filed Feb. 19, 2016; see
`
`Exs. 1004 and 1019); IRP2016-00598 (filed Feb. 19, 2016; see Exs. 1003 and
`
`1014); IPR2016-00650 (filed February 23, 2016; see Exs. 1009 and 1016);
`
`IPR2016-00656 (filed February 25, 2016; see Exs. 1009 and 1021); and IPR2016-
`
`00657 (filed February 25, 2016; see Exs. 1009 and 1021)).
`
`On March 4, 2016, the day Patent Owner’s Exclusive Licensee filed
`
`mandatory notices in this case, Petitioners sent their counsel an email at 7:25 pm
`
`EST (copy attached as Exhibit E), explaining this proposal, requesting feedback on
`
`whether Patent Owner opposed this request, and forwarding copies of:
`
` the proposed replacement Exhibit 1004 (attached as Exhibit A);
`
`36147684.1
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
` new Exhibit 1019 (attached as Exhibit B);
`
` the proposed replacement Exhibit 1007 (attached as Exhibit C);
`
` a redlined copy of the proposed replacement Exhibit 1007 relative to
`
`originally-filed Exhibit 1007, showing the changes in the replacement
`
`relative to the original, and explaining those changes (and one that was
`
`not clear from the redline) in the email (attached as Exhibit F);
`
` the proposed replacement Petition (attached as Exhibit D); and
`
` a redlined copy of the proposed replacement Petition relative to the
`
`originally-filed Petition, showing the changes in the replacement relative
`
`to the original, and explaining those changes in the email (attached here
`
`as Exhibit G).
`
`On March 9, 2016, as reflected in Exhibit H, Patent Owner’s Exclusive
`
`Licensee’s counsel indicated the following:
`
`Patent Owner will not oppose Petitioner's Motion to Correct provided that
`the Motion indicates that the change is substantive (e.g., a new declaration is
`being submitted), and asks that, if granted, the Office change the Petition’s
`filing date to the date the motion to correct is granted and moves Patent
`Owner's preliminary response due date to 3 months from the new filing date.
`
`Patent Owner will oppose any Motion to Correct that presents this mistake
`as clerical or typographical or does not request a change to the petition filing
`date and preliminary response date.
`
`36147684.1
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`Petitioners requested a conference call with the Board on March 9, 2016, and
`
`received a response that the panel had not yet been assembled, and to check back
`
`in two weeks, as reflected in attached Exhibit I. The parties had additional
`
`correspondence about the requested call, as reflected in attached Exhibit J.
`
`III. EXPLANATION OF REPLACEMENT EXHIBITS AND PETITION
`An annotated version of replacement Exhibit 1004 (attached as Exhibit K)—
`
`which is used in Grounds 3 and 7 against dependent claims 23 and 27—reflects
`
`that the only changes to the written content from original Exhibit 1004 are the
`
`paper presentation language on the first page, and five wording changes on the last
`
`two pages. A comparison of original Exhibit 1004 to replacement Exhibit 1004
`
`reflects that: the quality of the text in replacement Exhibit 1004 is better than in
`
`original Exhibit 1004 (including punctuation, which is generally not visible in
`
`original Exhibit 1004); the text starts and stops on slightly different pages; and the
`
`Figures of replacement Exhibit 1004 are cleaner, though Figure 12 (which was not
`
`and is not cited in the Petition or Exhibit 1007) is missing.
`
`As Exhibit F shows, page citation changes resulting from the change in text
`
`start/stop location are made on pages 12, 23, 24, 44, and 45; and typographical
`
`errors (unrelated to the requested replacement) are corrected on pages 19 and 20.
`
`A comparison of page 35 from Exhibit C to the original reflects that the cleaner
`
`version of Figure 4 is used, though the corresponding description is unchanged.
`
`36147684.1
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`As Exhibit G shows, the Exhibit List is updated with Exhibit 1019, Exhibit
`
`1019 is referenced on page 4 thereof, the two typographical error corrections from
`
`Exhibit F are also made on pages 10 and 49 thereof, and dashed lead lines have
`
`been added where previously missing in the Table of Contents.
`
`IV. NO PREJUDICE
`Exhibit 1019 is new to this case, but it relates to the prior art nature of
`
`replacement Exhibit 1004 and not to that exhibit’s content or the substance of the
`
`relevant Grounds. Furthermore, neither replacement Exhibit 1004 nor the
`
`proceedings copy in Exhibit 1019 are new to Patent Owner, whose CEO and the
`
`co-inventor of the ’505 Patent is a named co-author.
`
`Granting the requested relief should eliminate any legitimate basis for
`
`challenging the prior art nature of original Exhibit 1004, and save the parties’ and
`
`Board’s resources that might otherwise be required to address such a challenge.
`
`Moreover, even if Patent Owner’s Exclusive Licensee decides to bring such a
`
`challenge, they would logically also have to do so by May 25, 2016 for the two
`
`February 19, 2016 IPRs referenced above, negating any possible claim to need
`
`more time to do so in this case.
`
`Dated: April 6, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett, Reg. No. 44,699
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`
`36147684.1
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on April 6, 2016, a complete copy of MOTION SEEKING
`
`AUTHORIZATION TO FILE REPLACEMENT PETITION AND EXHIBITS
`
`AND NEW EXHIBIT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) and the exhibits
`
`attached thereto was served on Patent Owner’s Exclusive Licensee via email (by
`
`consent), as follows:
`
`mray-PTAB@skgf.com
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`kconklin-PTAB@skgf.com
`ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett(Reg. No. 44,699)
`
`36147684.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit A to Paper 7 in
`Case IPR2016-00596
`(MOTION SEEKING
`AUTHORIZATION TO FILE
`REPLACEMENT PETITION AND
`EXHIBITS AND NEW EXHIBIT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b))
`
`
`
`

`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED AND
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC.
`Exhibit 1004
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED AND
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC. v. PACKERS PLUS
`ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`IPR2016-00596
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`

`
`Exhibit B to Paper 7 in
`Case IPR2016-00596
`(MOTION SEEKING
`AUTHORIZATION TO FILE
`REPLACEMENT PETITION AND
`EXHIBITS AND NEW EXHIBIT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b))
`
`
`
`

`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED AND
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS,
`INC.
`Exhibit 1019
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED AND
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS,
`INC. v. PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC.
`IPR2016-00596
`
`Page 1 of 127
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER D. HAWKES, Ph.D., P.Geo.
`
`1.
`
`My name is Christopher D. Hawkes, Ph.D., P.Geo.
`
`I have personal
`
`knowledge of the statements below.
`
`I am an associate professor of Civil and
`
`Geological Engineering in the College of Engineering at
`
`the University of
`
`Saskatchewan.
`
`2.
`
`I was a co-author of a paper entitled “Minimizing Borehole Instability Risks
`
`in Build Sections through Shales” that I presented to the attendees of the 7th One-
`
`Day Conference on Horizontal Well Technology that took place on November 3,
`
`1999 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed a copy of the proceedings for the conference that is attached
`
`to my declaration and compared it to my own personal copy of the proceedings.
`
`The two appear to be the same, including the paper entitled “Production Control of
`9
`Horizontal Wells in a Carbonate Reef Structure.’ The attached copy therefore
`
`appears to be a true and correct copy.
`
`4.
`
`To the best of my recollection, copies of the proceedings were distributed
`
`during check-in to each registered attendee of the conference, and this is how I
`
`received my copy of the proceedings.
`
`I have attended similar conferences before
`
`and after this one, and copies of those conference proceedings were distributed to
`
`attendees when they checked in. For that reason, I would expect to remember if
`
`the proceedings for this conference were distributed in a different manner.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I estimate that at least 50 individuals attended the conference.
`
`I declare under penalty of the perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Felt). l°l,7.o16
`
`lg]/_{!
`
`Date
`
`Name (print):
`
`Page 1 of 127
`Page 1 of 127
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`Page 2 of 127
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`Page 3 of 127
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`5_mo:::_,..£..__:>.5fi_~__,._u_._O:uDEE__3.am.2u>E..>o__:_anE:2E__E__m_mu_.oE:Z
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.nmL<>....u..uuo.n_>.._u>ouum_
`
`
`
`am?.m.5n_E®>OZumwvmmcuug
`
`
`
`
`
`.mmo_oE_uu.h:93uzcomtomsooo:2o.EoU$0.30:::_:<Sn_>:U\.m_mm
`
`
`
`:uo:u:uuxm__m:o:n.5uO>mo_o::oo._.=03_fi:cmEoI:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`~.a_§6E:mmm,_n_$0I...L__o>BmuM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..._:_m.___:§_ouE:u_c.:omcumF.I:c:v_.mEzum:u__E_Um=_:n_=_m=m_.u:___:._D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.2:.a.§_mEuzsmm_.:5...U.v__._m_muD__o>...QD<m_EB2=:_oU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38.3%E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.__:>.5,:,m~_<._:I_.,n;._2m,_..5_..4xu._:uw.umiuzuzm2%:.,:::o_._._...m.::_::um_..mIw:=_cQ_.uo:E_H_._ou__Dsmug:Imm“...
`
`u>:u..nEz._un_zwiufl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`zu_.Em£32:
`
`
`
`éozumm.EEGE.u:_xwo_c_Eum_ca..uumu:?:...<E..:>.>.mu”._.$_wI.U.:n__u1_uEm..$_mE>.._:n_£..E_u_nEu._cmm:_:=.E_zE;_Iomusw
`
`
`
`:fi.:__:man...:£.._uc.._,,"_>mm:_.,5.._c:._:un_m__m
`
`
`
`__.§mSusan.EE2...w=:__._Q
`
`
`
`m:u>>_Ec3.__.:¥_1::
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__uE._CU:u.__5aow_:...>»u._u__3_,,,.aw.mcmzm.m.uo:u:u_=I.v_:0582..:E._I._c._uEm:._...mMON302<moumIcznw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`muuicavm:0?..:.£E_Ev..xu_M_cocusco._::.,..cmE:§_Uuu:Eu.EoU39mImmfi
`
`
`
`
`
`ExuuguEu3.3..
`
`
`
`
`
`9._..___<,.____.:..___.z_2.3....:._____.:....r..~._,..:U..;.__/_.3H_._E.:9:_:.,_,,_.u.r.Jzcimzm:z_zmc_._,_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.:___.i..:_m:_.,/_.::_...__C_.._:32..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`._.:1_¢.3__».$mE2o__;..d._,x__._,._s;n_._3_:m_.2lochmc_:_._D.m.=:o.m..:_..:_9=<sex...Imm”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`...__on:.:0E:......m:Qs._o_._m_d.En=oQu£>_.m...co:...::_.:3»::2m_-___=E.._azU_._nEUn.—max:Ic:_:_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`um./__C_T.xm_T.C_K_../4.32
`
`..__:_:::=_=m__=:..:‘“=_.:..._..
`
`
`
`
`
`.u._EnEEm.cu_o._.,:m_.5.nmonmu:_H_m_2.U:2...:c;£_:._._..u_..m.__:=..Um...::u_uEn_3?ZIm_._:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 127
`Page 4 of 127
`
`fiamBeau25IENo
`
`
`
`Az...._.:.w.H._¢_.:z_zmc2
`
`
`
`.......P:=5_5_....._E___..:..
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`Page 5 of 127
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`Page 6 of 127
`
`

`
`uh
`‘ ‘ .
`
`SPE CI M
`
`7th One Day Conference on HORIZONTAL WELL Technology
`November 3,1999 - Calgary, Alberta, Canada
`
`Presented by the Petroleum Society at CIM-Horizontal Well Special Interest Group
`and the Canadian Section ol the Society of Petroleum Engineers
`
`Message from the Chair
`
`Welcome to the 7th One—Day Conference on Horizontal Well Technology.
`
`On behalf of the Canadian Section of the SPE and the Petroleum Society, we are pleased to offer
`to the technical community a day of new ideas, case studies and analyses focussed on
`technology related to horizontal wells.
`
`led by General Chairman. Fiick Kry and the Technical Program Committee
`The organizers.
`Chairman, K.C. Young, have enticed a selection of presentations, divided into four technical
`sessions: “Heavy Oil", "Drilling Advances”, “FormationlStirnulation”, and “Field Cases". They
`have arranged a luncheon presentation by Dr. Alan. D. Kersey, Vice President of CiDFiA
`Corporation on fibre optic applications and potential. And to complete the program, a panel
`comprised of leaders in horizontal well applications and technoiogy and representing business
`and technical perspectives. will discuss the latest advancements in horizontal wells, what is still
`needed and what are the likely breakthroughs in the future.
`
`Thank—you to each of the authors, speakers, panel members and organizing committee and
`technical committee volunteers who have taken time from their busy schedules to contribute to
`the success of this meeting. Enjoy the day and may it be productive for you.
`
`Dr. P. H. Kry
`Imperial Oil Resources
`General Chairman
`
`7th One Day Conference
`
`Page 7 of 127
`Page 7 of 127
`
`

`
`in
`
`SPE CIM
`
`7th One Day Conference on HORIZONTAL WELL Technology
`November 3,1999 - Calgary, Alberta, Canada
`
`Presented by the Petroleum Society of CIM-Horizontal Well Special Interest Group
`and the Canadian Section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
`
`Organization and Technical Program
`
`Flick Kry
`
`Imperial Oil Resources
`
`K.C. Yeung
`
`Suncor Energy Inc.
`
`Kenny Adegbesan
`
`KADE Technologies Inc.
`
`Gil Cordell
`
`Lister Doig
`
`Con Dinu
`
`Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd.
`
`Pancanadian Resources
`
`Husky Oil Ltd.
`
`Fabio Diaz
`
`Colulmbus Resources
`
`Brian Feity
`
`Triumph Energy
`
`Norm Gruber
`
`Sch|umberger—GeoQuest
`
`Harry R. Hooi
`
`Numac Energy inc.
`
`Fion McCosh
`
`CenAlta Well Services inc.
`
`Michael Oianson
`
`Audryx Petroleum Ltd.
`
`Bianca Paicsanu
`
`Merit Energy Ltd.
`
`Wes Scott
`
`Petroleum Society of CIM
`
`Gurk Sarioglu
`
`Elena Tzanco
`
`Petro-Canada
`
`ET Consulting
`
`Teresa Utsunomiya
`
`Pancanadian Fiesources
`
`Chi-Tak Yee
`
`GravDrain Inc.
`
`Page 8 of 127
`Page 8 of 127
`
`

`
`r‘\
`‘ ‘ .
`
`S P E Cl M
`
`7th One Day Conference on HORIZONTAL WELL Technology
`November 3,1999 — Calgary, Alberta, Canada
`
`Presented by the Petroleum Society of ClM~Horizonta| Well Special Interest Group
`and the Canadian Section oi the Society of Pelroleurn Engineers
`
`Sponsoring Organizations
`
`Platinum
`
`AGAT Laboratories
`
`CiDRA Corporation
`
`lmpon Tool Corporation Ltd
`
`JTI (Joshi Technologies International Inc)
`Outtrim Szabo Associates Ltd
`
`Petroleum Recovery institute
`
`Phoenix Technology Services Ltd
`
`Ryan Energy Technologies Inc.
`
`Schlumberger
`
`United Geo Corn Drilling
`
`Gold
`
`Halliburton Energy Services
`
`Norwest Labs Energy Resource Group
`PanCanadian Limited
`
`Poco Petroleums Ltd
`
`Precision Drilling Limited Pannership
`
`Silver
`
`Baker Hughes Canada Company
`
`Northland Energy Corporation
`Petro-Canada
`
`Q'max Solutions inc
`
`Union Pacific Resources Inc
`
`Bronze
`
`Core Laboratories Canada Ltd
`
`Directional Plus
`
`Page 9 of 127
`Page 9 of 127
`
`

`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`Page 10 of 127
`
`

`
`
`
`,,.A,._..-_-.4-__..-..«_.....,...-..-_........__,.....\~).-._~.._.-._....
`
`
`
`
`
`for the WAG process is that wells produce substantially
`better after re-pressuring. The geometric arrangement of
`the study pattern was of four vertical wells at the corners
`of a square. The distance between vertical wells was 440
`m for historical reasons. For the WAG study of horizontal
`production wells, four vertical wells and a segment of
`horizontal well between them had been used. For
`
`comparison purposes a vertical infill well was also used
`in the center of
`the four original vertical wells. A
`comparison of the production from both horizontal and
`vertical wells, before and after re-pressuring by water
`injection, is shown in Figure 1. It may be observed that
`both the rates and amounts of production of either type of
`well were much improved. As was to be expected, the
`performance of the horizontal well was superior.
`
`The improvement in performance after re-pressuring
`can be shown to be primarily due to forcing gas back into
`solution in the oil rather than the increase in pressure, as
`such. One observation supporting this conclusion is, that
`re-pressuring with water beyond the pressure at which
`nearly all gas was forced into solution produced
`noticeably more water, but very little more oil. Re-
`pressuring to pressures much below the gas re-solution
`pressure markedly reduced oil production. The second
`observation was that
`if repeated re-pressurings and
`productions were done without the addition of gas,
`production declined fairly quickly with successive cycles.
`Addition of gas prior to the water re-pressuring resulted
`in a much slower decline in productivity.
`
`The conclusion drawn from the above observations
`
`is that the pressure cycling scheme works by largely
`restoring the solution gas drive mechanism of primary
`production. Primary production is a generally well
`understood process,for which information is necessarily
`available for any reservoir to which the pressure cycling
`process might be applied. The production aspect of the
`pressure cycling process should therefore be known
`about beforehand. What remains to be clarified is the
`
`details of pressuring up and the timing of phases of
`operations.
`
`Optimization of Injection Phases
`
`The optimization of gas injection amount depends
`upon what stopping criteria are used for the production
`phase of the cycles. At first sight it might be supposed
`that measures such as rate of production or watercut
`might be used. It turns out that there exists what might be
`termed a natural stopping signal for production. It was
`
`in a horizontal production well system, that if
`observed,
`production for a cycle was carried on for sufficiently long,
`four gas-oil
`ratio (GOR) peaks were observable in the
`production. An example of these GOR peaks to the top of
`the fourth peak is given in Figure 2. Examination of the
`system at the times of these peaks indicated the origins of
`the GOR peaks to be the following. The pressure exerted by
`the water during re-pressuring is not uniform over the entire
`pattern. As a consequence some gas is moved sideways,
`and ultimately two small pockets of gas are formed near the
`center part of the horizontal well, which would require quite
`high pressure to force into solution. It is counterproductive to
`do so. Not compressing this small amount of gas into
`solution does result in a brief GOR peak very early in the
`production phase. The second GOR peak occurs when the
`production well reaches minimum bottomhole pressure
`(maximum gradients). The third GOR peak is observed to be
`associated with free gas saturation occurring all the way to
`the edges of the production pattern (maximum area of
`production). The fourth GOR peak is associated with free
`gas saturation reaching the bottom of the outer part of the
`pattern (maximum volume of production).
`
`If the production phase of the cycles is terminated too
`early, oil is produced from only the central portion of the “
`pattern, and so areal conformance is diminished.
`If
`production is carried out too long, the lower regions of the
`pattern become excessively de-gassed. This condition is
`detrimental to production in any further cycles, as re-gassing
`the lower regions of the pattern seems to be quite difficult. A
`close to optimal termination criterion is to end the cycle at
`about the minimum between the third and fourth GOR
`
`peaks. This stopping condition has the advantage of being
`one that can be quite readily operationally observed.
`
`be
`can
`it
`stopping condition
`above
`the
`With
`demonstrated that there is an amount of injection gas that is
`optimal in several senses. The average rate of oil production
`showed a maximum, and the average watercut and amount
`of injected gas required to produce a unit of oil showed
`minima. These optima were fairly broad and all occurred at
`about the same amount of injected gas. The amount of gas
`required to achieve the optimal conditions was also that
`which resulted in the system being restored to about original
`reservoir pressure, when water injection had effectively
`pressured the gas into solution. With the gas being injected
`at a maximum pressure only slightly above original reservoir
`pressure, it was found that the same amount of gas was
`needed for several successive cycles.
`it is not presently
`known if re-pressuring to about original reservoir pressure is
`a very general optimization condition.
`
`Page 11 of 127
`Page 11 of 127
`
`
`

`
`Research on pressure cycling at the Saskatchewan
`Research Council is continuing. Studies ofthicker reservoirs,
`systems with bottomwater, and a range of viscosities all
`show positive findings. Work on how to fully optimize the
`pressure cycling process is also undenivay.
`
`Effect of infill options
`
`The pressure cycling study evolved from an infill
`horizontal production well. Drilling such wells represents
`a substantial capital
`investment and so the question
`naturally arose of whether
`infill wells were really
`necessary for the pressure cycling process. The cases of
`no infill well, a vertical
`infill production well, and a
`horizontal
`infill production well were compared. The
`amounts and rates of production for the three cases are
`given in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. The results are
`reported on a per pattern basis (same production area)
`for all cases. This means, of course, that the horizontal
`well results are for just a segment of horizontal well
`contained in the square pattern. In reality a horizontal well
`would have productive end zones and would possibly be
`somewhat longer. In the no infill case there is only one
`half a production well per pattern.
`
`It may be noted that not very much is gained by using
`a vertical infill well. It is also quite clear that the horizontal
`infill well case gives much higher rates of production and
`a somewhat higher ultimate recovery than do the vertical
`production well cases. It is almost certainly necessary to
`drill horizontal wells to obtain economically attractive
`rates of production. This assumes that the heavy oil
`reservoirs exhibit normal darcian flow. In cases where a
`
`larger percentage of oil has been recovered in vertical
`well primary production, possibly due to wormholes, or in
`reservoirs with medium oil, vertical producers might
`provide acceptable rates.
`
`Comments and conclusions
`
`The research discussed above provides good reasons for
`believing the pressure cycling technique to have good
`potential as a EOR scheme in the difficult application of
`thin heavy oil reservoirs. It is, naturally, quite probable
`that application to less difficult situations would be more
`profitable. The pressure cycling scheme has the merit of
`simplicity, both in terms of what inputs are needed, and
`in terms of the process to be carried out. The inputs are
`water and produced gaswhich are reasonably available,
`require no special safety precautions, and are reasonably
`inexpensive.
`it
`is to be noted that
`the gas is not
`consumed.
`It
`is returned as the oil
`is produced. The
`production side of the process, being primary production,
`is readily understood, and the production limitations of
`needing to produce to the edge of the pattern but without
`de-gassing the oil are easily grasped.
`
`Page 12 of 127
`Page 12 of 127
`
`

`
`20000
`
`16000
`
`12000
`
`8000
`
`4000
`
`CUMULATIVEOILPRODUCTION,m3
`
`Horizontal lnfili after Waterflood
`
` Horizontal Infill after Primary
`
`
`
`Pnmary
`
`10
`
`°/oIOIP
`
`10
`
`TIME, Years
`
`14
`
`16
`
`18
`
`Figure 1. The Effect of Restoring Solution Gas Drive
`
`
`
`500
`
`400
`
`300
`
`200
`
`100
`
`GOR
`
`50
`
`40
`
`Eg
`
`E u
`
`a“
`‘E 30
`n:
`C
`.2
`‘5 20
`
`31
`
`:oL
`
`.
`n.
`= 10
`O
`
`0
`5200
`
`4
`5300
`
`5400
`
`J
`5500
`
`5600
`
`5700
`
`O
`5800
`
`Figure 2. The Characteristic GOR Peaks
`
`Time, days
`
`4
`
`Page 13 of 127
`Page 13 of 127
`
`

`
`n 24000
`
`28000
`
`[OOOOO
`
`16000
`
`8000
`
`4000
`
`
`
`CumulativeOilProductionm3
`
`12000
`
`%IOIP
`
`Vertical Infill Well
` jay:
`Horizontal Infill Well
`
`
`
`
`
`o
`
`4ooo
`
`sooo
`
`Time, days
`
`Figure 3. Comparison of Infill Option Productions
`
`5
`
`-3-‘-
`
`
`
`ProductionRate,m3lday
`
`0
`
`0
`
`1
`
`No lnlill Well
`
`Zg:
`Vertical lnlill Well
`
`,.
`Horizontal Infill Well
`
`\\
`
`x
`
`7
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Cycle Number
`
`Figure 4. Comparison of Infill Option Production Rates
`
`5
`
`Page 14 of 127
`Page 14 of 127
`
`

`
`Numerical Simulation of an Innovative
`
`Recovery Process
`
`(VAPEX)
`
`R. Engelman — GeoOuest Reservoir Technologies
`
`UNAVAILABLE AT TIME OF PRINTING
`
`Page 15 of 127
`Page 15 of 127
`
`

`
`Drilling Engineering Challenges
`in Commercial SAGD Well Design in Alberta
`
`R. Knoll — H-Tech Petroleum Consulting Inc.
`K.C.Yeung — Suncor Energy Inc.
`
`THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE SEVENTH ONE DAY CONFERENCE ON HORIZONTAL WELL
`TECHNOLOGY, CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA, NOVEMBER 3, 1999.
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`Recently, the field pilots in Canada using SAGD (Steam
`Assisted Gravity Drainage) technology have generated
`sufficient positive response to encourage commercial
`scale development in the Alberta Oil Sands Deposits.
`This will be a very interesting time for drilling engineers,
`since SAGD well pairs present some unique design and
`operational challenges.
`
`This paper will attempt to review some of the drilling
`engineering challenges of generic SAGD well design in
`the Alberta setting, specifically, the need to cool the
`drilling mud to maintain hole stability, and the selection of
`slant or vertical intermediate hole section geometry.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Alberta Oil Sands deposits, located in the areas of
`Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River, are widely
`recognized for their tremendous resources (Figure 1).
`The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) has
`estimated that the potential ultimate volume of crude
`bitumen in place in Alberta to be some 400 billion cubic
`metres (2.5 trillion barrels).
`Of
`these,
`the ultimate
`potential amount of crude bitumen recoverable from '
`Cretaceous sediments by in situ recovery methods is
`estimated to be 33 billion cubic metres (200 billion
`barrels).
`
`About 80% of the bitumen in Alberta are contained in the
`Athabasca Oil Sands Deposits, where the in situ viscosity
`
`is over 1 million centipoise. The oil industry and Alberta
`government have been searching for in situ techniques to
`recover the bitumen economically. Significant amount of
`research and development and piloting effort have been
`spent on in-situ combustion, cyclic steam stimulation and
`steamflooding with limited success.
`Finally, with the
`advance in horizontal well technology, the Steam Assisted
`Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process was pioneered at the
`Underground Test Facilities (UTF) near Fort McMurray
`and has become the technology of choice for many new
`in-situ projects in Alberta. Some 39 SAGD well pairs have
`been drilled in Alberta to date.
`In the last two years, there
`are four announced new commercial in-situ development
`in the Athabasca Oil Sands, whereby SAGD is
`the
`selected recovery process. These projects are AEC
`Foster Creek,
`JACOS Hangingstone, Pan Canadian
`Christina Lake and Petro Canada Mackay River.
`
`These commercial scale projects will utilize parallel pairs
`of horizontal wells which are key to the SAGD process.
`The lower horizontal well
`is the producer and the upper
`horizontal well, which is placed several metres directly
`above the producer, is the steam injector
`(Figure 2). As
`steam is
`injected into the reservoir along the upper
`horizontal well, the steam rises in the reservoir and heats
`the bitumen. As the steam cools,
`the force of gravity
`enables the heated bitumen and condensate (water) to
`flow to the lower production well.
`
`The amount of steam injected and fluid produced depend
`on reservoir qualities such as permeability, porosity, water
`saturation; on operating constraints such as operating
`pressure and steam trap control temperature; and on the
`
`Page 16 of 127
`Page 16 of 127
`
`

`
`SAGD reservoir is low. The “Cold Lake” type d%posits will
`have reservoir
`temperature around 12-16 C.
`The
`deposits of
`the more tar-like bitumen in
`the Fort
`McMurray region to the north tend to occur at a shallower
`depth and will have in-situ temperatures in the 7-10 °C
`range. While drilling, the fluid gains temperature due to
`the pumping action. The relatively hot drilling fluid will
`warm the near wellbore radius.
`The bitumen being
`heated along the well will thin, and this would lead to a
`reduction in the cohesive nature of the tar sand material.
`
`This may lead to a higher risk of hole instability, wellbore
`collapse and a host of other potential aggravations to the
`drilling operations. One can argue that mud chilling is an
`appropriate preventative maintenance step to reduce
`these hole trouble risks.
`
`However, a few experienced SAGD pilot operators claim
`mud cooling is expensive and inefficient, and question the
`“value added” of this undertaking. In the publicly available
`documentation of SAGD field pilot operations there exist
`very little detailed data on either the effectiveness of mud
`cooling, or any definitive field observations of improved
`hole conditions being the direct result of mud chilling.
`During extensive interviews with SAGD pilot operators, it
`became clear that the issue is driven by personal opinion
`and common sense, as opposed to any detailed field
`data, which either strongly supports or challenges the
`benefit argument.
`
`The authors conducted a review of the field data available
`
`from a pilot drilled in the Cold Lake area in the winter
`season.
`During extended bitumen drilling intervals
`(horizontal hole exposure time averaged 7.3 days per
`well),
`the drilling fluid temperature increased to a
`maximum of approximately 35 °C. Mud chilling was
`attempted by adding dry ice to the mud tanks. The field
`data was too sparse to define the chilling efficiency of this
`method, although it was expensive. The limited hole
`condition monitoring of torque and drag values (T&D)
`conducted on these wells precluded any ability to validate
`a value added, or risk avoided by mud chilling. The fact
`that all well pairs (for the most part) were successfully
`completed is not definitive proof of a mud chilling benefit.
`This “rather indefinite” scenario is common.
`
`Heat Generation and Dissemination
`
`is
`There are unknowns in regard to how much heat
`gained by t