Cenovus TL ULC

Telephone Lake Project

Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Table of Contents
SECTION 4.0 BITUMEN RECOVERY PROCESS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
4.0 BITUMEN RECOVERY PROCESS ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 SAGD Process ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Start-up Operations ............................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Ramp-up ............................................................................................ 4-7
4.2.3 Conventional SAGD Operations ........................................................ 4-7
4.2.4 Blowdown Operations ........................................................................ 4-8
4.3 Dewatering Process ........................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.1 Dewatering Process Description ........................................................ 4-9
4.3.2 Field Testing History ........................................................................ 4-12
4.3.3 Dewatering Process Benefits ........................................................... 4-12
4.4 Recovery and Oil In Place ................................................................................ 4-13
4.4.1 Producible Oil in Place and SAGDable Oil in Place ......................... 4-13
4.4.2 Drilling Constraints and Bypassed Pay ............................................ 4-13
4.4.3 Drainage Pattern Layouts ................................................................ 4-14
4.5 Scheme Design and Forecast .......................................................................... 4-15
4.5.1 Reservoir Properties ........................................................................ 4-15
4.5.2 Development Sequence ................................................................... 4-16
4.5.3 Scheme Design Basis ...................................................................... 4-18
4.5.4 Well Pad Wind-Down Plans ............................................................. 4-22
4.5.5 Adding Future SAGDable Oil in Place ............................................. 4-23
4.5.6 Recovery Forecast ........................................................................... 4-23


Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.5-1: Project Reservoir Properties .......................................................................... 4-15
Table 4.5-2: Telephone Lake PPA Development Sequence .............................................. 4-19
Table 4.5-3: Typical SAGD Well-Pair Parameters ............................................................. 4-25
Table 4.5-4: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP1 Performance Data .......................................... 4-25
Table 4.5-5: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP2 Performance Data .......................................... 4-29
Table 4.5-6: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP3 Performance Data .......................................... 4-29
Table 4.5-7: Typical Telephone Lake Dewatering Pattern Performance Data ................... 4-31



LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.2-1: Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Stages ........................................................ 4-2
Figure 4.3-1: Conceptual View of the Top Water Dewatering ............................................. 4-10
Figure 4.3.2: Conceptual Operation of the Dewatering Procedure ..................................... 4-11
Figure 4.5-1: The Viscosity Temperature Relationship for Dead Oil ................................... 4-17
Figure 4.5-2: Layout of Project Facilities ............................................................................. 4-20
Figure 4.5-3: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP1 Performance Profile ....................................... 4-26
Figure 4.5-4: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP2 Performance Profile ....................................... 4-27
Figure 4.5-5: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP3 Performance Profile ....................................... 4-28
Figure 4.5-6: Typical Telephone Lake Dewatering Pattern Performance Profile ................ 4-30
Figure 4.5-7: Active Dewatering Pad Areas at Six Years (December 2024) ....................... 4-32
Figure 4.5-8: Active Dewatering Pad Areas at Twelve Years (December 2030) ................. 4-33
Figure 4.5-9: Annual Top Water Dewatering Production Forecast ...................................... 4-34
Figure 4.5-10: Cumulative Top Water Dewatering Production Forecast ............................... 4-35
Figure 4.5-11: Annual SAGD Injection and Production Forecast .......................................... 4-36
Figure 4.5-12: Cumulative SAGD Injection and Production Forecast ................................... 4-37
Figure 4.5-13: Annual Top Water Air Injection Forecast ....................................................... 4-38
Figure 4.5-14: Cumulative Top Water Air Injection Forecast ................................................. 4-39


Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-1
4.0 BITUMEN RECOVERY PROCESS
4.1 Introduction
Cenovus TL ULC (Cenovus) plans on applying the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)
process at the Telephone Lake Project (Project). Experience and technologies developed at the
Christina Lake Thermal Project (CLTP) and Foster Creek Thermal Project (FCTP) will be
incorporated into the Project. Parallel to the SAGD process, Cenovus will employ, where
required, a dewatering process (Cenovus patent pending) to mitigate the impact of the (Middle
McMurray Top Water Zone). As discussed further in Section 4.3, it is planned that dewatering
activities are expected to start about one to two years prior to initiating SAGD.

4.2 SAGD Process
The Project will use the SAGD recovery process to produce bitumen from the McMurray
Formation. At the FCTP and CLTP, SAGD has been demonstrated as a high efficiency recovery
process that employs gravity drainage and takes advantage of good vertical communication
within the reservoir due to high vertical permeability.

The SAGD process utilizes dual horizontal well-pairs that are drilled in parallel with about 5 m of
vertical separation. The lower production well is drilled horizontally and close to the bottom of
the bitumen zone within the McMurray Formation. Steam is injected in the upper injection well,
located 5 m above the production well. Steam injection generates a high-temperature vapour
chamber which heats the surrounding bitumen, allowing it to drain by gravity into the lower
production well.

Historically, the earliest commercial in situ recovery process in the oil sands was cyclic steam
stimulation (CSS). The presence of top water in the Middle McMurray, as well as the lack of
vertical impediments to flow, gives the SAGD process an advantage over CSS. Other
advantages of the SAGD process include:
appreciably higher recovery efficiency;
greater energy efficiency, which translates to a lower steam requirement per barrel of
bitumen produced, or lower steam-oil ratio (SOR); and
ability to operate closer to the initial reservoir pressure (and top water pressure) in a
steady manner, in contrast to CSS with its higher pressure steam cycling.

Cenovuss current commercial SAGD process involves four stages of operations, which are
start-up, ramp-up, conventional SAGD and blowdown operations. An additional stage, called co-
injection, occurs between the conventional SAGD and blowdown stages when a non-
condensable gas such as air or methane is co-injected with the steam. This is described further
in Section 4.2.4. A typical SAGD progression is illustrated in Figure 4.2-1.

Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
2
-
0
1
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
2
-
0
1

S
t
e
a
m
.
c
d
r
SteamAssisted Gravity
Drainage Stages
NA
PROJECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.02-01 Steam
11-12-12
KW
Figure
4.2-1
ANALYST:
PROJECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-3
4.2.1 Start-up Operations
The Project will employ conventional circulation start-up and enhanced start-up operations to
start SAGD well-pairs.

The conventional start-up stage of SAGD establishes thermal and hydraulic communication
between the SAGD injection and production wells. At initial reservoir conditions, there is
negligible fluid mobility due to a bitumen viscosity of over 1,000,000 centipoise [mPa-s], and a
lack of water-saturated zones within the SAGD interval. Inter-well communication is established
by simultaneously circulating steam through both the injector and producer wells.
High-temperature steam flows through a tubing string that extends to the toe of each horizontal
well. The steam condenses in the well, releasing heat and resulting in a liquid water phase
which then flows up the casing-tubing annulus due to pressure gradients.

Maximum bottomhole pressure for circulation start-up of a SAGD well-pair will be limited to 90%
of the fracture pressure at the depth of the specific SAGD injection well. This is calculated to be
90% of the product of the depth of the SAGD injector and the Clearwater caprock fracture
gradient of 21 kPa/m. Water volumes injected into and produced from the wells during
circulation will be continuously monitored along with bottomhole pressures and the total net
injection into the formation will be limited to 500 m
3
during the steam circulation period.

Conduction is the main heating mechanism during the start-up stage. There is also a differential
pressure applied between the injector and producer, to promote movement of fluid, as well as
heat, between the wells. Start-up steaming operations are maintained until the bitumen region
between the injection well and production well becomes mobile. The time required to establish
fluid communication is well-pair dependent and relates to:
injector-to-producer well separation along the horizontal well length;
near-wellbore reservoir quality;
injected steam temperatures; and
reservoir pressures at which circulation is maintained.

Typical steam circulation time is 0 days.

4.2.1.1 Enhanced Start-up Operations
The start-up period may be accelerated using several different methodsnamely, cold water
dilation, steam dilation (Cenovus patent pending), solvent soaking, and electrical heating. These
are referred to as enhanced start-up operations.

Cold water or steam dilation is used to create a dilation zone vertically connecting the SAGD
well-pair without significant propagation elsewhere. The dilation zone is created with a short-
period, small-volume and high-pressure injection targeting the area near the SAGD wells.
Effectively, the inter-well region will have increased porosity, permeability and water saturation.
After the inter-well communication is established, well-pairs can be transitioned to normal SAGD
operations.
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-4

Solvent soak, used before and/or after circulation start-up, will reduce the viscosity of the oil and
reduce the start-up time.

By placing an electrical heater along the lateral portion of a horizontal well, the inter-well region
is conductively heated. This is similar to conventional circulation start-up with the exception the
energy source is electrical as opposed to steam. Consequently, the well-pair can be started up
before steam facilities are commissioned.

These start-up techniques are in various stages of testing at both the FCTP and CLTP. Based
on information from these operations, Cenovus intends to optimize the overall start-up
procedure at the Project using any combination of the following:
conventional circulation start-up;
cold water dilation start-up;
steam dilation start-up;
solvent enhanced start-up (Cenovus patent pending); and
electrical heating start-up.

Benefits of improved start-up techniques are a faster ramp-up, a better use of steam capacity,
and a lower cumulative steam-oil ratio (CSOR). Reducing the CSOR results in reduced
emissions intensity, reduced water handling intensity, and reduced fuel gas consumption
intensity (intensity referring to per barrel of oil produced).

4.2.1.2 Cold Water Dilation Enhanced Start-up Operations
The start-up stage may be reduced by dilating the inter-well region briefly. Cenovus has
demonstrated that dilation start-up of a SAGD well-pair is achievable in the McMurray Formation
with minimal risk of the dilated region propagating out of the McMurray Formation as
demonstrated in the tests conducted at CLTP (ERCB Approval No. 8591R).

To execute a cold water dilation start-up on a well-pair, Cenovus would inject water into the
injection well and the production well. Estimated injection rates could be 1,000 m
3
/d or greater
per well, as long as the maximum bottomhole pressure of 120% of the fracture pressure at the
depth of the specific SAGD injector is not exceeded. Net injection volume into the formation will
be limited to a maximum of 500 m
3
. The bottomhole pressure response and thermocouple data
would be continuously monitored to observe the dilation zone and the development of
communication between the wells. It is expected that the pressure in both the wells will slowly
ramp up and then level off or decline slightly.

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-5
At that point, water injection will continue in one of the wells, while the pressure response from
the other well will be observed for communication between the wells. During this time, the
pressure in the well with water injection is expected to ramp up slowly before levelling off while
the other wells pressure is expected to fall off and then increase before levelling off and track
the injection wells pressure. After the pressures in the two wells have been tracking for several
days all water injection will be terminated and dilation of the inter-well region is expected to have
been accomplished. Production of water from either the injection well or the production well may
be used to promote and analyze the communication between the well-pairs.

After a dilation zone is created between the two wells, Cenovus would then inject steam into the
lower and/or upper well to heat up the inter-well region. It is likely that oil will fill the increased
porosity and cool (bitumen banking effect), potentially eliminating the inter-well communication
created by dilation. Steam injection into the lower well is less likely to cause this effect, as the
mobilized oil has to descend through the hot formation rather than be pushed through cold
formation. Tar banking remains a potential problem and it is anticipated that steam may need to
be injected at high enough pressure to cause further dilation of the inter-well region in order to
achieve start-up of the well-pair.

In addition, production of condensed steam from either well may be used to promote more
uniform dilation along the well-pair length and will limit the water volumes flowing out of the
inter-well region. Thirty or more days of steam injection in the lower well is required to
sufficiently heat the inter-well region so that SAGD operations can commence.

4.2.1.3 Steam Dilation Enhanced Start-up Operations
In steam dilation (Cenovus patent pending) start-up of a SAGD well-pair, Cenovus would inject
steam in both the injection and production wells. The required steam rate is estimated to be
from 150 m
3
/d to 300 m
3
/d (cold water equivalent (CWE)) but higher steam rates may be
injected, if required, with the constraint that the bottomhole pressure cannot exceed 120% of the
fracture pressure at the depth of the SAGD injection well. Net injection volume into the formation
will be limited to a maximum of 500 m
3
CWE. The bottomhole pressure in both wells will slowly
be increased up to formation break-down pressure to help promote dilation along the well
length. It would be expected that once dilation is observed the well-pairs will be in
communication and the well pressures would begin tracking. Steam injection will continue
during this period to heat up the inter-well region with the option to inject in both wells, or either
the injection or the production well to achieve an effective well start-up. Thirty or more days of
steam injection would be sufficient to heat this region so that the well-pair can be transitioned to
the ramp-up stage.

Production of condensed steam from either the production or the injection well may be used to
promote uniform dilation along the well-pair length. Flow back rates also aid in understanding
the level of communication between the well-pairs.

There may be slight variations from the above procedures, as the dilation start-up techniques
will be further optimized using information from the CLTP.
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-6
4.2.1.4 Solvent Enhanced Start-up Operations
For the standard start-up operations at the Project (Section 4.2.1), steam is circulated in each
well-pair until the bitumen between the injector and producer is mobilized. The duration of this
start-up stage may be reduced if each wellbore is soaked with a relatively small volume of
solvent prior to steaming. The solvent mixes with the formation bitumen in the near wellbore
area, reducing its viscosity; therefore, lower temperatures are required to mobilize this affected
bitumen. As a result, less steam will be required to initiate the ramp-up stage of SAGD
operations (Section 4.2.2).

Solvent enhanced start-up (Cenovus patent pending) techniques are currently being
implemented with positive results at the FCTP, and are in the testing stage at the CLTP, with
positive results to date.

The Projects start-up technique will be chosen after documenting key information from the
CLTP and FCTP, including the following:
how a solvent enhanced start-up compares to traditional circulation;
how different soak times impact the start-up performance;
what effect solvent enhanced start-up has on the ramp-up stage of the SAGD process;
and
the impact that solvent-bitumen mixtures returning to the central processing facility
(CPF) will have.

This information will enable Cenovus to better formulate a comprehensive solvent enhanced
start-up strategy to ultimately lower the cumulative SOR for the Telephone Lake Project.

Pending results from FCTP and CLTP, it is Cenovuss intent to inject up to 100 m
3
of solvent
into each of the producer and injector. The solvent will soak into the formation for a period of
one week to one year before conventional steam-circulation is initiated. During the soak period,
back pressure will be applied at the wellhead using a nitrogen bottle to maintain a bottomhole
pressure, limited to a maximum of 90% of the fracture pressure at the depth of the SAGD
injector. It is anticipated that all of the solvent will be produced back during the ramp-up stage.

The solvent described above may include xylene or other light hydrocarbon fluids such as
toluene, diesel, butane, pentane, hexane, diluent, condensate, or any combination thereof.

4.2.1.5 Electrical Heating Enhanced Start-up Operations
Electrical Heating Enhanced Start-up consists of installing a downhole electrical heater, which
will conductively heat the reservoir between the injector and producer wells to aid
communication. Within the tool, electrical energy transported via a cable is converted into a
magnetic field which induces conductive heating. Physically this is the same conductive heating
as conventional circulation start-up. As such, the time required is similar, approximately days.
However, no steam facilities or infrastructure are required. In a typical SAGD project,
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-7
the wells are drilled several months before steam injection facilities come online; electrical
heaters may be used during this time frame to reduce the cumulative SOR and proceed to the
SAGD ramp-up stage.

4.2.2 Ramp-up
After communication has been established between the SAGD injection and production wells,
often over a limited section of the well-pair length, steam is injected into the injection well at
constant pressure while mobilized oil and water are removed from the production well. During
this period the zone of communication between the wells is expanded axially along the full well-
pair length and the steam chamber grows vertically up to the top of the bitumen zone.

In the Proposed Project Area (PPA), the bitumen zone is often overlain by a Top Water Zone
which can vary in thickness from 0 to 20 m typically, with a maximum thickness of 44 m. This
top water is detrimental to the efficiency of the SAGD process and would result in an increased
cumulative SOR. Therefore, where the clean water sands are between 5 and 20 m thick,
Cenovus plans to mitigate this negative effect by dewatering the Top Water Zone, and replacing
the water with air (Section 4.3). Once the ramp-up stage starts, the steam chamber pressure will
be limited to the maximum operating pressure (MOP; defined in Section 4.5.3.2) until the steam
chamber reaches the top of the pay zone, at which time the pressure will be reduced and
maintained at a pressure that is in balance with, or slightly above, the pressure in the dewatered
Top Water Zone at that location.

When the inter-well region over the entire length of the well-pair has been heated and the
developed steam chamber has reached the reservoir top, the oil production rate peaks and
begins to decline while the steam injection rate reaches a maximum and levels off.

4.2.3 Conventional SAGD Operations
After the ramp-up stage, the steam chamber has essentially achieved full height, although it
may still be rising very slowly through or spreading around lower permeability zones in some
locations. Lateral growth becomes the dominant mechanism for recovering oil. As the steam
chamber widens, overburden heat losses consume an increasing portion of the heat from
injected steam, leading to declining oil production rates at steady steam rates (or possibly
steady oil rates with increasing steam rates). Typically, steam is injected into the injection well
and controlled to maintain a target steam chamber pressure during this stage, and the
production well remains submerged in draining oil and steam condensate. During this stage, the
steam chamber pressure will be maintained in balance with or slightly over-balanced compared
to the pressure in the overlying top water or the artificially created air zone at that location.

Well pairs will produce more water than steam injected during this stage due to the water
saturation in the Top Water Zone. Even after dewatering (Section 4.3), it is expected that
approximately 20% additional water volume will be produced.

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-8
The rate of fluid withdrawal from the lower production well is partly based on a target production
temperature so that an appropriate fluid level generally remains above the producer. This
operating strategy prohibits excessive steam from short-circuiting the SAGD process and
flowing directly from the injection well to the production well, which can also damage down-hole
completions.

It is anticipated that conventional SAGD operations will be sustained until the optimal amount of
heat has been supplied to the well-pair. When this occurs at least 50% of the producible oil in
place (POIP), as defined in Section 4.4, will have been produced, and the steam injection will be
ramped down to zero.

4.2.4 Blowdown Operations
Once steam injection is terminated, a non-condensable gas (expected to be air) is injected into
the steam chambers to maintain pressure. This activity is subject to Energy Resources
Conservation Board (ERCB) approval; thus, Cenovus expects to apply for blowdown as
required at a later date. During blowdown, bitumen production continues with operations
maintained under the same control scheme employed in conventional SAGD. Bitumen
production rates decline over time as the growth rate of the steam front slows under gas
injection.

Currently the CLTP operates with an air gas cap overlying the bitumen zone, with no negative
impacts to SAGD operations. The oxygen is consumed in an exothermic reaction with the
residual oil, producing carbon dioxide as a byproduct. There has been no oxygen produced in
the producer wells, and no observed change in oil quality once the SAGD chambers intersect
the air gas cap. There is a slight change in produced gas composition as more carbon dioxide is
produced. In addition to this experience, Cenovus has tested air injection directly into the steam
chamber at the A4 well-pair at CLTP (ERCB Application No. 1426253 dated 21 September
2005; ERCB Approval No. 10441 dated 20 December 2005). No oxygen was produced in this
pilot, and there was no change to the produced bitumen quality. In short, Cenovus expects no
negative impacts from air injection into the steam chamber, and considerable benefits in steam
generation fuel gas savings.

Blowdown production operations are anticipated to continue until bitumen production declines to
an uneconomic rate, at which time approximately 65% of the POIP is expected to have been
produced. After blowdown, consideration will be given to producing and re-using the non-
condensable gas for dewatering future pads.

Note that Cenovus would transition from conventional operations to blowdown by injection of a
non-condensable gas comingled with steam at the wellhead. Steam volumes are reduced
during co-injection, subject to a minimum steam-gas injection ratio, with gas added in rates
sufficient to maintain a desired chamber pressure. Cenovus would submit to the ERCB an
application for co-injection in the future as required.

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-9
4.3 Dewatering Process
Much of the bitumen zone in the PPA has an overlying non-saline Top Water Zone with a
thickness varying from 0 to more than 20 m with a maximum of 44 m (Volume 1, Section 3.4.1).
To improve the efficiency of SAGD in the PPA, this Top Water Zone will be dewatered where
the clean water sand ranges from 5 to 20 m in thickness. The process involves a combination of
water production, water reinjection, and air injection to reduce the water saturation above the
SAGD area, essentially creating an air gas cap. Expected benefits of dewatering are described
in Section 4.3.3.

4.3.1 Dewatering Process Description
The commercial dewatering plan involves drilling repeatable well patterns above SAGD pads to
replace the top water with air. A typical well pattern will roughly match the size of a SAGD well
pads drainage area (approximately 800 m x 800 m) and consist of:
two or more horizontal water production wells placed near the water-bitumen contact;
one horizontal air injection well placed near the top of the water zone; and
up to four horizontal water reinjection wells placed near the top of the water zone and at
the edge of the pattern to confine the air gas cap being created. An isolated pattern
would, therefore, require four horizontal wells.

Figure 4.3-1 shows the air gas cap created by dewatering the Top Water Zone overlying SAGD
operations. Figure 4.3-2 shows the conceptual operation of the dewatering process which would
start one to two years prior to SAGD start-up when required. The dewatering process will be
initiated by producing water from the water production wells creating a lower pressure area at
the base of the Top Water Zone. Simultaneously, a non-condensable gas (air) will be injected
into the clean water sand via the horizontal air injection well to replace the voidage created by
the water production wells. A portion of the produced top water will be returned to the perimeter
water reinjection wells. The purpose of these wells is to ensure water is injected into the top of
the reservoir on the edge of the dewatering area in order to prevent air from over-riding the
water. In the early stage of dewatering, it is anticipated more water will be pumped out of the
Top Water Zone than is reinjected into the Top Water Zone. Excess top water produced from
the reservoir will be injected into the underlying Lower McMurray water zone or handled by
alternate means as described in Volume 1, Section 10.5.2.

Cenovus estimates that dewatering will be required at 54 of the 90 planned SAGD well pads.

The distance from the water producer to the offsetting water injection well is a function of the
operating pressure of the air cap, the water thickness, the water production rate and the water
injection rate. In general the required distance between these wells decreases as the water
thickness decreases, the pressure in the air cap is reduced, and/or the rate of water injection
and production increases.
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
3
-
0
1
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
3
-
0
1

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Conceptual View of the
Top Water Dewatering
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.03-01 Dewatering
11-12-12
KW
Figure
4.3-1
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
3
-
0
2
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
3
-
0
2

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Conceptual Operation
of the Dewatering Procedure
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.03-02 Dewatering
11-12-13
KW
Figure
4.3-2
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Water Producer
Water Injectors
Water Injectors
Air Injector
Water Producer 0%
60%
Air Saturation
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-12
4.3.2 Field Testing History
Beginning in 2007, Cenovus has executed various short-term field tests in the Middle McMurray
top water and bitumen zones near the Clearwater zero-edge during the winter drilling seasons
(these tests are described in letter applications dated 20 December 2007 and 17 January 2008,
which comprise ERCB Application No. 1557122; the ERCB approved the application in a letter
dated 23 January 2008). The objectives of these tests were to improve the understanding of the
bitumen reservoir and Top Water Zone properties, and to support the design of a commercial
Project recovery process. The testing programs in the past have included the following:
nitrogen (95% N
2
, 5% O
2
) injection tests in 2007 and 2008 into the Middle McMurray Top
Water Zone at various locations to determine injectivity and potential for water
displacement and gas over-ride and containment, both vertically and laterally;
minifracs in the Clearwater caprock and in the McMurray Formation to investigate
fracture gradients and orientation (Volume 1, Section 3.4.2); and
hydraulic interaction testing of the Middle McMurray, Lower McMurray, and Quaternary
Lower Sand (S1) water (Volume 1, Section 3.5.3).

In addition to the short-term testing described above, Cenovus applied to Alberta Environment
and Water (AENV) and the ERCB in May 2011 for approval to conduct a dewatering test
commencing in 2012 for a duration of 6 to 12 months (AENV Application No. 001-00292198 and
ERCB Application No. 1689991). The dewatering test will be a field-scale test of the commercial
dewatering process proposed herein. In November 2011, Cenovus received approvals to
conduct the dewatering test from both AENV (Water Act Approval
No. 00299973-00-00 dated 1 November 2011) and the ERCB (letter dated 2 November 2011).
As a condition of these approvals, Cenovus will submit a final report to AENV and the ERCB
summarizing the results of the dewatering test within 120 days of the conclusion of the test.

The main differences between the commercial design and the 2012 test are:
as opposed to an isolated field test, the commercial scheme will consist of repeatable
dewatering well patterns, and, as such, contiguous patterns will only require reinjection
wells on the outer edges of the combined area;
surface facilities will not be temporary;
the dewatering test has a limited duration; and
the overall dewatering pad area will be larger (800 m x 800 m), compared to the 600 m x
600 m test pattern.

4.3.3 Dewatering Process Benefits
The expected benefits of dewatering are as follows:
increase in recoverable resource. Cenovus could pursue bitumen recovery in areas of
thicker top water that would otherwise be avoided;
lower SORs. Ultimately a lower SOR reduces natural gas and water consumption,
reduces greenhouse gas emissions intensity, and overall the bitumen production rate
increases;
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-13
reduced impact on non-saline top water. The bulk of the top water that is removed during
dewatering has not been in contact with the injected air, and thus remains in its natural
state. It will be reinjected into the Top Water Zone away from the development areas
and/or injected into the underlying Lower McMurray formation, which has comparable
water quality. In a non-dewatering case, overlying top water would be produced through
the SAGD chamber, thus requiring additional water treatment and disposal and resulting
in higher SORs; and
the use of the water production/water reinjection wells will also act as a hydraulic barrier
between the dewatered area above the SAGD wells and the surrounding aquifer.

Several years of testing, monitoring, and discussion with the ERCB and AENV on this proposed
process have culminated in the planned dewatering test that is scheduled to commence
operations in 2012.

4.4 Recovery and Oil In Place
4.4.1 Producible Oil in Place and SAGDable Oil in Place
Cenovus defines POIP as the amount of resource associated with a well-pair from the
production well elevation to the top of the SAGD zone, over the actual drainage length. Cenovus
uses POIP as a benchmark for blowdown timing for well-pairs that have been drilled and are
producing. Cenovus uses SAGD-able oil in place (SOIP) for the development planning,
sequencing and field optimization of well-pairs before drilling and completing, as well as an
indicator of resource volumes amenable to recovery by drilling additional wells such as
bypassed pay wells.

4.4.2 Drilling Constraints and Bypassed Pay
Cenovus constrains the drilling of well-pairs for various reasons to achieve optimum well-pair
performance. At times, these constraints lead to areas of bypassed pay beneath the production
well. The following list details the drilling constraints Cenovus uses for all of its well-pairs:
a depth separation of 5 m is used between the injection well and production well;
standard SAGD well-pair is 800 m in length, but when necessary, well-pairs will be
shortened and/or lengthened as required;
lower production well profile is generally targeted about 1 m above the SAGD base. If
bottom water exists (without a shale break), placement will be adjusted where there is
concern over increased aquifer inflow. Currently, there is no evidence of bottom water in
the PPA. The Firebag Coal Zone, where present, will provide a good datum for SAGD
production well placement;
production well profiles are typically planned with less than 5 m of relief so that no part of
the production well can be at a higher elevation than any part of the injection well;
profile directional changes in the horizontal section are typically planned at less than
6/30 m to minimize drilling and completion difficulties such as slotted liner placement;
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-14
wellbore elevation drops during drilling can occur, especially near the toe;
borehole-position and reservoir uncertainty will contribute to operational adjustments
during drilling;
proposed well profiles will likely be different from final drilled/surveyed trajectories;
standard liner design consists of two blank joints at the heel, with the majority of the first
one contained within the intermediate casing, and a blank joint at the toe. Within the
remaining slotted interval, one out of every six joints is blanked to act as partial strain
absorbers;
in addition it is Cenovuss practice to blank sections of the injection liner where the
injector is placed too close to the production well. This ensures that a hot spot will not
develop at that location. Cenovus does not expect any reduction in recovery from the
well-pair in this situation; and
in sections where there is uncertainty in the presence or extent of permeability barriers
which could significantly affect well placement decisions, it is Cenovuss practice to drill
open-hole sidetracks to further evaluate the reservoir and then re-evaluate the trajectory
based on this additional information while drilling.

Encountering non-reservoir rock of up to 100 m in length is not detrimental to the recovery factor
for the well, as the steam chamber will develop over that area and drainage will occur into the
production well on either side. If non-reservoir rock is encountered unexpectedly while drilling a
production well, Cenovus would steer the well up within the drilling constraints to try and place
the well above the non-reservoir facies. If a portion of non-reservoir rock greater than 100 m in
length is encountered, an attempt to sidetrack the well trajectory to come up over the poor
facies will be made to gain a larger percentage of effective pay along the well length. This well
trajectory change is typically about 1 to 2 m.

One or several of these constraints can lead to situations where there is excessive bypassed
pay beneath a production well. Cenovus plans to drill future bypassed pay production wells
(Section 4.5.4.2), based on the character of the bypassed pay contour map, to exploit this
resource. These wells will allow Cenovus to increase the POIP of their respective well pads, and
to take advantage of heat in the ground that is conducted below existing producers, leading to
improvement in the CSOR, as this heat would be otherwise lost.

4.4.3 Drainage Pattern Layouts
The Projects pattern of well pads and well-pairs was determined by jointly minimizing the SOR
and maximizing the volume swept by the suite of well pads proposed. These criteria are
explained in more detail below.

Horizontal SAGD well trajectories are subject to constraints, such as maximum elevation
change along the length of the well, as well as maximum rate of change of elevation. Cenovuss
current understanding of SAGD is that the former constraint is required for efficient bitumen
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-15
recovery, whereas the latter constraint is imposed by the mechanics of drilling. In addition,
Cenovus constrains well-pairs to penetrate a minimum SAGD thickness of 8 m to ensure wells
meet an economic threshold, and that drainage areas do not overlap to ensure drilling cost
efficiency.

An estimated trajectory from the elevation of the SAGD pay base surface is calculated for every
proposed well-pair. The volume drained is estimated by the distance from the producer to the
top of the SAGD pay multiplied by the distance between adjacent well-pairs. Cenovus then
estimates the SOR of the well-pair. Both volume and SOR are compared for a variety of
different possible layouts, and then an optimal layout is selected. This approach minimizes the
amount of steam needed to develop the region, and reduces emissions.

After an initial layout has been chosen, a second tier of wells is planned to increase the
reservoir sweep. These wells often cover the thinner SAGD pay areas.

The above constraints show that the varying thickness of the SAGD pay, coupled with the
topography of the base of the SAGD pay elevation surface, impose limitations on possible
horizontal well-pair layouts. These limitations influence the orientation of pads, as well as the
lengths of the horizontal wells. Pay that is identified as unswept on the chosen well-pair layout
will be flagged for subsequent bypassed pay and use of Wedge Well Technology
(Section 4.5.4).

Final consideration is given to the location of lakes, rivers and other surface features. The
expected surface pad site is determined from the heel location from any given set of horizontal
wells. Depending upon the nature of the surface constraints, pads can be moved a relatively
short distance and well trajectories revised, or a new layout is generated if the constraint is too
large.

4.5 Scheme Design and Forecast
4.5.1 Reservoir Properties
Cenovus will target the McMurray Formation for production operations. Typical reservoir
parameters for the Project are presented in Table 4.5-1.

Table 4.5-1: Project Reservoir Properties
Parameter Value
Temperature [C] 8
Initial Reservoir Pressure [kPa] 1,200
Depth to top of bitumen reservoir [m]
1
129 332 m TVD
Oil saturation [%] 80
Porosity [%] 34
Horizontal permeability [D] 11
Ultimate recovery [% of POIP] 65 (approx.)
1
See Volume 1, Section 3.4.1.
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-16

4.5.1.1 Oil and Gas Properties
The McMurray Formation within the PPA contains bitumen with American Petroleum Institute
gravity ranging from 6 to 8. Dead oil viscosity, at initial reservoir conditions, is over
1,000,000 cP. The reservoir is believed to be gas saturated at initial pressure such that the
virgin bitumen contains the maximum dissolved gas at those reservoir conditions. Although
difficult to measure accurately due to the gravity of the bitumen, Cenovus expects the gas-to-oil
ratio to be 2 to 6 m
3
/m
3
. At steam zone conditions, there is not expected to be any significant
effect of the gas on the oil viscosity (Figure 4.5-1).

4.5.2 Development Sequence
The initial pads to be developed will be in sections 7, 8, 17 and 18-094-03W4M. These pads
were chosen for the following reasons:
relatively thin top water, thus minimizing initial dewatering requirements;
close proximity to the CPF in section 21-094-03W4M;
presence of the full Clearwater caprock thickness; and
a thick bitumen pay zone.

The first five pads in the development sequence do not require dewatering. The first pad
requiring dewatering is TL05 at sequence #6 with a steam start date of September 2019, and a
likely dewatering start date in 2018. Knowledge gained from the dewatering test will be
incorporated in the dewatering design for this pad and subsequent dewatering pads and
facilities.

Development will progress to the east into sections 2, 3, 9 and 10-094-03W4M, with a sequence
largely dictated by the same parameters. The final areas to be developed will be the
southernmost pads in sections 20 and 27-093-03W4M, followed by pads in the northeast
quarter of Township 094-03W4M.

Cenovus is adopting a staged approach to development near the Clearwater zero edge in the
Northeast corner of the PPA. In the proposed development plan, a significant offset from the
Clearwater zero-edge is planned, as the nearest SAGD development will be a minimum of:
2.5 km away up to April 2038 (up to pad TL73 at sequence #57, as shown in
Table 4.5-2);
1.0 km away up to March 2041 (up to pad TL97 at sequence #64);
600 m away up to July 2046 (up to pad TLS14 at sequence #80); and
pads from sequence #81 to 90 are a minimum 200 m away from the Clearwater zero-
edge and are currently not scheduled to be developed until August 2046.
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
1
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
1
T
e
m
p
.
c
d
r
The ViscosityTemperature Relationship
for Dead Oil
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-01Temp
11-12-13
KW
Figure
4.5-1
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
100,000,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature, C
D
e
a
d
O
i
l
V
i
s
o
c
i
s
t
y
,
c
P
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-18
The geology in the Northeast portion of the PPA as described in Volume 1, Sections 3.4.1
and 3.4.2 outlines how the Clearwater formation has been eroded, reducing its thickness from
70 to 0 m at the Clearwater zero edge. Adjacent to the Clearwater zero edge is the presence of
the Quaternary Lower Sand (S1) unit, which is overlain by the Quaternary Upper Till (T2), which
in turn is overlain by the Quaternary Upper Sand (S2) unit. Hydraulic testing, groundwater level
monitoring, and groundwater sampling have demonstrated that groundwater in the S1 sand is
hydraulically connected and is generally of similar quality to the Middle McMurray Top Water
Zone. Moreover the Upper Quaternary Sand Unit groundwater is not hydraulically connected to
the Lower Quaternary Sand Unit or to the Middle McMurray Top Water Zone due to the
presence of the thick and low permeability Quaternary Upper Till (T2) unit (Volume 1,
Section 3.5). However, development in this region will not proceed until additional testing is
done to further demonstrate that the Quaternary Upper Sand (S2) will not be impacted by SAGD
or dewatering operations near the Clearwater zero edge. Additional data will be provided
through hydraulic tests, groundwater monitoring, results from the dewatering test and the initial
dewatering pads.

Table 4.5-2 outlines the pad development sequence, and pad locations are outlined in
Figure 4.5-2.

4.5.3 Scheme Design Basis
As described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the current commercial recovery scheme incorporates,
where required, a dewatering process and the four stages of SAGD operationsstart-up, ramp-
up, conventional SAGD, and blowdown.

4.5.3.1 Well Length and Spacing
Cenovus is expecting to use an inter-pair spacing of approximately 67 m for the initial
implementation of the Project. This spacing is within the optimum range to balance the reserves
developed by a single well-pair and the scheme CSOR. As the spacing is increased, oil
recovered from a single well-pair increases; however, as depletion time increases, additional
heat loss occurs and the CSOR increases. The sum of the well and steam costs typically
reaches a minimum over a broad range of 50 to 200 m for many different reservoir assumptions.
For a given reservoir quality, the optimum is a function of the commodity prices and is,
therefore, impossible to determine with precision over the life of the Project. In view of these
considerations, 67 m will be used initially, but future well-pairs may be drilled at distances from
50 up to 200 m. The dewatering pattern is expected to cover the drainage area of a SAGD well
pad typically 800 m x 800 m. In event of larger or smaller pads, the dewatering pattern size
will vary accordingly.

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-19
Table 4.5-2: Telephone Lake PPA Development Sequence
Pad
Pad
Sequence
Dewater or
No Dewater
Steam
Start
(mmm-yy)
Pad
Pad
Sequence
Dewater or
No Dewater
Steam
Start
(mmm-yy)
TL29 1 No Dewater Apr-18 TL12 46 Dewater Feb-35
TL08 2 No Dewater Apr-18 TL81 47 Dewater Apr-35
TL64 3 No Dewater Apr-18 TL55 48 Dewater Nov-35
TL65 4 No Dewater Sep-19 TLS17 49 Dewater Mar-36
TL23 5 No Dewater Sep-19 TL13 50 No Dewater May-36
TL05 6 Dewater Sep-19 TL06 51 No Dewater Sep-36
TL78 7 Dewater Mar-21 TL84 52 Dewater Oct-36
TL14 8 No Dewater May-21 TL61 53 Dewater Apr-37
TL04 9 Dewater Jun-22 TLS23 54 No Dewater Jul-37
TL79 10 Dewater Sep-22 TL18 55 Dewater Oct-37
TL59 11 Dewater Oct-22 TL99 56 No Dewater Jan-38
TL26 12 Dewater Dec-22 TL73 57 No Dewater Apr-38
TLS20 13 Dewater Mar-24 TL16 58 No Dewater Sep-38
TL63 14 Dewater May-24 TL40 59 No Dewater Mar-39
TL56 15 Dewater Jun-24 TL34 60 Dewater Oct-39
TL89 16 Dewater Sep-24 TL31 61 No Dewater May-40
TL74 17 Dewater Jun-25 TL25 62 Dewater Aug-40
TLS15 18 No Dewater Aug-25 TL02 63 No Dewater Dec-40
TL85 19 Dewater Sep-25 TL97 64 Dewater Mar-41
TL67 20 Dewater Nov-25 TL24 65 No Dewater Oct-41
TL88 21 Dewater Mar-26 TL91 66 Dewater Jan-42
TLS10 22 Dewater Mar-27 TL50 67 No Dewater Mar-42
TL46 23 Dewater May-27 TL75 68 Dewater Mar-43
TL48 24 Dewater Aug-27 TLS11 69 No Dewater Jun-43
TL103 25 Dewater Oct-27 TL53 70 No Dewater Sep-43
TL51 26 Dewater Jun-28 TLS12 71 No Dewater Jan-44
TL07 27 Dewater Sep-28 TLS01 72 Dewater Jul-44
TLS16 28 Dewater Nov-28 TLS08 73 No Dewater Oct-44
TLS04 29 Dewater Mar-29 TLS31 74 No Dewater Jan-45
TLS09 30 Dewater Feb-30 TL105 75 No Dewater Mar-45
TLS19 31 Dewater Jun-30 TLS28 76 No Dewater Apr-45
TL41 32 No Dewater Aug-30 TL70 77 Dewater Jan-46
TL83 33 Dewater Nov-30 TLS25 78 Dewater Apr-46
TL20 34 Dewater May-31 TLS33 79 No Dewater Jun-46
TL77 35 Dewater Sep-31 TLS14 80 Dewater Jul-46
TLS02 36 Dewater Nov-31 TL32 81 No Dewater Aug-46
TL101 37 No Dewater Jan-32 TL106 82 Dewater Oct-46
TL87 38 No Dewater Dec-32 TL44 83 Dewater Nov-46
TL21 39 Dewater Apr-33 TL93 84 No Dewater Jun-47
TLS22 40 No Dewater Jul-33 TL28 85 No Dewater Oct-47
TL72 41 Dewater Sep-33 TL17 86 Dewater Dec-47
TL19 42 No Dewater Apr-34 TL39 87 Dewater Mar-48
TL95 43 Dewater Jul-34 TL49 88 Dewater Aug-48
TL90 44 Dewater Oct-34 TL96 89 No Dewater Apr-49
TL47 45 Dewater Dec-34 TL01 90 No Dewater May-49

S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
A
r
c
G
I
S
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
2

A

P
P
A

L
a
y
o
u
t
.
m
x
d
F
i
Telephone
Lake
TWP 95
TWP 94
TWP 94
TWP 93
RGE 3 RGE 2 W4 RGE 4 RGE 3
TWP 93
TWP 92
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
9 8 7
6 5 4 3 2 1
9 8 7
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4
9 8 7
6 5 4
9 8 7
6 5 4
36 35 34 33 32 31
36 35 34
27 26 25
24 23 22
15 14 13
12 11 10
36 35 34
27 26 25
24 23 22
15 14 13
12 11 10
36 35 34 33 32 31
30 29 28 27 26 25
24 23 22 21 20 19
18 17 16 15 14 13
12 11 10
36 35 34 33 32 31
30 29 28 27 26 25
24 23 22 21 20 19
18 17 16 15 14 13
12 11 10
34 33 32 31
30 29 28
21 20 19
18 17 16
33 32 31
30 29 28
21 20 19
18 17 16
9
7
8
4
3
1
2
5
6
10
1
2
9
7
1
3
4
5
6
8
2
3
4
2
1
TL72
TL96
TL20
TL64
TL53
TL40
TL08
TL89
TL05
TL65
TL29
TL19
TL23
TL56
TL63
TL99
TL55
TL18
TL73
TL28
TL01
TL24
TL93
TL31
TL34
TL17
TL97 TL75
TL25
TL39
TL44
TL91
TL77
TL02
TL70
TL46
TL48
TL90
TL12
TL84
TL07
TL67
TL61
TL81
TL51
TL79
TL85
TL83
TL88
TL41
TL95
TL14
TL26
TL06
TL87
TL13
TL74
TL04
TL21
TL59
TL47
TL16
TL32
TL50 TL49
TL78
TL106
TL105
TL101
TL103
TLS11
TLS33
TLS01
TLS12
TLS25
TLS08
TLS16 TLS09
TLS14
TLS17
TLS22
TLS23
TLS20
TLS15
TLS02
TLS28
TLS31
TLS04
TLS19
10
TLS10
Legend
Proposed Project Area
Open Water
Watercourse
Project Layout
Borrow Pit
CPF
Camp
Dewatering
Disposal
Laydown
Main Access ROW
Project ROW
SAGD Only
SAGD/Dewatering

Source: Cenovus, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd.

QA/QC:
KW
December 2011
CE0339901
PROJ ECT:
ANALYST:
Figure
4.5-2
KW
Fig04.05-02 Project Layout
11-12-14
DATE:
LR EH AMEC
FINAL MAPPING BY: PROVIDED BY:
AMEC
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
UTM Zone 12 NAD83 Layout of Project Facilities
1 0 1 2 0.5
Kilometres
1:110,000
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-21
The maximum length of SAGD well-pairs is constrained primarily by hydraulic considerations.
Both flow rates and the distance travelled scale up with the pairs length, so that, for a given size
of tubular, eventually too large a pressure gradient will arise in the liners or tubulars. The
practical length depends upon the quality of the reservoir, (i.e., the expected flow rates per unit
length), the operating pressure and the liner diameter. Based on a liner diameter of 178 mm,
Cenovus is planning 800 m well-pair lengths for the initial Project development but may use up
to 1,200 m well-pair lengths in certain cases to allow for optimization of net pay area coverage.

As discussed in Section 4.4.3, the drainage pattern layout has been optimized to jointly
maximize the value of each well-pair as well as maximizing the volume swept by the suite of
well pads.

4.5.3.2 Operating Pressures
Clearwater caprock thickness over the SAGD pad development areas in the PPA varies from
16 to 78 m (Volume 1, Section 3.4.1). The depth to the base of the Clearwater caprock (or the
Top of the McMurray Formation), over the PPA, ranges from 99 to 310 m (Volume 1,
Section 3.4). As discussed in Volume 1, Section 3.4.2, Clearwater minifrac tests resulted in a
consistent fracture gradient of 21 kPa/m.

Cenovus is planning to operate the steam chambers over a range of bottomhole pressures;
however, there are essentially three pressure conditions: initial high pressure during the start-up
stage, followed by a ramp-up stage limited to the MOP, followed by a low pressure during the
conventional SAGD stage and blowdown stages. This is similar to the operating strategy
employed at the CLTP. A description of the SAGD stages is provided in Section 4.2.

Operating pressures for the start-up stage will be determined on a per pad basis, as discussed
in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. After the start-up stage, there will be no significant steam chamber
development; thus, the pressure will drop quickly. The pressure will fall off significantly while
shut down for the electric submersible pump (ESP) installation, and will continue to decline as
production is initiated. Thus, in advance of starting steam injection for the ramp-up stage, the
pressure will decline to the MOP. For the ramp-up and conventional SAGD stages, the MOP will
be 1,660 kPa. This is based on the shallowest depth (99 m) to the base of Clearwater caprock
in the PPA, a fracture gradient of 21 kPa/m, and 80% factor of safety. Similarly, the MOP in the
Top Water Zone due to dewatering activities will be 1,660 kPa.

The Top Water Zone is highly mobile and is at a reservoir pressure of approximately 1,200 kPa.
Cenovus expects this pressure to be reduced with the application of the dewatering process.
Therefore, the higher steam injection pressures during start-up will not reach the caprock. If the
steam chamber intersects the Top Water Zone at a higher pressure, it will simply lose pressure
and steam to the dewatered Top Water Zone. Furthermore, this situation is not expected to
arise, as high steam injection pressures will only be used for start-up steam circulation, which
will be completed with approximately 90 days of steaming, and total net steam injection will be
limited to 500 m
3
CWE during this period. Starting at the beginning of the ramp-up stage, steam
chamber pressures will be maintained below 1,660 kPa.
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-22

During the lower pressure stage after the steam chamber reaches the top of the oil pay, steam
chamber pressures will equalize with the top-water pressure in the range of 800 to 1,400 kPa,
with an absolute maximum of 1,660 kPa. This pressure range will apply during the conventional
SAGD period and the blowdown period.

To monitor the impacts of dewatering and SAGD, Cenovus will be installing heave monitors on
the surface at selected well pads.

In summary, Cenovus is requesting two operating pressures: a high pressure based on specific
well parameters during the start-up stage, and a lower limit based on field-wide MOP during
ramp up, conventional SAGD operations and blowdown.

4.5.3.3 Artificial Lift
After start-up operations, ESP systems will be used for artificial lift. This choice relates to the
relatively shallow and low pressure formation. In addition, ESPs provide greater operational
flexibility during turnarounds and unexpected shutdowns.

4.5.4 Well Pad Wind-Down Plans
Cenovus plans to prepare a wind-down strategy for each well pad after allowing for sufficient
time to evaluate the well pads SAGD performance. This strategy will optimize well pad recovery
and thermal efficiency. The optimization will include expected timing and corresponding oil
production volume at which Cenovus plans (after receiving necessary approvals from the
ERCB) to:
drill any additional wells on each well pad, including bypassed pay producers and
Wedge Well Technology as necessary;
proceed to well pad-wide non-condensable gas co-injection; and
proceed to well pad-wide full blowdown.

It is anticipated that these strategies will be reviewed periodically with the ERCB in advance of
all application submissions to ensure that there is agreement on the appropriate balance
between oil recovery and thermal efficiency.

4.5.4.1 Wedge Well Technology
Cenovus does not plan on using its patented Wedge Well Technology everywhere in the
Project due to the well-pair spacing of 67 m. However, there may be specific cases where
Wedge Well Technology is required due to poor well placement, poor recovery factors, or if
economics justify the additional capital costs.

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-23
4.5.4.2 Bypassed Pay Producers
As described in Section 4.4.2, Cenovus intends to evaluate future bypassed pay producer
opportunities to increase the POIP of a well pad.

4.5.4.3 Co-Injection as a Transition to Blowdown
In association with well pad wind down plans, all the original well-pairs on a pad would transition
from SAGD to full blowdown. Cenovus plans to implement co-injection (Sections 4.2.4) to
perform this transition, and will apply for co-injection as required.

4.5.5 Adding Future SAGDable Oil in Place
Cenovus will pursue developing future opportunities in the PPA, including previously
unidentified resource, secondary pay zones adjacent to the resource being developed, areas of
thicker top water, and resources stranded areally between developed SAGD well pads and/or
along the edges of the defined resource base. Cenovus could drill vertical production wells,
horizontal production wells, or horizontal well-pairs, as dictated by factors such as location and
geology. Cenovus will continue to evaluate the economics of such opportunities based on pay
quality, proximity to infrastructure, and proximity to existing heated zones (steam chambers). If
deemed economic, using this unrecovered heat to access the resource would enable Cenovus
to increase the ultimate recovery of the Project.

Note that infill producers/well-pairs, whether accessing a secondary pay zone or resource
stranded between adjacent pads, would be assessed their own POIP and SOIP, and would be
subject to well pad wind-down plans of their own.

4.5.6 Recovery Forecast
4.5.6.1 Analytical Model Performance Forecasting
A proprietary analytical model has been developed (and is periodically updated) to calculate the
expected performance of the well-pairs. The model is derived from historical field performance
at the CLTP and can be applied over a range of reservoir parameters such as well length and
spacing, formation thickness, top water thickness, dewatering, reservoir quality and operating
pressures.

The SAGD performance is predicted using these analytical models based on reservoir quality
and anticipated operating pressure for specific well-pair locations. The performance predictions
are then used to plan the number of well-pairs required at any stage of the development to
maintain full steam capacity usage and replace older well-pairs as they move into blowdown.

Typical well-pair parameters and estimated performance are presented in Section 4.5.6.3.

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-24
4.5.6.2 SAGD Description Model
Peak Oil Rate
The peak oil rate (Q
o
) is calculated via a correlation developed from Butlers equation and
sensitivity studies performed using numerical simulation:
Q
o
= [(H/H
i
)
a
(K/K
i
)
b
(S
o
/S
oi
)
c
(/
i
)
d
(L/L
i
)
e
(/
i
)
f
] Q
oi

where:
H = SAGD pay thickness [m];
K = formation permeability [D];
S
o
= mobile oil saturation;
= formation porosity;
L = drainage length [m];
= bitumen viscosity [mPa-s] at steam chamber saturation temperature;
a,b,c,d,e,f = sensitivity-derived exponents; and
i = subscript denoting standard, base case, parameters to which specific parameters
are normalized.

Cumulative Steam-Oil Ratio
The CSOR at the end of the steaming period is determined from an empirical correlation:
where:
dT = steam chamber temperature initial reservoir temperature [C]
Hlv = latent heat of vapourization at steam chamber pressure [kJ/kg]
= formation porosity
dSo = initial oil saturation steam chamber oil saturation
H = SAGD pay thickness [m]
Cvr = 2,150 (constant)
Ce = 22,000 (constant)
t = time to end of steaming period in years
K = constant

For a particular pattern geometry, the parameter t encompasses start-up circulation (120 days),
the chamber rise stage (H/0.08 m/d), and the steaming stage to 55% recovery. By knowing
calculated peak oil at the end of the ramp-up stage, CSOR at 55% recovery, and assuming an
oil decline rate, a full performance profile can be calculated from the above assumptions and
correlations. For the cases where top water is present, the SAGD steam and water calculations
use a modified SAGD height that includes the top water thickness in combination with an oil rate
that is calculated based on only the oil pay thickness, resulting in increased SOR and WOR.
The constant K is modified for cases where less than 5 m of top water is present and
dewatering is not planned, which impacts the steam and produced water forecasts.

+


t
H
Ce
Cvr
dSo) 1000 (Hlv
dT K
CSOR

Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-25
4.5.6.3 Typical SAGD Well-Pair Performance
Typical well parameters used for the Project are provided in Table 4.5-3. Typical Well-Pair WP1
has no top water. Typical Well-Pair WP2 has 15 m of top water that is dewatered. Typical Well-
Pair WP3 has 15 m of top water that is not dewatered.

Table 4.5-3: Typical SAGD Well-Pair Parameters
Parameter Units Well-Pair WP1 Well-Pair WP2 Well-Pair WP3
Well-Pair Length m 800 800 800
Well-Pair Spacing m 67 67 67
SAGD Pay Thickness m 20 20 20
Top Water Thickness m 0 15 15
Dewatering Yes/No No Yes No
Oil Saturation % 80 80 80
Porosity % 34 34 34
Permeability D 11 11 11
SAGD Operating Pressure
1
kPa 1,300 1,300 1,300
SAGDable Oil In Place (SOIP) m
3
301,594 301,594 301,594
Producible Oil In Place (POIP)
2
m
3
282,933 282,933 282,933
1
Operating pressure is expected to be between 1,000 kPa and 1,660 kPa.
2
Assumes producer is 1 m offset from the base of SAGD.

The example data sets for typical SAGD well-pairs (Table 4.5-3) result in estimated SAGD well-
pair performance profiles shown in Figures 4.5-3 to 4.5-5 and Tables 4.5-4 to 4.5-6.

Table 4.5-4: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP1 Performance Data
Year
Average Rates (m
3
/d) Cumulative Volumes (m
3
) Recovery
Factor
(%)
CSOR
(m
3
/m
3
)
Oil Water Steam Oil Water Steam
1 87 234 234 31,830 85,261 85,261 11 2.68
2 155 260 260 88,320 180,014 180,014 29 2.04
3 154 243 243 144,502 268,845 268,845 48 1.86
4 112 107 32 185,215 307,894 280,690 61 1.52
5 41 35 0 200,289 320,815 280,690 66 1.40
6 20 17 0 207,575 326,865 280,690 69 1.35
7 12 10 0 211,870 330,377 280,690 70 1.32
8 8 6 0 214,701 332,671 280,690 71 1.31
9 4 3 0 216,263 333,931 280,690 72 1.30

Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
3
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
3

S
A
G
D
.
c
d
r
Typical SAGD Well Pair WP1
Performance Profile
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-03 SAGD
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-3
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Well Pair WP1 Performance
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Time (Months)
R
a
t
e
s
(
m
3
/
d
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
C
S
O
R
(
m
3
/
m
3
)
Oil
Water
Steam
CSOR
SAGDPay Thickness: 20 m
Top Water Thickness: 0 m
Dewatering: No
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
4
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
4

S
A
G
D
.
c
d
r
Typical SAGD Well Pair WP2
Performance Profile
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-04 SAGD
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-4
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Well Pair WP2 Forecast
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Time (Months)
R
a
t
e
s
(
m
3
/
d
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
C
S
O
R
(
m
3
/
m
3
)
Oil
Water
Steam
CSOR
SAGDPay Thickness: 20 m
Top Water Thick ness: 15 m
Dewatering: Yes
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
5
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
5

S
A
G
D
.
c
d
r
Typical SAGD Well Pair WP3
Performance Profile
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-05 SAGD
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-5
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Well Pair WP3 Performance
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Time (Months)
R
a
t
e
s
(
m
3
/
d
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
C
S
O
R
(
m
3
/
m
3
)
Oil
Water
Steam
CSOR
SAGDPay Thickness: 20 m
Top Water Thick ness: 15 m
Dewateri ng: No
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-29
Table 4.5-5: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP2 Performance Data
Year
Average Rates (m
3
/d) Cumulative Volumes (m
3
) Recovery
Factor
(%)
CSOR
(m
3
/m
3
)
Oil Water Steam Oil Water Steam
1 86 277 262 31,385 100,983 95,585 10 3.05
2 153 430 378 87,085 257,868 233,562 29 2.68
3 153 431 379 142,785 415,246 371,971 47 2.61
4 113 211 142 183,999 492,369 423,690 61 2.30
5 39 49 0 198,202 510,311 423,690 66 2.14
6 19 23 0 205,103 518,538 423,690 68 2.07
7 11 13 0 209,181 523,264 423,690 69 2.03
8 7 8 0 211,874 526,334 423,690 70 2.00
9 4 5 0 213,214 528,012 423,690 71 1.99

Table 4.5-6: Typical SAGD Well-Pair WP3 Performance Data
Year
Average Rates (m
3
/d) Cumulative Volumes (m
3
) Recovery
Factor
(%)
CSOR
(m
3
/m
3
)
Oil Water Steam Oil Water Steam
1 85 386 338 30,934 140,801 123,441 10 3.99
2 150 777 598 85,832 424,275 341,576 28 3.98
3 150 780 600 140,730 709,005 560,678 47 3.98
4 107 280 172 179,768 811,114 623,495 60 3.47
5 37 59 0 193,138 832,501 623,495 64 3.23
6 18 28 0 199,667 842,575 623,495 66 3.12
7 11 16 0 203,536 848,441 623,495 67 3.06
8 7 11 0 206,095 852,282 623,495 68 3.03
9 3 4 0 207,075 853,744 623,495 69 3.01

4.5.6.4 Dewatering Pattern Performance
The dewatering performance is based on a proprietary analytical model. The dewatering system
performance is estimated based on a configuration of wells that would include a single air
injector, two water producers and two to four water reinjectors that would dewater an area
approximately 64 ha (one quarter section) above a single SAGD well pad. This would represent
the typical volume requirements for dewatering a single pad of SAGD wells. The individual
configuration of wells for the dewatering system, however, will depend on the local top water
thickness and the local structural geology. Areas where the clean water sand thickness is less
than 5 m or greater than 20 m are not planned to be dewatered in the current development plan.

A typical dewatering performance profile for a top water thickness of 10 m over 64 ha, or
approximately one SAGD pad, is shown in Figure 4.5-6 and tabulated in Table 4.5-7.

Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
6
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
6

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Typical Telephone Lake
Dewatering Pattern Performance Profile
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-06 Dewatering
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-6
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Typical Telephone Lake Dewatering Pattern Performance
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (Days)
W
a
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
(
m
3
/
d
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
e
3
m
3
/
d
)
Produced Water Re-injected Water Air Injection
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Volume 1 Project Description
December 2011


Page 4-31
Table 4.5-7: Typical Telephone Lake Dewatering Pattern Performance Data
Year
Dewatering Pattern Cumulative Net Water
Production
(m
3
)
Water Production Rate
(m
3
/d)
Water Reinjection Rate
(m
3
/d)
Air Injection Rate
(Se
3
m
3
/d)
1 2,964 882 27 760,200
2 1,154 799 5 889,600
3 921 796 2 935,200
Note: Water to be reinjected into the Top Water Zone.

4.5.6.5 Field Scale Development
The commercial scheme will include the following aspects:
the SAGD well pads that will require dewatering are indicated on Figure 4.5-2 (which
shows the overall Project footprint) and in Table 4.5-2; 54 of the 90 proposed SAGD well
pads are currently anticipated to require dewatering prior to the initiation of SAGD in the
bitumen zone. As described in the previous sections, only areas with greater than 5 m,
and less than 20 m, of clean water sands in the Top Water Zone are planned for
dewatering;
dewatering drainage patterns will typically overlay the SAGD pad drainage areas that
are generally 800 m x 800 m in size. However, some perimeter water reinjection wells
will have their own surface locations; and
the typical SAGD well pad with dewatering requirements will have the following
horizontal wells: an air injector, up to three water producers and up to four water
reinjectors.

The first SAGD pads to be dewatered will be isolated patterns. Each pad will have the required
air injectors and water producers, and be surrounded with perimeter water reinjectors to confine
the air to the dewatered zone. As adjacent SAGD pads are started-up, the corresponding Top
Water Zone must be dewatered. In this case, new perimeter wells are drilled around the
expansion pads, and the existing wells are retained, shut-off or converted to water producers or
air injectors. Hence, the dewatered zone will expand outwards, encompassing new contiguous
SAGD pads as they are added.

Figure 4.5-7 and Figure 4.5-8 show the areal extent of the predicted active dewatering area
after approximately six and twelve years of dewatering, respectively. In these figures, the
dewatered area is outlined in blue.

Figure 4.5-9 and Figure 4.5-10 show the estimated annual and cumulative top water dewatering
production forecast over the life of the Project. In these figures, the Produced Water is the total
water removed from the Top Water Zone by the water production wells, the Re-injected Water
is the water re-injected back into the Top Water Zone to confine the injected air, and the Net
Water is the difference between the Produced Water and the Re-injected Water, and this
surplus top water will be sent to the CPF for processing and disposal (Sections 4.3.1 and
Volume 1, Section 10.5.2).

Figure 4.5-11 and Figure 4.5-12 show the estimated annual and cumulative SAGD injection and
production forecast over the life of the Project. Figure 4.5-13 and Figure 4.5-14 show the
estimated annual and cumulative top water air injection forecast over the life of the Project.
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
7
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
7

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Active Dewatering Pad
Areas at SixYears (December 2024)
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-07 Dewatering
11-12-13
KW
Figure
4.5-7
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
8
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
8

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Active Dewatering Pad
Areas at Twelve Years (December 2030)
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-08 Dewatering
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-8
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
9
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
0
9

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Annual Top Water Dewatering
Production Forecast
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-09 Dewatering
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-9
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Telephone Lake Dewatering Rates
(Phases A&B)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
8
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
6
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
0
2
0
5
2
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
6
Year
R
a
t
e
(
m
3
/
d
)
ProducedWater Re-injectedWater Net Water
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
0
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
0

D
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
Cumulative Top Water Dewatering
Production Forecast
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-10 Dewatering
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-10
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Telephone Lake Dewatering Cumulative Production
(Phases A&B)
147
98
48
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
8
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
6
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
0
2
0
5
2
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
6
Year
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
M
M
m
3
)
ProducedWater Re-injectedWater Net Water
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
1
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
1

S
A
G
D
.
c
d
r
Annual SAGD
Injection and Production Forecast
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-11 SAGD
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-11
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Telephone Lake Production Rates
(Phases A&B)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
1
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
7
2
0
6
0
Year
O
i
l
,
S
t
e
a
m
,
W
a
t
e
r
R
a
t
e
(
m
3
/
d
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
e
3
m
3
/
d
)
ProducedOil Steam ProducedWater ProducedGas
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
2
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
2

S
A
G
D
.
c
d
r
Cumulative SAGD
Injection and Production Forecast
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-12 SAGD
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-12
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Telephone Lake Cumulative Volumes
(Phases A&B)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
8
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
6
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
0
2
0
5
2
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
6
2
0
5
8
2
0
6
0
Year
O
i
l
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
t
e
a
m
,
G
a
s
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
M
M
m
3
)
Cumulative Water Cumulative Steam Cumulative Oil CumulativeGas
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
3
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
3
T
o
p

W
a
t
e
r
.
c
d
r
Annual Top Water
Air Injection Forecast
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-13Top Water
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-13
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Telephone Lake Dewatering Air Injection Rate (Standard Conditions)
(Phases A&B)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
8
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
6
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
0
2
0
5
2
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
6
Year
R
a
t
e
(
e
3
m
3
/
d
)
Air Injection
Source: Cenovus.
S
:
\
G
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
E
\
C
e
n
o
v
u
s
\
C
E
0
3
3
9
9
0
1
_
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
L
a
k
e
_
E
I
A
\
C
o
r
e
l
D
r
a
w
\
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
V
o
l
u
m
e

0
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

0
4

-

B
i
t
u
m
e
n

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
4
\
F
i
g
0
4
.
0
5
-
1
4
T
o
p

W
a
t
e
r
.
c
d
r
Cumulative Top Water
Air Injection Forecast
NA
PROJ ECTION/DATUM:
Cenovus
PROVIDED BY: FINAL MAPPING BY:
AMEC EH EH
DATE:
Fig04.05-14Top Water
11-12-14
KW
Figure
4.5-14
ANALYST:
PROJ ECT:
CE0339901
December 2011
KW
QA/QC:
Cenovus TL ULC
Telephone Lake Project
Telephone Lake Dewatering Cumulative Air Injection (Standard Conditions)
(PhasesA&B)
629
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
8
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
6
2
0
4
8
2
0
5
0
2
0
5
2
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
6
Year
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
e
6
m
3
)
Air Injection