ERCB's draft proposal for SAGD likely the AER's new bulletin!
was seeking an understanding of the SAGD pressure requirements, and I found a bulletin that deals with this in draft form, and I think it is what IVAN is facing. It appears the question of pressure is not so important as the caprock integrity, and this is really based on fault lines--I can't guess, but it would seem to be easier to do this by 2D sesmic, why would a 3D offer more clarity? isn't the whole of the area one continuous sea bed? Isn't the whole McMurray region essentially without fault lines? The caprock is salt I believe, and faults do occur in salt ie Middle East, so I guess it is a matter of showing leakage won't effect the river nearby. While the Athabasca mine is using upto 1.8 % of the Athabasca river, we recycle our water! Environmental considerations should look at the plusses and not just the minuses--regulatory bodies tend to focus on the negatives, lets hope the AER is more business oriented:
The ERCB’s ongoing reservoir containment project is intended to provide appropriate
caprock integrity and maximum operating pressure (MOP) requirements for in situ schemes.
1) Identify the caprock of the target reservoir in the project area and provide the basis for
2) Provide the geological interpretation of the caprock, including
a) the lithology and mineralogy of the caprock supported with available particle size
and mineralogical analysis;
b) structure maps of the top and base of the caprock in the project area that incorporate
data from logs, core, and any seismic programs run;
c) a map showing the depth of the base of the caprock in true vertical depth for the
project area; and
d) an isopach map of the caprock in the project area.
3) Discuss the presence of water and gas bearing intervals between the caprock and the
bitumen pay zone within the target reservoir. Include an isopach map of these intervals.
4) Discuss any fractures, faults, karsts, incising channels, and structural collapse in the
caprock or target reservoir in the area used to assess the regional geology (see Section
7.1) and how these features may affect reservoir containment. Provide the following
items in support of the discussion:
a) core photos and results from any wellbore image logs run, and
b) a map illustrating where these features are located.
5) Provide a summary of results from all mini-frac tests conducted in the project area. The
testing summary must include
a) the criteria used to determine the location of mini-frac test(s),
b) the intervals and zones tested,
c) a discussion of any geological features that could impact the test results,
d) the estimated fracture pressures of the reservoir and caprock determined by each test
e) justification for excluding any test results
Got to hand it to you, great find.
This is more info than anyone could ever expect to get out of Hillary.
Question is, has anyone read IVAN's original environmental application and the supplements to see how much of this work has been done (i.e. geologic surveys and min0frac testing)?
Hours of reading fun, yours truly did read the third round, and it talks about fish in a estuary, and if they are being looked after, I kid you not. Also the stuff above is the main topic, ie containment by the salt layer, pressure levels, source of water (which oddly IVAN left out), etc. It can be tackled imho--If I were Carbera, I would outlay $100K to a consultancy--don't do it inhouse! Get another view going in the mix, that will dilute the tete de tete. Shoot the damn 3D, show some balls Carbera, this is the time, let the public know WHO YOU ARE and how you intend to FIGHT, straight-up, They also badly need PR help, this company should be far more prominent, I taught a group of senior execs in oil and gas (Kid you not) from China, quite surprisingly not one had heard of IVAN, but when I told them about it, they were abuzz with excitement, Heavy oil, they know this is the next gold.