Irp3 Final 2005

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations
Industry Recommended
Practice (IRP)
Volume 3 - 2002
Sanctioned
2002 - 01
This document as well as future revisions and additions are available from:
Enform
1538 25 Avenue NE
Calgary, Alberta
T2E 8Y3
Phone: (403) 250-9606
Fax: (403) 291-9408
Website: www.enform.ca
Table of Contents
Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations ...................................................... 1

3.0
3.1
Acknowledgement And Scope.................................................................. 1

3.0.1 Acknowledgement And Disclaimer .......................................... 1
3.0.2 Forward ......................................................................................... 4
3.0.3 Scope ............................................................................................ 7
3.0.4 Introduction................................................................................... 9
3.0.5 Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Criteria And Definitions................ 10
3.0.6 References ................................................................................. 17
Drilling ..................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1 Scope .......................................................................................... 18
3.1.2 Well Control Systems For Low Risk Heavy Oil / Oil Sands
Wells ...................................................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Well Control Systems For Moderate To High Risk Heavy Oil
Wells ...................................................................................................... 30
3.1.4 Ghost Hole And Sidetrack Wells ......................................... 47
3.1.5 Cementing Of Casing ............................................................... 50
3.1.6 Thermal Casing And Casing Connections ............................ 58
3.1.7 Horizontal Well Guidelines....................................................... 74
3.1.8 Environment And Drilling Waste Management .................... 82
3.1.9 References ................................................................................. 92
Appendix A Blow-Out Preventer Diagrams.................................. 96
Appendix B Line System Pressure Loss Diagrams .................. 103
Appendix C Diagrams of Typical Bop System Pressure Loss Vs.
Minimum Surface Casing Or Conductor Pipe Depth Requirements..
.................................................................................................... 110
Appendix D- Example Wash-over Remedial Cement Program . 122
Appendix E Thermal / Mechanical Relationship Diagrams for
Common Grades of Oilfield Casing................................................... 124
Appendix F Environmental Cracking Mechanisms ................... 139
Appendix G Horizontal Well Stick Diagram ............................. 141
Table of Contents i
3.2
3.3
3.4
Well Servicing........................................................................................ 142

3.2.1 Scope........................................................................................ 142
3.2.2 Definitions ................................................................................. 142
3.2.3 Service Rigs ............................................................................. 144
3.2.4 Continuous Rod Rigs.............................................................. 160
3.2.5 Snubbing Units ........................................................................ 162
3.2.6 Pressure Trucks ...................................................................... 164
3.2.7 Flush-By Units.......................................................................... 165
3.2.8 Environment, Health, And Safety ......................................... 171
Appendix 1 Servicing Blowout Prevention Systems-Class 2A... 176
Appendix 2 Primary Recovery Well H2S Release Rate
Determination........................................................................................ 177
Appendix 3 Alberta Department of Environment.......................... 178
Production Equipment And Procedures............................................. 181
3.3.1 Scope ........................................................................................ 181
3.3.2 Definitions ................................................................................. 182
3.3.3 Surface Equipment (Single Well Battery) ............................ 184
3.3.4 Lease Dikes.............................................................................. 187
3.3.5 Lease Size And Equipment Spacing.................................... 188
3.3.6 Gathering And Treating Equipment...................................... 189
3.3.7 Sour Criteria And Requirements ........................................... 192
3.3.8 Fired Equipment ...................................................................... 193
3.3.9 Wellhead Design ..................................................................... 196
Measurement And Accounting ............................................................ 205
3.4.1 Scope ........................................................................................ 205
3.4.2 Measurements Needs ............................................................ 206
3.4.3 Production Reporting .............................................................. 209
3.4.4 Well Testing.............................................................................. 220
3.4.5 Sampling ................................................................................... 235
3.4.6 Pro-Ration Factors .................................................................. 238
Appendix 1 Suggested Method of Test Duration Determination . 240
Table of Contents ii
Recommended By
Associations
Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Petroleum Services Association of Canada
Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada
3.0
Acknowledgement And Scope
This Industry Recommended Practice (IRP) is a set of best

3.0.1
Acknowledgement practices and guidelines, compiled by knowledgeable and
experienced industry and government personnel and is intended
And Disclaimer
to provide the operator with advice regarding HEAVY OIL AND
OIL SANDS OPERATIONS.
DACC
The IRP was developed under the auspices of the Drilling and
Completions Committee (DACC).
DACC is a joint industry/government committee established to
develop safe, efficient and environmentally suitable operating
practices for the Canadian oil and gas industry in the areas of
drilling, completions and servicing of wells. The primary effort
is the development of IRP's with priority given to:
development of new IRPs where non-existent procedures

result in issues because of inconsistent operating practices;
review and revision of outdated IRPs particularly where new

technology requires new operating procedures; and
provide general support to foster development of non-IRP

industry operating practices that have current application to a
limited number of stakeholders.
IRP Flexibility
The recommendations set out in this IRP are meant to allow

flexibility and must be used in conjunction with competent
technical judgment. It remains the responsibility of the user of
the IRP to judge its suitability for a particular application.
Legislation
If there is any inconsistency or conflict between any of the

recommended practices contained in the IRP and the applicable
legislative requirement, the legislative requirement shall prevail.
If there is any inconsistency or conflict between any of the
recommended practices contained in the IRP and the applicable
legislative requirement, the legislative requirement shall prevail.
Accuracy &
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability
of the data and recommendations contained in the IRP.
However DACC, its subcommittees, and individual contributors
make no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection
with the publication or the contents of any IRP recommendation
and hereby disclaim liability of responsibility for loss or damage
resulting from the use of this IRP, or for any violation of any
legislative requirements.
Sanctioning
Organizations
This IRP has been sanctioned (sanction = review and support of

the IRP as a compilation of best practices) by the following
organizations:
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
Alberta Human Resources and Employment
British Columbia Workers Compensation Board
Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
International Coil Tubing Association
Manitoba Industry, Trade and Mines
National Energy Board
Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers Compensation

Board
Petroleum Services Association of Canada
Saskatchewan Industry & Resources
Saskatchewan Labour
Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada
3.0.2 Forward
This document is a revision of Alberta Recommended Practice

(ARP) Volume 3 Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Operations (1)
published in 1991. The work is a result of a joint industry and
regulatory body sub-committee of the Drilling and Completions
Committee (DACC). The sub-committee included
representation from Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers (CAPP), Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling
Contractors (CAODC), Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
(AEUB, EUB), Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S),
Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC) and Small
Explorers & Producers Association of Canada (SEPAC).
This revision is necessary to:
update ARP Volume 3 to reflect current practices,

procedures, and equipment used in developing and
producing Heavy Oil/Oil Sands reserves,
(1)
Definitions of terms specific to this document may be found

in Section 3.0.4.
streamline regulatory/industry procedures and application

processing, and
convert ARP Volume 3 to an Industry Recommended

Practice (IRP) Volume 3 that recognizes a Canadian
composite of minimum standards for exploration,
development and production of Heavy Oil/ Oil Sands
reserves1,.
The purpose of this document is to recommend specific

standards and operating procedures that should be considered
the minimum acceptable for a given application.
This document addresses issues specific to the exploration,
development, and production of Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
reserves by primary, secondary, and tertiary - Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) methods. This IRP is not intended to apply to
conventional production or critical sour wells.
The IRPs for Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Operations stress the
importance of standards and safe operating procedures to protect
workers and the public and to minimize environmental risk
during the entire life of the producing asset. They are intended
to complement existing documentation and regulation.
The practices recommended are based on engineering judgment,
accepted good practices, and experience. The establishment of
these minimum standards does not preclude the need for
industry to exercise sound technical judgment in the application
of these practices.
The subcommittee does not endorse the use of any particular
manufacturers product. Any descriptions of product types or
any schematics of components, which bear resemblance to a
specific manufacturers product, are provided strictly in the
generic sense.
Within IRP Volume 3, additional sources of information and a

bibliography of references are found at the end of each section.
The current editions of reference specifications, standards, and
recommended practices were used when this 1999 revision was
undertaken. As these documents are updated and revised, the
sections of the IRPs referencing them may require revisions. In
addition, as new knowledge, equipment, and procedures are
developed this document will require updating.
Suggestions for revisions to this document should be forwarded
to the Drilling and Completions Committee (DACC). This joint
industry/regulatory committee is responsible for the periodic
updating of this and other IRPs.
3.0.3 Scope
The purpose of this IRP Volume 3 - Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
Operations is to provide guidance in the development and
production of Heavy Oil and Oil Sands reserves within Canada.
This is accomplished by outlining current practices and setting
minimum standards that encourage operating in a safe and
environmentally sound manner. The focus is on practices,
equipment, and procedures that are unique to Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands operations. Although they are not a primary focus, the
issues of hydrocarbon conservation, equity, and environment are
mentioned in the Measurement Section IRPs as they provide
necessary understanding of measurement needs.
Drilling recommendations are made with regard to:
blowout prevention (BOP) systems
ghost-holes and side-tracks
cement design and operations
casing string design
horizontal well guidelines, and
drilling waste management.
Servicing recommendations are made with regard to:
blowout prevention systems
servicing equipment including coiled tubing rigs, snubbing

rigs, flush-by units, pressure trucks, and tanks
health, safety, and environment, and
well abandonment.
Producing recommendations are made with regard to:
wellhead design
oil and gas gathering and treating
production equipment including fired vessels, and
environmental protection.
Measuring and accounting recommendations are made with

regard to:
purpose and need for measurement
well test design and equipment
sampling requirements, and
reporting requirements.
3.0.4 Introduction
Heavy oil production occurs along the Alberta and

Saskatchewan border near Lloydminster and in many other areas
of both provinces. For the purpose of this IRP, Heavy Oil is
defined as oil or bitumen having a density of 920 kg/m3 or
greater or as designated by the governing body (i.e. as per
Spacing Area E in Saskatchewan).
The intent of the Industry Recommended Practices for Heavy
Oil and Oil Sands Operations is to enhance operating
consistency within industry through the establishment of
minimum standards and procedures. The IRPs outlined clarify
and document good practices and procedures employed by
various Operators and Service Companies within Heavy Oil and
Oil Sands areas. Many of these practices and standards are the
result of numerous refinements over the years. It is hoped they
will reduce the variety of exemptions and differences in
equipment and procedures used by the Operators.
These IRPs have been thoroughly reviewed and endorsed by
industry. Since IRPs are meant to allow flexibility, competent
technical judgment is still necessary when establishing
appropriate equipment and procedures for Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands Operations. One must always consider the nature of the
product to be produced and the need for environmental
protection and safety. While strict legal enforcement of the IRPs
is not desired, the subcommittee believes that these practices
place considerable onus on the legally responsible party to
comply or otherwise provide a technically equivalent or better
method.
3.0.5 Heavy Oil

And Oil Sands
Criteria And
Definitions
In developing the Industry Recommended Practices for Heavy

Oil and Oil Sands Operations, the DACC Subcommittee
provides the following list of definitions deemed necessary for
clarification of the discussion of Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
development and production.
3.0.5.1 Crude
Bitumen
Crude bitumen is a naturally occurring, viscous, hydrocarbon

mixture consisting mainly of compounds heavier than pentane.
It may also contain sulfur compounds and in its naturally
occurring state will not flow into a wellbore. For the purposes of
this IRP, Crude Bitumen includes hydrocarbons within declared
Oil Sands Areas.
3.0.5.2 Buffer Well
A buffer well is a well with a bottom-hole location in proximity

to an active secondary recovery or tertiary (EOR) project and is
located between the proposed well(s) to be drilled and the
project area. In proximity is defined as 1.0 kilometer in Alberta
and 1.6 kilometers in Saskatchewan. A greater distance may be
required based upon performance history or other factors.
Note
The term buffer well is used in the drilling and servicing IRPs
where Operators should account for potential pressure and
temperature effects of secondary or EOR projects from adjacent
areas in their drilling or servicing operations. Other factors to
consider are outlined in definitions 3.0.4.7 through 3.0.4.11.
10
3.0.5.3 Heavy Oil
Heavy Oil is defined as a crude oil product that has a density

greater than 920 kg/m3 at 15C or as designated by the
governing body (i.e. as per Spacing Area E in Saskatchewan).
Note
The density of 920 kg/m3 was selected as an appropriate cut-off

for operating practices appropriate for Heavy Oil wells. Oil of
this density or greater tends to be more viscous due to smaller
percentages of volatile hydrocarbons and higher percentages of
asphaltenes. Industry has used this density in defining the
equipment and operating requirements for the majority of Heavy
Oil and Oil Sands wells in Canada.
3.0.5.4 In-Situ
Operation
In-situ operation means:

A scheme or operation ordinarily involving the use of well
production operations for the recovery of crude bitumen from
oil sands, or
A scheme or operation designated by a regulatory body as an insitu operation, but does not include a mining operation.
3.0.5.5 Oil Sands
Oil Sands are defined as:
sands and other rock materials containing crude bitumen
the crude bitumen contained in these rock materials, and
any other material substances, other than natural gas, in

association with that crude bitumen or those sands and other
rock materials referred to in subclauses (i) and (ii)3.
11
3.0.5.6 Oil Sands

Area
In Alberta, an area defined by an EUB order declaring it an Oil

Sands area.
Note
The EUB Informational Letter IL 84-74 and Amendment IL 8935 designate the following three Oil Sands Areas (OSA):
Order No. OSA 1 and 1A - Athabasca
Order No. OSA 2 - Peace River
Order No. OSA 3 - Cold Lake
ERCB ST 38 - Atlas of Albertas Crude Bitumen Reserves

1990 Edition.
3.0.5.7 Oil Shale

Area
In Saskatchewan, an area where oil shale or tar sand exists

from which oil shale products may be produced or any such
other substance that the minister may define as oil shale.
3.0.5.8 Heavy Oil

Area
In Alberta, an area defined by an EUB order declaring it a

Heavy Oil area.
In Saskatchewan, an area defined by SEM that is geologic
horizon and area specific.
12
3.0.5.9 Primary
Recovery Well
Note
A primary recovery Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well is defined as a

well that:
operates at a reservoir pressure and temperature equal to or

less than the original reservoir pressure and temperature at
pool discovery, and
does not operate within a secondary recovery scheme

(3.0.4.9), enhanced oil recovery scheme (3.0.4.10), or
within a production- affected area (3.0.4.11).
This definition varies from that found in AEUB ID 91-36

dealing with Heavy Oil / Oil Sands operations. The current ID
91-3 will need to be revised.
In Alberta, Informational Letter IL 85-127 regulates well
spacing in primary recovery schemes.
3.0.5.10
Secondary
Recovery Well
Note
A secondary recovery Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well is defined as

a well that:
operates under an artificial pressure maintenance scheme

with injection temperatures less than 100oC, and
does not operate within an enhanced oil recovery scheme

(3.0.4.10).
This definition varies from that found in AEUB ID 91-36

dealing with Heavy Oil/Oil Sands operations. The current ID
13
3.0.5.11
Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR)
or Tertiary Well
Note
An enhanced oil recovery or tertiary Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well

is defined as a well operating within a scheme that:
enhances oil recovery by the injection of fluids other than

water or water at temperatures greater than 100oC, and
that alters the viscosity of the oil or increases the formation

pressure as a result of fluid injection.
Currently, this definition is not found in AEUB ID 91-36

dealing with Heavy Oil / Oil Sands operations. The current ID
In Alberta, Informational Letter IL 86-098 regulates steam
stimulation procedures for single wells.
14
3.0.5.12
Production
Affected Area
A production-affected area is defined as the area around a well

where it is proven or reasonable to assume that formation
pressure, temperature, or rock properties have been sufficiently
affected as to cause abnormal pressure, temperature, or flow
conditions.
Note
Operators are responsible for establishing the anticipated size,

shape, and orientation of the production-affected area in the
vicinity of a new project and use this in well planning. Some
factors that influence the size of the production-affected area
are:
volume of fluid production
volume of sand production
volume of fluid injection
injection pressure
local reservoir geology, and
zone(s) of enhanced permeability
Each of the above factors can be quantified except zone(s) of

enhanced permeability. The key to addressing this factor is to
understand that enhanced permeability within a formation
can occur as a result of:
natural or artificial fractures
zones of greater fluid mobility such as gas or water legs
sand production, and
inter-well communication such as injector to producer.
15
Where possible, an excellent measure can be achieved by

evaluating existing (offset) wells between the expected
production-affected area and the well to be drilled or serviced.
Pressure and temperature surveys of offset wells can be used to
determine the effectiveness of efforts to restore formation
conditions to normal or to establish the perimeter of the
production-affected area. It is prudent to remain cautious, as
the absence of abnormal conditions at offset wells only infers
normal conditions surrounding them.
In Saskatchewan, SEM typically uses a minimum distance of
1.6 kilometers as a starting point for evaluating existing
(offset) wells between the expected production-affected area
and the well to be drilled or serviced.
3.0.5.13
Development
Type Setting
In Alberta, a development-type setting is one that has a

minimum of three offset wells each in a different direction
from the proposed location and within 1.5 km. of each
other. The offset wells must be drilled to the same target
depth, or deeper, than the proposed well.
In Saskatchewan, SEM requires an oil well to be within 0.8

kilometers of a producing or producible well in order to
receive a development classification.
16
3.0.6 References
AEUB Oil Sands Conservation Act, Chapter O-5.5 of the

Statutes of Alberta, 1985
2
Saskatchewan Energy and Mines guidelines, policies and

regulations are derived from the following:
SEM Mineral Resources Act, 1985
SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Act
SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, 1985
3
Alberta Recommended Practices Volume 3: Heavy Oil and

Oil Sands Operations - 1991
4
AEUB Informational Letter IL 84-7: Declaration of Oil Sands

Areas to Facilitate Orderly Leasing and Stable Regulation
July 1984
5
AEUB Informational Letter IL 89-3: Amendment of the

Athabasca Oil Sands Areas April 1989
6
AEUB Interim Directive ID 91-3: Heavy Oil/Oil Sands

Operations March 1991
7
AEUB Informational Letter IL 85-12: Oil Sand Primary

Production: Well Spacing Primary Recovery Scheme
Approvals July 1985
8
AEUB Informational Letter IL 86-9: Approval Procedures for

Single Well Steam Stimulation Tests in Oil Sands Areas
September 1986
17
3.1
3.1.1 Scope
Drilling
The scope of the Drilling Section considers:
site selection, preparation, and reclamation
drilling, casing, and cementing of the well
safety and environment management, and
horizontal wells.
The issue of well control is addressed extensively within this

section due to the varied drilling conditions found within Heavy
Oil and Oil Sands Areas.
Section 3.1.2 addresses Low Risk Wells where waivers

from governing regulations may be appropriate. ALow
Risk well is briefly defined as a well with low gas flow
potential being drilled in an area with minimal drilling
problems.
Section 3.1.3 addresses Moderate to High Risk Wells

where unaltered governing regulations are deemed more
appropriate. A Moderate to High Risk Well is briefly
defined as a well with potential for a high gas flow rate,
significant drilling problems, and/or thermal operations
nearby.
18
3.1.2 Well
Control Systems
For Low Risk
Heavy Oil / Oil
Sands Wells
This subsection addresses the requirements for surface casing

or conductor pipe 1, appropriate blowout preventer, flare line,
and flare tank or pit for Low Risk Heavy Oil / Oil Sands
drilling.
3.1.2.1 Surface
Casing or
Conductor Pipe
Design Low
Risk Well
In Alberta, AEUB Guide 8: Surface Casing Depth Minimum

Requirements 1 sets out guidelines for determining if a reduced
depth of surface casing is appropriate for Oil Sands core holes
and Oil Sands evaluation wells. Further, Interim Directive 91-3:
Heavy Oil / Oil Sands Operations 2 address surface casing
waivers for Heavy Oil areas. The requirements of both
regulations are consolidated into these IRPs with the desire to
reduce the number of surface casing waiver applications provided
the following general criteria are satisfied:
The proposed well terminates at less than 950 meters true

vertical depth, less than 15 meters below the base of the
Lower Cretaceous formation, and is within a designated
Heavy Oil/Oil Sands area.
The proposed well is located in or adjacent to a developmenttype setting 2.
The maximum absolute open flow (AOF) gas rate from offset
wells does not exceed 113 103 m3/day.
There is an absence of problems such as over-pressured

formations (i.e. >10.2 kPa/m gradient), severe lost
circulation, kicks, blows or blowouts, or artesian water
flows within three (3) kilometers of the proposed well.
19
In Saskatchewan, the bulk of Heavy Oil production occurs from

the Mannville Group in what is defined as Spacing Area E. A
schedule of area specific conditions is part of the Ministers order
governing each designated spacing area. These conditions allow
(within reason) the department to approve certain operations to
be conducted in a specific area that may not be allowed in
another spacing area. For the Heavy Oil Area, Schedule 4 of
Spacing Area E reads as follows:
Unless otherwise ordered by the Minister, the use of surface

casing and blowout prevention equipment shall be at the
discretion of the Operator, with respect to all wells drilled to
or serviced in the Mannville Group, and located north of
Township 43 and south of Township 55.
SEM highly recommends surface casing or conductor pipe

equipped with proper blowout prevention equipment be utilized
while drilling or servicing all wells located within the portion
of Spacing Area E as defined above. However, an Operator
may chose not to do so provided the following conditions are
met:
The surface elevation of the proposed wellbore is greater

than 579 meters.
The proposed wellbore is outside the area that has been
defined as the Tangleflags Hazard Area.
The proposed wellbore is a minimum of 1.6 kilometers from
any enhanced recovery scheme.
The proposed wellbore is not being drilled for gas
production.
With the exception of that portion of Spacing Area E

designated the Tangleflags Hazard Area (i.e. Townships 50,
51, 52 Ranges 22,23,24,25,26W2M), standard provincial
surface casing regulations are applicable for all wells having a
surface elevation less than 579 meters.
20
Within the Tangleflags Hazard Area all wells must have a

minimum of 107 meters of surface casing and unless otherwise
approved (for geologic reasons), those wells having a surface
elevation less than 564 meters require a minimum of 137
meters of surface casing.
1
Surface casing lengths of 20 30m are commonly referred to

as Conductor Pipe.
2
See definition in section 3.0.4.13.
3.1.2.2 Surface
Casing Or
Conductor Pipe
Requirement
Low Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.2.2.1
To determine if surface casing may be replaced by 20 m

TVD of conductor pipe, the following data must be
gathered, evaluated for potential risk by a technically
competent person, and recorded for confirmation.
Geology
All zones from surface to total depth indicating

porous or permeable zone(s).
Record of gas potential in the hydrocarbon-bearing

zone(s). If no gas potential exists, an isopach map
showing the expected extent of any adjacent
productive zone(s) should be available upon request.
If gas potential exists, evidence of whether the
maximum AOF gas rate from the offset wells
exceeds 113 103 m3/day should be available upon
request.
21
Thermal Schemes
Method of hydrocarbon recovery.
Perimeter of any enhanced oil recovery scheme or

production-affected area (see definitions 3.0.4.11 and
3.0.4.12 respectively) within three (3) kilometers of
the proposed well.
Temperatures and pressures from offset wells.
Bottom-hole distances to active steaming or

production-affected areas.
Volume of steam injected to date.
Frequency and duration of cyclic operations.
Time required for a steamed area to cool once it has

been produced.
Temperature and pressure in the production cycle at

which it is safe to drill.
22
Operations
Record of drilling operations from surface to total

depth for a representative sample of offset wells
within a three (3) kilometer radius.
Types of hole problems by well location and geologic

zone (i.e. depth) that includes:
severe lost circulation
artesian water flows
hole sloughing
kicks
blows and blowouts
abnormal pressures (>10.2 kPa/m)
low cement tops
Intermediate casing setting depth above or into the

production zone if a horizontal well.
Record from offset wells that the conductor casing

will be set into a competent formation.
Cementing method to be used when setting

conductor casing.
Map of the area showing:
surface and bottom hole locations of the

proposed well(s) and the offset wells in the
researched area
production-affected areas
surface water bodies
surface developments
23
IRP 3.1.2.2.2
Note
Once a diligent technical risk analysis has been completed

as per IRP 3.1.2.2.1, the replacement of surface casing by a
20 m TVD depth of conductor pipe may be suitable if:
All regulatory criteria (see IRP 3.1.2.2.1) are met and

appropriate regulatory body approval is obtained (i.e.
Surface Casing Waiver).
The proposed well is greater than one (1) kilometer

from an enhanced oil recovery scheme. A lesser distance
may be acceptable with appropriate technical
justification.
Drilling is within a LOW RISK production-affected

area (see definition 3.0.4.11).
The conductor casing is set in a competent, non-porous

formation.
Generally, Surface Casing Waivers are granted in developmenttype settings and also in certain production-affected areas.
The appropriate depth of conductor pipe is the depth required to
contain the pressure at the casing shoe that results from the
flow of 113 103 m3/day of gas through the conductor casing,
BOP stack, and flare line. A maximum formation leak-off
pressure gradient of 5 kPa/m was used to calculate the
conductor casing shoe depth. The 20 m depth is adequate for
all surface-casing sizes greater than or equal to 219 mm
provided the flare line diameter is 152 mm (see IRP 3.1.2.4.1).
24
Avoid setting the conductor in sand or gravel that may result in

washouts or failures at the conductor shoe. Offset data should
indicate the conductor casing is set in a formation that is
capable of supporting a full column of water (i.e. 9.8 kPa/m
gradient). If drilling fluid is lost upon drilling out the
conductor, then surface casing must be set.
The design criteria used to determine the conductor casing
setting depth may lead to a serious well control situation if
proper well control procedures are not followed. The flow must
be opened fully to the flare line without restriction. Normal
well killing procedures utilizing the application of backpressure
while circulating out the kick may result in a failure at the
conductor casing shoe. Prior to drilling, clear communication of
the potential hazards and action plan is required for all drilling
personnel to supplement general well control training.
IRP 3.1.2.2.3
When planning a group or pad of wells, if the offset

information within the researched area is limited or of poor
quality, then the first well should be drilled applying
conventional surface casing requirements. The information
gained from drilling this well, may then be used to
determine the surface casing or conductor pipe
requirements for subsequent wells.
Note
All available evidence, such as drill cuttings, drilling

conditions, and electric logs, should be considered when
determining the risk of setting a shallow conductor casing seat.
25
3.1.2.3 Blowout
Preventer
Requirement
Low Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.2.3.1
If surface casing is replaced by a 20 mTVD depth of

conductor pipe, then a Class 1A (Diverter) BOP System (see
Appendix A - Figure 2) shall be installed. The Class 1A
BOP system shall have a successful daily function test of its
annular preventer and a once per well test of the full
opening valve2.
26
3.1.2.4 Flare Line

And Flare Tank
Requirement
Low Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.2.4.1
When the Class 1A (Diverter) BOP stack specified in IRP

3.1.2.3.1 is used, the flare line inside diameter shall be a
minimum of 152 mm and the line shall be free from bends
when possible.
The flare line length is dependent upon the Sandface
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) potential of the offset gas wells
as follows:
AOF Gas Rate
(103 m3 / day)
Flare Line Length

(m)
Flare Tank or Pit
< 28
25
Flare Tank
28 113
35
Flare Tank
> 113
Class 1A not allowed
Flare Pit
27
Note
The large 152 mm flare line diameter is necessary to reduce the

back pressure exerted on the shallow conductor casing shoe
when diverting flows of drilling fluids and formation solids
through the flare line. Experience has shown that 89 mm and
114 mm flare lines are prone to plugging and freezing. It is
noted that nominal six inch (152 mm) diameter line pipe of
Schedule 40 or less satisfies the minimum inside diameter
requirement.
The ideal flare line is straight. When bends are absolutely
necessary, the following configurations are acceptable:
90o bends using blocked tees (i.e. tees equipped with bull
plugs to cushion flows around the turns), and
long radius flexible hoses3.
In each configuration, a minimum number of turns are

recommended with zero to four commonly found within the
industry. Notable disadvantages are the susceptibility of long
radius turns to wash-outs while right-angle turns are more
prone to plugging.
The pressure loss incurred by additional bends is very small in
the systems being recommended4. For example, at flows of 113
103 m3/day, the pressure loss in a 152 mm diameter by 50 m
long flare line with four 90o bends is 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi) greater
than a similar line with no bends (see Appendix B Figures 1
to 7).
28
The recommended flare line lengths are derived from an

industry study5 that accounts for both the effects of gas
dispersion and radiant heat generated at the flare line exit.
Dispersion of gas is enhanced upon exiting a 2 m high flare
tank as opposed to a ground level earthen pit and results in a
shorter flare line length. The radiant heat evolving from a
burning flare, increases with AOF gas rate and results in
increased flare line lengths. Use of a flare tank is not
recommended when Gas AOF Rates exceed 113 103 m3/day.
In Saskatchewan, it is noted that SEM regulations stipulate
flare lines terminate in a tank or pit a minimum of 45 m from
the wellbore.
IRP 3.1.2.4.2
When using a flare tank, it must have a minimum height of

two (2) meters. The flare tank should be adequately
designed to resist heat damage should ignition of the flow be
required. Baffles located at the tank inlet are
recommended to limit tank erosion and liquid losses from
the tank. The flare tank should be adequately attached to
the flare line.
Note
The use of a flare tank may be desirable to:
reduce lease sizes in conjunction with reduced flare line

lengths (see IRP 3.1.2.4.1)
improve the mobility of the flaring system on multi-well pads
enhance environmental clean-up.
Refer to AEUB Informational Letter IL 98-3: Minimum

Standards for Flare Tanksx and General Bulletin GB 98-13:
Minimum Standards for Flare Tanks3 for additional information
on flare tanks.
29
3.1.3 Well
Control Systems
For Moderate To
High Risk Heavy
Oil Wells
This subsection addresses well control design considerations,

surface casing requirements, and BOP equipment needs for
Moderate to High Risk wells drilled in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands
areas. (If a Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well is designated as
Moderate to High Risk, conventional regulations with respect
to surface casing setting depths apply.)
3.1.3.1 Well
Control Systems
For Moderate To
High Risk Heavy
Oil Wells
In Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, high-risk conditions and

different hydrocarbon recovery mechanisms complicate well
control design. This has resulted in different BOP system
selections especially when the risks involved in drilling a
proposed well are uncertain. To provide a basis for making
recommendations on suitable BOP configurations for Heavy
Oil / Oil Sands areas, the following discussion begins with the
primary reasons for well control and progresses to the currently
regulated BOPs and their distinguishing features.
30
Blowout prevention systems are necessary to protect drilling

personnel, drilling equipment, and the environment from
avoidable damage caused by exploiting hydrocarbon resources.
When selecting an appropriate BOP configuration, it is
important to consider the complete BOP system and match this
to the risks inherent in the drilling process. Since all BOP
systems have limitations, it is necessary to balance these
limitations with the needs of the Contractor, Operator, and
Regulator. It is the Operators responsibility to define a safe
BOP system for a proposed drilling operation. After agreeing
upon the risks involved and the BOP system selected, it is the
responsibility of the Contractor to provide a working BOP
system and adequately trained personnel capable of dealing
with expected well control problems that might arise. It is the
Regulators responsibility to audit operations to ensure current
regulatory requirements are being met and to facilitate any
future regulatory changes that may arise from advances in
drilling practices, procedures, or equipment. It is suggested that
current regulations follow upon these premises in arriving at a
minimum set of guidelines for drilling new wells.
31
Four (4) conditions often exist in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas
that present concerns when designing an appropriate well
control system. These are:
Potential high gas flow rates (up to 283 103 m3/day(10

MMSCFD)) from shallow sandstone formations
Potential lost circulation in depleted reservoirs and in the

Devonian formations
Inability to hard shut-in typical formation pressures (4-5

MPa) at the typical surface casing depths (approx. 100 m), and
Drilling within thermal (EOR) project areas.
Given the above challenging conditions, it is evident that

proper well control requires the ability to safely divert
potentially prolific gas flows while maintaining the integrity of
the BOP system including the surface casing shoe. Faced with
this objective, this committee proposes the following IRPs,
taking into account the risks inherent in well control situations
where high gas flow rates are possible.
32
3.1.3.2 Surface
Casing
Requirement
Moderate To High
Risk Wells
IRP 3.1.3.2.1
Surface casing should be run if any of the following conditions

are expected while drilling:
The proposed well terminates at a true vertical depth of 950

m or greater or more than 15 m into the Devonian formation.
The proposed well is located outside a development-type
setting.
The maximum AOF Gas Rate from offset wells is 113 103
m3/day or greater.
There is potential for a formation pressure gradient >10.2
kPa/m, severe lost circulation, kicks, blows or blowouts, or
artesian water flows within three (3) kilometers of the
proposed well.
Drilling is not within a low risk production-affected area
(including certain secondary recovery and enhanced oil
recovery schemes).
The design of the surface casing must allow control of the

maximum anticipated formation pressures by conventional
well control methods.
Note
The primary objective of surface casing is to aid in well control. A

secondary function is to provide groundwater protection.
Regulations now permit surface casing depths that frequently do
not cover all potable water zones being utilized by surrounding
landowners or industry. In these cases, the objective of
groundwater protection is transferred to the next casing string.
This highlights the importance of prudent decision-making
regarding surface casing setting depths given the expected drilling
conditions in the subsequent intermediate or main holes.
33
3.1.3.3 BOP
System
Requirement
Moderate To High
Risk Wells
Prior to presenting the various BOP systems used in Heavy Oil

/ Oil Sands areas, the following general IRPs serve as
guidelines for proper BOP selection.
IRP 3.1.3.3.1
Due to the shallow surface casing and conductor pipe

setting depths in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, all BOP
systems should be considered well control devices which
will divert any well flows away from the rig.
IRP 3.1.3.3.2
Special well control practices should be considered when

drilling wells with potentially prolific gas rates from
shallow formations. Rig personnel should be made aware of
the need to safeguard the integrity of the surface casing
shoe.
34
IRP 3.1.3.3.3
When drilling in production-affected areas, consideration

should be given to upgrading the BOP system to match the
risks inherent in the proposed drilling operation. If the
offset information within the researched area is limited or
of poor quality, then extra precautions may be warranted
on the first well(s) drilled. The information gained from
drilling initial project well(s) may then be used to determine
requirements for subsequent wells.
Note
Operators may need to satisfy Regulators that the conditions

within a production-affected area have been adequately
researched to identify the risks. The presence of observation
or buffer well data between potential sources of pressure or
temperature and the proposed well are useful in determining the
production-affected area.
Operators should consider lessening the risk of drilling within a
production-affected area by reducing pressures and / or
temperatures. Where abnormally low pressures are
encountered, loading the surrounding wells with lease crude
may help limit loss of circulation.
35
3.1.3.4 BOP
System Types
And Applications
The various BOP systems currently used to drill in Heavy Oil /

Oil Sands areas and their main advantages and disadvantages
are outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Blow Out Preventer Comparison

Blow Out Preventer Comparison Table Heavy Oil/Oil Sands Areas
BOP Class
Class 1
(Diverter)
Class 1A
(Diverter)
Class 2
SEM
Tangleflag,
EUB Class 3
& EUB High
Hazard
Class 3
Medium
Modified EUB Class 3
Effort to RigUp/Pressure
Test
Low
Low
Medium
Shut-In
Capability
No
No
Limited
by
MACP*
Limited by
MACP
Limited by MACP
Risk of
Exceeding
MACP*
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Ability to ReCirculate
Kill Fluid
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
BOP System
Pressure Loss
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
BOP System
Plugging
Tendency
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Redundancy
in Shut-In
Capability
No
No
No
No
Yes
Medium
36
BOP Class
Class 1
(Diverter)
Class 1A
(Diverter)
Class 2
SEM
Tangleflag,
EUB Class 3
& EUB
High
Hazard
Class 3
Modified EUB Class 3
Drilling Rig
Height
Limitations
No
No
No
No
Yes
Potential for
BOP Cooling
Loop
No
No
No
No
Yes
Recommended
For
Low/Med/High
Risk Well
Low
Low/Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium/High
*MACP = Maximum Allowable Casing Pressure

After assessing the risk of drilling a proposed well, the information in this table can aid
in selecting the most suitable BOP system. Additional insights into proper BOP
selection may be gained from the following summary of each BOP system.
37
EUB Class 1 and

Class 1A
(Diverter) BOP
Systems
EUB Class 1 and Class 1A (Diverter) BOP Systems

The EUB Class 1 and 1A BOP Systems (see Appendix A
Figures 1 & 2) are commonly referred to as Diverters as this
describes their capability as a well control device. These BOP
designs allow diversion of any well flows and prevent a hard
shut-in of the well. This design safeguards the integrity of the
conductor pipe or surface casing shoe and minimizes the
chance of loss of well control with flows outside the surface
casing.
The EUB Class 1 BOP system was regulated mainly to
accommodate drilling in low risk Surface Mineable Areas. The
drilling of shallow (i.e. <200 m TD) core holes and Oil Sands
evaluation wells required a BOP system capable of diverting
the occasional low rate shallow gas kick. These requirements
are outlined in AEUB Interim Directive 89-26 and are still in
effect.
The EUB Class 1A BOP system was originally regulated to
meet the needs of shallow gas drilling to depths of 750 m. With
time, Operators have requested and been granted approvals for
deeper depths of 950 m in certain areas. As drilling activities
increased in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, this BOP system was
adopted for use within or adjacent to development-type
settings.
38
The Class 1A BOP differs from the Class 1 in that the flare line
diameter is larger (152 mm versus 89 mm or 100 mm) to
accommodate higher rate gas kicks with lower back pressure at
the surface casing or conductor shoe. The larger flare line
diameter reduces the pressure losses through the system and
lessens line plugging. In Section 3.1.2 of these IRPs, it is
proposed that the Class 1A BOP system is appropriate to
drill wells with Maximum AOF Gas Rates up to 113 103
m3/day.
In Saskatchewan, the EUB Class 1 and 1A BOP Systems
would be considered an acceptable option only in Spacing
Area E while drilling a well classified by SEM as a
structure test hole or an oil shale core hole. Further, the
SEM requires two valves be installed on all casing bowls
while drilling operations are being conducted.
EUB Class 2 BOP
System
EUB Class 2 BOP System

The EUB Class 2 BOP system (see Appendix A Figure 3) is
designed to accommodate shallow depth drilling (<750 m),
provide well flow diversion, hard shut-in capabilities, and
provide the ability to re-circulate to kill a flowing well. This
well control system is appropriate when low rate gas or oil
flows are encountered and sufficient surface casing is run to
provide significant holdback pressures at the casing shoe.
39
In Saskatchewan, the EUB Class 2 BOP System is an

acceptable option for non-Tangleflags and non-EOR wells
within Spacing Area E if two minor changes are made as
follows:
two valves are installed on the surface casing bowl
two additional valves are installed in the manifold (see

manifold set-up in Appendix A Figure 5).
Drilling conditions in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas (and other

parts of Western Canada) present two significant disadvantages
for Class 2 BOPs. Firstly, the reservoir pressures are high
enough that complete shut-in is not possible at the typical
surface casing depths. Secondly, a combination of a potentially
high gas flow rate, a shallow surface casing setting depth, and
an 89 mm flare line place severe limitations on the ability to
safely divert a well flow. The 89 mm flare line diameter
creates significant pressure losses and potential line plugging
concerns.
Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells often have the surface casing set at
approximately 100 meters. Based upon typical formation leakoff tests, this limits hold-back pressure to approximately 1.8
MPa (i.e. 100m x 18 kPa/m FLOT) which is much lower than
the typical formation pressure of 35 MPa. Therefore, the well
cannot be safely shut in unless sufficient wellbore fluid is in
place to overbalance the formation pressure. Experience gained
in handling actual kicks from high rate shallow gas formations
reveals that wellbore fluid is often totally displaced as the
MACP would be exceeded if the well was choked.
40
System pressure losses for typical well configurations using an

89 mm flare line (see Appendix C Figures 1, 4, 7, and 10) are
in the range from 900 to 1150 kPa. This equates to a pressure
gradient of 9.0 to 11.5 kPa/m at the surface casing shoe. These
gradients fall below the range of typical formation leak-off tests
in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas (i.e. 15 to 18 kPa/m) but do not
leave much capability to choke a well. These typical
conditions make the Class 2 BOP system of limited use for
Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas where high rate gas flows are
possible.
Note
System pressure losses are also presented for typical well

configurations with a 152 mm flare line (see Appendix C Figures 2, 5, 8, and 11) and with a 203 mm flare line (see
Appendix C - Figures 3, 6, 9, and 12).
EUB Class 3 and

SEM Tangleflags
BOP System
EUB Class 3 and SEM Tangleflags BOP Systems

The EUB Class 3 BOP system (see Appendix A Figure 4) is
designed to accommodate medium depth drilling (750 m to
1800 m), provide well flow diversion and hard shut-in
capabilities, and provide the ability to re-circulate to kill a
flowing well. This well control system is appropriate when low
rate gas or oil flows are encountered and sufficient surface
casing is run to provide significant holdback pressures at the
casing shoe.
41
The Saskatchewan Energy and Mines (SEM) Tangleflags BOP

system (see Appendix A Figure 5) is similar to an EUB Class
3 BOP except for:
a second casing bowl valve (all flanged)
two additional valves in the manifold system, and
a slightly larger flare line diameter (76.2 mm versus 75 mm).
This BOP system provides the same benefits as the EUB Class
3 BOP as noted previously.
With respect to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, the disadvantages
listed in the Class 2 section apply for both the EUB Class 3 and
SEM Tangleflags BOPs. These two BOP configurations are
of limited use for Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas where high
rate gas flows are possible.
42
EUB High Hazard EUB High Hazard Area BOP System

Area BOP System
The EUB High Hazard Area BOP system (see Appendix A
Figure 6) is a modified Class 3 BOP regulated as per AEUB
Interim Directive 92-17. This regulation was necessitated due to
an increase in frequency of kicks and associated serious well
control incidences in the Cessford area of Southern Alberta. It
requires a second 89 mm flare line from the casing bowl and
was mandated to provide redundancy in the event of a washout
of the primary line. Further, a minimum surface casing setting
depth of 180 m was mandated to provide sufficient holdback
pressures at the casing shoe to allow choking during efforts to
kill a flowing well.
In Saskatchewan, this BOP configuration is not acceptable to
SEM for drilling in the Tangleflags Hazard Area.
With respect to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, the disadvantages
listed in the Class 2 section once again apply for the EUB High
Hazard Area Class 3 BOP. The second 89 mm flare line
provides insignificant reduction in pressure loss if both lines are
opened together. However, it provides additional time for well
killing operations if the primary flare line washes out. This
BOP configuration is more suitable for Heavy Oil / Oil
Sands areas where high rate gas flows are possible but is of
limited use as previously noted.
43
Modified EUB
Class 3 BOP
System
Modified EUB Class 3 BOP System

The Modified EUB Class 3 BOP system (see Appendix A Figure 7) is designed to up-grade the Class 3 BOP to provide
redundancy in the shut-in capability and in the well killing
system without using the casing bowl valves. Drilling rig
substructure height restrictions frequently prevent the use of the
second spool required below the bottom pipe rams in this
configuration. This well control system is appropriate when low
rate gas or oil flows are encountered and sufficient surface or
intermediate casing is run to provide significant holdback
pressures at the casing shoe.
In Saskatchewan, use of the Modified EUB Class 3 BOP is
acceptable for use throughout Spacing Area E provided the
bleed-off line size has a minimum 76.2 mm I.D. or a second
bleed-off line of 75 mm I.D. is connected to the drilling spool.
For Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, this BOP has the same
disadvantages listed in the Class 2 system when dealing with
high rate gas kicks. However, this limitation can be alleviated
by installing a second flare line on the second spool. This BOP
also has the advantage of using the bottom spool to cool the
BOPs in the event a high temperature well flow is
encountered. This BOP is best suited for drilling medium to
high-risk EOR wells in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas.
44
Given the above discussion, the following BOP system

3.1.3.5 BOP
System Examples suggestions are made for some typical drilling conditions found
in Heavy Oil/Oil Sands areas. These suggestions are a starting
point for encouraging a thorough technical review of the
drilling risks when planning a well.
Example 1
Formation pressure exceeds 10.2 kPa/m and a full surface

casing string is run. There remains a fundamental concern in
maintaining the integrity of the surface casing shoe.
If there is no expectation of encountering a high rate gas zone,
then an EUB Class 1A BOP is recommended. (This requires
regulatory approval.)
If a high rate gas zone is potential, a Modified EUB Class 3
BOP complete with a second spool and second 89 mm flare line
is recommended. It is noted that the EUB Class 2, SEM
Tangleflags, and all EUB Class 3 BOPs meet regulations.
Caution should be exercised given the known limitations of
these BOPs. The installation of a second 89 mm flare line on
the surface casing bowl may be considered
Example 2
There is potential for severe loss of circulation.

If there is no expectation of encountering a high rate gas zone,
then an EUB Class 1A BOP is recommended. (This requires
regulatory approval.)
If a high rate gas zone is expected, the same discussion as in
Example 1 applies.
45
Example 3
There is an expectation of encountering a high rate gas zone in

excess of 113 103 m3/day.
A Modified EUB Class 3 BOP complete with a second spool
and second 89 mm flare line is recommended. Additional
thought should be given to discerning the appropriate surface
casing setting depth. It is noted that the EUB Class 2, SEM
Tangleflags, and all EUB Class 3 BOPs meet regulations.
Caution should be exercised given the known limitations of
these BOPs. Installation of a second 89 mm flare line on the
surface casing bowl may be considered appropriate.
After appropriate risk analysis, it may be argued that an EUB
Class 1A BOP is appropriate given the frequency of
encountering well control problems in a specific area. (This
requires regulatory approval.)
Example 4
Drilling is to occur within an EOR, thermal, or productionaffected area.

A Modified EUB Class 3 BOP complete with a second spool to
allow installation of a cooling loop should be considered.
Consideration should also be given to running of intermediate
casing and a high temperature float within the drill string. If an
intermediate casing string is set due to the expectation of
encountering abnormal pressure and high temperature, then a
cooling loop is recommended.
46
3.1.4 Ghost
Hole And
Sidetrack Wells
In Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas, frequent use of directional

drilling techniques to exploit shallow depth reservoirs has led to
an increased frequency of planned sidetrack wells and
unplanned ghost-hole wells. These are of particular concern in
production-affected areas. This subsection defines sidetrack and
ghost-hole wells and provides recommendations for dealing
with these when encountered.
3.1.4.1 Definitions A sidetrack is defined as any wellbore that departs from the
main wellbore and creates a second wellbore.
A ghost-hole is defined as a sidetrack that cannot be re-entered.
3.1.4.2 Drilling
Practices
IRP 3.1.4.2.1
When drilling directional wells where the dogleg severity

exceeds 12o/30m or wells with unstable formations, a wiper
trip back into surface casing is recommended prior to
entering a hydrocarbon-bearing zone.
Note
Sidetrack wells can be easily initiated while:
Rotating off bottom in hole sections with high dogleg severity

(i.e. > 12 o/30m),
Drilling formations such as unconsolidated glacial till or

conglomerates, sloughing shales, or poorly cemented
sandstones,
Reaming stringers of dense formation especially when drilling

with a top drive.
47
IRP 3.1.4.2.2
Surface or intermediate casing should be run across

formations with serious formation instability.
3.1.4.3
Abandoning
Sidetrack Wells
IRP 3.1.4.3.1
Any sidetrack well that allows communication between

adjacent porous formations (including surface aquifers)
must be abandoned according to the appropriate regulatory
guidelines.
Note
The appropriate regulatory body must be notified and approval

received prior to commencing abandonment operations on any
sidetrack or ghost-hole well. (For example, in Alberta refer to
EUB Guide 20 - Well Abandonment Guide8).
48
3.1.4.4 Recording
Ghost Hole
Wells
IRP 3.1.4.3.1
A ghost-hole well that penetrates more than one porous

formation must be reported to the appropriate regulatory
body and a copy of the directional survey should be
included.
IRP 3.1.4.3.2
A ghost-hole well that penetrates an EOR zone and is also

in communication with another porous zone should be
isolated from the radius of influence of the EOR scheme.
Note
A discussion between the Regulatory Body and the Operator

should take place and a monitoring program or altering of the
EOR scheme may be necessary.
49
3.1.5 Cementing
Of Casing
This subsection addresses cementing design and practices

specific to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas. As well, it references
documents that outline good cementing practices in general.
3.1.5.1 General
Cementing
Considerations
The importance of obtaining a good primary cement job in any

well cannot be over-emphasized. Operators should be familiar
with the booklet Primary and Remedial Cementing
Guidelines9 published by the Drilling and Completion
Committee (DACC) in April 1995 and distributed by Enform.
This comprehensive guide was issued to combat an increase in
incidences of gas migration in Alberta. It recommends
procedures for proper cement design, testing, and job execution
for both primary and remedial cementing.
50
Further to this guide, the following good practices are added:
Where cement returns to surface are required, a positive

method of hole volume determination is prudent. This can be
accomplished in different ways:
Use of markers (dyes or sawdust) while conditioning

the well or in pre-flushes during the cement job,
Use of more sophisticated caliper logs, or
Referencing near offset wells and using similar excess

volumes.
Adequate hole conditioning prior to cementing is prudent. The

drilling fluid yield point, viscosity, and density should be as
low as practical to allow easier displacement of the mud by
cement. Circulating until the shaker is clean is also a typical
indicator of a properly conditioned hole.
Within the guide, it is recommended that cement jobs be

conducted at turbulent flow rates where possible to enhance
drilling fluid displacement. When this is not possible (e.g.
thixotropic cement blends), then mechanical aids to centralize
and move the casing become more important.
In Alberta, the Operator should also reference EUB Guide G9: Casing Cementing Minimum Requirements10 and EUB
Guide G-20: Well Abandonment Guide.
In Saskatchewan, the Operator should reference Section 34 of

the SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, 1985.
51
3.1.5.2 Primary
Cementing In
Heavy Oil / Oil
Sands Areas
For wells that are to be subjected to thermal operations,

thermal cement blends should be used to cement surface,
intermediate, and production casing full length.
Note
Thermal cement is formed by reducing the Bulk Lime (CaO) to

Silica (SiO2) ratio of non-thermal cement. The C:S Ratio (as
abbreviated by cement chemists) of a thermal cement is 1.0 or
less and is normally obtained by the addition of 35% (by weight
of cement) or more fine Silica Sand or Silica Flour to the
Portland cement.
52
IRP 3.1.5.2.2
For wells drilled in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas that have
potential to become part of a thermal scheme in future,
thermal cement blends should be used to cement production
casing full length.
IRP 3.1.5.2.3
For wells drilled in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas that have
NO potential to become part of a thermal scheme in future,
production casing should be cemented using thermal
cement that extends a minimum of 30 vertical meters above
and below any potential thermal zone.
Note
This recommendation covers the case where advances in

technology may expand the use of thermal recovery methods
beyond the Operators current vision.
This recommendation follows current regulations in Alberta.
This adequately protects the cement sheath from the negative
effects of elevated temperatures from the heated zone if the
well remains in a static state. Cementing in this manner may
disqualify the well as a producer or injector. A well that is not
thermally cemented full length will require regulatory approval
prior to becoming active within a thermal scheme. The prudent
Operator would be expected to develop a method of
safeguarding the integrity of the full length of cement sheath
prior to commencing thermal production or injection on this
well.
53
IRP 3.1.5.2.4
Note
For wells requiring intermediate casing:
To initiate a horizontal well completion, or
To provide well control in situations such as penetration of a

shallow gas or an enhanced oil recovery zone caution should
be exercised to protect the cement sheath. It is recommended
the cement develop a compressive strength of 3500 kPa prior
to continuing drilling operations that would jeopardize the
integrity of the cement job.
In Saskatchewan, the SEM requires a minimum of 8 hours

wait-on-cement time prior to testing the casing / BOPs or
commencing drilling below the casing shoe in Spacing Area
E.
54
3.1.5.3 Remedial
Cementing
Prior to performing a remedial cement job in a Heavy Oil /Oil

Sands well, the following considerations should be weighed:
The main goal is isolation of water, gas, and oil zones.
It is desirable to maintain the integrity of the production

casing when designing a remedial cement job especially in
thermal wells.
The presence of uncemented intervals, especially within the

annular space between casing strings, has led to casing failures
as trapped fluid expands under thermal conditions. This can
occur in a remedial top-up cement job.
It is desirable to have a thermal cement sheath completely to

surface on all wells to be thermally operated.
IRP 3.1.5.3.1
For all Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, if cement returns to

surface are not achieved, then the cement top must be
confirmed to determine if remedial cementing is required.
The cement top log and proposed remedial cementing
program must be submitted to the regulatory body prior to
placing the well on production.
IRP 3.1.5.3.2
For all non-thermal Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, if cement

returns are proven to be 15 m or more inside the surface
casing, then remedial cementing is not required. This
requires regulatory body approval.
IRP 3.1.5.3.3
For all thermal Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, if cement

returns to surface are not obtained, then remedial
cementing may be required. This is to be determined in
consultation with the regulatory body.
55
Note
In Saskatchewan, SEM approval is required prior to

commencing remedial cement programs and/or placing a well
on production after remedial cementing has taken place.
The need for remedial cementing will be determined based
upon the specific well conditions and the considerations noted
above.
Cementing all casing strings with thermal cement lessens the
impact of a low cement top that is above the previous casing
shoe (especially on a thermal well).
For thermal wells, remedial cementing using a tubing string run
into the annulus is discouraged. If the Operator is unable to
confirm the absence of fluid above the cement top, then trapped
fluid can cause casing collapse when steamed and should be
avoided.
For thermal wells, one suggested remedial cementing method
requires washing over the production casing to the top of
cement and re-cementing leaving the washover string in place.
This requires sufficient annular space between casing strings
and care that the integrity of the production casing is
maintained. An example program outlining this method is
shown in Appendix D.
For non-thermal wells, remedial cementing using a tubing
string run into the annulus may be acceptable if it can reach the
cement top. A second possible method requires perforating the
production casing at the cement top and circulating cement to
surface. Implementing these methods may place limitations on
the well as a future thermal producer or injector.
56
3.1.5.4 Open Hole

Well
Abandonment
IRP 3.1.5.4.1
Wells drilled within Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas that are or
have potential to become part of a thermal scheme should
be abandoned using a thermal cement blend. Thermal
cement should be set a minimum of 15 vertical meters
above and below the thermal zone(s).
Note
AEUB Guide G-20 specifies standard abandonment programs

for Alberta.
In Saskatchewan, SEM approval of all abandonment programs
is required prior to commencing abandonment operations.
57
3.1.6 Thermal
Casing And
Casing
Connections
3.1.6.1
Introduction
Steam stimulation operations in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas of

Western Canada present unique challenges for thermal well
casing design. The high temperatures required for effective
steam stimulation and the cyclic nature of some thermal
operations can result in casing stresses that exceed yield in both
compression and tension. Further, the wells may operate in a
corrosive environment at both high and low temperatures.
Finally, some wells may operate at high temperatures for
extended periods during the injection phase. Given these varied
conditions, conventional design practices (that limit casing
stresses to some fraction of the yield value and may specify
corrosion resistant alloys) are not as applicable to thermal
wells.
The following recommended practices are intended to aid in
selecting or designing a production casing string for use in
thermal, steam stimulation operations in Western Canada. The
maximum well temperature and pressure considered was 350oC
and 16.5 MPa, respectively. The practices cited strike a balance
between mechanical properties and corrosion resistance.
Although individual casing grades and connections are noted,
no single design is stated as the successful one for thermal
service since the type of service will determine the qualities of
a successful design.
58
The recommended practices focus on the production casing (or

intermediate casing in the case of a horizontal well). A thermal
casing design is not required for the surface casing as this string
typically is run only to maintain hole stability or assist in well
control.
Once the pertinent operating conditions such as temperature
range, pressure range, number of thermal cycles, and wellbore
environment are defined, an Operator should be able to design a
production casing that is appropriate for the intended service.
This will require an understanding of the effects of thermal
cycling on the properties of the casing selected. Once a casing
design has been selected, each Operator will require a program
to ensure that operating practices to protect the integrity of the
installed production casing are followed. This program is to
include:
monitoring of well operations,
methods of detecting casing failures, and
response plans for potential casing failures.
Work to outline the specifics of this program will be progressed

by another sub-committee.
59
3.1.6.2 General
Design
Considerations
For casing design purposes, it is assumed that the production

casing is supported full-length by a thermal cement sheath. This
support is essential for minimizing the potential for casing
collapse or buckling during thermal operation. Cementing of
the production casing is covered in IRP Section 3.1.5.
Thermal well casing typically yields in compression and may
yield in tension, thus, accurate determinations of the peak
compressive and tensile stresses, and the number of thermal
cycles expected are essential to properly designing the casing
string. Recent testing has provided data that shows the
Thermal-Mechanical relationship of stress with temperature
and thermal cycles for different casing grades (see Appendix E
- Figures 1 through 6). This empirical data is preferred over
theoretical data derived from thermal well design papers11 & 12
that failed to recognize that stress relaxation could occur at
significantly lower temperatures than existed in thermal wells.
The casing grade must have good resistance to environmental
cracking since the casing may operate in an acid gas (H2S and
CO2) or caustic steam environment for part of its
service.13,14,15&16
The casing connection must provide good structural integrity
and sealability. The connection should be as strong as or
stronger than the pipe body and provide an adequate seal at the
maximum compressive and tensile loads expected. Connection
strength is a function of connection design (e.g., threadform
and wall thickness) and material grade. Sealing capability is a
function of the connection design (e.g., thread design or metalto-metal seal employed) and installation (e.g., thread compound
and make-up position and torque).
60
3.1.6.3 Design
Requirements
This sub-section will outline the design parameters

recommended to select a production casing and connection that
is appropriate for service in thermal wells. Some discussion of
limitations will accompany each parameter as deemed
necessary. In Saskatchewan, unless otherwise approved by
SEM, all casing and casing connections must meet or exceed
API specifications.
IRP 3.1.6.3.1
A production casing design must consider the temperature

range and number of thermal cycles to which a thermal
well will be subjected. Similar to pipeline designs that
consider displacement- or strain-controlled loading, a
thermal well casing design must accept limited plastic
strain.
Note
In most thermal wells, a production casing string will undergo

plastic strain, stress relaxation, and cyclic hardening. The
casing grade selection must balance the impacts of these
factors.
Figures 1 through 6 in Appendix E show the thermalmechanical relationships for API K-55, L-80, N-80, and C-95
casing grades for some temperature ranges. As demonstrated by
these plots, empirical data must be utilized to define the
strength properties of materials undergoing thermal cycling.
As demonstrated by Figures 1 through 6 in Appendix E,
conventional design factors that typically restrict casing stresses
to 85% of yield are not applicable to thermal wells.
61
IRP 3.1.6.3.2
If the production casing is expected to exceed yield during

operation, a casing grade with the following properties is
recommended:
The Y/T ratio of yield strength (MPa) to tensile strength

(MPa) is less than or equal to 0.90,
The casing grade has a strain hardening rate comparable to

API L-80 Type 1 or K-55.
For the casing grade selected, the well should be operated

within the temperature or thermal cycling limits imposed
by cyclic hardening such that the final imposed stresses are
within the casing design parameters.
Note
Figure 1 of Appendix E illustrates the thermal-mechanical

relationship of cemented API K-55 and L-80 grade casings
through one thermal cycle. A detailed discussion of the
temperature/stress cycle is also included in Appendix E.
Figure 2 of Appendix E illustrates typical Stress/Strain Curves
for API K-55, L-80, N-80, and C-95 grade casing. The
minimum and maximum yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength of each grade is also indicated.
Figures 3 through 6 of Appendix E illustrate the thermalmechanical relationships of cemented API K-55, L-80, N-80,
and C-95 grade casings over some temperature ranges.
The operator should obtain a copy of the mill certificates to
confirm that the casing chemistry and (cold) mechanical
properties are within the desired limits.
62
IRP 3.1.6.3.3
The minimum recommended burst pressure rating for the

production casing is the maximum rated discharge pressure
of the steam generator.
Note
Although pressure relief valves are typically installed on the

generators, designing for the maximum discharge pressure
provides an operational safety factor.
Consider lowering the burst rating if high axial stresses are
expected when the internal to external casing pressure
differential is high.
Wellhead pressure requirements are covered in IRP 3.3.9.1.1
and IRP 3.3.9.2.1. It is noted here that the pressure rating for
the wellhead may be less than the boiler rating if pressurelimiting equipment is installed to protect the wellhead from
maximum steam generator pressures. Consideration should also
be given to temperature de-rating of the wellhead dependent
upon the anticipated operating temperatures.
63
IRP 3.1.6.3.4
The minimum recommended collapse pressure rating for

the production casing is the maximum fracture pressure of
any formation penetrated by the well.
Note
If free liquid is trapped between the production casing or

cement and the formation, when heated to steaming
temperatures this liquid should expand and fracture into the
formation rather than collapse the casing.
Material properties play a critical role in determining the
collapse resistance of tubulars. At the relatively low diameter to
thickness (D/t) ratios of casing products, collapse is usually in
the yield or plastic collapse zones as defined by API. However,
the theoretical basis for the API formulas does not account for
post-yield material behavior, making the collapse formula
relatively conservative for strain hardening materials such as
API K-55 grade steel. At tensile loads close to or exceeding
yield, the API bi-axial collapse design guideline (Henky-von
Mises maximum strain energy of distortion theory of yielding)
17
is of limited use for thermal well casing design. The engineer
must rely upon a combination of the API uni-axial collapse
guideline, and limited bi-axial test data at moderate to large
tensile loads.18, 19, 20, 21 & 22
Consider de-rating the collapse rating if high axial stresses are
expected when the external to internal casing pressure
differential is high.
64
IRP 3.1.6.3.5
The casing design must consider the operating environment

to which the well will be subjected. Resistance to
environmental cracking is important to the success of a
thermal well casing design.
The highest API minimum specified yield strength

recommended for thermal well production casing is 550 MPa
(80 ksi)
The casing hardness should be limited to a Rockwell C value

of 22 or less.
These recommendations are based upon several years of
thermal operating experience.
Note
Environmental cracking includes sulfide stress cracking (SSC),

stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and hydrogen induced
cracking (HIC) for the purposes of this IRP. A detailed
discussion of environmental cracking mechanisms and typical
casing testing recommendations is found in Appendix F.
High strength' steel (i.e. steel with a minimum specified yield
strength greater than 550 MPa or 80 ksi) is not recommended
for thermal service. Although high strength steel is less likely
to yield in thermal service it is more susceptible to sulfide stress
cracking and can have a very limited capacity to absorb
thermally induced strain.
For corrosive environments, API L-80 grade casing is preferred
to N-80. L-80 has a controlled yield strength (i.e. an upper
limit of 95 ksi is specified by API). N-80 does not have a
controlled yield and its allowable yield strength can be as high
as 110 ksi.
65
IRP 3.1.6.3.6
If operating conditions exist that may lead to environmental

cracking or salt deposition; the wellbore environment
should be controlled to protect the integrity of the
production casing. Development of an operational
procedure is recommended in IRP 3.3.6.5.1.
Note
Regardless of the casing grade selected, environmental

cracking can still occur. Thus, operating procedures are
recommended to safeguard the casing. Several options are
outlined below. It is noted that one item from each section is
deemed sufficient to control each corrosion mechanism.
1) When potential for Sulfide Stress Cracking or Hydrogen
Induced Cracking exists, consider:
purging acid gases from the annulus, through the

perforations, with nitrogen,
circulating produced fluids through the annulus to break

the annular gas column and allow more basic (i.e.
higher pH) fluids to coat the casing,
injecting inhibitors to provide a protective film against

the casing, or
installing a production packer in the tubing string to

isolate the production casing from the operating
environment.
66
2) When potential for Salt Deposition and Internal Pitting

exists, consider:
avoiding aggressive venting for extended periods in

wells with high water production, or
periodically circulating produced fluids through the

annulus to dissolve salt plugs that may be forming.
3) When potential for Stress Corrosion Cracking exists,

consider:
selecting casing connections with metal-to-metal seals

that provide a tight seal upstream of the connection
threads,
controlling caustic concentrations in the injected steam,

or
limiting the number of thermal cycles and volume of

steam injection.
4) When potential for near surface External Corrosion of the

production casing exists, consider:
maintaining the cement top at surface during primary

cementing or by topping-up low cement tops by a
method previously described in IRP 3.1.5.3.3, or
coating the top few joints of production casing with a

thermally stable, corrosion resistant product.
67
IRP 3.1.6.3.7
The casing connection selected for thermal well service

should have a joint yield strength greater than or equal to
the pipe body yield strength.
Note
Casing connection selection requires an accurate knowledge of

the peak tensile and compressive loads that can be generated
during thermal operations. In a cemented casing string, the
thermal strains and stresses that develop in the pipe body are
transferred to the connections as loads. These loads then
dictate the magnitudes of the stresses that are developed in the
connections.
The ultimate connection strength is a function of the thread
design, applied stresses, and both the yield strength and the
ultimate tensile strength of the material.
Of the API designated designs, only the Buttress connection is
recommended for thermal service. If high loads are expected,
an oversized (larger diameter collar) Buttress connection can be
used to provide a greater cross-sectional area for distributing
the load. This may not provide much relief to the peak stresses
developed in the thread roots, but will lower the hoop stresses.
Of the Proprietary (or metal-to-metal seal) designs, most are
rated at 100% of the pipe body yield strength. Before selecting
a metal-to-metal seal connection, its strength under the
expected thermal operating conditions should be verified.
68
IRP 3.1.6.3.8
The casing connection selected for thermal well service

should provide adequate sealing under the anticipated
operating conditions.
Note
The sealing capability of a connection is a function of the

connection design, the net stress applied to the connection, and
the thread compound used when making-up the connection.
For both API Buttress and Proprietary connections, it is prudent
to assure a proper make-up of each connection.
On buttress connections, proper thread burial (position) is
indicated when the leading edge of the casing collar rests inside
the pin end triangle stamp.
On Proprietary connections, correct positioning is indicated
when the pin end contacts the torque shoulder resulting in a
steep rise in the make-up torque.
On both API Buttress and Proprietary connections, the torque
ramp and peak torque at final position must be within predetermined limits for good connection make-up, to be accepted.
Full scale testing has confirmed that in most cases, a buttress
connection does not provide as tight a seal as does a proprietary
connection. If proposing a buttress connection for thermal
service, the operating conditions and casing integrity program
should be evaluated to provide assurance that adequate casing
integrity will be maintained throughout the intended service.
69
Some proprietary connections have inadequate sealing

capability. Before selecting a metal-to-metal seal connection,
its sealing capability under the expected operating conditions
should be confirmed. These connections rely upon maintaining
a high radial stress at the sealing surface. If insufficient stress is
applied at make-up, or stress relaxation occurs due to long-term
exposure to elevated temperatures, the connection seal integrity
may be compromised.
On both API and Proprietary connections, the use of an
appropriate thread compound is very important to prevent
galling during make-up. A thread compound can enhance a
connection seal, but should not be relied upon to provide a seal.
Thread compounds are discussed in the following IRP
3.1.6.3.9.
70
IRP 3.1.6.3.9
The selection of a suitable thread compound is an integral

part of casing connection design and will vary with the type
of connection selected.
Note
The primary functions of a thread compound are prevention of

galling of a casing connection during make-up and help
maintain sealability during operation.
Proprietary (or metal-to-metal seal) connections require a low
concentration of fine, well dispersed particles in the lubricating
compound. The particles must be fine to fit into the sealing
surfaces phonographic finish and well dispersed to avoid
propping open the sealing surface.
Buttress connections require a high concentration of solids in a
high temperature grease to improve sealability once the
connection is made-up. The solids and grease fill gaps in the
pin-box thread form that otherwise might allow steam or fluids
to seep from the casing.
Consideration should be given to the effect of long-term
exposure of the selected thread compound to thermal operating
conditions. Some thread compounds may degrade in high
temperature steam application, lessening their ability to
enhance the connection seal.
71
3.1.6.4 General
Design
Methodology
The following assumptions form the basis for a recommended

design method for thermal production casing:
It is assumed a thermal cement sheath from total depth to

surface adequately supports the casing (see Section 3.1.5).
Limited plastic strain within the casing is acceptable.
Various design criteria must be balanced against each other.

Key factors are mechanical strength, the ability to accept
limited plastic strain through thermal cycling, and
resistance to corrosive factors such as sulfide stress
cracking and stress corrosion cracking.
Design practices alone are insufficient to ensure production

casing integrity throughout the life of the well. Well
operating conditions should be adjusted to minimize casing
exposure to corrosive environments and to limit the degree
of thermal cycling.
72
The following steps outline a recommended design method for

thermal production casing:
Determine the maximum and minimum operating

temperatures and the number of thermal cycles expected in
the wells life. Apply a safety factor to each item.
Maximum Operating Temperature = maximum

discharge temperature from the steam generator.
Minimum Operating Temperature = ambient or initial

formation temperature.
Design a cold casing string as per AEUB Guide G-1023

requirements except for the external collapse gradient
which should equal 22.6 kPa/m or the known formation
fracture gradient of a typical, offset well. This will allow
any water trapped behind the casing during steam injection
to expand into the formation.
Confirm the tensile design using the attached StressTemperature Curves or similar curves developed from tests
of the proposed casing. If cyclic hardening is expected, the
operation must be designed so that the thermal conditions
do not ratchet the casing yield strength to a level near the
ultimate tensile strength. If it is not possible to avoid
ratcheting the yield strength up to the ultimate tensile
strength, then another grade of casing should be selected or
the proposed operating conditions should be modified.
Ensure the design meets the needs of the intended operating
environment. Corrosion resistance and the long-term ability
of the connection to seal should be considered.
Implement operating practices to minimize the occurrence
of internal and external corrosion and environmental
cracking.
73
3.1.7 Horizontal
Well Guidelines
3.1.7.1 Program
Design
In Saskatchewan, SEM must issue a Ministers Order for

each horizontal well drilled in the province. A formal
application must be submitted and approved prior to a license
to drill being issued as per the SEM Horizontal Well
Application Guide, Attachment 4xx.
IRP 3.1.7.1.1
Program design for a horizontal well in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands

areas follows similar criteria as other non-thermal horizontal
wells. It is essential that the drilling program provide a
documented plan of agreed upon actions between the technical
staff of the Operators Engineering and Operations Groups.
Further, the program should aid in communicating the desired
plan to all field personnel within the Operations Group and
Contractors so execution can follow the program.
74
Note
Given the variety and differing complexity of horizontal wells

drilled today, specific guidelines are difficult to recommend.
Rather, the following general guidelines are offered to help in
well planning:
Operational efficiency may improve by using some of the

following equipment:
front-end loader for drill string and casing movement,
an electronic drilling recorder can provide multilocation viewing of drilling parameters,
a Top Drive rotary system especially on long-reach (i.e.

1200+ meters) lateral sections,
additional AC power to operate increased solids control

equipment and a larger number of wellsite units at
potentially greater distances from the rig.
specialty drill string components, such as spiral drill

collars or hevi-wate drill pipe instead of regular drill
collars, can decrease incidences of stuck pipe or fishing.
The following miscellaneous considerations may improve

operations on horizontal wells:
A pre-set conductor improves the containment of

drilling fluids especially when pad drilling.
Reconfirming ground elevation and drilling order on

multi-well pads is prudent.
The drilling location should be larger than conventional

to accommodate additional equipment and facilitate
tubular movement.
Drill strings should be matched to hole size and

common threads should be used if possible. Consider
the need for additional pipe racks to store extra tubulars.
75
Consider matching the capacities of the solids control

equipment and the mud pumps (i.e. two shakers if two
mud pumps required).
Avoid excessive rotating speeds during the drilling of

unconsolidated formations to limit casing wear and
prevent keyseating.
Avoid rotating the drill string if reaming or cleaning in

the build-section of the hole and a mud-motor is in use.
This will reduce the chance of creating sidetrack or
ghost-hole wells.
To minimize casing wear, utilize smooth hard-banding

on the drill string tubulars that will be rotating inside a
casing string.
When under-balanced drilling, ensure sufficient surface

mud volume is available to kill the well if required.
This volume will vary with hole depth.
Consider the need for a reamer run through hole

sections with high build angles. This can reduce casing
running times and reduce dog-leg severities that may be
a concern when designing the casing.
Consider limiting the dog-leg severity for wells that will

utilize sucker rod pumps when producing. Wells with
shallow vertical depths and low bottom hole pressures
may require a straight tangent section near the
producing zone to accommodate the bottom hole pump.
Where 20m conductor casing is permitted, be prepared

to pressure cement if drilling conditions warrant (i.e.
water is encountered while drilling the conductor hole).
Consider selecting a conductor pipe diameter large

enough to allow the placement of surface casing inside
it should the conductor fail in its intended service.
76
The following recommendations for enhancing

communication should be considered:
A pre-spud meeting is prudent and should involve the

Operators technical staff from Engineering and
Operations Groups, Contractor drilling personnel, and
pertinent Specialty Services personnel.
The posting of pertinent drilling program information in

the doghouse is recommended. A typical horizontal well
stick diagram that includes all necessary information
is shown in Appendix G.
On-site telephone communication system.
77
3.1.7.2 Well
Naming
Convention
IRP 3.1.7.2.1
Note
A well naming convention is recommended that allows for

adequate wellbore description. Prime consideration should
be given to including the following:
surface location,
bottomhole location of the main (or mother) wellbore,
number of lateral extensions, and
type of well (e.g. horizontal, directionally drilled,etc.).
The current limitation of 36 character spaces in the Alberta

computer data-base has created a confusing well naming
convention in horizontal wells and also in reducedspacing pad
drilling. This problem needs to be addressed.
The recently revised SEM Well Licence application (I.D.
EM-46 9803)xx addresses problems associated with properly
identifying both conventional directional and horizontal wells
drilled in Saskatchewan.
78
3.1.7.3 Logging
Requirement
IRP 3.1.7.3.1
In Alberta, open-hole logging waivers are currently allowed

for the lateral sections of all horizontal wells designated as
Development Non-confidential (as per AEUB Informational
Letter IL 93-0424). It is recommended the waiver be
expanded to include Development Confidential wells.
Note
Upon application, an open-hole logging waiver can be obtained

within the angle-build and vertical sections of horizontal wells
provided at least an MWD-gamma ray or cased-hole
neutron/gamma ray log is run as deep as conventionally
possible.
Upon application, a blanket waiver of the open-hole logging
requirement may be obtained for fields with reduced-spacing
drilling provided that sufficient log coverage has already been
obtained.
In Saskatchewan, relief from standard logging requirements is
addressed in the horizontal well application.
79
3.1.7.4 Horizontal
Well Casing
Design
IRP 3.1.7.4.1
Note
When designing casing for horizontal wells in Heavy Oil /

Oil Sands areas, it is recommended the following general
concerns be considered:
type of service (i.e. sweet, sour, thermal producer or

injector)
kick-off point
radius of curvature in the build-section and dog-leg

severities
tangent-section for pump placement
anticipated casing wear
casing size, weight, grade, and coupling
mud weight (conventional or under-balanced)
safety factors for design parameters
In Saskatchewan, relief from standard casing requirements is

addressed in the horizontal well application.
Refer to Section 3.1.6 for detailed thermal casing design
concerns and recommendations.
Consider the long-term purpose of the well when sizing casing.
Consider the requirements for specialty tools, such as internal
or external packers, multi-lateral wellbores and tie-backs,
future re-entries or extension, or sand control devices.
80
Consider using a premium coupling if build angles greater than

12o per 30m are to be encountered. Experience has proven that
many wells with dogleg severities less than 12o/30 m have
tolerated Long Thread & Couplings (LT&C) connections. It is
noted that thicker wall casing is required to provide sufficient
thickness for the thread profile.
Consider the impact of casing wear while drilling, from a lifecycle perspective.
Consider the set of casing sizes from conductor to production
casing as a whole. When selecting casing sizes, make
provisions as necessary for drilling problems, such as
inadequate conductor placement.
81
3.1.8
Environment And
Drilling Waste
Management
Prudent Operators respect the environment in which they

operate and make necessary precautions to safeguard it.
Several guidelines now exist that encompass the entire
spectrum of oilfield operations. Operating in Heavy Oil / Oil
Sands areas is similar to other areas and the existing guidelines
cover this adequately. This section identifies the appropriate
regulations and extracts some significant requirements pertinent
to Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas.
3.1.8.1
Introduction
Formulating a proper waste management plan allows drilling

operations to be conducted with a temporary effect upon the
land and also reduces the time and cost to reclaim it. Proper
waste management involves identification, minimization,
handling, storage, treatment, documentation, transportation, and
disposal of wastes. This comprehensive task requires
considerable effort on the part of the Operator who is often
aided by an environmental service company.
82
In the regulations, oilfield wastes have been classified as

Dangerous Oilfield Wastes (DOW) and Non-dangerous
Oilfield Wastes (non-DOW). This is helpful as the methods of
handling and disposing of wastes varies. Each of the following
regulations provide guidance for effective waste management:
SEM Drilling Waste Management Guidelines, SEM GL-9901
SEM and AEUB Oil and Gas Conservation Act and

Regulations
SERM Environmental Management and Protection Act
SERM Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods

Regulations
Waste Management Guidelines for the Saskatchewan

Upstream Oil and Gas Industry, SPIGEC Guideline No. 1,
Feb 1996
Guidelines for the Construction and Monitoring of Oily

Byproduct Storage Structures in Saskatchewan, SEM GL
97-01
Guidelines for the Application of Oily By-products to the

Municipal Roads in Saskatchewan, SEM GL 97-02
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

and Waste Control Regulation
AEUB Guide G-5025 covers Drilling Waste Management
AEUB Guide G-5826 & Interim Directive ID 96-0327 both

cover general Oilfield Waste Management
AEUB Alberta Oilfield Waste Manifest28 covers the

documentation requirements for oilfield wastes.
83
Ensuring both the Operator and Contractor personnel have an

adequate understanding of the regulations is the first step in
successful waste management. A firm resolve to comply with
the regulations is the second requirement and both will reduce
the need for unnecessary remedial work.
3.1.8.2 Drilling
Waste Planning
Up-front planning for waste management can reduce

environmental risk and lower well costs. Extra caution is
required if operations are conducted:
in technically challenging areas with difficult topography,

large bodies of water, shallow water tables, or permeable
surface leases,
within parks, wildlife refuges, or wilderness areas,
on poorly or richly vegetated soils, or
near sensitive people.
Contamination can be extensive or reclamation requirements

can change for these site specific conditions.
84
Several guiding principles, extracted from the AEUB G-50, are

listed below as they are key considerations for drilling waste
management:
Compile a waste management plan that outlines a course of

actions for timely and environmentally safe handling and
disposing of wastes.
Minimize the surface land disturbed.
Practice waste volume minimization and re-use where

possible.
Promote the use of drilling fluid additives that allow proper

and easy disposal of the drilling waste.
Plan to reclaim the lease to at least its pre-drilling land

capability.
Presented below are significant considerations that must be

included in a Waste Management Plan. Each is discussed
briefly and references to appropriate regulatory documents are
included. The Alberta AEUB Guide G-50 is a comprehensive
document dealing with Drilling Waste Management and is
suggested as an excellent source of detailed information. A
similar comprehensive document for Saskatchewan is SP1GEC
Guideline No. 1.
85
3.1.8.2.1 Drilling
Fluid Systems
and Disposal
Methods
When selecting the drilling fluid system, its effect upon

reclamation of the drill site should be considered. Disposal
options for drilling fluid wastes are restricted dependent upon
the make-up of the drilling fluid. High concentrations of certain
chemicals, such as chlorides, nitrogen, and oil can alter the
method of waste disposal.
The four common methods of disposal are:
On-site - which includes Mix-Bury-Cover and Landspreading,
Off-site - which includes Land-spraying, Land-spraying

While Drilling, and Pump-off,
Land Treatment which is intended for hydrocarbon- or

salt-based muds, and
Alternative Disposal Methods which includes new

disposal or mud technology.
Clean-up costs can vary significantly dependent upon the

disposal method. For example, drilling fluids containing
hydrocarbons present difficulties for disposal of the drilling
fluid and drill cuttings. Some Heavy Oil area horizontal wells
can have oil concentrations as high as 10%. Sumps equipped
with weirs can be effective to separate the oil/water emulsions
and centrifuges can aid in cleaning up the solids, but Land
Treatment costs may still be high. For help in deciding upon a
waste disposal method, refer to AEUB Guide-50 for Alberta or
SEM GL-99-01 / SP1GEC Guideline No. 1 for Saskatchewan.
86
3.1.8.2.2 Drilling
Fluid Additives
The use of certain products in the drilling process can result in

increased toxicity for the drilling wastes generated. The
potential for increased toxicity in the drilling waste can alter
sump fluid analyses and treatment, increase clean-up costs, and
restrict disposal options.
The following nine (9) classes of drilling fluid products have
been identified as potential toxicants (see AEUB G-50):
Bactericides
Corrosion inhibitors
De-foamers
Emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers
Foaming agents
Lubricants
Polymer stabilizers and breakers
Shale control inhibitors
Surfactants
Minimizing the use of these products aids reclamation efforts.

Further, the heavy metals, such as Boron (B), Cadmium (Cd),
Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb), Nickel (Ni),
Vanadium (V), and Zinc (Zn), in the drilling fluid should be
minimized as exceeding certain limits will result in additional
analytical requirements and may limit disposal options (see
AEUB G-50).
87
3.1.8.2.3 Pre
Site Assessment
Once a suitable drill site has been selected and surveyed, a presite assessment should be conducted. This surface location
assessment documents pre-construction conditions including:
soil thickness and texture, topographic features, and other
details deemed pertinent for successful post-drilling
reclamation of the site. The method of drilling waste disposal is
also decided upon, as it must be compatible with the
surrounding land. In the event the surface lease is inadequate
for on-site disposal, a suitable off-site method of drilling waste
disposal must be identified.
3.1.8.2.4
Notification
Information
Communication with regulators is important and takes the form

of notifications or manifests. Pre-sampling, pre-drilling, predisposal and post-disposal notifications are required dependent
upon the method of disposal chosen and the regulator. For
example, a pre-drill notification must be submitted to the
appropriate field office of the governing regulatory body at the
time of well license application when drilling with an oil-based
mud system. This notification includes information from the
pre-drill assessment and informs the regulator of the intent to
drill with an invert mud system and the selected waste disposal
method.
In January 1998, the AEUB regulated the requirement for
Drilling Waste Manifests to be completed for each well if
dangerous oilfield wastes are to be transported. These manifests
are to be distributed to the AEUB, the Waste Generator, the
Receiver, and the Transporter (see AEUB Guide G-58).
88
3.1.8.2.5 Drilling
Waste Audit
A waste audit process may be implemented at the well planning

stage; whereby the drilling waste generated is periodically
checked for volume and cross-contamination during the drilling
process. Samples may be obtained for laboratory analyses of
chemical content as per appropriate regulations. The audit may
prove beneficial in limiting disposal restrictions and concerns.
3.1.8.3 Drilling
Site Construction
3.1.8.3.1 Sump
Construction
The use of drilling sumps or pits is the most common method

of storing drilling wastes. The sump or pits should be of
adequate size to accommodate anticipated volumes from the
drilling operation. A rule of thumb for sump size is 1 m3
volume per meter of well depth. It is prudent to allow sufficient
freeboard in areas subject to high rainfall.
Separate small pits are effective if segregation of drilling
wastes is desired. This allows typical gel-chemical mud
wastes to be segregated from oil-contaminated wastes (e.g.
diesel pills or formation flows) or potentially toxic wastes from
the addition of unplanned toxic mud additives. Avoiding
contamination of benign drilling wastes can significantly
reduce clean-up costs and optimize waste disposal options.
Identifying the type of waste in each pit may be prudent.
89
For multi-well pad drilling or horizontal heavy oil well

projects, planning should include provisions for dealing with
the additional drilling wastes. Developing a plan for off-site
disposal is normally required and efforts may be necessary to
optimize the plan. The use of the auditing process described
above or an environmental service company may prove
beneficial.
If the well site is not suitable for sumps or pits due to
permeable surface soils, then three (3) possible solutions are:
3.1.8.3.2 Tanks
lining of the sump to avoid contamination of surface

groundwater with hydrocarbons, chlorides, nitrogen, or
metals,
use of metal tanks, or
selection of an off-site (remote) sump.
If tanks are to be used for waste storage, they should be

surrounded by a berm or dike to avoid off-lease migration in
the event of spills or leaks. For additional information on
storage requirements see AEUB Guide G-5529 and ID 95-0330
Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry.
90
3.1.8.4 Waste
Management For
Drilling
Operations
3.1.8.4.1 Drilling
Waste
3.1.8.4.2 Oilfield
Waste
Drilling programs should outline equipment and procedures

that enhance drilling waste management. Some suggestions are:
Drilling fluid re-cycling to minimize volumes.
Use of small pits to segregate wastes with different

toxicities (i.e. oil, cement, salts, etc.).
Use of solids control equipment to improve mechanical

separation of fluids and solids. This can also improve
drilling fluid rheological properties and that may lessen the
need for chemical treatments or large sump volumes (for
flocculation).
Drilling wastes must be sampled and analyzed for disposal

after drilling as per the AEUB G-50. A detailed waste
disposal plan is to be submitted for land treating invert
wastes, and disposing of gel-chemical wastes to the
regulatory agency prior to disposal.
Camp wastes and other types of oilfield wastes should not

be disposed of with the drilling wastes.
All oilfield wastes, except drilling waste, that is generated onsite should be manifested as per the AEUB Guide G-58 and
disposed of accordingly.
91
3.1.9 References
AEUB Guide G-8: Surface Casing Depth Minimum

Requirements October 1997 Edition
2
AEUB Interim Directive ID 91-3: Heavy Oil/Oil Sands

Operations March 1991
3
AEUB General Bulletin GB 98-13: Minimum Standards for

Flare Tanks June 1998
4
BOP System Pressure Loss Study - PanCanadian - ??? 1997
Shallow Gas Drilling Flare Line Length Review

PanCanadian Petroleum Limited/Bovar Environmental
October 1996
AEUB Interim Directive 89-2: Blowout Prevention and

Drilling Practices for Core Holes and Oil Sands Evaluation
Wells in Surface Mineable Areas September 1989
7
AEUB Interim Directive 92-1: Drilling Blowout Prevention

Requirements Modification March 1992
8
AEUB Guide G-20: Well Abandonment Guide March 1996

Edition
9
Primary and Remedial Cementing Guidelines CAPP Drilling

and Completions Committee (DACC) of Alberta April 1995
10
AEUB Guide G-9: Casing Cementing Minimum

Requirements July 1990
92
11
Holliday, G.H., Calculation of Allowable Maximum Casing

Temperature to Prevent Tension Failures in Thermal Wells,
ASME Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Tulsa
Okla. 1969 ASME # 69-Pet-10
12
Willhite, G.P., Dietrich, W.K., Design Criteria for

Completion of Steam Injection Wells, SPE - JPT Jan. 1967
13
NACE International: Standard Test Method: Laboratory

Testing of Metals for Resistance to Specific Forms of
Environmental Cracking in H2S Environments, National
Association of Corrosion Engineers International Standard
TM0177-96 Revised 1996-Dec-23 (use latest edition)
14
European Federation of Corrosion: Guidelines on Materials

Requirements for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for H2S
Containing Environments in Oil and Gas Production, EFC
Publications Number 16 Institute of Materials Great Britain
1995
15
NACE International: Standard Materials Requirements:

Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic Materials for
Oilfield Equipment, National Association of Corrosion
Engineers International Standard MR0175-98 Revised
January 1998 (revised yearly - use latest edition)
93
16
NACE International: Standard Test Method: Evaluation of

Pipeline and Pressure Vessels for Resistance to HydrogenInduced Cracking, National Association of Corrosion Engineers
International Standard TM0284-96 Revised 1996-March-30
(use latest edition)
17
API, API Bulletin in Formulas and Calculations for Casing,

Tubing, Drill Pipe and Line Pipe Properties - API Bulletin 5C3
18
Lepper, B., Production Casing Performance in a Thermal

Field, 45th Annual Technical Meeting - Petroleum Society of
CIM, June 1994 Calgary. CIM paper # 94-07
19
Maruyama, K., Tsuru, E., Ogasawara, M., Inoue, Y., and

Peters, E.J. - An Experimental Study of Casing Performance
Under Thermal Recovery Conditions, SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, Californian April 1989, SPE # 18776
20
Tamano, T., Inoue, Y., Mimura, H., and Yanagimoto, S.,

Examination of Commercial Casing Collapse Strength Under
Axial Loading, Journal of Energy Resource Technology, 1982,
Trans ASME Vol. 104 pp. 343-348.
21
Kyogoku, T., Tokimasa, K., Nakanishi, H., and Okazawa, T.,

Experimental Study on the Effect of Axial Tension Load on the
Collapse Strength of Oil Well Casing, Offshore Technology
Conference May 1981, Houston Texas OTC # 4108
94
22
Pattillo, P.D., and Huang, N.C., The Effect of Axial Load on

Casing Collapse, SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology Jan.
1982 pp. 159-164
23
AEUB Guide G-10: Guide to Minimum Casing Design

Requirements September 1990 Edition
24
AEUB Informational Letter IL 93-04: Policy for the

Logging of Horizontal Wells June 1993
25
AEUB Guide G-50: Drilling Waste Management October

1996 Edition
26
AEUB Guide G-58: Oilfield Waste Management

Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry
November 1996 Edition
27
AEUB Interim Directive ID 96-03: Oilfield Waste

Management Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum
Industry November 1996
28
AEUB Alberta Oilfield Waste Manifest November 1996

Edition
29
AEUB Guide G-55: Storage Requirements for the Upstream

Petroleum Industry 1995 Edition
30
AEUB Interim Directive ID 95-03: Storage Requirements

for the Upstream Petroleum Industry July 1995
95
Appendix A Blow-Out Preventer Diagrams

Appendix A Figure 1: AEUB Class 1 BOP
96
Appendix A Figure 2: AEUB Class 1A BOP
97

SEE SECTION 8.131 OF THE AEUB OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS
DRILLING BLOWOUT PREVENTION SYSTEMS CLASS 2
(FOR WELLS NOT EXCEEDING A DEPTH OF 750m)
MINIMUM PRESSURE RATING 14
MPa
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bleed-off systems shall be minimum nominal 75mm diameter throughout except for lines through
chokes and to mud system which may be 50mm.
Flanged pipe connections from the drilling spool down to and including the connection to the choke
manifold, remainder of manifold may contain threaded fittings.
Hydraulic and manual valve positions on bleed-off line are interchangeable.
See page 1 of 7 of Schedule 8 (AEUB Regulations) for equipment symbols.
98

SEE SECTION 8.131 OF THE AEUB OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS
MINIMUM PRESSURE RATING 14 MPa
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bleed-off system shall be minimum nominal 75mm diameter throughout except for lines through
chokes and to mud system which may be 50mm.
Flanged pipe connections from the drilling spool down to and including the connection to the choke
manifold. Remainder of manifold may contain threaded fittings.
A second drilling spool may be installed between the lower pipe ram and casing bowl, in which case
a valve on the casing bowl is not required.
Hydraulic and manual valve positions on bleed-off line are interchangeable.
See page 1 of 7 of Schedule 8 (AEUB Regulations) for equipment symbols.
99
Appendix A Figure 5: SEM Tangleflags BOP

SEE SECTION 61 OF THE SEM OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS
MINIMUM PRESSURE RATING 14 MPa
Notes:
1. Bleed-off system shall be minimum nominal 76.2 mm diameter throughout except for lines through chokes and
to mud system which may be 50 mm.
2. Flanged pipe connections from the drilling spool down to and including the connection to the choke manifold
remainder of manifold may contain threaded fittings.
3. Hydraulic and manual valve positions on bleed-off line are interchangeable.
4. See Section 61 of the SEM Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations 1985 for equipment symbols.
5. Although it is highly recommended, a degasser is not regulated under SEM.
100
Appendix A Figure 6: AEUB Class 3 High Hazard Area BOP
101
Appendix A Figure 7: Modified AEUB Class 3 BOP
Note: High temperature float should be run with bottom hole assembly.
102
Appendix B Line System Pressure Loss Diagrams

Appendix B Figure 1
APPENDIX "B" - Figure 1 : Flare Line System Pressure Loss Diagram

76 mm Diameter x 25 m Length Flare Line
1000
900
Pressure Drop in KPa
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Flow Rate ( E3 m3/day )

No Elbows
Two 45 Degree Elbows
Four 90 Degree Elbows
103
Appendix B Figure 2

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300

No Elbows
104
Appendix B Figure 3

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300

No Elbows
105
Appendix B Figure 4

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300

No Elbows
106
Appendix B Figure 5

50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300

No Elbows
107
Appendix B Figure 6

50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300

No Elbows
108
Appendix B Figure 7
Appendix "B" - Figure 7: Composite Flare Line System Pressure Loss

Diagram
1000
76 mm
152 mm
Pressure Drop In KPa
100
203 mm
Flare System Measurements
10
Line & Bends & Length
1
0
50
100
150
200
0
Flow Rate ( E3 m3/Day )
250
300
76 mm & 4*90 & 50m

76 mm & 4*90 & 25m
76 mm & 2*45 & 50m
76 mm & 2*45 & 25m
76 mm & 50m
76350
mm & 25m
152 mm & 4*90 & 50m
152 mm & 4*90 & 25m
152 mm & 2*45 & 50m
152 mm & 2*45 & 25m
152 mm & 50m
152 mm & 25m
203 mm & 4*90 & 50m
203 mm & 4*90 & 25m
203 mm & 2*45 & 50m
203 mm & 2*45 & 25m
203 mm & 50m
203 mm & 25m
109
Appendix C Diagrams of Typical Bop System Pressure Loss Vs. Minimum Surface
Casing Or Conductor Pipe Depth Requirements
Appendix C Figure 1
APPENDIX "C" - Figure 1
BOP System Pressure Loss vs. Minimum Surface Or Conductor Casing Depth
76 mm Diameter Flare Line x 219 mm Casing Size
1400
1200
1000
800
5 kPa/m Gradient
600
400
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Surface Casing Depth In Meters

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
110
Appendix C Figure 2

1000
900
800
700
600
5 kPa/m Gradient
500
400
300
200
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
111
Appendix C Figure 3

1000
900
800
700
600
5 kPa/m Gradient
500
400
300
200
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

2 8 .3 E3 M 3 /Day
56 .6 E3 M 3 / Day
8 4 .9 E3 M 3 / Day
113 .2 E3 M 3 / Day
14 1.5 E3 M 3 / Day
2 8 3 .0 E3 M 3 /Day
5 kPa/ m Grad ient
112
Appendix C Figure 4

1200
1000
800
600
5 kPa/m Gradient
400
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
113
Appendix C Figure 5

BOP System Pressure Loss vs. Minimum Surface Or Conductor Casing
500
450
400
5 kPa/m Gradient
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
114
Appendix C Figure 6

500
450
5 kPa/m Gradient
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
115
Appendix C Figure 7

1000
900
800
700
5 kPa/m Gradient
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

2 8 .3 E3 M 3 /Day
56 .6 E3 M 3 /Day
8 4 .9 E3 M 3 /Day
113 .2 E3 M 3 /Day
14 1.5 E3 M 3 /Day
2 8 3 .0 E3 M 3 /Day
5 kPa/m
116
Appendix C Figure 8

180
160
140
120
100
5 kPa/m Gradient
80
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
117
Appendix C Figure 9

180
160
140
120
5 kPa/m Gradient
100
80
60
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
118
Appendix C Figure 10

1000
900
800
700
5 kPa/m Gradient
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

2 8 .3 E3 M 3 / Day
56 .6 E3 M 3 /Day
8 4 .9 E3 M 3 / Day
113 .2 E3 M 3 / Day
14 1.5 E3 M 3 /Day
2 8 3 .0 E3 M 3 /Day
5 kPa/m Grad ient
119

150
130
110
90
5 kPa/m Gradient
70
50
30
10
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
120

100
90
80
5 kPa/m Gradient
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

28.3 E3M3/Day
56.6 E3M3/Day
84.9 E3M3/Day
113.2 E3M3/Day
141.5 E3M3/Day
283.0 E3M3/Day
5 kPa/m Gradient
121
Appendix D- Example Wash-over Remedial Cement

Program
Well Casing And
Wash-Over Pipe
Data
Conductor
Production
Casing
Wash-over
Pipe
Size (O.D. mm)
339.7
244.5
298.5
Weight (kg/m)
81.10
59.53
62.50
Grade
K-55
L-80
H-40, FJ
Drift I.D. (mm)
316.5
220.5
277.6
Collar O.D. (mm)
365.1
269.9
298.5
Perforations:
None
122
Procedure
Weld a plate on the 244.5 mm production casing stub to

ensure that fluid cannot enter the inside of the production
casing.
Install a 50.8 mm or larger bull plug near the base of the

casing bowl to allow cement to be drained near ground level.
Tally, drift, and run-in-hole with 298.5 mm, 62.50 kg/m, H-40
Flush Joint wash-over casing with a 310 mm O.D. by 278
mm I.D. Klusterite Wash-over Shoe on the bottom. Ensure
that the wash-over shoe is tapered on the inside to guide the
wash-over pipe over the 244.5 mm casing collars without
damaging them.
Start pumping at 0.5m3/min. and adjust as required for hole

cleaning. In conjunction with the desired pump rate, design
an adequate drilling fluid program to ensure hole cleaning.
Wash-over the 244.5 mm casing and centralizers until hard

cement is encountered.
Install the circulating head and begin circulation to condition

the hole for cementing. (Adjust mud properties as necessary
to enhance hole cleaning and then drilling fluid displacement
upon cementing.)
Land the wash-over casing near bottom and then pump

cement until returns are obtained at surface.
Flush the BOP stack and drain the cement from the annulus
outside the 298.5 mm casing. Raise the BOP stack and cut a
hole in the 298.5 mm casing to drain the cement inside this
string. Hold the casing in tension until cement sets and then
cut it off at ground level. (Use of a mechanical cutter is
recommended. However, if a cutting torch is used be careful
not to damage the 244.5 mm production casing.
123
Appendix E Thermal / Mechanical Relationship

Diagrams for Common Grades of Oilfield Casing
Thermal Well
Temperature
Stress Cycle
Review
A thermal casing string is typically cemented from total depth to

surface. The cement sheath provides mechanical support to the
casing but also causes large stresses to develop during each
heating and cooling cycle. These stresses develop since the
cement sheath restrains the casing and does not allow it to expand
and contract freely: thermal strains resulting from temperature
changes are manifested in the casing as compressive (heating)
and tensile (cooling) stresses. Through the range of conditions
found in steam stimulation operations in Western Canada (i.e.
Tmax = 340oC and Pmax =14 MPa), the modulus and coefficient of
thermal expansion for steel are relatively constant. Thus, the
strain and stress generated in cemented casing by thermal
operations can be considered to occur in direct proportion to the
change in temperature.
Figure 1 illustrates the thermal-mechanical relationship of
cemented API K-55 and L-80 casings through one thermal cycle.
The stress-temperature plot shows large compressive stresses
developing in the casings during heating and large tensile stresses
developing during cooling. The casings yield in compression at
about 165oC (K-55) and 220oC (L-80). They both undergo stress
relaxation at the peak injection temperatures and then yield in
tension at 140oC (K-55) and 55oC (L-80) respectively. Despite
yielding in both compression and tension, the applied stresses
remain well below the failure limit or minimum specified
ultimate tensile strength of 665 MPa for both K-55 and L-80
casings.
124
Within the API specification for casing mechanical properties,

there is leeway for the manufacturers to supply a range of yield
and ultimate tensile strengths for each grade of casing. Figure 2
lists these values for common casing grades. For thermal well
designs, it is important that the yield strength be near the
minimum allowed while the ultimate tensile strength be as high
as practical. For example, in some high temperature situations
the data indicates that K-55 grade casing can provide a greater
mechanical reliability in the casing connection than higher yield
grades13. The lower yield strength of the K-55 grade steel results
in lower loads being transferred to the casing connection as the
casing yields in compression or tension.
Regardless of the steel grade selected, the designer must also
review the steel's cyclic hardening performance in conjunction
with its susceptibility to sulphide stress cracking. It is important
to note that an increasing amount of cyclic hardening will
increase the steel's susceptibility to sulphide stress cracking.
It also is recommended that the ratio of actual yield strength to
ultimate tensile strength (Y/T) of the steel selected be 0.90 or
less. This ratio can be confirmed by reviewing the casing mill
certificates.
Each of the four stress components of a thermal cycle:
1. Compressive yielding,
2. Stress relaxation,
3. Tensile yielding, and
4. Cyclic hardening
are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.
125
Compressive
Yielding
Cemented casing will yield in compression when the thermally

induced stress exceeds the elastic (yield) limit. Compressive
yielding by itself is not a concern for thermal well casing design.
For the conditions shown in Figure 1, the API L-80 casing incurs
only 0.45% strain. This is much too low to affect casing
integrity. The same holds true for all casings with minimum
specified yield strengths of 55 ksi or greater. (There is no data
for API H-40 casing.)
The high compressive stresses generated during the heating
portion of the thermal cycle are a concern if:
the casing has insufficient burst resistance, or
there is insufficient connection strength.

These items are discussed in IRPs 3.1.6.3.3 and 3.1.6.3.7
respectively.
126
The data presented in Table 1 below shows the temperatures at

which the various grades of casing will yield in compression.
(Each test started at an initial temperature of 15oC.) Although
yielding may be avoided by the use of higher strength steel, this
practice is not recommended as these steels can be very
susceptible to environmental cracking (see IRPs 3.1.6.3.5 and
3.1.6.3.6).
Table 1 - Compressive Yield Temperatures of API Casing Grades
Casing
Grade
Nominal
Yield
(MPa)
Stress Relaxation
Compressive
Yield
Temperature
(CYT) (oC)
Saturated
Steam Pressure
at CYT
(MPa)
J-55, K-55
380
165
0.6
L-80, N-80
550
220
2.3
C-95, T-95
655
250
4.0
P-110
760
275
6.0
Q-125
860
325
12.0
Stress relaxation occurs at elevated temperatures and is most

noticeable at the peak operating temperature. While the casing is
held at elevated temperature, its axial and radial stresses relax or
decrease with time. One benefit of stress relaxation is that the
bending stresses created by doglegs in the well are nearly
eliminated by the plastic strains imposed in the first thermal
cycle.
The degree of stress relaxation achieved depends upon the grade
of steel, the peak operating temperature, and the time spent at
elevated temperatures. Within certain limits, stress relaxation is
not a concern for thermal casing design. However, it should be
considered when selecting casing connections (see IRP 3.1.6.3.8).
127
Tensile Yielding
Similar to compressive yielding, tensile yielding by itself is not a

concern for thermal well casing design. As the casing cools, the
compressive stress eases and the casing begins to go into tension.
Depending upon the casing grade and the minimum operating
temperature reached, the casing may yield in tension. For the
operating conditions shown in Figure 1, the API L-80 casing
undergoes a limited amount of plastic strain in tension.
Although tensile yielding by itself is not a concern, the high
tensile stresses generated during cooling can be if:
the casing has insufficient collapse resistance,
the casing operates in conditions that promote

environmental cracking, or
there is insufficient connection strength.
These items are discussed in IRPs 3.1.6.3.4, 3.1.6.3.5, 3.1.6.3.6,

and 3.1.6.3.7.
128
Cyclic Hardening
The extent to which a casing will undergo cyclic hardening is a

function of the steel's strain hardening ability and the well operating
conditions. Some hardening is desirable so that the casing can build
strength and redistribute applied stresses as the casing deforms. Too
much hardening, though, could lead to a failure.
Under certain conditions, stress relaxation and thermal cycling can
combine to ratchet the tensile stress well beyond its original value.
This hardening effect requires that the number of operating cycles
over the life of the well be taken into effect when designing the
production casing. Cyclic hardening occurs for L-80 and above
grades at temperatures that are slightly above 350oC. K-55 grade
casing can experience this effect at temperatures below 290oC.
Historically, many thermal well casing designs were based upon two
respected papers10 & 11 written in the late 1960s. It is now known
that these papers failed to recognize that stress relaxation could
occur at temperatures above 200oC. Current thermal well casing
designs frequently rely upon empirical data obtained from tests of
casing subjected to thermal cycling at specific temperatures. The
thermal-mechanical relationship of API K-55, L-80, N-80, and C95 grade casings over some temperature ranges are provided in
Figures 3 through 6.
The following figures showing casing stress versus temperature
were generated using a Shell Development Company computer
program18. The program is based on results from full scale casing
tests from 17 heats of steel covering casing grades K-55, L-80, N80, and C-95. The computer program represents an average from
these test results. The physical tests are similar to those documented
in SPE paper 1877619. The Center for Engineering Research (CFER) subsequently conducted similar tests for an industry
consortium. The computer-generated figures shown here are in
close agreement to the C-Fer work.
129
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 1: STEAM WELL TEMPERATURE / STRESS CYCLE DIAGRAM

800
Tensile Yielding
600
Minimum Ultimate K55 & L80

L80 API MIN. Buttress Connection *
K55 API MIN. Buttress Connection *
* CALC connection strength for casing
range 178 thru 298mm. API Min.
properties without strain harding
400
L80
K55
Reheating
Second
Cycle
Stress (MPa)
200
Cooling
Hot
R e la xa tio n
-200
Heating
-400
Compressive Yielding
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 1
130
APPENDIX "E" - Figure 2: TYPICAL STRESS / STRAIN DIAGRAM FOR OILFIELD CASINGS
(K55, L80, N80, C95)
800
Stress MPa
600
400
Grade
K55
L80
N80
C95
.5% API Yield
200
Yield
min
Tensile Ultimate
Min
max
379 552
552 665
552 758
665 758
665
665
689
724
Ratio Range*
min max
.58
.84
.80
.90
.84
1.0
>1.0
>1.0
*Y/T Ratio should be less than 0.90 for thermal wells
Strain %
10
Fig. 2
131
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 3a: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF K-55 AT 310C

800
CYCLE
CYCLE
CYCLE
CYCLE
CYCLE
CYCLE
CYCLE
1
2
5
10
15
20
30
Stress (MPa)
400
-400
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 3a
132
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 3b: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF K-55 AT 325C

800
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 5
CYCLE 10
CYCLE 15
CYCLE 20
CYCLE 30
600
400
Stress (MPa)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 3b
133
APPENDIX 'E' - FIGURE 3c: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF K-55 AT 341C

800
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 5
CYCLE 10
CYCLE 15
CYCLE 20
CYCLE 30
600
400
Stress (MPa)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 3c
134
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 3d: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF K-55 @ 355C
K55 GRADE CASING

at 355 (C)
800
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 5
CYCLE 10
CYCLE 15
CYCLE 20
CYCLE 30
600
400
Stress (MPa)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 3d
135
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 4b: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF L-80 @ 355C

800
Note:
1 through 30 heating
and cooling cycles.
600
400
5
35
C
Stress (MPa)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (c)
300
400
Fig. 4b
136
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 5: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF N-80 CASING

800
Note:
Each line reflects
and cooling cycles.
600
400
C
C
5 1C 5C
35 34 32 310
Stress (MPa)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 5
137
APPENDIX "E" - FIGURE 6: THERMAL / MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIP OF C-95 CASING

800
Note:
Each line reflects
and cooling cycles.
600
C
C
5 1C 5C
35 34 32 310
400
Stress (MPa)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
0
100
200
Temperature (C)
300
400
Fig. 6
138
Appendix F Environmental Cracking Mechanisms

Production casing design must consider the corrosive
environment present in most thermal wells. The corrosiveness of
the environment depends upon the type of service and operating
conditions. A typical thermal well environment may include a
caustic steam condensate during injection and acid gases (H2S
and CO2) during production and shut-ins. Prudent Operators
should select casing that will withstand the potential
environmental cracking conditions expected, and implement
practices to protect the integrity of the installed casing.
The three (3) corrosion mechanisms that should be considered in thermal
casing design, and ways to mitigate their occurrence, are described below:
1.
Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC): Should acid gases (H2S and CO2) exist in
the tubing / casing annulus at any time during the life of a thermal well,
the steel should be evaluated for resistance to sulfide stress cracking as per
NACE TM 0177-96 Method A - Solution A. It is recommended that
the minimum resistance to SSC from this test be >90% of the actual
yield value, as noted in the European Federation of Corrosion (EFC)
Publication Number 1620.
In general, sulfide stress cracking can occur when tensile stresses are high,
pH is low, temperatures are less than 100oC, and H2S partial pressure
exceeds 0.35 kPa. The H2S partial pressure levels for SSC are
documented in NACE MR0175-9721 and EFC Publication Number 1620.
It is important to note that thermal wells may operate at conditions outside
those reviewed in NACE and EFC. Thus, regardless of the casing grade
selected, to minimize the potential for SSC it is prudent to control the
wellbore environment and attempt to avoid the conditions mentioned
above from existing concurrently. This is discussed further in IRPs
3.1.6.3.5 and 3.1.6.3.6. In low alloy steels such as casing grade materials,
as tensile strength increases the materials typically exhibit decreased
resistance to SSC. Experience has shown that controlling the Rockwell
Hardness at 22 or less can help alleviate this concern.
139
2.
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC): During steam injection, if steam

condensate containing caustic is allowed to leak through a casing
connection, SCC (caustic cracking) may occur in the threads. It is
difficult to determine if SCC will occur since its potential depends on the
volume of steam injected, the caustic concentration, the amount of
condensate that leaks through the connection, and the degree of thermal
cycling experienced by the casing. If conditions for caustic cracking exist,
it usually occurs where the stress concentrations are highest, such as in the
roots of the connection threads.
Prevention of SCC should focus on restricting the entry of caustic
condensate into the casing connection. This can be accomplished by:
selecting casing connections with metal-to-metal seals that provide a
tight seal upstream of the connection threads,
controlling caustic concentrations in the injected steam, or
limiting the number of thermal cycles that may affect the integrity of
the connection.
Experience has shown that SCC can occur with all casing grades.
3.
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC): If acid gases exist in the tubing /

casing annulus at any time during the life of the well, then the production
casing should be evaluated for its resistance to HIC as per NACE TM
0284-96 using Solution A. A recommended minimum resistance to
HIC from this test is a Crack Length Ratio (CLR) less than 15.0%
and a Crack Thickness Ratio (CTR) less than 3.0%, per EFC
Publication Number 1620.
Since HIC is the result of an accumulation of hydrogen within the steel,
the potential for its occurrence can be minimized by:
selecting casing that has a uniform microstructure, and
controlling the wellbore environment as previously indicated for SSC.
If electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe is planned for use in a thermal well,
the resistance to hydrogen induced cracking of both the pipe and ERW weld
should be confirmed.
140
Appendix G Horizontal Well Stick Diagram
141
3.2
3.2.1
Scope
Well Servicing
The scope of the Well Servicing Section considers:
Service rig operations for primary and EOR wells
Continuous rod rigs
Snubbing units
Flush-by units
Pad wells
3.2.2 Definitions
3.2.2.1 Bailing
Tanks
A bailing tank is a small, open tank mounted on wheels that can

be positioned near the service rig floor (approximately 1 m from
the well). It is utilized to collect sand and well fluids recovered
during bailing operations. The tank is moved from its close
proximity to the well to meet regulatory spacing requirements
upon completion of the bailing operation.
Note
This open, portable tank provides a means of emptying the bailer

of its oily waste and transporting the recovered material to a
proper disposal site.
142
3.2.2.2 Flush By
Units
3.2.2.3 Pressure
Trucks
A Flush-by Unit is a single mobile unit normally equipped

with a small tank, a high-pressure pump, and a derrick
attached to the rear of the unit. It is capable of lifting a rod
string to unseat a standard reciprocal down hole pump or
progressive cavity pump rotor.
The name flush-by comes from the process of unseating the

pump allowing a fluid to be pumped down the tubing,
flushing by the rods and cleaning the tubing string of any
materials that may be present.
The use of flush-by units and their types of service are

expanding. Some examples are polished rod changes, pump
changes, fishing for backed off or broken rods, or rotating
tubing strings on shallow wells.
A pressure truck is defined as a single, mobile unit equipped with

a pump and tank. It is capable of servicing wells in many and
varied operations, such as blowing drains and flushing rods and
tubing strings.
143
3.2.3 Service
Rigs
3.2.3.1 Primary
Recovery And
EOR Wells
3.2.3.1.1 Blow-out
Preventers
Each province has different requirements for BOP systems. Prior

to operating in a specific area obtain a copy of the regulations for
the area, the recommended practices below may not be sufficient.
IRP 3.2.3.1.1.1
In Alberta all primary recovery oil wells and EOR wells

operating below 21M Pa. and having an H2S release rate
lower than 0.001 m3/s shall utilise pipe and blind rams when
performing servicing operations (see Appendix 1).
The BOP system must be equipped with:
an additional spool complete with side outlet and valve

that may have threaded connections, or
a flanged BOP port (below the lowest set or rams) and

valve that may have a threaded connection on the downstream side for connecting a kill or bleed-off line.
In Saskatchewan, the SEM allows use of an annular

preventer when servicing wells in Spacing Area E only.
144
Note
The use of pipe and blind rams will enable an Operator to

effectively shut-in a well with or without tubing in the well. The
pipe rams must be sized to accommodate the completion string in
the well. If there are joints of tubing that differ in diameter from
the majority of the tubing, no change to the ram size should be
required, provided that, prior to tripping these joints, a flow check
is conducted to ensure the well is dead. A pup joint with a cross
over to the different size connection should also be available to
allow the well to be shut in by installing the pup joint and
lowering the tubing then closing the pipe rams should a flow
occur. The well is then secured by installing the stabbing valve
and closing it.
Dependent upon risk, the Operator may choose to have an annular
preventer added to the BOP stack or an additional pipe ram with
the correct size of ram blocks for varying sizes of tubing or
completion components. A crossover that will provide for the
installation of the stabbing valve shall be available.
145
IRP 3.2.3.1.1.2
Note
A blow-out prevention system, equivalent to or exceeding an

AEUB prescribed Class 3 BOP, must be utilised on wells
where:
bottom hole formation pressure or surface injection

pressure, whichever is greater, exceeds 21 MPa, or
potential H2S release rate is equal to or greater than 0.001

m3/s.
The pressure rating of the wellhead flange does not determine the
class of blow-out preventer to be installed on a well for servicing
operations. Most heavy oil thermal projects have wellhead
pressure ratings equal to or exceeding 21MPa, while working
pressures do not exceed 14MPa. High-pressure wellheads are
installed to meet the pressure rating at the high operating
temperatures during injection when the cold pressure rating must
be de-rated. A work over is not conducted on a high temperature
steam well until the temperature is lowered. Thus, operating
pressures for these wells are typically the formation and / or
injection pressures and so similarly rated BOPs are satisfactory.
Using H2S concentration alone as the means of determining BOP
configuration does not necessarily represent the risk nor
consequence resulting from an uncontrolled flow. The potential
H2S gas release rate takes into account the well flowrate and
concentration of H2S and is deemed a more appropriate measure
of conditions for requiring a Class 3 BOP.
146
In the event of a complete loss of well control, an H2S release rate

of 0.001 m3/s was determined to be an appropriate cut-off value
requiring a Class 3 BOP system based upon the following
stringent conditions:
down-wind H2S concentration off-lease (i.e. 100 m away do

not exceed the exposure limits recommended by Occupational
Health and Safety1,
minimal wind speed (i.e. 2m/s or 4.5 mi/hr), and
ground level emission point.
See Appendix 2 and 3 for example calculations and modeling

results.
147
3.2.3.1.2
Lubricators
IRP 3.2.3.1.2.1
With the exception of bailing operations, a full lubricator of

sufficient length to allow full retrieval of all tools within the
lubricator body shall be used on any well that has open
perforations.
A stub lubricator may be used to conduct bailing operations
to allow removal of sand or other fill material from a
wellbore. The stub lubricator could consist of a pup joint
with a collar or dognut set in the pipe rams and be equipped
with a wireline lubricating head (pack-off) above the service
rig working floor area.
Note
The use of a full length lubricator on bailing operations may result in

safety concerns while pulling the bailer into the lubricator or
removing it from the lubricator to dump the sand or fill. A flow
check should be conducted to ensure the well is dead prior to
removing the stub lubricator.
148
3.2.3.1.3 Electric
Cables and
Capillary Tubing
IRP 3.2.3.1.3.1
An annular preventer is required as part of the BOP stack

whenever electrical cable or capillary tubing strings are being
run with the production tubing string.
Alberta Health recommends evaluation if average levels
exceed 10 PPM for 8 hours or more when individuals
experience symptoms that persist or become more severe at
levels less than 10 PPM.
Note
The addition of the annular preventer does not mean the BOP
stack must meet Class 3 standards. Rather, the annular preventer
is supplementing the pipe ram that cannot seal. An annular
preventer may not provide a leak-proof seal when closed on
tubing with either electrical cable or capillary tubing. However, it
will provide safe enough conditions to cut the cable or capillary
tubing. The pipe could then be lowered and the pipe rams closed
to stop well flow.
149
3.2.3.1.4 Rig Pump

and Tank
IRP 3.2.3.1.4.1
A rig pump and tank is not required at a primary recovery or

EOR Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well during normal servicing
operations. However, return fluids must be contained.
Note
A Primary / EOR well can be killed using a pressure truck or a

rig pump and tank. The decision to retain this equipment on lease
is made by the Operator.
In Alberta, when using a rig tank it must be located a minimum
15 m from the well. This minimum distance was approved to
avoid excessive pad sizes. The rig tank should be located as far
from the rig as practical.
In Saskatchewan, the SEM requires that a tank be located at least
23 m from the wellbore.
3.2.3.1.5
Circulating
Manifold
IRP 3.2.3.1.5.1
For routine operations, a circulating manifold is not required

for the purpose of directing fluids to and from the well.
Note
Should a well begin to flow, it can be shut in with the existing

BOP system. Once shut-in, a pressure truck or rig pump and tank
can be used to kill the live well.
150
3.2.3.1.6 Bailing
Tanks
IRP 3.2.3.1.6.1
Bailing tanks are permitted as close to the well as required to

perform bailing operations. Upon completion of the well
clean-out, the bailing tank must be moved to a position that
meets regulatory requirements for tanks.
Note
Bailing operations are conducted to remove sand and other fill

material from the well. When possible the well is circulated to
remove fill. However, when circulation cannot be achieved due to
loss of fluid to the open zone (i.e. low reservoir pore pressure),
then the well is considered to be incapable of flow. Should the
well commence flowing during bailing operations, well control is
maintained with a lubricator. In this event, the bailing tank must
be removed and kill operations commenced.
151
3.2.3.1.7 Heating
of BOP and
Accumulator
Service rig operations may continue without external heating of

the BOP and accumulator system under certain cold weather
conditions provided the Operator maintains a fully functional
BOP system. The following recommendations are provided.
IRP 3.2.3.1.7.1
If ambient temperature is 10oC or greater, service rig

operations may continue WITHOUT external heating of the
BOP and accumulator system if the BOP is maintained in an
ice-free condition.
IRP 3.2.3.1.7.2
If ambient temperature is < 10oC to 25oC, service rig

operations may continue WITHOUT external heating of the
BOP and accumulator system if:
IRP 3.2.3.1.7.3
the BOP is maintained in an ice-free condition, and
cold weather BOP sealing elements are is use.
If ambient temperature is < 25oC, service rig operations

may continue WITH external heating of the BOP and
accumulator system if:
the BOP is maintained in an ice-free condition, and
when using a standard BOP sealing element, BOP body

temperature is 10oC or greater, and
when using a cold weather BOP sealing element, BOP

body temperature is 25oC or greater.
Enclosing the BOP and accumulator with a tarp or other

similar material is recommended to minimize heat loss from
the heat source or well.
152
Note
When working with water at surface, it is recommended that the

BOP stack be heated to prevent ice formation within the stack
that may prevent proper closure.
Accumulators may not require heat but must be fully functional at
any ambient temperature.
153
3.2.3.1.8
Unattended Or
Shut-In Periods
IRP 3.2.3.1.8.1
If the BOPs are installed and the rig is unattended, the well
should be secured by:
landing a dognut and pup joint in the tubing head and

engaging the lock-down screws (if available),
closing the BOP pipe rams on the pup joint,
installing and closing a stabbing valve complete with a

tapped bull plug and bleed valve.
Other securing methods that provide well control without

using the BOP sealing elements may be used. Each should
provide the ability to monitor well pressure and pump
control fluids into the well.
Note
The BOP stack and stabbing valve is the safety system durning
normal operations. They should not be used for extended well
shut-in.
If possible a preferred method of shut-in would be to run a five to
ten joint kill string into the well before suspending operations.
This provides an opportunity to circulate out any gas that may
migrate to surface during the shut in.
If there is risk of ice in the BOP stack or the casing, the BOP and
casing bowl should be heated prior to opening. Failure to ensure
the absence of ice plugs could result in injury or a loss of well
control.
154
3.2.3.1.9 Detailed
Inspections
IRP 3.2.3.1.9.1
A detailed well servicing unit inspection shall be conducted by

the Operators and Contractors on-site supervisors during
the first time use by the Operator and every thirty (30)
calendar days thereafter.
3.2.3.1.10
IRP 3.2.3.1.10.1
The BOP pressure tests, detailed inspections, and crew blowout drills must be recorded in a log to be maintained at the
service rig at all times.
3.2.3.1.11
IRP 3.2.3.1.11.1
A daily BOP function test must be performed and recorded.

The Operators representative should witness this test, and if
any deficiencies are detected they must be rectified prior to
work continuing.
3.2.3.1.12
IRP 3.2.3.1.12.1
The Operators representative should ensure each service rig

crew conducts a minimum of one (1) blow-out drill every
seven (7) calendar days and ensure the drill is recorded in a
log maintained at the service rig at all times.
155
3.2.3.1.13
IRP 3.2.3.1.13.1
No vehicles with internal combustion engines are allowed

within a 7 m (25 ft) radius of a well during servicing
operations.
Note
Should it become necessary to conduct operations that would

result in vehicles being operated within these distances, the well
site supervisor shall first assess the conditions on the lease to
determine if there are hydrocarbon vapours present which could
result in fire or explosion. A Hot Work Permit should be
completed to determine the consequences to worker safety and
well control.
156
IRP 3.2.3.1.13.2
Internal combustion engines shall not be allowed to operate

within 25 m (75 ft) of the well or storage tank during
stimulation operations using condensate or similar volatile
fluids.
Note
The AEUB, Section 8.148 Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations,

and SEM require either:
an air shut-off valve,
a system to inject inert gas into the engine,
or a duct to obtain air for the engine to be installed and

operable on all diesel engines operating within 25 m (75 ft) of
the well.
The minimum distance for internal combustion engines was

established on the premise that all service rig engines are located
approximately 7 m from well centre.
Other servicing vehicles should be equipped with appropriate
lines to allow connection to the well from outside the 7 m radius.
Should it become necessary to conduct operations that would
result in vehicles being operated within these distances, the well
site supervisor shall first assess the conditions on the lease to
determine if there are hydrocarbon vapours present which could
result in fire or explosion. A Hot Work Permit should be
completed to determine the consequences to worker safety and
well control.
157
3.2.3.2 Primary
Recovery Wells
3.2.3.2.1 Rod Jobs
IRP 3.2.3.2.1.1
A rod BOP capable of closing on the rod string shall be

installed on the wellhead or tubing string whenever tripping
rods. When the rod BOP is not integral to the wellhead, one
must be installed to trip the rods. The rod BOP may be
secured to the wellhead with a threaded connection. A
hydraulically operated rod BOP is recommended but is not
mandatory.
Note
The rod preventer installed on the wellhead for production

purposes may not provide an effective seal when closed on the
rod string, as it is sized to close on the polished rod. If it cannot
close and seal on the sucker rod then an appropriate rod BOP
must be installed. The rod BOP should be stump tested following
the same criteria as the BOP stack.
At time of servicing, it is recommended that the wellhead rod
BOP be:
visually inspected to confirm ram blocks are not damaged and
function tested to ensure the ram blocks are properly installed

and have full travel and pressure sealing integrity.
158
3.2.3.2.2 Bleed-Off
And Kill Lines
IRP 3.2.3.2.2.1
Bleed-off and kill lines are not required during servicing

operations on a primary recovery Heavy Oil / Oil Sands well.
Note
Should the well show evidence of a flow, the well could be shut
in adequately with the BOP system. With the well shut in, a
pressure truck or rig pump and tank can be used to kill the well.
3.2.3.2.3 BOP
Pressure Testing
IRP 3.2.3.2.3.1
All components of the BOP system including the manifold,

lines, and stabbing valve(s) shall be subjected to a stump,
flange or wellhead pressure test for a minimum of ten (10)
minutes for each BOP component at high and low pressure.
This test shall be conducted prior to servicing the first well of
a program and every seven (7) calendar days thereafter. In
addition, before servicing each EOR well, each BOP
component shall be tested for at least two (2) minutes.
159
3.2.4 Continuous
Rod Rigs
3.2.4.1 BOP
Requirements For
Continuous Rod
Rigs
IRP 3.2.4.2.1
The blow-out prevention equipment for a continuous rod rig

shall consist of a stripper / pack-off type BOP. A BOP is to be
used as a back-up BOP only for EOR wells. The preventer
must be hydraulically operated with the controls located no
closer to the well than the Operators control panel. Should
the preventer be operated using the rig hydraulic system, an
alternate method of operating the preventer must be provided
and the controls located beyond a 7 m radius from the well.
3.2.4.2 BOP Test

Requirements For
Continuous Rod
Rigs
IRP 3.2.4.2.1
A daily function test of the stripper / pack-off BOP shall be

performed and recorded in a log to be maintained with the
continuous rod rig at all times.
A visual inspection of the stripper / pack-off BOP element
shall be performed after each use. The entire stripper / packoff BOP shall undergo a complete "teardown" inspection and
pressure test every three (3) years.
160
3.2.4.3 Rig
Spacing
Requirements For
Continuous Rod
Rigs
IRP 3.2.4.3.1
Rig spacing adjacent to continuous rod rigs on multiple well

pads shall be assessed with regard to the level of risk
associated with operations occurring in the vicinity. There
should be a minimum separation distance of 15 m from other
equipment and any part of the continuous rod rig, rod guide,
or rod storage reel.
Rig spacing between the derrick of another working rig and
the continuous rod rig or associated equipment must be
equivalent to the length of the highest derrick plus 3 meters.
161
3.2.5 Snubbing
Units
IRP 3.2.5.1
A snubbing unit shall meet or exceed all the BOP

requirements of the applicable regulatory body.
Note
Snubbing operations are generally carried out with pressure on

the well. The crews on snubbing units are trained to maintain well
control with continuous pressure at the snubbing unit BOP's.
In Western Canada, the most common type of snubbing unit used
is a rig assist unit that is installed on top of the service rigs BOP
stack. Therefore, the well control system has a completely
independent back-up.
When using a rig assist unit, the service rig BOPs must only be
used to shut in the well. They must not be used for snubbing or
stripping operations as the BOP rams are generally not designed
for these operations.
Prior to installing the rig assist snubbing unit, the service rig BOP
stack should be checked to confirm that the correct size of rams
have been installed for the pipe that is being run.
Well servicing blow-out prevention certification addresses well
control during operations in which the well has been killed with
appropriate density fluid. This training is not necessary for
snubbing unit operators who generally do not work with kill
fluids.
162
The Driller on the service rig is responsible for rig related

operations and must have a valid well servicing blow-out
certificate and be on-site at all times while operations on the well
are being conducted.
In Alberta, the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations and the
latest revision of AEUB Guide G-37 - Service Rig Inspection
Manual apply except for the requirement for well blow-out
prevention certification as noted in 5) and 6) above.
163
3.2.6 Pressure
Trucks
The use of a pressure truck, rather than a rig tank and pump, is a
common practice in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas. The short
duration of many jobs makes hauling and setting up rig tanks and
pumps too expensive for the majority of service work being
conducted. The following recommended practices ensure both
well control and personnel safety is maintained.
3.2.6.1 Diesel
Engine Intake
Shut-Off Valve
IRP 3.2.6.1.1
Diesel engines shall be equipped with an air-intake shut-off

valve when conducting operations within a 25m (or 75 ft)
radius of the well. In addition, the control for the air shut-off
valve must be located at the truck operators normal working
position during well servicing operations.
3.2.6.2 Hoses And

Check Valves
IRP 3.2.6.2.1
The hose used to transfer fluids from the well to the pressure
truck should be adequately rated to withstand the anticipated
maximum working pressure and temperature of fluid to be
pumped. In addition, an in-line check valve should be installed
at the wellhead connection to protect against possible back flow
from the well. The use of a check valve may be waived if the
pressure truck to wellhead connection is constructed entirely of
steel.
A means of monitoring or recording pressure shall be provided
between the connection point and check valve. This provision
allows detection of possible line over pressuring situations
should plugging occur during the circulating operation.
164
3.2.7 Flush-By
Units
3.2.7.1 General
IRPs
The type of servicing performed by flush-by units is expanding.

Some examples are polished rod changes, pump changes, fishing
for broken rods, or rotating tubing strings on shallow wells.
IRP 3.2.7.1.1
Flush-by unit operators should have the same training and

certification as a service rig driller.
IRP 3.2.7.1.2
Flush-by units should be equipped with weight indicators to

provide an indication of pull being applied.
IRP 3.2.7.1.3
Flush-by units should be equipped with a signaling device for

alerting the crew in an emergency and / or crew BOP drill.
Note
See Section 3.2.2.2 for a definition of a flush-by unit.
3.2.7.2 BOP
Pressure Testing
IRP 3.2.7.2.1
All components of the Flush-by Unit BOP system including

the manifold, lines, and stabbing valve(s) shall be subjected to
a stump, flange, or wellhead pressure test for a minimum of
ten minutes for each BOP component at high and low
pressure. This test shall be conducted prior to servicing the
first well of a multi-well program and every seven (7)
calendar days thereafter. Further, before servicing each
subsequent well of a multi-well program, each BOP
component shall be tested for at least 2 minutes.
165
3.2.7.3 Diesel
Engine Intake
Shut-Off Valve
IRP 3.2.7.3.1
Diesel engines shall be equipped with an air-intake shut-off

valve while conducting operations within a 25m (75 ft) radius
of the well. In addition, the control for the air shut-off valve
must be located at the truck operators normal working
position during well servicing operations.
3.2.7.4 Hoses And

Check Valves
IRP 3.2.7.4.1
The hose used to transfer fluids from the well to the pressure
truck should be adequately rated to withstand the anticipated
maximum working pressure and temperature of fluid to be
pumped. In addition, an in-line check valve should be
installed at the wellhead connection to protect against
possible back flow from the well.
A means of monitoring or recording pressure shall be
provided between the connection point and check valve. This
provision allows detection of possible line over- pressuring
situations should plugging occur during the circulating
operation.
IRP 3.2.7.4.2
The hoses used to transfer fluids to and from the well and the
hydraulic hoses used for well control devices shall be sheathed
and fire rated as per the governing regulations.
Note
In Alberta, see Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations Section

8.145.
166
3.2.7.5
Operational
Procedures
3.2.7.5.1 Flushing
Tubing
Since the entire wellhead stays intact, blow-out prevention

equipment is not required for flushing tubing.
3.2.7.5.2
Circulation Back
To Rig Or
Production Tank
IRP 3.2.7.5.2.1
Pressure testing of all surface lines must be completed as per

the governing regulations.
Note
In Alberta, see Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations Section

8.146.
IRP 3.2.7.5.2.2
Where the well must be circulated the bleed-off line should be

tied through a manifold into a tank that meets the regulations
for proper distance from the well and combustion sources.
Hydrocarbons cannot be flowed back to the tank on the flushby unit.
Note
Blow out prevention equipment is not required for circulation

back to a tank, as long as the entire wellhead stays intact.
167
3.2.7.5.3 Polish
Rod Changes
IRP 3.2.7.5.3.1
Blow out prevention equipment is required for polish rod

changes if the servicing operation has the potential to take
more time than the time to install BOPs.
The BOP system should meet all the requirements of the
governing regulatory body, including a remote set of BOP
controls, an accumulator, and an independent or isolated
hydraulic loop so failure of the units hydraulic system will
not effect BOP operations.
IRP 3.2.7.5.3.2
When unseating progressive cavity pumps special care must

be taken to ensure that there is no torque remaining in the
rod string. The rod string should be clamped to prevent
backspin, which may result in serious injury.
Note
Prior to removing the stuffing box a well flow check must be

completed to ensure the well is dead. If the well must be killed
then the procedures for circulating a well must be followed.
168
3.2.7.5.4 Tripping
Rods And Pumps
IRP 3.2.7.5.4.1
Blow out prevention equipment is required. The BOP system

should meet all the requirements of the governing regulatory
body, including a remote set of BOP controls, an
accumulator, and an independent or isolated hydraulic loop
so failure of the units hydraulic system will not effect BOP
operation.
IRP 3.2.7.5.4.2
The Rod BOP must be hydraulically operated if servicing is on a

secondary or EOR project well.
IRP 3.2.7.5.4.3
There must be a stabbing valve and valve handle available on

the flush-by unit if the rods are out of the well.
IRP 3.2.7.5.4.4
When unseating progressive cavity pumps, special care must

be taken to ensure that there is no torque remaining in the
rod string. The rod string should be clamped to prevent
backspin, which may result in serious injury.
Note
Prior to removing the stuffing box, a well flow check must be

completed to ensure the well is dead. If the well must be killed
then the procedures for circulating a well must be followed.
169
3.2.7.5.5 Tubing
Rotations
IRP 3.2.7.5.5.1
Prior to removing the wellhead, the well must be:
circulated or both tubing and casing flushed to ensure the

well is filled with sufficient kill fluid to maintain well
control, and
flow checked.
IRP 3.2.7.5.5.2
The flush-by unit pump will remain tied into the annulus
throughout the operation and the casing valves must be left
open. There will be sufficient fluid in the flush-by tank to kill
the well.
Note
On primary recovery wells, flush-by units often do tubing

rotations.
On secondary recovery and EOR wells, a service rig often
performs tubing rotations.
Regardless of well type, it is the Operators responsibility to
ensure the well is under control at all times. A review of the well
and offsets is recommended to determine if there is any potential
for loss of well control due to steam stimulation or pressure
support.
170
3.2.8
Environment,
Health, And Safety
3.2.8.1
Environment
A waste management plan and system should be in place for

all upstream and downstream wastes so field personnel could
handle and document the movement of products
appropriately to meet environmental regulations.
Note
It is the responsibility of all on-site personnel to immediately report

any spills to the on-site supervisor(s) and ensure compliance with
appropriate regulatory requirements.
The following are general guidelines for reporting of spills in
Alberta:
2 m3 and greater for bitumen, produced water, and diluent on

lease (AEUB),
any volume for bitumen, produced water, or diluent off lease

(AEUB),
0.2m3 or greater for gasoline or diesel (refined products) on

or off lease (AEP),
5 litres or 5 kg or greater for acidic or caustic chemicals on

or off lease (AEP).
In Alberta, refer to AEUB Guide G-58 (Oilfield Waste

Management).
In Saskatchewan, the SEM requires on-lease spills of 1.6 m3 or
larger to be reported. Further, any amount of fluid spilled off-lease
must be reported. Chemical and refined product spills must be
reported to SERM. Refer to SPIGEC Guideline 03 for additional
information on waste management.
171
3.2.8.2 Health
IRP 3.2.8.2.1
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information Sheets

(WHMIS) - Material Safety Data Sheets shall be supplied for
all products found in the well bore or used during well
servicing operations.
3.2.8.3 Safety
IRP 3.2.8.3.1
As a minimum standard, all service and operating companies

should have in place a basic health and safety program that
meets the legislation for the following requirements:
Management Commitment and Involvement
Hazard Assessment and Control
Rules and Work Procedures
Training and Motivation
Communication and Group Meetings
Accident Investigation and Analysis
3.2.8.4 Lockouts
IRP 3.2.8.4.1
All equipment that has the potential to harm should be deenergized and locked out when unattended.
3.2.8.5 Guards
IRP 3.2.8.5.1
For rotating polish rods that extend above the drive head, an
adequate guard or protective enclosure should be in place to
protect personnel.
172
3.2.8.6 Confined
Space
IRP 3.2.8.6.1
Identify those areas that are classified as confined space and

ensure company codes of practice are followed.
Note
Some examples of confined spaces are rig tanks, pits, production

tanks, and production vessels (especially if out-of-service). In
some cases, multiple well pads should receive special
consideration due to lease design, equipment, and activity on
lease.
In Alberta, confined spaces are defined in Occupational Health &
Safety General Regulation 448/83, 1995.
3.2.8.7 Work-Site
With Multiple
Operations
IRP 3.2.8.7.1
An experienced, trained, site supervisor should be appointed

to manage safety concerns on work-sites with multiple
operations being conducted. This would include single well
pads where more than one contractor is involved in multiple
tasks (i.e. well servicing and construction) or multiple well
pads where more than one well is being serviced.
173
IRP 3.2.8.7.2
An emergency response plan outlining actions for all on-site

personnel and contact procedures for emergency services
such as fire protection or ambulance service should be in
place.
The following equipment or procedures should be
implemented as required:
Note
designate a safety watch
monitor ambient air for oxygen deficient and / or

explosive atmospheres
provide a warning system (horn or siren) to alert

personnel
define an evacuation plan for on-site personnel
establish a safe area on or off-site
designate safe work areas for different services and

operations being conducted
provide sanitary facilities
The health and safety of all on-site personnel is important. The

Operator shall be responsible for ensuring the safety of all
Contractors on work-sites with multiple operations being
conducted. Operations are to be conducted in accordance with
OH&S Regulations - Section 185 of the General Safety
Regulations.
174
IRP 3.2.8.7.3
At each crew change, a safety meeting should be conducted to

advise workers of hazards and refresh the emergency
response plan actions.
Note
All on-site personnel must be aware of hazards such as rotating

polish rods on top drives of progressive cavity pumps, highpressure lines that are active, and H2S hazards.
IRP 3.2.8.7.4
Multiple well pads may have wells that interfere with the
recommended rig anchor placement. If anchors are placed
outside of the recommended placement pattern, a structural
engineer should evaluate the placement.
When installing guy lines near operating wells, the well
should be shut in until the work is completed.
175
Appendix 1 Servicing Blowout Prevention SystemsClass 2A

Bottom hole or injection pressure less than or equal to 21MPa
H2S release rate is less than 0.001m3/sec
Diagram
Note
Pressure rating of BOP is equal to or greater than formation or

injection pressure.
The positioning of tubing and blind rams may be interchanged.
The BOP connection to the wellhead may be threaded.
If spool is installed, the valve connection to the spool may be
threaded.
A flanged BOP port (and valve) below the lowest set of rams may
replace the spool (valve may be threaded) on primary wells.
All threaded connections to the working spool shall be backwelded.
176
Appendix 2 Primary Recovery Well H2S Release Rate

Determination
Example Calculation Where a Class III BOP is Required:
1) Potential Gas Flow Rate = 28.344 103m3/d
2) H2S concentration 0.9%
H2S Release Rate = Pot. Gas Flow Rate x H2S Concentration
Seconds Per Day
H2S Release Rate = 28 344 m3/d x (0.9 / 100)
(24 hr/d x 60 min/hr x 60 s/min)
H2S Release Rate = 255 096 m3/d
88 400 S/D
H2S Release Rate = 0.00295 m3/d
177
Appendix 3 Alberta Department of Environment

Alert Model For Well Blowouts
Anticipated H2S Concentrations (Worst Case Scenario)

Heavy Oil / Oil Sands Blowout Scenerio
Maximum H2S Release Rate = 0.001 m3/s
WIND SPEED =
2.0 M/S
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE =
10oC
ROUGHNESS =
100 CM Building And / Or

A Forest
PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORY =
F / Moderately Stable
DOWNWIND DISTANCES
MAXIMUM =
100.0 m
MINIMUM =
0.0 m
INCREMENT =
5.0 m
CROSSWIND DISTANCES
MAXIMUM =
30.0 m
MINIMUM =
-30.0 m
INCREMENT =
5.0 m
PLUME HEIGHT =
H2S VOL. FRACTION =
0.0 m
0.020
TOTAL EMISS RATE =
0.035 m3/s @ 101.3 kPa &

Reference Temp/
H2S EMISS RATE =
0.001 m3/s @ 101.3 kPa &

Reference Temp/
REFERENCE TEMPERATURE =
15.6OC
178
Cumulative H2S Concentration in Ppm As A 1.00 Hour Average At Ground Level

Downwind Distance (metres)
CROSSWIND DISTANCE (METRES)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
192.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
69.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
38.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
25.4
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
4.5
18.3
4.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
5.0
14.1
5.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
5.1
11.2
5.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
5.0
9.2
5.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
4.7
7.8
4.7
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
179
Downwind Distance (metres)
CROSSWIND DISTANCE (METRES)
50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.3
4.4
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
55
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.4
4.1
5.8
4.1
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
60
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.5
3.8
5.1
3.8
1.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
65
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
1.6
3.5
4.5
3.5
1.6
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
70
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
1.6
3.2
4.1
3.2
1.6
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
75
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
1.6
3.0
3.7
3.0
1.6
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
80
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
1.6
2.8
3.4
2.8
1.6
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
85
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
1.6
2.6
3.1
2.6
1.6
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.0
90
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.6
2.4
2.8
2.4
1.6
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.0
95
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.8
1.5
2.3
2.6
2.3
1.5
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.0
100
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.8
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.1
1.5
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.0
4.4
6.7
180
3.3
3.3.1 Scope
Production Equipment And Procedures
The Heavy Oil / Oil Sands Production Equipment and Procedures

IRPs have been developed with consideration for the unique
practices used in the production of heavy crude oil and bitumen
from in situ oil sands operations. These IRPs recognize the need
for conducting safe and practical operations associated with
routine production practices and conditions which could be
encountered over the life of a well or production facility. A
common underlying factor of protecting the environment by
minimizing the potential for spills or emissions to the atmosphere
played an important role in the overall development of these
IRPs.
The preparation of these IRPs considered lease sizing, wellhead
design, fired equipment usage, spacing, design specifications,
safety and accident prevention, handling of waste materials and
defining acceptable limitations.
181
3.3.2 Definitions
3.3.2.1 Oily Waste
/ By Product
Storage
Structures
An oily waste or by-product storage structure is a facility for the

temporary storage of oil waste and sand in a facility.
Note
These structures are referred to in SEM Guideline GL 97-01 and

AEUB Guide G-58. In G-58 it is stated that no approval is
required for storage of produced sand but written notification is
required.
182
3.3.2.2 Sour Heavy Sour Heavy Oil / Oil Sands requirements apply to crude oil
having a density equal to or greater than 920 kg/m3 at 15oC with a
Oil Criteria
Hydrogen Sulphide release rate from the oil or the associated gas
greater than 0.04 m3/hour. This rate is calculated using the total
daily gas production at standard conditions times the Hydrogen
Sulphide concentration of a representative sample (i.e. maximum
H2S concentration) of production gas divided by 24 hours.
A Sour Heavy Oil / Oil Sands Well means a well that meets or
exceeds the above criteria.
Note
Total gas production is equal to the total measurable or estimated

gas production at surface from the tubing, casing, and storage tank.
Estimates are only acceptable where measurement is impractical.
The maximum H2S concentration should be obtained by selecting
the highest reading from the tubing (separator, flareline), casing, and
storage tank as concentrations can vary considerably from each
source. (See IRP 3.3.5.2 for testing practices.)
Safety is a prime concern when dealing with H2S. Particular care
and attention must be paid to any activity around sour facilities.
Basic safety procedures and company policies must be followed
when working in a potential Hydrogen Sulphide environment.
In areas of public access, an H2S release rate less than 0.04 m3/hour
may be emitted from a 7.3 m vent stack without exceeding the
standards for ground level H2S concentrations set out in the Clean
Air Act. The 7.3 m vent stack is equal to the height of an API
standard 120 m3 tank.
3.3.2.3 Thermal Or
Thermally
Stimulated Well
A thermal or thermally stimulated well is defined as a well that

has been or is to be stimulated by the addition of heat to the sandface or reservoir.
183
3.3.3 Surface
Equipment (Single
Well Battery)
3.3.3.1 Heavy Oil /
Oil Sands Lease
Tank
Specifications
IRP 3.3.3.1.1
The truck loading system, nozzle, valve, and spout should be

designed by a technically competent individual. The tank
design should consider the moment arm and loads on the tank
wall during operation of the unloading system.
Under no conditions should this spout be used to walk
between the lease tank and tank truck.
184
IRP 3.3.3.1.2
Platforms shall be provided to operate the unloading system

as per Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)
requirements. Alternatively, a method may be provided to
operate the equipment from ground level.
IRP 3.3.3.1.3
The unloading nozzle shall be positioned above the fire tube

elevation to prevent exposure of the fire tube to gas or air.
IRP 3.3.3.1.4
All tanks should be manufactured to an appropriate

engineered standard. Some suggested codes to consider are:
Note
API Specification 12D - Specification for Field Welded

Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids
API Specification 12F - Specification for Shop Welded

Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids
API Standard 650 - Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage
AEUB Guide G-55 Storage Requirements for the

Upstream Petroleum Industry 1995 Edition
The SERM is currently reviewing storage tank requirements.

Specific references to API or equivalent codes are to be included
within the guidelines when completed.
185
3.3.3.2 Spout
Loading For Sour
Wells
IRP 3.3.3.2.1
Spout loading is not permitted at any Heavy Oil / Oil Sands

well having a potential Hydrogen Sulphide release rate equal
to or greater than 0.04 m3/hour.
3.3.3.3 Heavy Oil /

Oil Sands Lease
Tank Thief Hatch
IRP 3.3.3.3.1
Consideration should be given to both pressure and vacuum

relief in all operating conditions as provided by a thief hatch.
The location of the tank thief hatch will be at an angle no less
than 90o from the tank burner and burner stack locations.
Note
Thief hatches must be designed and constructed to meet

operational and environmental requirements. Hatches should be
operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturers
specifications. The thief hatch should be located at the greatest
distance from the burner and stack to minimize the potential for
explosions.
186
3.3.4 Lease Dikes

3.3.4.1 Spill
Containment
IRP 3.3.4.1.1
Heavy Oil / Oil Sands area leases and facilities will be

constructed in a manner that protects the environment from a
spill of the contents of any storage facility located on the lease.
Note
Specific guidelines are found for Alberta in AEUB Guide G-55.
187
3.3.5 Lease Size

And Equipment
Spacing
3.3.5.1 Heavy Oil /
Oil Sands Wellsite
Lease Size
IRP 3.3.5.1.1
The lease must be constructed of sufficient size to

accommodate the spacing requirements of the governing
regulatory body. The spacing requirements apply to single
wells and also multiple well pads drilled and produced from a
single site. The same requirements apply to thermal enhanced
recovery schemes.
Note
In Saskatchewan, SEM regulations, policies, and guidelines will

apply.
In Alberta, lease spacing requirements are outlined in Sections
8.090, and 8.100 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations.
188
3.3.6 Gathering
And Treating
Equipment
3.3.6.1 Loading,
Unloading And
Transportation
IRP 3.3.6.1.1
It is recommended that the practices outlined in Industry

Recommended Practices Volume 4.4: Loading, Unloading,
and Transportation of Fluids be followed when handling
fluids from Heavy Oil / Oil Sands leases.
3.3.6.2 Truck Pits

And Dump Pots
IRP 3.3.6.2.1
A truck pit or open gravity dump pot unloading system shall

only be used for unloading of sweet fluids into a Heavy Oil /
Oil Sands facility. Sour fluids must be loaded and unloaded
within a closed system.
Note
A Dump Pot is a buried tank or series of tanks for direct or

gravity unloading of produced fluids through truck dump valves.
These tanks are usually small tanks straddled by the truck.
Since sweet gas is vented to atmosphere, precautions must be
taken to ensure proper equipment spacing is maintained from any
ignition sources.
189
3.3.6.3 Pipelines
IRP 3.3.6.3.1
Since pipelines are required to be licensed immediately for

commercial schemes and retroactively for experimental
schemes if the scheme becomes commercial, Operators should
maintain a detailed, current record of all buried lines.
Note
To facilitate maintenance and repair, the Operator should

maintain detailed and accurate records.
For pipelines that require AEUB licensing, the recording
requirement ends at the first valve after entering the facility and
continues again past the last valve exiting the facility
190
3.3.6.4 Pipelines
Liners
IRP 3.3.6.4.1
A review of all flowlines should be conducted when projects

are being converted to thermal operations to ensure the
flowlines are rated to the new operating temperatures and
that liners and coatings will remain intact to prevent
corrosion.
3.3.6.5 Wellbore
Corrosion
Protection
IRP 3.3.6.5.1
In Heavy Oil / Oil Sands thermal wells, an operational plan

must be in place to protect the integrity of the production
casing. As outlined in IRP 3.1.6.3.6, operating conditions may
exist that lead to environmental cracking or salt deposition.
Appropriate procedures need to be employed to mitigate
corrosion within the wellbore.
191
3.3.7 Sour
Criteria And
Requirements
3.3.7.1 Gas
Venting
IRP 3.3.7.3.1
Any sweet gas vented from the casing or storage tank that
does not contain liquids, may be released to the atmosphere at
that point.
Where H2S is present, but the release rate is less than the 0.04
m3/hour rate that would designate it as sour production, the
gas may be vented to atmosphere in a manner that meets the
requirements and standards set in the Clean Air Act.
All gas produced at a well which has an H2S release rate
exceeding the minimum designating it as sour production
must be gathered, flared, incinerated or conserved in a
manner that meets all SEM, SERM, AEUB and Alberta
Environment requirements.
Note
In Alberta, Guide 60 Upstream Petroleum Industry Flaring Guide

provides further information regarding venting limitations based
on odour and benzene emissions.
192
3.3.8 Fired
Equipment
3.3.8.1 Tank
Heaters
IRP 3.3.8.1.1
Fired tank heaters are permitted in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands

storage tanks to facilitate handling and transportation of the
product.
IRP 3.3.8.1.2
The fire tube and flame arrester air-intake assembly should

be in working order and inspected frequently enough to
ensure they remain in good operating condition.
3.3.8.2 Fire Tube

Start-Up
Procedure
IRP 3.3.8.2.1
Start up procedure for tank heaters and fire tubes shall be

available and posted at all facilities where the equipment is
operated. This is to ensure a proper procedure is followed to
prevent fires and explosions.
193
Note
The following is a generic fire tube start up procedure.
Confirm the burner and pilot are out.
Close all valves to the unit.
Open the burner vent and allow the fire tube to purge until all
combustible gases have been expelled from the burner.
Confirm the area around the burner and the burner is free of
combustible gas with an LEL meter.
Open the control by-pass.
Again confirm the area is free of combustible gas using the

LEL meter. Then ignite the rag or lighter device and insert the
lighter to the burner head while standing to the side of the
burner tube.
Slowly open the pilot valve and wait until it is lit and has a
steady flame.
Remove the lighter and close the lighting port.
Open the main fuel valve and wait until the burner fires.
Close the control system by-pass.
194
3.3.8.3 Heated
Tank Operation
IRP 3.3.8.3.1
Tank temperatures should be controlled through an

instrumentation system that will shut down the burner if a set
limit is obtained.
Note
If odours become a problem, a reduction in tank temperature may

help.
IRP 3.3.8.3.2
A minimum of 0.5 vertical meters of fluid height must be

maintained above the fire tube when the tank heater is
operating. Lower fluid levels may cause the failure of the fire
tube and result in fire or explosion.
Note
If the produced fluid is foamy, the fluid level should be increased.

If a tank is unloaded too quickly, the fluid in the tank may flash
and release gas and vapour that could over-pressure the tank.
IRP 3.3.8.3.3
The sand level in the tank should be monitored on a regular

basis to ensure the level does not reach the fire tube. If sand
reaches the fire tube level, hot spots may develop and the tube
may prematurely fail.
Note
Flowlines coming into the tank should direct the flow to the
bottom of the tank or away from the fire tube. The preferred exit
of fluid is below the fire tube in the water-leg of the tank.
If fluid enters the tank above the fire tube, sand may accumulate
on top of the fire tube. Regular inspection for hot spots may be
necessary to prevent failure.
195
3.3.9 Wellhead
Design
3.3.9.1 General
Specifications
IRP 3.3.9.1.1
For Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells, wellhead design for both
conventional and thermally stimulated producers should
follow the minimum requirements set out in Industry
Recommended Practices Volume 5 - Minimum Wellhead
Requirements. The following exceptions or additions apply.
Note
The following is a list of codes and standards that address

wellhead design.
API 6A: Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree

Equipment
API 6AF1: Bulletin on Temperature De-rating Of API

Flanges under Combination of Loading
CSA Z662: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems (Section 14 Oilfield

Steam Distribution Systems)
ASME B31.3: Process Piping
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code:
Section VIII, Division I and Division II
Section IX
ASME B16.5: Pipe, Flanges, and Flanged Fittings
ASME B16.34: Valves Flanged, Threaded, and Welded

Ends
API 600: Steel Gate Valves, Flanged Or Butt - Welding Ends
API 602: Compact Carbon Steel Gate Valves
196
3.3.9.2 Design
Specifications
IRP 3.3.9.2.1
Wellheads are to be designed such that the pressure and

temperature rating of all the components will meet or exceed
the maximum anticipated pressures and temperatures that
may be encountered from any conventional Heavy Oil / Oil
Sands wells and those used for production of thermally
stimulated reservoirs.
IRP 3.3.9.2.2
The design and fabrication of thermal wellheads and the

connecting piping should allow for movement due to thermal
expansion and contraction of the casing and associated
piping.
Note
Piping design of both the associated wellhead piping and attached

flowlines should be done under the direction of a technically
competent individual.
197
IRP 3.3.9.2.3
Welding procedures on wellheads used to produce thermally

stimulated reservoirs should follow a documented and
registered welding procedure that considers the specific
materials, the operating conditions being employed, and
applicable API or ASME specifications.
IRP 3.3.9.2.4
Field-welding on casing bowls, casing extensions, and bell

nipples used to produce thermally stimulated reservoirs
should be performed by a welder having a valid B ticket
issued by the Alberta Boiler Safety Association (ABSA). A
documented and registered Quality Assurance Program that
includes a Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) and a
Welder Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) for the
material being welded should be followed.
The uppermost joint of casing must be of a known
composition that is appropriate for welding.
198
Note
The failure of a welded connection on a casing bowl or bell

nipple has potentially serious consequences.
Frequently, incorrect field-welding procedures are followed with
respect to pre-heat and cool-down requirements. This occurs for
two reasons.
Often the welder does not know the steel composition of the
materials being welded. This is due in part to the large
variation in steel composition that exists in oilfield casing
products (even within a particular grade) and in various
manufactured wellhead components such as casing bowls and
bell nipples.
Many welders do not have a documented Quality Assurance

Program to follow. ASME Section IX should be referenced
for information on WPS and PQR requirements. An
appropriate procedure identifying all requirements including
pre-heat, post-heat, and stress- relieving requirements may be
best developed between the wellhead manufacturer and the
end user.
199
3.3.9.3 Flow
Control Devises
IRP 3.3.9.3.1
Wellheads used in the production of thermally stimulated

reservoirs should be equipped with an adjustable erosionresistant flow control device to control the flow of fluids from
the wellbore.
Note
This will reduce the risk of erosion of the wellhead and possible
damage to the formation.
3.3.9.4 Surface
Casing Vents
IRP 3.3.9.4.1
On thermal wells, when conductor pipe is used in place of

surface casing a surface casing vent is not required. It is
recommended that the top of the conductor be sealed around
the casing and that holes be cut in the sides of the conductor
to direct any flow of steam (from boiling surface water) away
from equipment or traffic areas. Where surface casing is run,
the vent assembly should direct flow to the ground and away
from any equipment.
Note
In Saskatchewan, SEM regulations regarding surface casing vents

shall apply.
200
3.3.9.5 Tubing
Hangers
IRP 3.3.9.5.1
Threaded (i.e. dog-nut), wrap-around, or bonnet flange type

tubing hangers are all acceptable in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands
wells. In thermally stimulated wells, the seals in the dog-nut
or wrap-around type hangers should be constructed of a
material that will withstand any temperatures and pressures
that may be encountered.
IRP 3.3.9.5.2
When bonnet flange type hangers are used, then an

appropriate well control plan and procedure should be in
place.
201
3.3.9.6 Stuffing
Boxes
IRP 3.3.9.6.1
All rod pumped Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells should be

equipped with a stuffing box of satisfactory design to
eliminate the release of well fluids to the atmosphere. In
thermal applications, the packing service may vary
sufficiently that appropriate packing may not be available to
suit all service conditions. Packing may require changing
prior to initiating changes in operations.
Note
In thermally stimulated reservoirs, stuffing boxes should be

designed with some form of back-up sealing mechanism that
would facilitate changing of the working packing. The industry
has typically used a dual-packing type of stuffing box for this
propose.
Stuffing boxes should be visually inspected daily, and should be
maintained and lubricated as per the manufacturers
recommended specifications. In thermal operations, the stuffing
box may require more frequent inspections and service.
Stuffing box deflector cones can be installed to minimize
environmental damage in the event of stuffing box failure.
202
3.3.9.7 Pressure
Shut-Down
Devices
IRP 3.3.9.7.1
A high-pressure shut-down device should be installed that

will shut down the prime mover.
Note
The maximum pressure setting for the shut-down device should

not exceed 80% of the pressure rating for the lowest rated
component in the system (i.e. stuffing box, flowline, wellhead or
any associated fittings and valves). The pressure shut-down
device should be function tested semi-annually to ensure proper
operation. This test should be documented. Should a device fail
the function test, it shall be serviced immediately. A major
Operator of thermally stimulated wells has documented a low
failure rate of this equipment when properly serviced.
Be aware that pressure shutdown devices may not be capable of
operating in all thermal well conditions to which they are
exposed. For example, if it cannot withstand the injection and
flowback temperatures, then it should be removed and re-installed
when the well is placed on pump.
Caution should be exercised when setting device limits to account
for de-rating of equipment in high temperature applications.
203
3.3.9.8 Blowout
Preventers
IRP 3.3.9.8.1
It is recommended that all Heavy Oil / Oil Sands wells in

thermally stimulated reservoirs be equipped with a manually
operated blowout preventer with rams that will close on and
make a positive seal around the polished rod. Further, they
should be equipped with handles to permit easy closure of the
rams. The BOP shall be of adequate design to withstand the
maximum anticipated pressure and temperature of the well.
Note
There is an industry concern that current technology does not

have a material that will provide a positive seal in both steam
service and at ambient temperature.
When the well is being serviced, the condition of the BOP should
be inspected and repairs made as necessary.
3.3.9.9 Master
Valves
IRP 3.3.9.9.1
For wells in thermally stimulated reservoirs that may have

the ability to flow to atmosphere, a master valve in addition to
a rod BOP is recommended. In certain schemes, such as
Cyclic Steam Stimulation, if the period of time when the well
could flow to atmosphere is of limited duration, then addition
of a master valve may not be required
204
3.4
3.4.1 Scope
Measurement And Accounting
The scope of the Measurement and Accounting Section considers

measurement needs, accuracy, and reporting. Within these broad
guidelines, topics addressed include:
Oil, gas, water and steam measurement and reporting
Production accounting methods
Well test frequency and duration
Accounting meters and calibration
Sampling methods, and
Pro-ration factors
205
3.4.2
Measurements
Needs
IRP 3.4.2.1
Measurement equipment and accuracy should be consistent

with measurement needs. Measurement needs are dependent
upon:
Equity issues
Hydrocarbon reserve recoveries
Economic development strategies
Environmental responsibilities
Regulatory requirements
The following notes provide greater clarity on each of the

above items.
206
Note
Equity issues that should be considered include:
Different Operator ownership
Royalties paid to the crown (Crown lands) or freeholders (fee

simple lands), and
Off target penalties.
Hydrocarbon recovery issues to consider include:
Production allowable, and
Penalized production due to high water/oil (WOR) or gas/oil

(GOR) ratios
The development of an economic reservoir depletion strategy

requires the prudent acquisition of sufficient technical data to
analyze reservoir response and optimize production equipment
performance.
Environmental responsibility issues to consider include:
Water injection and disposal
Fugitive gas emissions, and
Gas re-injection.
Regulatory requirements include
Uncertainty requirements of the specific jurisdictions, and
Compliance issues
207
Measurement needs can be considered high unless:
The same royalty rate and structure applies to all production.

This includes consideration of royalty holidays, incentive
programs, and sensitivity to production rates.
The royalties are paid on gross facility or project production.
Production accounting is free of off-target, WOR, or GOR

penalties.
Production accounting is free of production allowables.
All production within a facility has common ownership.
Production within a facility has diverse ownership but all

working interest owners agree with the Operators reduced
measurement procedures and potential implications.
Production is by primary recovery mechanism only and

engineering data requirements are low.
Production is nearing late stages of depletion in any recovery

mechanism and engineering data requirements are low.
208
3.4.3 Production
Reporting
3.4.3.1 Level Of
Reporting
IRP 3.4.3.1.1
Production shall be accurately reported at a level consistent

with the measurement needs considered in IRP 3.4.2.1.
Note
Production reporting of oil, water, and gas at individual wells

remains important in Heavy Oil / Oil Sands areas.
Production reports will typically continue to be filed monthly.
Single well batteries may be grouped for production reporting
purposes. A battery created by combining several single-well
batteries is defined as a group battery but is commonly referred to
as a paper battery. The use of paper batteries significantly
reduces the number of government reports generated each month.
The set up of a paper battery must comply with the requirements
set out by the regulatory bodies within each province. The wells
in each paper battery must be kept current and production
reported to one group consistently.
The high water vapor content of the gas produced in steamassisted thermal recovery projects makes measurement of the gas
volume less accurate. For this reason, the gas volume
measurement and reporting point may be at a well, group, or
facility level.
209
3.4.3.2 Sales
Equals Production
Accounting
Method
IRP 3.4.3.2.1
Oil and water volumes trucked from lease production tanks

shall be used to calculate the well production reported on the
appropriate regulatory reports. Inventory in the lease tanks is
considered to be part of the reservoir and is not reported.
This procedure is referred to as the "sales equals production"
accounting method.
210
Note
The properties of heavy crude can result in the formation of

foamy emulsions with significant sand-carrying capability. The
produced foam can generate erroneously high tank gauge
readings. Sand suspended in the produced fluids is reported with
water as basic sediments and water (BS&W). It usually settles
in the bottom of the lease production tank and is difficult to
quantify complicating the gauging procedure. Rather than
measuring sand production at the wellhead, the need to track
inventory is eliminated. For accounting purposes, production is
credited to the well only when the fluid is removed from the
production tank. The hours on production during a month are
always shown on the appropriate government report.
When using the sales equals production accounting method, it
is correct to show hours on production and no production volume
if a shipment was not made from a lease tank of a producing well
during the reporting period. Conversely, produced fluid removed
from a lease tank during a month that a well is shut in is to be
shown on the government production reports with zero hours of
production.
If fluid is removed from the production tank after a well is
suspended, the volume of fluid removed from the tank and zero
hours on production may be shown for the well on the report
submitted for that month only. Operators should contact the
appropriate regulatory agency for unique situations or where
clarification is required.
211
3.4.3.3 Measured /
Pro-Rated
Production
IRP 3.4.3.3.1
Produced emulsion trucked to a central cleaning facility shall

be treated as measured production. Emulsion pipelined to a
cleaning facility, for which total production is estimated on
the basis of well tests, shall be pro-rated against the volumes
metered at the facility outlet net of the total trucked-in
volume.
Note
The concept of proration requires that all wells contributing to the

proration battery be subject to an equivalent error. In the case of
truck production, each delivery from the well or battery is
subjected to measurement such that the total production is a
measured volume. Conversely, the total production from
pipelined wells is estimated by periodic testing of the wells.
Measurement devices and procedures are typically quite different
between the trucked and pipelined systems. High oil viscosity and
economics limit the distance over which a raw crude product can
be pipelined. Thus, many cleaning plants receive fluids from both
pipelined and trucked-in sources.
If the proration factor for the pipelined wells falls outside the
limit set out in section 3.4.6, it may be necessary to upgrade the
pipelined estimate to the equivalent of a measured volume. This
can be accomplished by installing a group meter suitable for
production accounting purposes on the pipeline. Poor water
proration factors are often due to the presence of sand in the
produced fluid stream that is measured as water during BS&W
determinations. If trucked-in volume measurements are suspect, it
may be necessary to upgrade the measurement equipment.
212
Trucked-in volumes are measured at a cleaning plant inlet by

weigh-scale, tanks, or inlet-metering systems. If a suitable
method is used to collect a representative sample during truck
unloading (see section 3.4.5.2), then the accuracy of the fluid
measurement at the plant inlet should exceed that at the truck
loading point and should therefore be used for production
accounting purposes. Records of truck loading should be
maintained at the wellhead for audit and security purposes.
Each different measurement system has a unique set of inherent
errors. If the sales from a single LACT unit are pro-rated against
incoming measurement streams, an equal proration of the LACT
unit total to each incoming stream may misallocate the total
measurement error and consequently the production. In this
instance, the method of allocating plant sales to the incoming
streams may be specific to the particular plant and may be
different from this recommended practice.
In all cases where Operators use varying types of measurement,
they must be cognizant of the uncertainties associated with the
measurement system in use and ensure that all fluids are treated
equitably.
213
3.4.3.4 Gas
Measurement And
Reporting
3.4.3.4.1 Within
Designated Oil
Sands Areas
IRP 3.4.3.4.1.1
As a minimum, gas produced in association with crude

bitumen shall be reported at the collection or emission point.
For single-well batteries, an initial, representative 24- hour
GOR shall be determined within six months of the onproduction date. If the resulting GOR exceeds 100 m3 /m3,
GOR testing shall be conducted on an annual basis. If the
resulting GOR is less than or equal to 100 m3/m3, GOR
testing shall be conducted at the discretion of the Operator or
Regulator.
Where associated gas is pipelined to a central facility or
collection point, gas volumes can be reported on a facility or
battery basis without allocation back to the well. Where gas
production rates at the point of collection or emission are less
than 2000 m3/d, a group or facility GOR shall be determined
on an annual basis and used for the purpose of gas reporting.
Where gas rates exceed 2000 m3/d, the gas shall be
continuously measured.
214
Note
Typically, there is no compelling technical reason to monitor gas

production volumes on an individual well basis within Oil Sands
areas. An exception to this could be a combustion-based,
enhanced recovery project where gas volumes and analyses may
be required. In either case, it may be necessary to quantify gas
emission volumes for environmental reasons.
For single-well batteries, representative GOR tests should provide
adequate data for environmental and general engineering
purposes. The frequency of the GOR re-determination should not
unduly burden a large number of wells producing from a common
pool.
When an Operator gathers produced gases from several wells to a
common point, it would be appropriate to report that volume as a
delivery to and from the same facility on the production report
without allocation back to the individual wells. However, where
total gas rates exceed 2000 m3/d, measurement should be
continuous or estimated on the basis of an annual group or facility
twenty-four hour GOR test.
215
3.4.3.4.2 Outside
Designated Oil
Sands Areas
IRP 3.4.3.4.2.1
Note
Gas produced in association with oil shall be reported at the

well level, with the allocation of group production to the
individual wells based on the individual well GOR. The
frequency of representative, 24-hour GOR re-determination
shall be as follows:
Gas Rate (m3/d/well)
GOR Test Frequency
< 500
Annual
501 1000
Semi Annual
1001 2000
Monthly
> 2000
Continuous
The allocation of associated gas production to individual wells

outside of Oil Sands areas can be important for monitoring
reservoir performance. The frequency of GOR re-determinations
is set out to ensure accuracy consistent with engineering needs.
216
3.4.3.5 Stem
Measurement
IRP 3.4.3.5.1
The volume of steam injected into every well shall be

measured and the steam quality estimated.
Note
Steam quality is determined by sampling at the exit of the steam

generator. For steam injected into several wells from one steam
generator, the quality of the steam injected into each well varies
and is unknown. A quality factor is used to calculate the volume
of steam injected into a well.
Devices to measure steam volumes are located at the wellhead. At
present, there is no field-proven, economic method of providing
accurate steam qualities in 2-phase flow service.
The Operator should measure the volume of cold water being fed
to the steam generator as this is single phase and will give an
accurate reading of total steam generated. If the steam generator
produces more steam than is required by the wells, some steam
may be vented to atmosphere and is difficult to measure
accurately. This is considered a loss to the system. Other losses
include utility steam provided from the high steam system and
trickle steam injected into wells for freeze protection, cement
curing, or warm-up. All losses must be accounted for.
All of these factors result in the volume of cold water equivalent
steam generated being different from the sum of the steam vented
and injected into all wells.
217
3.4.3.6 Stem
Reporting
IRP 3.4.3.6.1
The steam injected into each well will be reported monthly,

either as the direct wellhead measured or pro-rated volume
based on the cold water equivalent volume of steam generated
by steam generators. The volume of steam losses (i.e. trickle
steam, utility steam, venting) must be accounted for each
month. A wellhead injection pressure representative of the
injection period must also be reported.
Note
Direct measurement and pro-rated reporting are both acceptable.

However, it is important that reporting be consistent for the
method used. The Operator must maintain sufficient backup
documentation to confirm the reported values are within
acceptable limits.
As part of the Monthly Injection / Disposal Report, steam quality,
wellhead pressure, and volume of steam injected into each well
must be reported. This report is needed to calculate a battery/plant
water balance for both fresh water and produced water. The
injected steam can be part of the fresh or produced water volumes
or both depending on the capability of the systems at the facility.
It is important that the numbers reported be accurate in order to
minimize the metering difference shown on the Monthly Injection
/ Disposal report.
218
It is recommended that the variance between the measured steam

volume injected into each well and the measured equivalent cold
water volume to the steam generators be less than +/-15% on a
monthly basis. If the pro-rated method is used, the proration
factor should be between 0.85 - 1.15. In all cases, Operators
should strive to obtain a proration factor close to 1.00.
It is important to estimate the steam losses each month when
using the proration method since the losses will fluctuate
depending on reservoir strategy and time of year.
219
3.4.4 Well
Testing
3.4.4.1 Well Test
Frequencies
3.4.4.1.1 Primary
Production
IRP 3.4.4.1.1.1
The test frequency for wells under primary production is two

tests per month per well.
220
Note
The test frequency should consider the need for the production
data including the production history of the well over the time
interval that the test is intended to represent. Well production
estimates are subject to some uncertainty with respect to true well
production. These uncertainties can be due to the following:
well variability
well inflow performance
slugging / surging
separator design (rate vs. duty)
pump / stroke speeds
test measurement
meter accuracy and repeatability
BS&W sampling accuracy
biases
meter calibration errors
procedures
The accuracy of monthly production improves with increased

numbers of well tests. However, it is desirable to minimize the
number of tests performed to maintain efficient and economic
operations. Test frequency requirements represent a compromise
between accuracy needs and operational costs.
221
3.4.4.1.2 Thermal
Production
IRP 3.4.4.1.2.1
The minimum test frequency for wells under thermal

production strategies shall be two tests per month.
Note
Thermal production projects can be subject to highly variable

production profiles. Test frequencies should be consistent with
the anticipated monthly production profiles. Multiple well tests
are expected. The minimum test frequency is two tests per month.
Operator experience has shown that four (4) to seven (7) tests per
month may be appropriate.
Temperature limitations may exist for extended periods of time
and therefore preclude testing of wells. Under the test-to-test
method of estimating well production, significant errors may
occur in total estimated production. As an alternative to long
periods without test data, consideration should be given to the use
of estimated production profiles to assign test results to
accommodate test-to-test pro-rationing. Such estimated
production profiles should be determined from Operator
experience and can be expected to vary from pad to pad and cycle
to cycle.
222
3.4.4.2 Well Test

Duration
IRP 3.4.4.2.1
Well test duration should be the lesser of 24 hours or the time

required to obtain four consecutive daily fluid test rates
within:
5% of the mean of the four test rates for total fluid

production > 15 m3/d, and
10% of the mean of the four test rates for total fluid
production < 15 m3/d.
Well test duration should be exclusive of the time required to

purge piping and vessels of production from other wells.
Note
Traditionally regulated 24-hour well tests are convenient from an

operational point-of-view as they typically ensure representative
test data and establish a familiar standard.
Short duration tests may also achieve test results within
acceptable tolerances. With the advent of automatic well test
systems, a 24-hour test based upon Operator convenience is no
longer applicable. Since test data is influenced by well variability
and separator dump considerations, the test duration must be long
enough to dampen out short-term fluctuations and provide
representative results. The following items should be considered
when determining an appropriate test duration:
223
Dump volume and frequency - Test duration should provide

for a sufficient number of separator dumps such that the
volume of one dump becomes insignificant. This is
particularly significant in low rate wells. Since the meter is
located downstream of the separator, the flow through the
meter is not a true instantaneous measure of the well
production due to separator retention. The uncertainty or
potential error (%) in the test result due to separator sizing
can be determined as 100/n where n is the number of
separator dumps during the test.
For example, for a potential error or uncertainty of 10% on

the test volume, the test duration would need to be of
sufficient duration to provide for 10 dumps.
To help minimize the uncertainty of the test volume, it is

recommended that each test be started and stopped
immediately following a separator dump.
Well variability - Test duration should be sufficient to

dampen the effects of short-term or instantaneous variations
due to well slugging or surging. Stable production rates
suggest short duration tests may be appropriate. Variable
production rates suggest long duration tests are required to
obtain representative test data.
Analysis of appropriate test duration would ideally be
conducted for all wells individually. Recognizing that this is
impractical in situations involving large number of wells, a
similar analysis on a representative sample set of wells or
categorization of type-wells would be acceptable. Frequent
confirmation of the continuing appropriateness of a calculated
test duration is recommended, especially if well production
characteristics or reservoir conditions change.
224
In the absence of analysis to establish an appropriate duration,

the Operator should default to a 24 - hour test duration.
A suggested method of determining the appropriate test
duration is to compare hourly rates at increasing time
increments with the overall average rate after converting both
to a daily rate. Once the hourly rate approaches the average
rate, a representative test duration has been established. An
example of this test method is provided in Appendix 1 at the
end of this section.
To ensure that the focus of this analysis is on the variability of
the well production and is free of other errors such as BS&W
determination, the actual meter gain should be used rather
than the estimated oil rate determined after BS&W sampling.
The appropriate meter gain would therefore represent an
emulsion volume for a 2-phase separator and the combined oil
and water volumes for a 3-phase separator.
The different accuracy criterion in IRP 3.4.4.2.1 is

recognition of the difficulty of achieving repeatable tests at
lower production rates. A minimum time interval of one-half
hour should separate each data point.
When tanks are used for testing purposes, it is considered

appropriate to reduce the test duration to 20 to 22 hours to
provide for tank unloading.
225
3.4.4.3 Production
Volume
Determination
3.4.4.3.1
Accounting
Meters
IRP 3.4.4.3.2.1
For accounting purposes, a meter used to determine the

produced fluid volume of a well should be validated by
representative tests that prove the meter gives accurate,
repeatable measurements.
Note
A representative test should establish the validity of a meter over

the range of expected operating conditions. Results of other
Operator's experiences, technical papers, or empirical tests may
also be used to validate a meter provided the meter will be
operated under similar conditions. While it is preferable to
validate a meter prior to installation, post-installation validation is
also acceptable.
The meter accuracy established by these tests should be
consistent with the measurement needs of the well being tested as
defined in IRP 3.4.2.
226
3.4.4.3.2 Test
Tanks
IRP 3.4.4.3.2.1
An atmospheric test tank may be used to measure the total

volume produced by a well under test. Other equipment or
procedures, such as BS&W instruments or manual sampling,
shall be used prior to a test tank to determine the specific oil
and water volumes unless the tank is completely purged prior
to testing.
Note
The use of test tanks to measure total production volumes from a

well under test is common. The size of a test tank is dependent
upon the expected produced volume during the test. It must
provide sufficient fluid column height to permit reasonable
gauging accuracy. Guidelines for test tank size have been
reviewed and the following "rule of thumb" for a 1% uncertainty
is:
V = 0.39 d2
where
V = minimum test volume (m3)
and
d = test tank diameter (m)
Following this guideline, the uncertainty associated with

calculated test tank volumes will be similar to the uncertainty of
tests using typical oil meters.
For test tanks equipped with fired heaters, it is good operating
practice to maintain the fluid level above the top of the fire tube.
227
3.4.4.4 Accounting
Meter Calibration
IRP 3.4.4.4.1
Accounting meters shall be calibrated as per minimum

acceptable guidelines using a documented calibration
procedure.
Note
A minimum acceptable guideline is defined as the minimum

frequency agreed upon by the applicable Regulator, Operators,
and Royalty Owners. The highest test frequency required by any
stakeholder shall take precedence in the event of disagreements.
It is recognized that in-line calibration provides the best results
when calibrating oil meters. However, Heavy Oil operations and
fluid characteristics often limit the ability to calibrate in this
manner. Thus, meters are usually bench calibrated with water at
room temperature. It is recognized that this method is not truly
representative because the expected range of operating conditions
is not taken into account. To increase calibration accuracy,
consider the following procedures if possible or practical.
Simulate the range of operating conditions, such as temperature,

pressure, fluid composition, and physical properties.
Apply correction factors from the manufacturers empirically

derived calibration curves.
The meter accuracy established by these tests should be consistent

with the measurement needs outlined in IRP 3.4.2 and the
calibration procedure should ensure repeatable results as outlined
in IRP 3.4.4.2.1.
Master flow meters may be used to in-line calibrate well test

meters. However, the previous discussion regarding bench
simulation of average operating conditions applies to calibration
of a master flow meter.
228
3.4.4.5 BS&W
Determination
3.4.4.5.1
Automated BS&W
Instruments
IRP 3.4.4.5.1.1
For accounting purposes, an automated instrument may be

used to determine BS&W percentages provided
representative tests prove the instrument gives accurate
measurements.
Note
See the notes accompanying IRP 3.4.4.3.1.1.
229
3.4.4.5.2 BS&W
Instrument
Calibration
IRP 3.4.4.5.2.1
Automated BS&W instruments shall be calibrated as per

minimum acceptable guidelines using a documented
calibration procedure.
230
Note
A minimum acceptable guideline is defined as the minimum

frequency agreed upon by the applicable Regulator, Operators,
and Royalty Owners. The highest test frequency required by any
stakeholder shall take precedence in the event of disagreements.
Operational experience has shown that BS&W instruments may
have to be calibrated more frequently than once per year.
Instrument calibration procedures should provide repeatable
results and continue to meet or exceed the measurement needs
defined in IRP 3.4.2. The following is an example of an
acceptable calibration procedure for a capacitance BS&W probe.
Disable inflow capability of test system.
Place 2 m3 of produced water in test tank.
Pump water through probe until indicator on test computer is

stable. Record computer 100% water reading.
Disable test system pump and isolate capacitance probe via

block valves.
Drain fluid from probe assembly and fill with sales oil.
Record computer 100% oil reading.
Calibrate detector output for pure oil.
Return capacitance probe to operating state and begin

pumping produced water from test tank.
When detector reading is stable, calibrate computer to 100%

water.
Check the 100% oil reading and repeat calibration as

necessary.
Return test system to operation.
231
3.4.4.5.3 Manual
BS&W
Determination
IRP 3.4.4.5.3.1
For accounting purposes, an Operator shall develop,

consistently apply, and document a procedure for BS&W
determination when this determination is to be performed
manually. The steps in the procedure should be clearly
outlined including:
solvent addition
sample and solvent pre-heating
demulsifier addition, and
mechanics of phase separation.
Experiments should be conducted to verify:
Note
the choice of solvent, demulsifier, pre-heat temperature,

and amount of mechanical energy added to aid phase
separation, and
the adequacy of the procedure selected.
The addition of a solvent ensures the sample is a hydrocarbonbased system. The addition of heat lowers the viscosity of the
emulsion to aid the separation process. The demulsifier is added
to break the emulsion by further altering the chemical
properties (i.e. reducing surface tension effects) of the emulsion.
Lastly, the mechanics of phase separation refers to the
mechanical energy (i.e. centrifuging) provided to the system to
speed the separation process by virtue of the density differences
between the hydrocarbon, water, and solids phases.
232
The separation method must ensure full separation of any

hydrocarbon from entrained water and solids. The choice of
solvent, pre-heat temperature, demulsifier, and mechanical energy
to speed the separation process may all affect the BS&W value
obtained. Each of these variables should be carefully examined to
ensure accurate BS&W determination.
The current industry standard procedure for manual BS&W
determination is API Standard 2542. Strict application of this
standard may not be appropriate or necessary in all cases.
However, this standard is useful to develop a Manual BS&W
determination procedure. The following method is an example of
an acceptable procedure developed from this standard.
Use equipment as per API Standard 2542 (i.e. centrifuge and

two 100 ml tubes).
Pre-heat fluid sample to 60C. If free water is present, the

Operator should use the method for high water-cut wells
noted below (see Step h).
Vigorously shake sample and pour directly into centrifuge

tube to 50% mark (i.e. 100 ml mark for 200 ml tubes or 50 ml
mark for 100 ml tubes).
Fill centrifuge tube with solvent to 100 % mark. Add 5 to 6

drops of demulsifier. (The amount of demulsifier may vary in
accordance with supplier specifications.) Vigorously shake
the centrifuge tube and invert to check for complete mixing.
Place tube with sample in the centrifuge. Balance the

centrifuge using an alternate sample.
Spin the samples for 15 minutes at a rate producing a relative

centrifugal force at the tube tip of between 500 and 800 RCF.
233
Read and record the combined water and sediment at the

bottom of the tube to the nearest 0.1%. Calculate the percent
BS&W. If necessary, add a volume of decanted water to the
tube volume prior to making calculation.
For high water-cut wells, experiments may determine that

centrifuging of the emulsion is not required and that settling
time may be a preferred separation method. The following
method is an example of an acceptable procedure for high
water cut wells.
Collect an adequate fluid sample (i.e. 600 - 700 ml when

using a one (1) litre graduated cylinder) and pour into
graduated cylinder.
Add 250 ml solvent to a sample bottle. Shake well and pour

into graduated cylinder.
Add 5 to 6 drops of demulsifier to graduated cylinder and

shake vigorously.
Place graduated cylinder in a water bath at treater temperature

for a 24-hour settling time to allow separation to occur. An
occasional spot check by centrifuging the oil layer may be
required to validate the required settling time.
Read and record the sediment, water, and total volumes.

Calculate percent BS&W. Be sure to account for initial
sample volume plus solvent added.
Reference: API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards,

Chapter 10, "Sediment and Water".
234
3.4.5 Sampling
3.4.5.1 Wellhead
And Pipeline
Production
IRP 3.4.5.1.1
Test samples used for production accounting purposes must

be representative of the production stream. Adequate
equipment and means must be in place to collect and transfer
a representative sample.
Note
Representative samples are best obtained by:
Completely purging all sample lines and associated piping

prior to drawing a sample.
Sampling through the test valve on the wellhead flow tee as

this sample point is in a vertical run of piping that will reduce
the effect of free-water interfacing. (An alternate method, but
less preferred, is to obtain the sample from a test header or
pipeline.)
Using a sample container that:
prevents mixing of sample with outside elements
allows thorough mixing prior to extraction of sub-sample

for BS&W determination
allows proper cleaning and interior inspection prior to reuse, and
is properly constructed for the method of sampling (i.e. singletime sampling or proportional or continuous in-line sampling).
235
Designing a safe sampling procedure appropriate for the fluid

being collected. Extra caution is necessary when sampling:
high-temperature wells with foaming tendencies
sour (H2S) wells, and
wells with gas-surging tendencies especially when

obtaining fluids associated with the gas surges.
236
3.4.5.2 Truck
Loading Or
Unloading
IRP 3.4.5.2.1
A sufficient number of manual grab samples must be

collected, while loading or unloading a truck, to provide a
representative sample of the contents of the truck.
Note
The extent of BS&W stratification within a truck dictates the

sampling frequency required to obtain a representative sample.
If a tight, stable emulsion is present, experience and limited

testing has shown that single grab samples collected in the
early-to-middle stages of the unloading process can be
representative of the load. These conditions typically exist
where production is obtained from heated lease tanks.
If a tight, stable emulsion is not present, several grab

samples (i.e. 3 or more) should be obtained while unloading
the truck. The samples should be of equal size and obtained at
an evenly spaced interval.
When unloading, if free water is present in measurable quantities,

it should be accounted for separately and the BS&W of the load
adjusted accordingly. Failure to properly account for the free
water volume commonly found in truck bottoms defeats the
purpose of collecting and evaluating a representative sample of
the trucked emulsion. Measurement of the free water volume by
means of separate weigh scale, meter, or tank determination is
recommended. Visual estimates or estimates based on changing
off-load pump speeds, are not considered reliable for free water
volume determination.
237
3.4.6 Pro-Ration
Factors
3.4.6.1 Primary
Production And
Waterflood
Operations
IRP 3.4.6.1.1
Note
For primary production and waterflood operations, facility

pro-ration factors should fall within the following ranges:
Oil:
0.85 - 1.15
Water :
0.85 - 1.15
For non-thermal Heavy Oil operations, pro-ration factor ranges for oil
and water are consistent with conventional oil production. Gas proration factors have been excluded in recognition of the difficulties in
measuring the low gas rates typical of Heavy Oil production. However,
this does not exempt Operators from estimating and reporting gas
production from each well.
The pro-ration ranges should be achieved on a monthly basis. However,
deviations from these ranges over isolated short-term periods (i.e. 1 to 3
months) will not be a concern if suitably explained. Long-terms
deviations from the expected ranges are a concern and may necessitate
corrective measures. Operators should continuously strive for proration factors as close to 1.00 as possible.
Operators should be aware of approximate sand production quantities
as they relate to BS&W determination. Since sand reporting is not a
regulatory requirement, significant sand production is represented as a
shortfall in the estimated total battery water production. This may
provide an explanation for deviation from acceptable water pro-ration
factors.
238
3.4.6.2 Thermal
Recovery
Operations
IRP 3.4.6.2.1
Note
For thermal recovery operations, facility pro-ration factors

should fall within the following ranges:
Oil:
0.75 - 1.25
Water :
0.75 - 1.25
It is recognized that fluid measurement is more difficult in

thermal recovery operations. Thus, a wider range of pro-ration
factors is appropriate for these operations.
Refer to notes above in IRP 3.4.6.1 for comments regarding gas
and sand production as they also apply for thermal production.
239
Appendix 1 Suggested Method of Test Duration

Determination
The table below lists a set of test data for a hypothetical well in order to
demonstrate a suggested method of determining appropriate test
duration
Time
Meter Gain
(m3)
Daily Rate
(m3/D)
Mean
Daily Rate
(m3/D)
Rate Variance
(-/+ %)
2.0
48.0
38.0
-15.8/26.3
3.0
36.0
34.4
-7.0/4.7
4.0
32.0
33.4
-4.2/7.8
6.0
36.0
34.0
-5.9/5.9
7.0
33.6
33.2
-3.6/3.3
8.0
32.0
N/A
N/A
10.0
34.0
N/A
N/A
11.0
33.0
N/A
N/A
The criterion for a representative test stipulates that four consecutive

daily rate data points fall within +/- 5% of the mean (average)
values of the four data points. The minimum duration is then taken
as the first of the four points. In the example, the criterion is
satisfied after a test of 5 hours duration. The four consecutive daily
rates are within -3.6% and +3.3% of the mean (average) rate.
240
Sample Calculations
For clarity, the following sample calculations are presented for the
satisfactory test of 5 hours duration. The applicable raw data is as
follows:
Time
5
6
7
8
Meter Gain(m3)
7.0
8.0
10.0
11.0
Step 1: The effective daily rate at the 5 hour test duration is:
Daily Rate = 7.0 m3 / 5 hours x 24 hrs / day = 33.6 m3/d
A similar calculation can be performed for the 6-, 7-, and 8h our test duration.
Step 2: The mean daily rate for the four consecutive data points
commencing with the 5-hour test duration is the mean of
the 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8-hour data as follows:
Mean Rate = (33.6 + 32.0 + 34.3 + 33.0)/4 = 33.2 m3/d
Step 3: The Rate Variance is defined as the percent between the
mean rate and the maximum (+ve) and minimum (-ve) daily
rates used to define he mean rate. The minimum and
maximum variances occur at test durations of 6- and 7hours respectively and are calculated as follows:
% Variance 1 = (32.0 33.2) x 100/33.2 = - 3.6% and
% Variance 2 = (34.3 33.2) x 100/33.2 = + 3.3%
Since the criterion of four consecutive daily rate data points falling
within +/- 5% of the mean value of the data points is now satisfied, a
test duration of 5 hours is appropriate.
241

Irp3 Final 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Irp3 Final 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Irp3 Final 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations ...................................................... 1

Acknowledgement And Scope.................................................................. 1

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

Well Servicing........................................................................................ 142

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

Acknowledgement And Scope

This Industry Recommended Practice (IRP) is a set of best

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

development of new IRPs where non-existent procedures

review and revision of outdated IRPs particularly where new

provide general support to foster development of non-IRP

The recommendations set out in this IRP are meant to allow

If there is any inconsistency or conflict between any of the

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

This IRP has been sanctioned (sanction = review and support of

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

Alberta Human Resources and Employment

British Columbia Workers Compensation Board

Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

International Coil Tubing Association

Manitoba Industry, Trade and Mines

National Energy Board

Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers Compensation

Petroleum Services Association of Canada

Saskatchewan Industry & Resources

Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

This document is a revision of Alberta Recommended Practice

update ARP Volume 3 to reflect current practices,

Definitions of terms specific to this document may be found

streamline regulatory/industry procedures and application

convert ARP Volume 3 to an Industry Recommended

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

The purpose of this document is to recommend specific

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

Within IRP Volume 3, additional sources of information and a

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

blowout prevention (BOP) systems

ghost-holes and side-tracks

cement design and operations

casing string design

horizontal well guidelines, and

drilling waste management.

Servicing recommendations are made with regard to:

blowout prevention systems

servicing equipment including coiled tubing rigs, snubbing

health, safety, and environment, and

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations

Producing recommendations are made with regard to:

oil and gas gathering and treating

production equipment including fired vessels, and

Measuring and accounting recommendations are made with

purpose and need for measurement

well test design and equipment

sampling requirements, and

Heavy Oil And Oil Sands Operations