Big Guns Engineering, Geoscience & Geomechanics Division
600, 640 – 8th Ave SW
Calgary, AB
T 403.294.1444
F 403.206.6196
MINI-FRAC ANALYSIS REPORT
Well Name:
Grizzly OV Leismer 8-18-77-8
Location:
1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Report Date:
June 12, 2013
Prepared For:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Prepared By:
Vivian Yuen-Lee, P.Eng., M.Eng.
Reviewed By:
Dickson Lee, P.Eng., M.Eng.
Interpretations, analyses, recommendations, advice or interpretational data furnished by Big Guns Energy Services, hereinafter “BGES”, are opinions
based upon inferences from measurements, empirical relationships and assumptions, and industry practice, which inferences, assumptions and
practices are not infallible. BGES cannot, and does not, guarantee the accuracy or the correctness of any interpretation. The Customer assumes full
responsibility for the use of such interpretations and/or recommendations and for all decisions based thereon. BGES shall not be responsible for the
unauthorized distribution of any confidential document or report prepared by or on behalf of BGES for the exclusive use of the Customer.
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2 SUMMARY OF TEST & RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 2 QUALITY CONTROL CHECK................................................................................................................... 3 TEST LIMITATIONS AND USE OF RESULTS ................................................................................................ 3 LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................... 4 TEST INTERVALS............................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 5 IN-SITU STRESS THEORY .................................................................................................................... 5 PRINCIPLE OF MINI-FRACS .................................................................................................................. 6 ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................................. 7 G-Function ______________________________________________________________________________ 7 The Log-Log Plot of Derivative_______________________________________________________________ 8 Additional Diagnostic Plots __________________________________________________________________ 9 After-Closure Analysis ____________________________________________________________________ 10 Software Basis __________________________________________________________________________ 10 TEST DESIGN & PROCEDURE................................................................................................ 11 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 11 DATA QUALITY CONTROL .................................................................................................................. 11 EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 12 Injection System_________________________________________________________________________ 12 Instrumentation _________________________________________________________________________ 12 TEST PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................... 12 DATA ANALYSIS BY TEST INTERVAL .................................................................................... 14 MINI-FRAC TEST INTERVAL #1: MCMURRAY SAND @ 355.0MKB ............................................................... 14 G-Function Analysis ______________________________________________________________________
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis ________________________________________________________
Sqrt(t) Analysis __________________________________________________________________________
Confirmation Test ________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Test in Oil Sands @ 355.0mKB ___________________________________________________
15 16 17 18 21 MINI-FRAC TEST INTERVAL #2: CLEARWATER SHALE @ 306.0MKB ............................................................ 22 G-Function Analysis ______________________________________________________________________
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis ________________________________________________________
Sqrt(t) Analysis __________________________________________________________________________
Confirmation Test ________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Test in Clearwater Shale @ 306.0mKB _____________________________________________
23 24 25 26 29 MINI-FRAC TEST INTERVAL #3: CLEARWATER SHALE @ 301.0MKB ............................................................ 30 G-Function Analysis ______________________________________________________________________
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis ________________________________________________________
Sqrt(t) Analysis __________________________________________________________________________
Confirmation Test ________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Test in Clearwater Shale @ 301.0mKB _____________________________________________
31 32 33 33 36 MINI-FRAC TEST INTERVAL #4: CLEARWATER SHALE (TRANSITION) @ 293.5MKB ......................................... 37 G-Function Analysis ______________________________________________________________________
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis ________________________________________________________
Sqrt(t) Analysis __________________________________________________________________________
Confirmation Test ________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Test in Clearwater @ 293.5mKB __________________________________________________
38 39 40 40 43 EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL STRESSES & FRACTURE REGIME ........................................... 44 TEST CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 46 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A RCBL INTERPRETATION .............................................................................. 48 1
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Mini-Frac Analysis for Grizzly OV Leismer 8-18-77-8
BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this report is to present the results and findings from a series of
mini-frac tests performed in the subject well. These mini-frac tests are conducted to
extract critical information, such as an estimate of in-situ stresses, leakoff characteristics
and other reservoir parameters in the vicinity of the wellbore.
Summary of Test & Results
This series of mini-frac tests is primarily designed to determine the fracture closure
pressure (or the minimum in-situ stress) and the estimated fracture gradient in the oil
sands payzone as well as multiple capping layers. Key results presented below are
converted to atmospheric pressures, using a standard barometric pressure of 93 kPa(a):
SHmin
(kP(a))
Gradient
(kPa/m)
(kP(a))
Sv
Sv Gradient
Clearwater
Shale (Transition)
4494
15.29
6232
21.20
301 – 302
Clearwater Shale
5509
18.27
6392
21.20
306 – 307
Clearwater Shale
5171
16.87
6503
21.22
355 – 356
McMurray Sand
4613
12.98
7539
21.21
Test Interval
(mKB)
Formation
293.5 – 294.5
SHmin
(kPa/m)
The following plot graphically compares the magnitude of the two principal stresses in the
test well.
Fig.1. In-situ stresses in 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
2
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
All data points on this plot demonstrate that the minimum in-situ stresses at the tested
intervals are less than the calculated overburden stresses. As a result, a vertical fracture
regime is generally expected at the test depths.
Quality Control Check
For each test interval, two injection cycles were analyzed for repeatability. The difference
in closure stresses between cycles is presented on the plot below. With a difference of
less than 1.5% in closure stresses between cycles in all three caprock layers, Big Guns
Energy Services is of the opinion that the results from the tests interpreted are consistent
and repeatable. The difference between cycles in the oilsands payzone is relatively larger;
the second cycle yielded a closure stress that was 5.5% higher than the initial test cycle.
The possible causes will be discussed in the body of this report.
Difference in Closure Stresses between Test Cycles
Difference in Closure Stresses
-6.0%
290
-5.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
300
310
Depth (m)
320
330
340
350
360
Fig.2. Difference in closure stresses between test cycles at each interval
Test Limitations and Use of Results
Big Guns attempts to provide the best interpretation procedure possible. However, the
properties that are estimated above are done on the basis of indirect measurements and
are, therefore, uncertain. The interpretations, analyses and recommendations are opinions
based upon inferences from measurements, empirical relationships and assumptions, and
industry practice, which are not infallible. Big Guns Energy Services Inc. does not
guarantee the accuracy or the correctness of any interpretation. The results of this report
should only be used based on the Customer’s expert concurrence with the methodology
and techniques used. The Customer assumes full responsibility for the use of such
interpretations and/or recommendations and for all decisions based thereon.
3
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Location
The subject well is located at LSD 08-18-077-08W4 within the Leismer field area. It is
approximately 10km northwest of Conklin, AB, along Highway 881.
Fig.3. Location of test well
Test Intervals
In this series of tests, the McMurray oilsands payzone along with three intervals of the
capping layers were tested to determine the minimum in-situ stress. The following log
section is highlighted for ease of reference. From 304.4 to 310mKB is a thin layer of
Clearwater shale. A test interval is selected from this zone because it is expected to have
different properties than the Clearwater shale immediately above it. In order to keep the
frac to stay within the Clearwater shale, the test interval is selected at roughly 1.5 meters
below the sandier caprock that ends at 304.3mKB, and 4 meters above the adjacent sand
layer.
4
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.4. Test intervals
METHODOLOGY
In-situ Stress Theory
The in-situ stresses in the subsurface can be described by the magnitudes and orientations
of three orthogonal principal stresses, σ 1 , σ 2 and σ 3, listed in descending order of
magnitude. In geomechanics, compressive stress is normally defined as positive. These
stresses are influenced by many factors, including weight of the overburden, tectonic
movements, creep flow and plasticity, fluid pressure, etc.
By definition, one principal stress will always be oriented perpendicular to a free surface.
Because the present-day topography across the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin is
relatively flat, and structurally the geology is closer to planar. Therefore, it is reasonable
to describe one of the principal stresses as near-vertical, or perpendicular to the
topography. The remaining two principal stresses, being orthogonal to the vertical
principal stress, would lie approximately on the horizontal plane. The vertical stress is
commonly referred to as S v , while the two horizontal stresses are denoted by S Hmax and
S Hmin . The next figure illustrates the generalized orientation of the principal stresses in the
Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. In this study, magnitudes of S v will be calculated from
density logs and the S Hmin will be derived from mini-frac tests.
5
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.5. Principal in-situ stresses in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin
Principle of Mini-fracs
In a mini-frac, fluid is injected into the reservoir at high pressure that causes a tensile
rupture of the borehole. Propagation of the fracture then occurs due to stress
concentration at the edge of the fracture. Fractures naturally follow the path of least
resistance, which means the fracture plane will be perpendicular to the lowest principal
stress. Since the pressure at which a fracture closes corresponds to the least pressure
required to keep that fracture open, the fracture closure pressure represents the smallest
compression against the rock. Therefore, it is equivalent to the smallest principal stress
acting on it.
Fig.6. Typical orientation of fracture in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin
A mini-frac test consists of an injection and a fall-off period. During the injection phase, a
controlled volume of water is injected into the well to create a short fracture in the
formation. The created fracture penetrates the near-wellbore damaged area and exposes
the undamaged formation to the flow transients. The formation immediately surrounding
the well is stress relieved by the drilling of the well. The fracture directly connects the
undamaged formation with the wellbore and forms an efficient flow passage for the
pressure and stress response of the true formation to the injection. Once the fracture is
open and has propagated a short distance, the pumps are shut down. Subsequently, the
pressure declines and the fracture closes. Pressure data is recorded before and after the
fracture closure. The next figure shows typical pressure response during a mini-frac test.
When the injection fluid pressure exceeds the wellbore hoop stress, the formation
breakdown occurs and a fracture is initiated. Most rocks and soils are assumed to have
minimal tensile strength. The fracture propagates as the injection continues. At the end
6
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
of the injection, the pumps are shut down. There is a rapid pressure drop since there is no
friction pressure loss when the fluids slow down and eventually stop moving. The pressure
at this instance, when the frictional pressure drop stops, is called the ISIP, or the
instanteous shut-in pressure. Fluid begins to leak from the fracture into the formation
immediately before closure happens. The fracture closure pressure is the pressure
required to hold the fracture open after initiation, or to keep the fracture from just closing.
After fracture closure, the pressure transient established around the wellbore propagates
into the reservoir, transitioning into pseudo-linear and pseudo-radial flow periods.
Fig.7. Typical mini-frac pressure vs. time plot
Analysis & Interpretation
Fracture diagnostic techniques described in SPE paper 107877, “Holistic Fracture
Diagnostics”, are applied in the interpretation of test data. The objective of the analysis is
to provide consistent interpretation that helps to give the most useful information available
from the mini-frac tests. The prescribed diagnostic post shut-in pressure decline transient
analysis includes a suite of analytical techniques through which bottomhole pressures and
delta-pressures are plotted against different time scales. More than one method is used to
identify the fracture closure. Instead of picking any individual diagnostic plots for
interpretation, it is important to look at the whole suite of plots in order to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of what information the test data is conveying.
G-Function
One important method that minimizes ambiguity and provides useful in-situ stress and
leakoff information is the G-function analysis. The G-function is a dimensionless time
function that relates shut-in time to total pumping time. This process uses derivative
curves to identify leakoff mechanisms and fracture closure point through the characteristic
7
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
shapes of the curves. The G-function plot features a pressure vs. G-time curve and
semilog derivative of pressure vs. G-time curve. In many cases, the expected signature of
the semilog curve is a straight line that passes through the origin. Fracture closure point
is identified at the point when the G-function derivative curve starts to deviate from its
straight tangent line in a normal leakoff (most ideal) case.
Fig.8. G-function plot showing fracture closure
This technique was introduced by Kenneth G. Nolte in 1979, and has been widely used in
the industry. G-function does not assume a single planar fracture and will show the effects
of multiple fracture planes propagating against different closure stresses. The normal
leakoff model is applied to the sole case of perfectly linear pressure decay on the Gfunction P vs. G plot. This is the solution of the diffusivity equation for one-dimensional
linear flow with constant pressure boundary conditions. However, deviation from this ideal
behavior is generally expected. The other pressure fall-off scenarios are pressuredependent leakoff, fracture extension, height recession, and variable storage, etc. The Gfunction curves for each of these scenarios display a different signature; therefore,
analysis and interpretation for each case are also handled differently.
The Log-Log Plot of Derivative
The log-log plot is a plot of the change in pressure with change in time after shut-in. This
plot is extremely powerful in that it can be used to determine fracture closure, leakoff
mechanism, and transient flow regimes, and after-closure transient flow regimes in the
reservoir. This is also a common tool used to interpret well pressure transient test results.
The log-log plot of change in pressure with change in time after shut-in features a pressure
difference vs. change in time curve and its semilog derivative. It is common for the
pressure difference and derivative curves to be parallel immediately before closure. It is
also typical for the derivative curve to change from a positive slope to a negative slope
when closure occurs.
8
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.9. Log-log plot of derivative
Because this plot lacks a distinct and clearly identifiable signature for closure, it is used
only as a verification tool in this analysis. It is, on the other hand, a powerful tool in
determining the transient flow regime in addition to the fracture closure. The slopes of the
derivative curve are diagnostic of the flow regimes before and after fracture closure. For
instance, a slope of >0.5 before closure indicates a period of fracture linear flow coupled
with changing fracture or wellbore storage. A slope of 0.5 around the closure event
indicates a period of formation linear flow. After closure, a slope of -1 indicates a fully
developed pseudo-radial flow.
Before Closure
After Closure
Slope
Flow Pattern
¼
Bilinear
½
Fracture linear
-¾
Bilinear
-½
Formation linear
-1
Pseudo-radial
Description
Fluid flows from the fracture along linear
flow paths normal to the fracture and
along the fracture.
Fluid flows along the fracture thus
increasing fracture width.
Fluid flows from the fracture along linear
flow paths normal to the fracture and
along the fracture. (In reality, closure is
unlikely to be truly instantaneous.)
Fluid flows into the formation in paths
normal to the fracture plane.
Fluid flows radially into the formation from
the wellbore.
Additional Diagnostic Plots
In order to consistently interpret test results, the pressure vs. squareroot of time plot can
often be used to confirm the closure pressure identified by the G-function plot and the loglog plot of derivative.
On a sqrt(t) plot, it has been commonly accepted that the p vs. sqrt(t) curve should form a
straight line during fracture closure. However, exactly where closure occurs on this straight
line has not been rigorously defined. Numerous sources define the correct closure pick as
the inflection point on this p vs. sqrt(t) curve. Since a change in pressure response
indicated by the derivatives is the only signal available for interpretation, we plot the
9
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
inverse of the first derivative of p vs. sqrt(t), and the minimum of this derivative clearly
shows the inflection point.
Fig.10. Sqrt(t) plot showing fracture closure
After-Closure Analysis
Once closure is consistently identified, the after-closure flow data can be used to estimate
reservoir properties if the pressure fall-off is long enough to reach either a formation linear
flow or, ideally, a pseudo-radial flow. In a formation linear flow, fluid flows into the
formation in a direction normal to the fracture plane. Pressure gradients within the
fracture become negligible. Given time, the pressure transient progresses far enough into
the reservoir and flows radially away from the wellbore. This flow regime is known as
pseudo-radial flow. Under this condition, the far-field reservoir properties can be more
accurately estimated from the decline of pressure transient. After a pseudo-linear and/or
pseudo-radial flow regime has been identified, a Cartesian plot of pressure v. linear/radial
flow time function can be constructed. On this plot, a straight line is drawn through
appropriate data in the identified flow period. The y-intercept of this line gives an
estimated pore pressure. Transmissibility can be calculated from the slope of this line.
With a known net pay height and reservoir fluid viscosity, permeability can also be
estimated.
Software Basis
The software used for the diagnostics, GOHFER, is a planar 3-D geometry fracture
simulator with a fully coupled fluid/solid transport simulator. GOHFER stands for Grid
Oriented Hydraulic Fracture Extension Replicator. It uses a planar grid structure to
perform elastic rock displacement calculations and a planar finite difference grid for the
fluid flow solutions. It incorporates the effects of secondary shear fractures and dilation of
shear and existing natural fractures. To account for friction effects that skew mini-frac
data, the software can determine pipe friction, friction loss across perforations, and nearwellbore tortuosity when used in combination with a step-rate (down) injection scheme at
high rates.
10
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
The software was developed by Dr. Bob Barree, of Barree & Associates, in collaboration
with Stim-Lab, a division of Core Laboratories. It is used extensively in many applications,
such as hard rock/tight gas, naturally-fractured reservoirs and moderate-permeability oil
sands, without requiring special tuning. Besides mini-frac analyses, GOHFER is commonly
used in the oil and gas industry for the design, analysis and optimization of hydraulic
fractures.
TEST DESIGN & PROCEDURE
Design Considerations
The design of a mini-frac includes defining the objectives and outputs of the test,
establishing adequate injection rates and volumes, selecting test intervals, and defining
perforating requirements. The selected injection rate must be substantially larger than the
leakoff rate to establish fracture, but an excessive volume may overpressure the
surrounding rocks, thereby altering the in-situ stress states.
More than one test cycle is supported as a means of ensuring quality data and achieving
consistency in the closure pressure interpretation. Nevertheless, one must be aware of the
potential alteration in closure stress in the later cycles. Unconsolidated sands may dilate
and shear when effective stress changes. Therefore, flow and mechanical properties may
not be static.
Perforation damage due to compaction and plastic deformation of the rock surrounding the
perforation tunnel is real and has been documented even in unconsolidated sands. This
phenomenon is known as the “stress cage effect”. The shock of perforating causes a high
residual stress concentration around the perforation tunnel, which will affect which and
how many perforations break down. Once breakdown is achieved, and if a fracture is
generated, the leakoff, closure stress, and formation flow capacity measurements will not
be affected by the perforation damage as they are controlled by the properties along the
face of the fracture. What may be altered is the total height of formation accessed by a
small volume, low rate injection test, so that estimation of permeability may not be
possible.
Multiple intervals are usually run from the bottom up due to completion logistics.
Data Quality Control
In order to ensure the accuracy and quality of data obtained, the following measurement
and procedural quality control methods are practised:

Multiple points of measurements are taken at the wellhead and bottomhole with
additional backup bottomhole recorders.

Both bottomhole and surface sensors have high resolutions and current calibration
certificates.
11
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac

A pressure memory recorder is set with every wireline retrievable isolation plug to
detect communication between test intervals.

More than one injection cycle is performed for repeatability and in case of anomalies.
Equipment
Injection System
Constant and controlled injection of test fluid is accomplished through the use of a
specialized low-rate injection unit designed to inject 0.2 to 140 L/min. up to 21MPa. The
system provides an automated flow rate control by means of a DCS (Digital Control
System). This injection system eliminates fluctuations in flow rate, thus yielding betterquality pressure response data.
Instrumentation
Due to wellbore dynamics and the delicacy of the tests, a high precision and multiredundancy monitoring system is critical to the success of the tests. High resolution data
is required to detect very subtle changes. Both bottomhole and surface pressure sensors
used in these tests have a resolution of ±0.0003% full scale and an accuracy of ±0.025%
full scale. Multiple pressure, temperature and flow measurements are taken from
downhole and at the surface to ensure accurate and reliable data. It is important to have
bottomhole measurement as it can provide more information about the true reservoir
response. A grease injector and pressure head are used to ensure a good quality seal on
the wireline connecting to the downhole instrumentations.
Test Procedure
Prior to testing, it is critical to ensure that only clean and formation-compatible water is
injected into the test zones. This prevents any formation damage from the injection of
unknown wellbore fluid which will impact the results of the tests.
Perforations are made at 1.0m intervals at the target depths. The main purpose of
perforating is to break through the casing and cement sheath in order to ensure good
communication with the formations without creating a significant stress cage effect. Big
Guns believes that cased-hole mini-fracs are preferred because of better isolation and no
induced stresses from inflatable packers are applied to the formation.
One important means for verifying the consistency of test data is to conduct more than one
injection cycle using varying injection schemes. The induced fracture is opened and reopened so that successive pressure declines can be monitored to obtain consistent fracture
closure pressure. However, there may be instances when the falloff data becomes invalid
for analysis due to noise, fluid expansion in the wellbore and mechanical artifacts. The
mini-frac tests presented in this report consist of a series of injections at slightly varying
rates and natural pressure declines. The results of two injection cycles are compared for
consistency and repeatability.
12
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
After testing each interval, an isolation plug is set with memory pressure and temperature
recorders to continue monitoring the interval. This allows for identification of any
communications when testing subsequent intervals above the isolated interval.
13
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
DATA ANALYSIS BY TEST INTERVAL
The following analyses are presented in the same order as the intervals were tested.
Please note that all analyses have been done in gauge pressures, while the final gradients
are presented in absolute pressures.
Mini-Frac Test Interval #1: McMurray Sand @ 355.0mKB
A mini-frac test was conducted in the 355.0 – 356.0mKB interval on June 4, 2013.
Fig.11. Plot of pressure and rate vs. time
Two injection cycles were conducted in this interval. The first injection was held at
130L/min. for 4.5 minutes. After the first cycle, the wellhead was vented to allow the fluid
level to drop. The second injection was conducted at 145L/min. for 4 minutes. As
observed, the second cycle displays a slightly lower propagation pressure and a smoother
pressure falloff. Both test cycles have been analyzed and compared for consistency. With
its smooth pressure falloff profile, the second cycle will be examined in details, while the
first cycle will serve as a means of verification.
14
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.12. Second injection cycle
G-Function Analysis
The G-function is a dimensionless function of shut-in time normalized to pumping time.
The following plot features a bottomhole pressure curve displayed in blue and its semilog
diagnostic derivative curve displayed in red. The shape of this diagnostic derivative shows
signs of transverse storage mechanism, meaning that excessive fluid was stored in the
fracture and a secondary fracture network immediately prior to shut-in. The fracture
closure likely occurred when the bottomhole pressure reached 4775 kPa(g). This closure
event is marked by the vertical line [C].
15
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.13. G-function derivative plot for test interval @ 355mKB
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis
The log-log plot of change in pressure from ISIP vs. shut-in time features a change-inpressure curve in blue and its semilog derivative curve in red. The slope of this semilog
derivative curve is diagnostic of the flow regime established before and after fracture
closure. Marker [C] is the unique closure pick from the G-function. Just before closure,
these two curves are roughly parallel, thus confirming that the closure pick is in the right
location. After fracture closure had occurred, there were brief periods of formation linear
and what appears to be pseudo-radial flow.
16
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.14. Log-log plot of ΔP vs. time for test interval @ 355mKB
Sqrt(t) Analysis
On a pressure vs. squareroot of time plot, the pressure vs. sqrt(t) curve forms a straight
line during fracture closure. Our closure pick is at the inflection point on the straight-line
section of this curve. Because the change in pressure response indicated by a derivative is
the only signal available for interpreting the closure, the best way to observe the closure is
to plot the first derivative of p vs. sqrt(t) and find the point of maximum amplitude of the
derivative. The software used for this analysis plots the inverse of the derivative;
therefore, the minimum on the derivative curve represents the closure event. As can be
seen, the closure determined by the G-function (shown as vertical line [C]) lands roughly
at the minimum of the sqrt(t) inverse derivative, thereby confirming that this closure pick
is correct.
17
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.15. Pressure vs. sqrt(t) plot for test interval @ 355mKB
Confirmation Test
To test repeatability of results, the first injection cycle was also analyzed.
Fig.16. First injection cycle
18
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Similar to the previous analysis, this G-function derivative shows signs of transverse
storage in the reservoir. This typically occurs when a network of secondary fractures are
opened and act as extra storage space for the test fluid. The fracture closure likely
occurred when the bottomhole pressure reached 4520 kPa(g). The resulting closure event
is marked by the vertical line [C].
Fig.17. G-function plot for the confimation cycle @ 355mKB
On the following log-log plot, the closure indication is at the point where the semilog
derivative and the delta p curves depart from their parallel trend. After closure, the
semilog derivative curve shows a brief period of potential pseudo-radial flow, as indicated
by the -1 slope, that was later masked by wellbore effects.
19
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.18. Log-log plot for the confirmation cycle @ 355mKB
Although the sqrt(t) inverse first derivative shows multiple minima, the closure pick is at
the lowest point on this curve. This serves as a good confirmation that the closure pick is
correct.
Fig.19. Sqrt(t) plot for the confirmation cycle @ 355mKB
20
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Summary of Test in Oil Sands @ 355.0mKB
A two-cycle mini-frac was conducted in the McMurray Oil Sands in the interval of 355 –
356mKB. A fracture was clearly initiated, and a network of secondary fractures was also
observed through the diagnostic plots. Closure pressures were found using a combination
of the G-function, the log-log and the sqrt(t) analyses. There was a 5.5% difference in the
closure pressures acquired from the two cycles. Although the second cycle shows a slightly
lower fracture propagation pressure, it also shows a higher ISIP and closure pressure than
the previous cycle. This may be caused by the mobility of bitumen and dilation of the sand
as a result of the previous injection. All key parameters calculated from this test are
tabulated below:
BHP at Closure:
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
4520 kPa(g) or
4613 kPa(a)
4775 kPa(g) or
4868 kPa(a)
Closure Gradient:
13.0 kPa(a)/m
Variation of Closure between cycles:
ISIP:
5.5%
5772 kPa(g) or 5865 kPa(a)
Fracture Gradient:
16.5 kPa(a)/m
21
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Mini-Frac Test Interval #2: Clearwater Shale @ 306.0mKB
A multi-cycle mini-frac was conducted in the 306.0 – 307.0mKB interval on June 5, 2013.
Fig.20. Plot of pressure and rate vs. time
The original program consisted of two injection cycles. However, when the real-time
analysis showed a masked closure by anomalous wellbore effects during the second cycle
falloff period, an additional cycle was warranted. The first injection was held at 100L/min.
for 3 minutes. When the pressure declined to hydrostatic, the well was vented off for over
an hour before starting the next cycle. The third cycle involved an injection at 80L/min.
for 3 minutes. The first cycle is presented in detail while the third cycle will be presented
as a confirmation test.
22
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.21. First injection cycle
G-Function Analysis
The G-function plot features a pressure curve displayed in blue and its diagnostic Gfunction derivative curve displayed in red. On this plot, there is an early peak in the
derivative, which may represent horizontal fractures closing or wellbore fluid expansion,
followed by a subtle signature of transverse storage. The closure likely occurred when the
BHP reached 5110kPa(g). This closure event is marked by the vertical line [C]. The
subsequent derivative spike may be caused by gas entering the wellbore.
23
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.22. G-function derivative plot for test interval @ 306mKB
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis
The log-log plot of pressure vs. shut-in time features a delta pressure curve in blue and its
semilog derivative with respect to shut-in time displayed in red. The closure pick based on
the G-function analysis is marked by the vertical line [C]. It is common for the pressure
difference and the semilog derivative curves to be roughly parallel immediately before
closure. After closure, the derivatives show signs of wellbore artifacts followed by a
potential leak in the system, which is likely a leak behind the casing.
24
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.23. Log-log plot of ΔP vs. time for test interval @ 306mKB
Sqrt(t) Analysis
The sqrt(t) plot features a pressure vs. sqrt(t) curve in blue and its 1 st derivative in green.
Since the change in pressure response indicated by a derivative is the only signal available
for interpreting the closure, we observe the closure pressure on the sqrt(t) plot by finding
the point of minimum amplitude of the inverse derivative. In this case, the initial dip
corresponds to the early spike on the G-function semilog derivative, which may represent
horizontal fractures closing or wellbore fluid expansion. The previously determined closure
falls roughly on the slight derivative minimum.
25
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.24. Pressure vs. sqrt(t) plot for test interval @ 306mKB
Confirmation Test
To test repeatability of results, the last injection cycle was also analyzed.
Fig.25. Third injection cycle
26
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
The anomalous pressure bumps in the falloff phase are likely results of gas from the
formation entering the wellbore.
The G-function derivative of the third cycle displays very similar characteristics as that of
the first cycle. There is a probable closure when the bottomhole pressure reached
5078kPa(g).
Fig.26. G-function plot for the confirmation cycle @ 306mKB
On the following log-log plot, the semilog derivative and the delta p curves are roughly
parallel before closure. Post closure, the semilog derivative curve shows a slope steeper
than -1, indicating wellbore effects.
27
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.27. Log-log plot for the confirmation cycle @ 306mKB
The early dip in the sqrt(t) inverse derivative corresponds to the early spike on the Gfunction derivative immediately after shut-in. The closure marker falls approximately on
the actual derivative minimum, which is very subtle and.
Fig.28. Sqrt(t) plot for the confirmation cycle @ 306mKB
28
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Summary of Test in Clearwater Shale @ 306.0mKB
A multi-cycle mini-frac was conducted in the Clearwater shale at the depth of 306 –
307mKB. A fracture was clearly initiated in all three cycles. However, all three cycles
show signs of gas entering the wellbore, thus disturbing the natural falloff. Closure
pressures were found using a combination of the G-function, the log-log and the sqrt(t)
analyses. Because the fracture closure in the second test cycle was disturbed/masked by
wellbore effects (likely gas entry), the first and third cycles are analyzed and compared for
consistency. There was a 1.4% difference in the closure pressures acquired from the two
cycles. All key parameters calculated from this test are tabulated below:
BHP at Closure:
Cycle 1
Cycle 3
5110 kPa(g) or
5203 kPa(a)
5078 kPa(g) or
5171 kPa(a)
Closure Gradient:
16.9 kPa(a)/m
Variation of Closure between cycles:
ISIP:
-0.62%
7520 kPa(g) or 7613 kPa(a)
Fracture Gradient:
24.8 kPa(a)/m
29
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Mini-Frac Test Interval #3: Clearwater Shale @ 301.0mKB
A mini-frac test was conducted in the 301.0 – 302.0mKB interval of the subject well on
June 6, 2013.
Fig.29. Plot of pressure and rate vs. time
The original program consisted of two injection cycles. Since the first cycle test displayed
a rugged pressure falloff profile, a third injection cycle was included. The first injection
was held at 100L/min. for 4 minutes. When the pressure declined to hydrostatic, the well
was vented off for over an hour before starting the next cycle. The second cycle involved
an injection at 140L/min. for 3 minutes. Finally, the additional injection was conducted at
120L/min. for 3 minutes. Unfortunately, because the fracture closure was masked by
probable gas entry into the wellbore, the last cycle does not provide useful results.
The first cycle is presented in detail while the second cycle will be presented as a means of
verification.
30
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.30. First injection cycle
A step in the pressure trend was observed about half-an-hour after shut-in. Nevertheless,
the interpretation of the fracture closure was not affected.
G-Function Analysis
This G-function plot displays a pressure curve in blue and its diagnostic semilog derivative
in red. Based on this plot, there is a probable closure when the bottomhole pressure
reached 5441kPa(g). The early derivative spike may be associated with horizontal
fractures closing or wellbore fluid expansion, followed by a near-normal leakoff
mechanism.
31
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.31. G-function derivative plot for test interval @ 301mKB
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis
The following log-log plot of change in pressure versus shut-in time features a delta
pressure curve in blue and its semilog derivative in red. It is common for the delta p and
the semilog derivative curves to be parallel immediately before closure, which is roughly
the case. After-closure, the shape of the diagnostic derivative is affected by a pressure
anomaly.
Fig.32. Log-log plot of ΔP vs. time for test interval @ 301mKB
32
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Sqrt(t) Analysis
On a pressure vs. sqrt(t) plot, the closure is indicated by the minimum amplitude of the
inverse derivative curve. The initial dip corresponds to the G-function derivative’s early
spike. On this plot, the inverse derivative minimum is subtle and difficult to pick with
certainty. The closure point is marked by the vertical line [C]. This marker roughly
coincides with the slight derivative minimum.
Fig.33. Pressure vs. sqrt(t) plot for test interval @ 301mKB
Confirmation Test
To test repeatability of results, the second injection cycle was also analyzed.
33
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.34. Second injection cycle
The G-function derivative shows the signature “humps” of a pressure-dependent leakoff
mechanism. Fracture closure likely occurred when the bottomhole pressure dropped to
around 5416kPa(g).
Fig.35. G-function plot for confirmation test @ 301mKB
34
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Before this closure marker, the delta P curve and the diagnostic derivative are roughly
parallel.
Fig.36. Log-log plot for confirmation test @ 301mKB
On the following sqrt(t) plot, the initial derivative dip corresponds to the early spike on the
G-function derivative. The subsequent minimum corresponds to the PDL signature “hump”.
Overall, this inverse derivative does not display any clears closure signatures for
interpretation.
Fig.37. Sqrt(t) plot for confirmation test @ 301mKB
35
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Summary of Test in Clearwater Shale @ 301.0mKB
A multi-cycle mini-frac was conducted in the Clearwater shale in the interval of 301 –
302mKB. For each test, a fracture was clearly initiated. Closure pressures were found
using the G-function plots and confirmed with the log-log and the sqrt(t) analyses. There
was a 0.45% variation in the closure pressures acquired from the two cycles. All key
parameters calculated from this test are tabulated below:
BHP at Closure:
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
5441 kPa(g) or
5534 kPa(a)
5416 kPa(g) or
5509 kPa(a)
Closure Gradient:
18.3 kPa(a)/m
Variation of Closure between cycles:
ISIP:
-0.45%
7954 kPa(g) or 8047 kPa(a)
Fracture Gradient:
26.7 kPa(a)/m
36
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Mini-Frac Test Interval #4: Clearwater Shale (Transition) @ 293.5mKB
On June 7, 2013, a multi-cycle mini-frac test was conducted in the interval of 293.5 –
294.5mKB.
Fig.38. Plot of pressure and rate vs. time
The original program consisted of two injection cycles. Since the first cycle test displayed
a disturbed pressure falloff profile, a third injection cycle was added. The first injection
was held at 80L/min. for 3 minutes. The next cycle involved an injection at 120L/min. for
3 minutes. Finally, the additional cycle was conducted at 150L/min. for 4 minutes. The
second and last test cycles have been analyzed and compared for consistency.
37
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.39. Second injection cycle
G-Function Analysis
This G-function plot displays a pressure curve in blue and its diagnostic semilog derivative
in red. Based on this plot, there is a good closure indication when the bottomhole
pressure reached 4401kPa(g).
38
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.40. G-function derivative plot for test interval @ 293.5mKB
Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis
The following log-log plot of change in pressure versus shut-in time features a delta
pressure curve in blue and its semilog derivative in red. It is common for the delta p and
the semilog derivative curves to be parallel immediately before closure, which is clearly the
case. A steep after-closure slope indicates that the flow regime was impacted by wellbore
effects. Towards the end of the test, the positive derivative slope is an indication of a
leak, likely behind the casing.
Fig.41. Log-log plot of ΔP vs. time for test interval @ 293.5mKB
39
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Sqrt(t) Analysis
On a pressure vs. sqrt(t) plot, the closure is indicated by the minimum amplitude of the
inverse derivative curve. According to this plot, the unique closure pick determined from
the G-function lies precisely on the 1 st derivative minimum. This serves as a good
confirmation that the closure pick is correct.
Fig.42. Pressure vs. sqrt(t) plot for test interval @ 293.5mKB
Confirmation Test
To test repeatability of results, the last injection cycle was also analyzed.
40
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Fig.43. Third injection cycle
Similar to that of the first cycle, this G-function derivative shows a near-normal leakoff
mode, with a good closure indication when the bottomhole pressure reached 4454kPa(g).
Fig.44. G-function plot for the confimation cycle @ 293.5mKB
41
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
On the following log-log plot, the semilog derivative and the delta p curves are clearly
parallel before closure.
Fig.45. Log-log plot for the confirmation cycle @ 293.5mKB
Lastly, the indicated closure lies precisely on the sqrt(t) first derivative minimum.
Therefore, the closure pick has been confirmed by all three diagnostic plots.
Fig.46. Sqrt(t) plot for the confirmation cycle @ 293.5mKB
42
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
Summary of Test in Clearwater Shale (Transition) @ 293.5mKB
A multi-cycle mini-frac was conducted in the Clearwater formation in the interval of 293.5 –
294.5mKB. A fracture was clearly initiated in all test cycles. The first test cycle showed
pressure anomalies during the falloff and is therefore not selected for this purpose.
Closure pressures were confirmed by all three diagnostic plots and were very consistent
between the two chosen cycles. All key parameters calculated from this test are tabulated
below:
BHP at Closure:
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
4401 kPa(g) or
4494 kPa(a)
4454 kPa(g) or
4547 kPa(a)
Closure Gradient:
15.3 kPa(a)/m
Variation of Closure between cycles:
ISIP:
1.18%
5597 kPa(g) or 5690 kPa(a)
Fracture Gradient:
19.4 kPa(a)/m
43
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL STRESSES & FRACTURE REGIME
A critical part of mini-frac tests is to determine the minimum in-situ principal stress in the
tested intervals, which is then used to determine the fracture orientation.
Because the topology of the subject region is horizontal, one of the principal stresses can
reasonably be generalized as vertical and equivalent to the overburden stress. The other
two principal stresses will, therefore, be oriented horizontally, perpendicular to the vertical
overburden stress.
Fig.47. Principal in-situ stresses in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin
According to the Geological Atlas of Western Canada Sedimentary Basin published by the
Alberta Geological Survey, the minimum horizontal principal stress in this general region is
commonly running in the NW-SE direction, while the maximum horizontal principal stress is
oriented NE-SW. In order to confirm fracture orientation in the subject well, borehole
image logs and core testing are recommended.
Fig.48. Horizontal stress trajectories near test area (Source: Alberta Geological Survey)
44
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
A hydraulic fracture will usually penetrate the formation in a plane normal to minimum
stress, or parallel to the plane of maximum stress. After shut-in occurs, the fluid leaks off
from the fracture to the formation and the pressure declines. At the point when the fluid
pressure can no longer hold the fracture open, or is high enough to keep the fracture from
just closing, the closure pressure (or stress) is obtained. This stress is considered as the
minimum stress acting normal to the fracture and, therefore, the minimum principal stress.
In the following plots, overburden stresses, S v , were calculated from a density log taken
from the subject wells and are represented by the blue line. From the depth of 150m to
365m, the S v /depth gradients range from 21.18kPa/m to 21.67kPa/m.
Fig.49. Magnitude of stresses at 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
In general, the above plot shows that the minimum in-situ stresses at the tested intervals
are significantly less than the calculated overburden stresses. As a result, a vertical
fracture regime is generally expected at the test depths.
45
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
TEST CONCLUSIONS
From the interpretation of the radial cement bond log, there was cement to surface. The
radial cement bond log also indicates good to excellent bonding to casing and acceptable
bonding to formation at all four test intervals. Weak bonding to formation was observed in
289 to 290.5 mKB, immediately above the uppermost test interval.
Four sets of mini-frac tests were conducted in the subject test well. In each of the minifrac tests conducted, fractures were clearly initiated, and closure of the induced fractures
was confirmed. Closure pressures were determined based on the G-function derivative
curve and confirmed by the sqrt(t) and log-log curves. Two cycles from each test interval
were analyzed and compared for consistency. The variation of closure pressures between
cycles was less than 1.5% in all caprock intervals, and 5.5% in the oilsand payzone.
Interpretations, analyses, recommendations, advice or interpretational data furnished by Big Guns Energy Services, hereinafter “BGES”, are
opinions based upon inferences from measurements, empirical relationships and assumptions, and industry practice, which inferences,
assumptions and practices are not infallible. BGES cannot, and does not, guarantee the accuracy or the correctness of any interpretation.
The Customer assumes full responsibility for the use of such interpretations and/or recommendations and for all decisions based thereon.
BGES shall not be responsible for the unauthorized distribution of any confidential document or report prepared by or on behalf of BGES for
the exclusive use of the Customer.
46
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
REFERENCES
Barree, R.D., Barree, V.L. and Craig, D.P. (2007). Holistic Fracture Diagnostics. In
Proceedings of 2007 Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium , paper 107877.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Denver, CO, USA.
Barree, R.D., Barree, V.L. and Craig, D.P. (2009). Holistic Fracture Diagnostics: Consistent
Interpretation of Prefrac Injection Tests Using Multiple Analysis Methods. In SPE
Production & Operations Journal (Vol. 24, pp. 396-406). Society of Petroleum
Engineers.Denver, CO, USA.
Bell, J.S., Price, P.R. and McLellan, P.J. (1994). In-situ stress in the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin. In Mossop, G.D. and Shetsen, I., (Comp.), Geological Atlas of Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin (pp. 439-446). Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and
Alberta Research Council. Calgary, Alberta.
Hannan, S.S. and Nzekwu, B.I.(1992). AOSTRA Mini-frac Manual: Field Testing, Analysis
and Interpretation Procedures. AOSTRA Technical Publication Series 13 . Alberta Oil Sands
Technology and Research Authority. Edmonton, Alberta.
Lizak, K., Bartko, K., Self, F., Izquierdo, G. and Al-Mumen, M. (2006). New Analysis of
Step-Rate Injection Tests for Improved Fracture Stimulation Design. In Proceedings of
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control , paper 98098.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Lafayette, LA, USA.
47
Big Guns Energy Services
APPENDIX A
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
RCBL INTERPRETATION
48
Big Guns Energy Services
Grizzly 8-18 Mini-Frac
49
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
MAY RIVER AREA,
WABISKAW FORMATION
CAPROCK INTEGRITY STUDY
Prepared for
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
Prepared by
Weatherford Laboratories (Canada) Ltd.
th
1338A – 36 Avenue N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 6T6
Canada
www.weatherfordlabs.com
June 3rd, 2013
The items, advice, recommendation or opinions delivered hereunder are delivered for informational purposes only and client acknowledges it is
accepting all "as is". Client further agrees to not disclose except as expressly permitted by Weatherford. Weatherford makes no representation or
warranty, express or implied, of any kind or description in respect thereto, including, but not limited to the warranties of merchantability and/or fitness
for a particular purpose, and such is delivered hereunder with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action client may take based thereon
shall be at its own risk and responsibility. Client shall have no claim against Weatherford as a consequence thereof. The foregoing disclaimer of
warranties and representations shall apply to any entity receiving by, under or through client and client shall indemnify Weatherford for any claims
arising from any entity so receiving from client.
© Copyright 2013 Weatherford - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Weatherford Labs File #:CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Appendices
i
ii
iii
iv
SUMMARY
Study Objective
Caprock Testing
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
1
1
1
3
DISCUSSION
5
PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT
Core Handling and Sample Selection
Caprock Testing
Experimental Equipment
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure Tests
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure Data Calculation
General Displacement Test Equipment
Core Mounting
Stacked Core
Multi-Port Core Flow Heads
Pressure Measurement
Temperature Control
Filtration
Fluid Displacement
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
i
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1:
Test # 1: Well I.D. #:08-18-077-08W4/00 – Summary of Core and Test
Parameters, Approx. 304.83m depth – Wabiskaw Formation
TABLE
2:
Test # 1: Well I.D. #:08-18-077-08W4/00 – Displacement Test Summary,
Approx. 304.83m depth – Wabiskaw Formation
TABLE
3:
Test # 1: Well I.D. #:08-18-077-08W4/00 – Gas Intrusion Testing at 235°C,
Approx. 304.83m depth – Wabiskaw Formation
TABLE
4:
Summary of Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure Test Results
TABLE
5:
MICP Test Summary – Sample FD2 (08-18)
TABLE
6:
MICP Test Pressure Data – Sample FD2 (08-18)
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
ii
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1:
Test # 1: Schematic: Caprock Testing Experimental Apparatus
FIGURE
2:
Test # 1: CT Scans and Samples Selection Points
FIGURE
3:
Test # 1: Long Term Vertical Permeability Test – Cartesian Scale
FIGURE
4:
Test # 1: Long Term Vertical Permeability Test – Semi-Log Scale
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
iii
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A:
SEM and XRD Results
APPENDIX
B:
CT Scans
APPENDIX
C:
Caprock Integrity and Mercury Injection Test Results
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
iv
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
SUMMARY
STUDY OBJECTIVE
At the request of Kristian Nespor of Grizzly Oil Sands, Weatherford Laboratories Canada
Ltd. (Weatherford) conducted a caprock integrity study to evaluate the low and elevated (steam
condition) permeability and potential seal integrity of supplied caprock samples overlying the
proposed thermal EOR zone in the May River area.
CAPROCK TESTING
A requirement for a successful thermal EOR application is generally the presence of a
thick, continuous confining shale caprock over top of the bitumen producing formation to act as
a containment seal for high pressure steam that would be used for a cyclic steam, steam drive
or SAGD injection operation.
One (1) sample of cored Wabiskaw formation caprock was
retrieved from well Grizzly OV Leismer 8-18-77-8, from the depth range of 304.70 m to 304.96
m. This sample was retrieved by Weatherford and transported in a refrigerated (not frozen)
condition back to the laboratory for analysis. Computerized Tomographic (CT) scans were
conducted on the refrigerated core to select two intervals of representative material (containing
no coring induced fractures or poor gauge core) for caprock testing purposes.
Brine permeability measurements were conducted at both low (20˚C) and high (235˚C)
temperatures at a confining overburden pressure to evaluate the integrity of the caprock. These
brine permeability measurements at 235°C were followed by a series of 235°C gas permeability
measurements (using water saturated nitrogen gas to simulate steam) to evaluate high
temperature steam permeability of the caprock. Results of this test are summarized in the
following Figures and Tables:
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
1
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
GAS INTRUSION TESTING AT 235°C
Cuml Time
Hours
24
48
71
96
168
Applied Gas
Pressure
kPa
103
207
413
799
1599
Gas Rate
cc/hr at P and T
0.080
0.250
0.550
1.150
2.370
Gas/Steam
Permeability
mD
0.00021444
0.00033345
0.00036768
0.00039738
0.00040922
The sample from the 304.70 m to 304.96 m interval of well Grizzly OV Leismer 8-18-778 recorded a low temperature brine permeability of approximately 0.0005 mD, which is less than
the 0.001 mD threshold normally desired for competent thermal caprock. When the sample was
heated to 235°C the permeability dropped sharply to approximately 0.00007 mD which is well
within the specifications of what would be considered acceptable high temperature caprock.
Once again, the variations in permeability between 20°C and 235°C may be due to
microfractures not visible in the CT scans healing during thermal expansion or clay expansion
and plugging effects with the increased temperature. The steam/gas permeability at 235°C was
0.0003 mD which is once again within acceptable specifications for thermal caprock. The results
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
2
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
suggest that at steam chamber temperature the shale appears to form a low permeability
vertical seal which should adequately contain the steam chamber (assuming this sample is
representative of the caprock interval as a whole).
The transient spike in permeability observed in all tests during the heat-up phase is an
experimental artifact associated with the thermal expansion of the water phase present in the
core which increases apparent displacement rate and delta P, this transient permeability is not
actually a valid permeability number. The stabilized low and high temperature permeability
values removed from this transient region should be taken as reflective of the true in-situ
permeability of the caprock.
It should be noted that this work does not quantify the tectonic condition of the shale and
if any natural existing fracture or faults that may broach the caprock are present, then the
caprock integrity may be compromised. Laboratory measurements conducted in this report
merely quantifies the physical integrity of the intact caprock matrix at low and high temperature
conditions.
Additional regional geological studies need to be combined with this work by
Cenovus to verify the lateral continuity and integrity of the Clearwater shale over the proposed
pilot/commercial project area to complement this work.
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE
A mercury injection test (drainage cycle only) was completed on sample FD#1 (08-18)
from the Caprock test location to determine the pore structure of the samples. The results are
presented below:
SUMMARY OF MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE TEST RESULTS
* Median
Pore Throat Types
‡ Threshold
Air
MICP
Pore Throat
Micropores
Mesopores
Macropores
Intrusion
Sample
Depth
Permeability
Porosity
Size
Pore Dia
Pore Dia
Pore Dia
Pressure
I.D.
(m)
(mD)
(fraction)
(µm)
< 1 micron
1-3 micron
>3 micron
(kPa)
8.1%
0.0%
447
Well 08-24-090-15W4/00
FD2(08-18)
304.97
n/a
0.218
0.06
92%
Notes:
* Median Pore Throat Size: Pore throat diameter at 50% mercury saturation of pore volume.
‡ Threshold pressures are converted from air/mercury to air/water system using published values of air/water interfacial tension.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
3
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
The results from the mercury injection testing show a close to maximum micropore
structure (92%) and a median pore throat diameter of 0.06 microns and are in agreement with
the caprock data.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
4
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
DISCUSSION
Samples of cored caprock from well Grizzly OV Leismer 8-18-77-8 were retrieved by
Weatherford and transported in a refrigerated (not frozen) condition back to the laboratory for
analysis. CT scans were conducted on the refrigerated core to select two intervals of
representative material (no coring induced fractures or poor gauge core). These CT scans and
the exact location of the core that was taken for the caprock test (secondary sample was
preserved as back up) are contained in Figure 2 and Appendix B.
Brine permeability measurements were conducted at both low (20˚C) and high (235˚C)
temperature to evaluate the integrity of the caprock. Results of these tests are summarized in
Tables 1 to 3 and in Figures 2 to 4.
The transient spike in permeability observed in all tests during the heat-up phase is
associated with the thermal expansion of the water phase present in the core which increases
apparent displacement rate and delta P, this transient permeability is not actually a valid
permeability number. The stabilized low and high temperature permeability values removed
from this transient region should be taken as reflective of the true in-situ permeability of the
caprock. Sufficient pore pressure was maintained at all times to ensure that the water present
in the core remained as a liquid phase (to avoid steam expansion effects fracturing the core).
For acceptable thermal caprock an effective low and high temperature permeability to
brine/steam of less than 0.001 mD is desirable.
It should be noted that this work does not quantify the tectonic condition of the shale and
if any natural existing fracture or faults that may broach the caprock are present, then the
caprock integrity may be compromised. Laboratory measurements conducted in this report
merely quantifies the physical integrity of the intact caprock matrix at low and high temperature
conditions.
The air-mercury capillary pressure data was converted to air-water capillary pressure
data using interfacial tension and contact angles for a typical air-water system. The median pore
throat diameter is 0.06 microns. The threshold pressure for mercury to intrude the pore spaces
was converted from air/mercury to air/water system using values for air/water IFT; the threshold
pressure is 447 kPa for sample FD2(08-18). The irreducible wetting phase saturations are
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
5
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
determined by the intersection of the horizontal and vertical asymptotes presented in Appendix
C.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
6
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT
CORE HANDLING AND SAMPLE SELECTION – CAPROCK
Preserved state (refrigerated) core material was obtained by Weatherford, one (1)
sample of cored Wabiskaw formation caprock was retrieved from well Grizzly OV Leismer 8-1877-8, from the depth range of 304.70 m to 304.96 m.
CT Scans (Figure 2 and Appendix B) of
the cores were obtained and based on this, Weatherford and Grizzly Oil Sands jointly selected
the caprock interval for testing.
CAPROCK TESTING
One test was conducted on the provided core material to quantify low and high
temperature permeability using the apparatus presented in Figure 1. The following procedure
was used for the refrigerated state caprock sample.
1. Mount full diameter core sample as selected by Grizzly Oil Sands and Weatherford in a
ductile lead sleeve to allow vertical permeability measurements along the long axis of
the full diameter core section.
2. Apply 2765 kPag of nominal overburden pressure and 2900 kPag of pore pressure.
3. Apply variable differential pressure with fresh water at 20˚C for an approximate 200 hour
period and measure stable permeability to water (if any) at 20˚C after this time period.
4. Heat to 235˚C maintaining overburden at 2765 kPa and pore pressure at 2900 kPag (to
ensure single phase water is maintained) and apply variable delta P for an approximate
200 hour period and measure stable permeability to fresh water at 235˚C after this time
period.
5. Apply water saturated Nitrogen gas at 2900 kPa pore pressure with 2765 kPa of
overburden pressure at 235°C at gradually increasing pressure levels over an
approximate 200 hour period to measure effective gas (simulated steam) permeability at
HPHT conditions.
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
Figure 1 provides a schematic illustration of the core flood apparatus which was utilized
to conduct the low and elevated temperature condition caprock studies. The core material is
mounted in a special ductile high temperature lead sleeve equipped with dual pressure ports to
facilitate fluid injection, production and detailed differential pressure measurements. The core
material inside the sleeve is mounted in a high temperature core cell capable of temperatures
up to 300˚C at pressures of up to 25 MPa. The external annular space in the pressure jacket is
filled with heat transfer oil and pressurized to the required net confining overburden pressure so
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
7
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
the core material is stressed back to the same bottomhole pressure stress condition as
observed in the reservoir. Heat is applied using a submersible high temperature heating system
located in the heat transfer oil surrounding the core material and monitored using a series of
paired RTD platinum thermocouples to control and verify temperature profiles which exist in the
system or using a high temperature airbath accurate to 0.5˚C. Back pressure on the system is
maintained using a regulating back pressure valve with 0.1% control point accuracy.
Differential pressure across the core material is monitored using a series of digital
Yokogawa court strain gauge pressure transducers to quantify differential pressure
measurements to determine permeability values. Fluid displacement is affected using highly
precise and accurate positive displacement pumps capable of displacing at rates from 0.1 to as
high as 8000 cc/hour at pressures of up to 70 MPa of with 0.01 cc volumetric accuracy in a
pulsation-free manner. All displaced fluids are filtered to 0.5 microns tolerance to remove any
suspended solids or particulate material which may cause plugging of the porous media under
consideration. All wetting surfaces in the displacement apparatus are either 316 stainless steel
or Hastalloy to minimize corrosion potential during elevated temperature displacements.
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE TEST
Air-mercury capillary pressure tests were performed using an automated Micromeritics
Autopore 9220 instrument with a maximum mercury intrusion pressure of 414 MPa (60,000
psia). The cleaned and dried samples were placed in a specially designed penetrometer and
evacuated under vacuum.
Mercury was then injected at multiple pre-determined pressure
levels up to 414 MPa. At each equilibrium pressure level, the volume of mercury intrusion is
determined by the change in capacitance of the penetrometer reference cell.
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA CALCULATION
Data from the mercury injection apparatus is used to calculate the pore entry radius with the
following equation:
Ri =
2T • cosθ • C
Pc
Where: Ri = Pore radius, microns
Pc = Capillary pressure in laboratory, psi
T = Interfacial Tension, Dynes/cm
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
8
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
θ=
C=
Contact angle, degrees
Conversion constant = 0.145
For the air/mercury data directly from the laboratory:
The contact angle θ = 130 degrees
The interfacial tension T = 485 dynes/cm
For the derived air/water data:
The contact angle θ = 0.0 degrees
The interfacial tension T = 72 dynes/cm
If reservoir data of gas/oil or water/oil interfacial tension and an oil/rock contact angle is
available, the laboratory air/mercury data can be deduced to represent reservoir conditions.
GENERAL DISPLACEMENT TEST EQUIPMENT
Equipment that is used in conventional displacement experiments is common to most
core flow evaluation techniques. General descriptions of the laboratory equipment utilized for
these tests appear in the following paragraphs.
Core Mounting
The core sample to be tested is placed in a 1½” inch ID flexible confining sleeve. The
ductility of the sleeve allows a confining external overburden pressure to be transferred to the
core in a radial and axial mode to simulate reservoir pressure. The core, mounted within the
sleeve, is placed inside a 3.0 inch ID steel core holder that can simulate reservoir pressures of
up to 69 MPa. This pressure is applied by filling the annular space between the core sleeve and
the core holder with non-damaging mineral oil. The annular fluid is then compressed with a
hydraulic pump to obtain the desired overburden pressure. The core holder ends each contain
two ports to facilitate fluid displacement and pressure measurements at each end of the core.
Stacked Core
Stacked (composite) cores are constructed to reduce experimental error by increasing
the pore volume of the porous media utilized for the experiment. Increasing the amount of rock
volume, which possesses stabilized saturation apart from the inlet and outlet phenomena, can
also reduce end effect errors.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
The longer core composed of several shorter samples is
9
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
constructed by mounting the core samples end to end and placing wafers of thin porous fibre
between the samples to ensure capillary continuity between the rock faces. The stacked core
technique has application for both secondary waterflood displacement experiments as well as
enhanced displacement where mixing zone length or chemical adsorption is of concern.
Multi-port Core Flow Heads
The portions of the core holder directly adjacent to the injection and production ends of
the test cores are equipped with radial distribution plates to ensure that fluid flow is uniformly
distributed into and out of the core sample. These heads are used for experiments that involve
fluids that are pre-filtered to remove large suspended solids, which could entrain in the flow
ports. All wetted surfaces of the flow equipment are made from high grade stainless steel.
Pressure Measurement
Pressure differential is monitored using Validyne pressure transducers. The transducers
are mounted directly across the core and measure the pressure differential between the
injection and production ends. The pressure transducers have ranges of sensitivity ranging
from 0 to 2 psig and 0 to 4000 psig and are rated as accurate to 0.01% of the full-scale value.
The appropriate transducer size is selected based upon the expected permeability and
associated range of accompanying differential pressures for a given core sample. The signal
from the pressure transducer appears on a multi-channel digital Validyne terminal from which
the test operator records pressure readings during the displacement processes. The signal can
also be downloaded to a computerized continuing data acquisition system for long term runs.
Temperature Control
The core holder and associated injection fluids are contained in a temperature controlled
air bath to simulate reservoir temperature.
The oven contains a circulating air system to
eliminate internal temperature gradients and can control at temperatures from 20 to 200 °C with
a rated accuracy of ±1 °C.
Filtration
All injection fluids are filtered to 0.5 microns before use to remove any potentially
plugging suspended particles (unless unfiltered fluids are requested). An in-line 0.5 micron filter
is also presented directly before the core as a backup filtration system (removable if unfiltered
fluids are desired).
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
10
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
Fluid Displacement
A highly accurate positive displacement pump is used to inject fluids into the core. The
pump can inject fluids at rates from 0.6 to 8200 cc/hr and at pressures of up to 69 MPa, with an
accuracy of ± 0.01 cc. The pump is filled with distilled water that displaces hydrocarbon fluid,
test fluid or immiscible buffer fluid which in turn displaces test fluid into the core relative to the
specific application. The experimental system has been designed to minimize dead volumes
and to ensure that the entire system is at pressure equilibrium prior to any fluid change.
Backpressure on the system (for full reservoir condition tests) is controlled using a 316 SS
controlling backpressure regulator rated accurate to 0.5% of the setpoint value. This regulator
allows for the smooth production of fluids from the system at any required flowrate and setpoint
pressure.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
11
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CORE AND TEST PARAMETERS
TEST #1, SAMPLE FD2(08-18) - WELL 08-18-77-08W4
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
Well Location
08-18-77-08W4
Depth
304.70 - 304.96
meters
Sample Length
26.7
cm
Sample Diameter
7.21
cm
Sample Flow Area
40.8
cm2
Sample Bulk Volume
305.2
cc
Temperature Range
20 to 235
Displacement Fluid
deg C
Steam Condensate (fresh water)
Overburden - axial (vertical)
2765
kPag
Overburden - radial (horizontal)
2765
kPag
Pore Pressure
3930
kPag
Injection Pressure
Variable
kPag
Differential Pressure
Variable
kPag
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE 2
DISPLACEMENT TEST SUMMARY
TEST #1, SAMPLE FD2(08-18) - WELL 08-18-77-08W4
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
Cuml
Displacement Applied Delta Cuml Water
Water Temperature
Water
Vertical
Time
Hours
Fluid
P Value
kPag
Production
cc
Rate
cc/hr
deg C
Viscosity
mPa.s
Permeability
mD
0.0
24.0
48.0
72.0
96.0
120.0
144.0
168.0
192.0
216.0
240.0
264.0
292.0
316.0
340.0
364.0
388.0
412.0
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
1599
1599
1599
1599
5
5
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
1599
0.00
0.20
1.40
3.10
43.20
69.60
71.80
73.80
74.80
77.40
78.10
79.30
80.60
81.60
81.90
82.50
83.10
83.90
0.0000
0.0083
0.0500
0.0708
1.6708
1.1000
0.0917
0.0833
0.0417
0.1083
0.0292
0.0500
0.0464
0.0417
0.0125
0.0250
0.0250
0.0333
20
20
20
20
215
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
n/a
0.00009689
0.00058131
0.00082352
0.77745482
0.46770243
0.00012187
0.00011079
0.00005540
0.00014403
0.00003878
0.00006648
0.00006173
0.00005540
0.00001662
0.00003324
0.00003324
0.00004432
Note: Red cells indicate permeability increase due to thermal expansion effects.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE 3
GAS INTRUSION TESTING AT 235 DEG C
TEST #1, SAMPLE FD2(08-18) - WELL 08-18-77-08W4
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
Cuml Time Applied Gas
Hours
Pressure
kPa
24
48
71
96
168
103.00
207.00
413.00
799.00
1599.00
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Gas Rate
Gas/Steam
cc/hr at P and T Permeability
mD
0.0800
0.2500
0.5500
1.1500
2.3700
0.00021444
0.00033345
0.00036768
0.00039738
0.00040922
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE TEST RESULTS
Sample
Depth
Air
Permeability
MICP
Porosity
I.D.
(m)
(mD)
(fraction)
FD2(08-18)
304.97
n/a
0.218
* Median
Pore Throat
Size
Pore Throat Types
Micropores
Mesopores
Macropores
Pore Dia
Pore Dia
Pore Dia
(µm)
< 1 micron
Well 08-24-090-15W4/00
0.06
92%
‡ Threshold
Intrusion
Pressure
1-3 micron
>3 micron
(kPa)
8.1%
0.0%
447
Notes:
* Median Pore Throat Size: Pore throat diameter at 50% mercury saturation of pore volume.
‡ Threshold pressures are converted from air/mercury to air/water system using published values of air/water interfacial tension.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE 5
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE TEST SUMMARY
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Routine Core Analysis Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Routine Core Analysis Porosity (fraction): N/A
Mercury Injection Test Sample Data
Sample Weight (g):
11.1
Corrected sample porosity (fraction):
0.218
Grain Density (g/cc):
2.66
Conformance Correction Vol. (cc):
0.097
Total Pore Surface Area (m²):
152
Median Pore Diameter (micron):
0.060
Conformance Correction (percent of P.V.):
7.5%
* Threshold Pressure (kPa):
447
Pore throat size distribution:
Macropores (pore throat dia. > 3.0 microns):
0.0%
Mesopores (pore throat dia. 1.0 - 3.0 microns):
8.1%
Micropores (pore throat dia. < 1.0 microns):
91.9%
Conversion Factors for Data Calculation
Mercury Density (g/cc):
13.5
Air / Mercury Interfacial Tension (dynes/cm):
485
Air / Mercury Contact Angle (degree):
130
Air / Water Interfacial Tension (dynes/cm):
72
Air / Water Contact Angle (degree):
0.0
Water Density for transitional height calculation (kg/m³):
Air Density for transitional height calculation (kg/m³):
1000
0.0010
* Threshold pressure - pressure at which mercury first enters the pore system.
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
TABLE 6
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Air/Mercury
Capillary Pressure
(MPa)
0.447
0.552
0.624
0.792
0.967
1.200
1.550
1.90
2.31
2.94
3.65
4.46
5.49
6.84
8.61
10.45
13.16
16.57
20.16
24.90
33.12
38.50
48.72
59.49
72.38
90.10
112.3
136.7
171.0
205.2
239.6
275.2
309.1
343.6
377.4
402.2
Derived Air / Water
Capillary Pressure
(MPa)
0.103
0.127
0.144
0.18
0.22
0.28
0.36
0.44
0.53
0.68
0.84
1.03
1.27
1.58
2.0
2.4
3.0
3.8
4.7
5.8
7.6
8.9
11.3
13.7
16.7
20.8
25.9
31.6
39.5
47.4
55.3
63.5
71.4
79.3
87.2
92.9
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Wetting Phase
Saturation
(fraction)
1.00
0.990
0.982
0.966
0.949
0.929
0.902
0.877
0.850
0.816
0.785
0.756
0.727
0.697
0.664
0.635
0.600
0.557
0.512
0.449
0.342
0.286
0.218
0.174
0.140
0.110
0.085
0.067
0.050
0.035
0.028
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.001
0.000
Pore Throat
Diameter
(Microns)
2.788
2.261
1.997
1.575
1.289
1.038
0.805
0.658
0.541
0.425
0.342
0.280
0.227
0.182
0.145
0.119
0.095
0.075
0.062
0.050
0.038
0.032
0.026
0.021
0.017
0.014
0.011
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
Height of
Transition
(m)
0.000
2.455
4.172
8.113
12.24
17.77
25.92
34.10
43.74
58.62
75.37
94.46
118.7
150.5
192.1
235.5
299.3
379.6
464.0
575.6
769.3
895.9
1136
1390
1693
2111
2633
3207
4016
4820
5631
6467
7265
8078
8875
9458
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
FIGURE 1
TEST #1 - SCHEMATIC
CAPROCK TESTING EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
Vertical Stress
Production
Constant Delta
P
f
l
o
w
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Horizontal Stress
Full
Caprock
Core
FullDiameter
Diameter Caprock
Core
Approx.
8
to
15
cm
in
Length
Approx. 30 cm in Length
Injection
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
FIGURE 2
TEST #1 SAMPLE FD2(08-18) - WELL 08-18-77-08W4
CT SCANS AND SAMPLES SELECTION POINTS
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
FIGURE 3
TEST #1 - SAMPLE FD2(08-18) - WELL 08-18-77-08W4
LONG TERM VERTICAL PERMEABILITY TEST
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
FIGURE 4
TEST #1 - SAMPLE FD2(08-18) - WELL 08-18-77-08W4
LONG TERM VERTICAL PERMEABILITY TEST
APPROX. 304.83 M DEPTH - WABISKAW FORMATION
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
APPENDIX A
SEM & XRD RESULTS
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
Scanning Electron Microscopy and Bulk and
Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
One Sample
Sample ID: FD2(8-18)
Weatherford Laboratories
File #CL-60873
GR 19501 2013
GR Petrology Consultants Inc.
Suite 8, 1323 – 44th Avenue N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 6L5
Tel: 403-291-3420 Fax: 403-250-7212
E-mail: mimi.reichenbach@grpetrology.com
April 2013
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Bulk and Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 General ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Documentation ............................................................................................................................ 1 Description of Samples ................................................................................................................... 2 GR-001: FD2(8-18): 304.97m .................................................................................................... 2 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Method of Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 4 GR 19501 2013
i
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Bulk and Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
Introduction
General
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) photography and bulk and glycolated clay X-ray
diffraction (XRD) analyses were conducted on one well consolidated sample (Sample ID:
FD2(8-18): 304.97m).
Table 1A presents bulk X-ray diffraction (XRD) results. Glycolated clay XRD results are
provided on Table 1B. Plates 1 to 3 contain SEM photographs.
Documentation
The following tables document the SEM, EDS and XRD report:

Table 1A: Bulk Fraction X-Ray Diffraction Data.

Table 1B: Glycolated Clay Fraction X-Ray Diffraction Data.

Plates 1 to 3: SEM Micrographs.

X-Ray Diffractogram.
GR 19501 2013
1
COMPANY:
P.O. #:
FILE NUMBER:
Weatherford Laboratories
9523510
CL-60873
GR FILE #:
GR 19501 2013
FORMATION: McMurray
TABLE 1A
BULK FRACTION X-RAY DIFFRACTION DATA
GR
Sample ID
Sample #
GR-001
FD2(8-18)
Depth
(m)
Qtz
KFd
Plag
Dol
Sid
Pyr
Cal
Kaol
Ill
Chl
M-L
Smec
Total
Clay
304.97
58.5
5.5
6.1
15.2
1.5
2.1
1.0
1.3
4.5
2.7
1.6
Present
10.1
Qtz - Quartz - SiO2
Pyr - Pyrite - FeS2
Kaol - Kaolinite - Al2Si2O5(OH)4
KFd - Potassium Feldspar - KAlSi3O8
Cal - Calcite - (Ca,Mg)CO3
Ill - Illite - (K,H3O)Al2Si3AlO10(OH)2
Plag - Sodium Feldspar - NaAlSi3O8
Chl - Chlorite - (Mg,Fe,Al)6(Si,Al)4O10(OH)8
Dol - Dolomite - CaMg(CO3)2
M-L - Mixed Layer (Rec - Rectorite - K1.2Al4Si8O20(OH)4·4H2O)
Sid - Siderite - FeCO3
All units are in percent unless otherwise noted.
19501 TABLE 1A.xlsm
Total Clay - Kaol+Ill+Chr+M-L+Smec
Smec - Smectite
COMPANY:
P.O. #:
FILE NUMBER:
Weatherford Laboratories
9523510
CL-60873
GR FILE #:
GR 19501 2013
FORMATION: McMurray
TABLE 1B
LESS THAN 2 MICRON GLYCOLATED CLAY FRACTION X-RAY DIFFRACTION DATA
GR
Sample
Sample #
ID
GR-001 FD2(8-18)
Depth (m)
Total Clay in
Bulk Sample
Total Smectite
in Bulk Sample
Kaolinite
Illite
Chlorite
Mixed Layer
Smectite
304.97
10.1
0.65
9.6
47.1
36.9
-
6.4
All units are in percent unless otherwise noted.
19501 TABLE 1B.xlsm
Intensity (Counts)
8000
GR 19501-001 2013; X-ray diffractograms
Red - Bulk Raw Spectrum
Black - Bulk Theoretical Pattern
Blue - Glycolated Clay
6000
4000
2000
0
Quartz, syn ● SiO 2
Albite, ordered ● NaAlSi 3 O8
Microcline ● KAlSi 3 O8
Dolomite ● CaMg(CO 3 )2
Kaolinite-1A ● Al2 Si2 O5 (OH) 4
Siderite ● FeCO 3
Rectorite ● K1.2 Al4 Si8 O20 (OH) 4 4H 2 O
Illite-2M1 (NR) ● (K,H 3 O)Al 2 Si3 AlO 10 (OH) 2
Pyrite ● FeS 2
Clinochlore-1MIIb ● (Mg,Fe,Al) 6 (Si,Al) 4 O10 (OH) 8
Calcite ● (Ca,Mg)CO 3
Nontronite-15A ● Na 0.3 Fe 2 Si4 O10 (OH) 2 4H 2 O
Beidellite-18A ● Ca 0.2 Al2 Si4 O10 (OH) 2 6H 2 O
10
20
30
Two-Theta (deg)
GR Petrology
40
50
60
Sample ID: FD2(8-18)
A
GR-001
1
B
304.97m
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A
B
C
D
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plate 1
GR 19501 2013
B
D
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
Sample ID: FD2(8-18)
A
GR-001
1
B
304.97m
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A
B
C
D
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plate 2
GR 19501 2013
B
D
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
Sample ID: FD2(8-18)
A
GR-001
1
B
304.97m
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A
B
C
D
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plate 3
GR 19501 2013
B
D
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Bulk and Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
Description of Samples
GR-001: FD2(8-18): 304.97m
The sample generated a good quality diffractogram indicating the sample is mainly composed of
crystalline compounds. X-ray diffraction analysis shows the crystalline components of the
sample consist of 89.9% non clay components and 10.1% clay minerals.
Non clay components in the bulk fraction include:

58.5% quartz [SiO2].

5.5% potassium feldspar (microcline [KAlSi3O8]).

6.1% plagioclase feldspar (albite [NaAlSi3O8]).

15.2% dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2].

1.5% siderite [FeCO3].

2.1% pyrite [FeS2].

1.0% calcite [CaCO3].
Total clay minerals comprise 10.1% of the bulk XRD fraction of sample GR-001 and include:

1.3% kaolinite [Al2Si2O5(OH)4].

4.5% illite [(K,H3O)Al2Si3AlO10(OH)2].

2.7% chlorite (Mg,Fe,Al)6(Si,Al)4O10(OH)8.

1.6% mixed layer (K1.2Al4Si8O20(OH)4•4H2O)

The presence of smectite.
Glycolated clay analysis shows a slightly different distribution of clay minerals, as glycolation fully
expands smectite rich clays and allows the volume of smectite to be quantified. As a result, the
relative volume of other clay minerals drops in the glycolated clay fraction when compared to the
bulk fraction. The glycolated clay fraction consists of:

9.6% kaolinite.

47.1% illite.
GR 19501 2013
2
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Bulk and Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis

36.9% chlorite.

6.4% smectite [montmorillonite, glycolated [(Na,Ca)0.3Al2(Si,Al)4O10(OH)2·• H2O].
The mixed layer clays detected in the bulk fraction were detected as separate fractions of illite
and smectite in the glycolated clay fraction of the XRD. Note smectite forms 0.65% of the bulk
sample.
Plate 1: Relatively low relief in overview A shows the low to moderate volume of intergranular
porosity in sample GR-001. Patchy, variably distributed intergranular porosity (medium yellow
arrows) is slightly enhanced by at least minor volumes of leached and microporous grains (O-10,
View B, O-8, View D). Minor volumes of grain rimming illite and chlorite (medium green
arrows), pore blocking siderite cement (small red arrows, View C) negatively impact porosity
and permeability in GR-001.
Plate 2: Additional high magnification SEM views detail:

Variable volumes of partially blocked intergranular porosity: medium yellow arrows,

Very minor volumes of poorly formed kaolinite, likely recrystallized from detrital grains:
medium blue arrows,

Pyrite framboids: medium orange arrows,

Grain coating illite / smectite: medium purple arrows,

Incipient quartz overgrowths: large green arrow, View A,

Dolomite cement: M-6, View D.
Plate 3: Features illustrated on this Plate include:

Variable volumes of partially blocked intergranular porosity: medium yellow arrows,

Highly leached and microporous feldspar grain: K-6, View D, O-8, View D,

Pore bridging clay minerals variably admixed with bitumen: large green arrows,

Grain coating illite / smectite: medium purple arrows,

Poorly formed kaolinite: medium blue arrows.
GR 19501 2013
3
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Bulk and Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
Appendix
Method of Analysis
The sample (GR-001) was submitted for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and bulk and clay
x-ray diffraction analysis (XRD).
Diffraction data was acquired using a Phillips XRG-3100 X-ray diffraction System. X-radiation
was produced by a long fine focus Cu X-ray tube running at 40kV and 30mA. The Phillips
goniometer was equipped with theta-compensation slit optics and a Cu Ka monochromator. The
resulting diffraction data was then analyzed using the industry standard MDI Version Jade 2010
software package and the ICDD PDF-4+ powder diffraction database.
A sub-sample from each sample was lightly disaggregated. Two equivalent fractions of each
disaggregated sample were selected for bulk analysis and for analysis of the less than 2 micron size
fraction.
The fraction selected for bulk analysis was manually ground to a fine powder using an agate mortar
and pestle. The resulting powder was carefully packed onto a glass sample holder to present a flat
powder pack surface for powder diffraction analysis. Diffraction data on the bulk sample was
acquired over a range of angles from 2 to 65 degrees with a step size of 0.05 degrees and a dwell
time of 2 seconds/step.
Glycolated clay samples were prepared from a separate fraction of each disaggregated sample. The
coarse powders were stirred into approximately 100 ml of distilled water with a small amount of
Calgon to reduce surface tension and to aid clay dispersion. The resulting slurries were then stirred
for about 2 minutes while immersed in an ultrasound bath. The water with suspended clay was
poured into a 100 ml cylinder and allowed to settle for four hours leaving particles less than 2 µm in
suspension.
The clay suspensions were then siphoned into centrifuge tubes for high-speed
centrifugal clay separation. Following centrifugal separation, the remaining water was decanted and
the clay slurry was pipetted unto frosted glass slides and allowed to dry. Dried samples were placed
GR 19501 2013
4
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Bulk and Glycolated Clay X-Ray Diffraction Analysis
in a chamber containing a glycol-saturated atmosphere for 24 hours. Diffraction data on the
resulting clay slides was acquired over a range of angles from 2 to 40 degrees with a step size of
0.05 degrees and a dwell time of 2 seconds/step.
Data acquired from the bulk fraction was used to calculate the relative abundance of all rock
components.
The relative abundance of specific clay minerals within the clay fraction was
determined using data obtained from the 2 micron size fraction.
GR 19501 2013
5
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
APPENDIX B
CT SCANS
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
WELL 8-18 CT SCANS
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
WELL 14-18 CT SCANS
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS
APPENDIX C
CAPROCK INTEGRITY & MERCURY INJECTION TEST RESULTS
May River Area, Wabiskaw Formation
Caprock Integrity Study
Weatherford Labs File #: 60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE TEST RESULTS
Sample
Depth
Air
Permeability
I.D.
(m)
(mD)
FD2(08-18)
304.97
n/a
MICP
Porosity
* Median
Pore Throat
Size
Pore Throat Types
Micropores
Mesopores
Macropores
Pore Dia
Pore Dia
Pore Dia
(fraction)
(µm)
< 1 micron
Well 08-24-090-15W4/00
0.218
0.06
92%
‡ Threshold
Intrusion
Pressure
1-3 micron
>3 micron
(kPa)
8.1%
0.0%
447
Notes:
* Median Pore Throat Size: Pore throat diameter at 50% mercury saturation of pore volume.
‡ Threshold pressures are converted from air/mercury to air/water system using published values of air/water interfacial tension.
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
TABLE 2
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE TEST SUMMARY
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Routine Core Analysis Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Routine Core Analysis Porosity (fraction): N/A
Mercury Injection Test Sample Data
Sample Weight (g):
11.1
Corrected sample porosity (fraction):
0.218
Grain Density (g/cc):
2.66
Conformance Correction Vol. (cc):
0.097
Total Pore Surface Area (m²):
152
Median Pore Diameter (micron):
0.060
Conformance Correction (percent of P.V.):
7.5%
* Threshold Pressure (kPa):
447
Pore throat size distribution:
Macropores (pore throat dia. > 3.0 microns):
0.0%
Mesopores (pore throat dia. 1.0 - 3.0 microns):
8.1%
Micropores (pore throat dia. < 1.0 microns):
91.9%
Conversion Factors for Data Calculation
Mercury Density (g/cc):
13.5
Air / Mercury Interfacial Tension (dynes/cm):
485
Air / Mercury Contact Angle (degree):
130
Air / Water Interfacial Tension (dynes/cm):
72
Air / Water Contact Angle (degree):
0.0
Water Density for transitional height calculation (kg/m³):
Air Density for transitional height calculation (kg/m³):
1000
0.0010
* Threshold pressure - pressure at which mercury first enters the pore system.
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
TABLE 3
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Air/Mercury
Capillary Pressure
(MPa)
0.447
0.552
0.624
0.792
0.967
1.20
1.55
1.90
2.31
2.94
3.65
4.46
5.49
6.84
8.61
10.45
13.16
16.57
20.16
24.90
33.12
38.50
48.72
59.49
72.38
90.10
112.3
136.7
171.0
205.2
239.6
275.2
309.1
343.6
377.4
402.2
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Derived Air / Water
Capillary Pressure
(MPa)
0.103
0.127
0.144
0.18
0.22
0.28
0.36
0.44
0.53
0.68
0.84
1.03
1.27
1.58
2.0
2.4
3.0
3.8
4.7
5.8
7.6
8.9
11.3
13.7
16.7
20.8
25.9
31.6
39.5
47.4
55.3
63.5
71.4
79.3
87.2
92.9
Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Wetting Phase
Saturation
(fraction)
1.00
0.990
0.982
0.966
0.949
0.929
0.902
0.877
0.850
0.816
0.785
0.756
0.727
0.697
0.664
0.635
0.600
0.557
0.512
0.449
0.342
0.286
0.218
0.174
0.140
0.110
0.085
0.067
0.050
0.035
0.028
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.001
0.000
Pore Throat
Diameter
(Microns)
2.788
2.261
1.997
1.575
1.289
1.038
0.805
0.658
0.541
0.425
0.342
0.280
0.227
0.182
0.145
0.119
0.095
0.075
0.062
0.050
0.038
0.032
0.026
0.021
0.017
0.014
0.011
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
Height of
Transition
(m)
0.000
2.455
4.172
8.113
12.24
17.77
25.92
34.10
43.74
58.62
75.37
94.46
118.7
150.5
192.1
235.5
299.3
379.6
464.0
575.6
769.3
895.9
1136
1390
1693
2111
2633
3207
4016
4820
5631
6467
7265
8078
8875
9458
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
FIGURE 1
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Capillary Pressure Vs Wetting Phase Saturation
1000
Air-Mercury Capillary Pressure (MPa)
100
10
1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Wetting Phase Saturation (fraction)
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
FIGURE 2
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Derived Air-Water Capillary Pressure Vs Wetting Phase Saturation
Derived Air-Water Capillary Pressure (MPa)
100
10
1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Wetting Phase Saturation (fraction)
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
FIGURE 3
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Pore Throat Types:



Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Macropores ( > 3 micron diameter) =
Mesopores (1 - 3 micron diameter) =
Micropores ( < 1 micron diameter) =
0.0%
8.1%
91.9%
Pore Size Distribution
1.0
0.9
0.7
Macropore
Mesopores
Micropores
Wetting Phase Saturation (fraction)
0.8
0.6
MEDIAN PORE THROAT
DIAMETER = 0.060 micron
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Pore Throat Diameter (microns)
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
FIGURE 4
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Pore Size Distribution
1.0
0.12
MEDIAN PORE THROAT
DIAMETER = 0.060 micron
0.9
0.1
0.8
0.08
0.6
0.5
0.06
0.4
0.04
0.3
Incremental Mercury Saturation
Cumulative Mercury Saturation
0.7
0.2
0.02
0.1
0
2.7883
1.2893
0.541
0.2271
0.0947
0.0376
0.0172
0.0073
0.004
0.0
Pore Throat Diameter (microns)
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
Grizzly Oil Sands
FIGURE 5
MERCURY INJECTION CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Well Location: 1AA/08-18-077-08W4/00
Core I.D.: FD2 (08-18)
Core Depth: 304.97 m
Air Permeability (mD) : N/A
Porosity (fraction): N/A
Height of Transition Vs Wetting Phase Saturation
500
450
400
Height Above Free Water (m)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Wetting Phase Saturation (fraction)
Leismer Area, Clearwater Formation
Caprock Integrity Evaluation Study
Weatherford Labs File #: CL-60873
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS ULC
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING
GRIZZLY OIL SANDS MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
08-18-77-08 W4
REPORT
AUGUST 2013
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002
This “Issued for Review” document is provided solely for the purpose of client review and presents our interim findings and
recommendations to date. Our usable findings and recommendations are provided only through an “Issued for Use” document, which
will be issued subsequent to this review. Final design should not be undertaken based on the interim recommendations made herein.
Once our report is issued for use, the “Issued for Review” document should be either returned to EBA or destroyed.
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of Grizzly Oil Sands (Grizzly) and their agents. EBA Engineering
Consultants Ltd. does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations
contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Grizzly, or for any Project
other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the
user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in EBA’s Services Agreement. EBA’s General Conditions
are provided in Appendix A of this report.
RPT – May River Caprock Core - IFR
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company
14940 - 123 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5V 1B4 CANADA
p. 780.451.2121 f. 780.454.5688
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
CT Scan Imaging of Core ......................................................................................................................2
Specimen Preparation ...........................................................................................................................2
Porewater Fluid Chemistry ....................................................................................................................2
Index Tests ............................................................................................................................................2
Unconfined Compression Tests.............................................................................................................3
Swell Test Method A ..............................................................................................................................3
Consolidated Drained Direct Shear Tests .............................................................................................3
Consolidated Drained (CD) Triaxial Compression Tests.......................................................................4
RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1
3.2
3.3
Swell Test (Method A) Test Results for Lower Clearwater Samples.....................................................5
Drained Direct Shear Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale formation ...........................................5
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale samples ...............................5
4.0
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................... 6
5.0
CLOSURE......................................................................................................................................... 7
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Details of Received Cores from May River Area
Details of Specimen (Lower Clearwater Shale) Tested
Details of Atterberg Limits Test
Details of Hydrometer Test
Details of Specific Gravity
Details of Unconfined Compression Test
Details of Swell Test (Method A)
Details of Direct Shear Tests
Details of Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests on Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Strength Envelope Parameters
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio for Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Geological Stratification Table of 08-18-77-08-W4, May River, Alberta
Stress vs. Wetting Induced Swell/Collapse Strain, Lower Clearwater Shale
Summary of Direct Shear Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
Mohr Circle Plots for Peak Values for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests conducted on Lower
Clearwater Shale Formation
i
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Figure 5
Consolidation Drained Triaxial Compression Tests Strength Envelop (s’-t) for Lower Clearwater
Shale Formation
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Photo 6
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 500 kPa before shear
(CD-1)
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 500 kPa after shear (CD1)
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 1500 kPa) before shear
(CD-2)
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 1500 kPa) after shear
(CD-2)
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 3500 kPa) before shear
(CD-3)
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 3500 kPa) after shear
(CD-3)
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
EBA’s General Conditions
Index Test Results
Unconfined Compressive strength Test Result
Swell (Method) Test Results
Consolidated Drained Direct Shear Test Results
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Results
ii
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
SYMBOLS
B:
Degree of saturation (%)
cpeak:
Effective cohesion at peak strength state (kPa)
cpost:
Effective cohesion at post-peak strength state (kPa)
D:
Depth (m)
d:
Displacement rate (mm/min)
E:
Young’s modulus (MPa)
e:
Void ratio
Gs:
Specific gravity
LL:
Liquid limit (%)
n:
Porosity
P:
Applied stress (kPa)
PI:
Plastic index (%)
PL:
Plastic limit (%)
Speak:
Peak strength (kPa)
Sresid:
Residual strength (kPa)
w:
Water Content (%)
:
Strain rate (%/min)
fail:
Axial strain at failure state (kPa)
peak:
Axial strain at peak strength state (kPa)
dry:
Dry density (kg/m3)
wet:
Wet density (kg/m3)
peak:
Shear strain at peak strength (%)
back:
Back pressure (kPa)
cell:
Cell pressure (kPa)
n:
Normal consolidation stress (kPa)
c:
Effective consolidation stress (kPa)
1,fail:
Effective major principal stress at failure state (kPa)
3,fail:
Effective minor principal stress at failure state (kPa)
ϕpeak:
Effective angle of internal friction at peak strength state (Deg)
ϕpost:
Effective angle of internal friction at post-peak strength state (Deg)
iii
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
:
Poisson’s ratio
iv
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC (Grizzly) retained EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech
Company (EBA) to conduct a laboratory program to evaluate the geotechnical strength properties of
received mudstone core samples reported to have been taken from the “Lower Clearwater Shale”
formations from May River area of Grizzly’s operation at 08-18-77-08 W4, Alberta. EBA outlined the scope
of services to Mr. Kristian Nespor in a letter dated February 8, 2013 and subsequently EBA was authorized
to proceed with this laboratory testing on February 11, 2013. The work was carried out under Grizzly P.O.
No. P130072-1365-001.
Grizzly’s representative Weatherford Laboratories (Weatherford) shipped core samples collected from
May River area for this testing program on March 6, 2013. Geological field logging and markup of the cores
were carried out by others and is beyond EBA’s scope for this project. Four cores were received for this
project as outlined in Table 1 in the Tables Appendix. One of the cores (i.e., Core 10, Box 2) was stored in a
PVC pipe that was previously split open and the rest of the cores were preserved in wax.
The geology information received from the Client states that the Lower Clearwater Shale in this area are
laterally continuous and consist of grey, silty shales with occasional (i.e., >5% by volume) very find grained
sands. The sedimentary structures within this unit are consistent with a low energy, distal depositional
environment. The Lower Clearwater Shale ranges between 14.8 and 19.9 m thick, averaging 17.6 m over
the development area, with the base of the Lower Clearwater Shale averaging 252.0 m true vertical depth
subsea (TVDSS). Figure 1 in Figures Appendix presents a schematic of stratification table of the geology of
this area. It should be noted on Figure 1 that the Wabiskaw member and the Lower Clearwater Shale are
nearly continuous and similar in structure.
The scope of work included the following:

One Atterberg Limit test to determine the plastic limit and liquid limit, one hydrometer to determine
particle size distribution and one specific gravity test on a representative soil sample;

Three consolidated drained direct shear (DS) tests to determine peak strength and residual strength
properties at varying normal stresses;

Three consolidated drained (CD) triaxial compression tests at varying effective confining stresses to
determine stress-strain and shear properties;

One unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test; and

One Swelling test to determine wetting induced swell or collapse of the sample.
1
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
2.0
LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
2.1
CT Scan Imaging of Core
Weatherford provided core images using CT-Scan ray radiography of the samples. The images were viewed
by EBA to assess the suitability of the cores for geomechanical testing prior to exposing the cores. The cores
were imaged in 1.5 m increments.
2.2
Specimen Preparation
All of the received samples were exposed without disturbing the 73 mm diameter core sample. The
required length of the sample for testing was extracted. The remaining sample was wrapped with plastic in
multiple layers and stored in EBA’s moisture room.
Triaxial specimens were trimmed with a standard geotechnical trimming tool to a nominal diameter of
approximately 50 mm and height of approximately 100 mm in a moisture room. The trimmed specimen
was measured and weighed, photographed, and then installed in the triaxial cell immediately.
The direct shear specimens were trimmed with the direct shear box trimming tool to a nominal diameter of
45.3 mm and a height of 20 mm. Trimming spoils were used to determine the initial specimen
moisture content.
The unconfined compression test specimens were trimmed with a standard geotechnical trimming tool to a
nominal diameter of approximately 72 mm and height of 144 mm in a moisture room. The trimmed
specimen was measured, weighed, photographed, and then installed on EBA’s compression device.
Swell test specimens were carefully trimmed while inserting into the cylindrical consolidometer ring.
Details of the test specimen used for the laboratory tests are provided in Table 2 in the Tables Appendix.
2.3
Porewater Fluid Chemistry
To reduce the effects of geochemistry, EBA was instructed to use a porewater with 1% Sodium Chloride
(NaCl) solution to approximate the in situ water chemistry. Weatherford supplied the porewater to EBA.
The porewater solution was used to saturate the triaxial, direct shear, and swell test specimens.
2.4
Index Tests
Atterberg Limit index tests, hydrometer particle size analyses, and specific gravity tests were performed
following ASTM D43181, ASTM D4222, and ASTM D8543 respectively. The test results are summarized in
Tables 3, 4, and 5 in the Tables Appendix. The detailed individual test results for index tests are provided in
Appendix B.
ASTM 2008. D4318 Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM
International, volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
2 ASTM 2008. D422 Standard test method for particle size analysis of soils. ASTM International, volume 4.08, Soil and
Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
3 ASTM 2008. D854 Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International,
volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
1
2
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
2.5
Unconfined Compression Tests
One unconfined compression test (QU-1) was performed on an unconsolidated sample from Lower
Clearwater Shale formation as described in ASTM D21664. After trimming, the specimen was installed
within test platens and sheared to failure at a constant rate of 0.5%/min. Upon completion of the test, the
apparatus was disassembled and specimen was photographed. The tested specimen was used to measure
the sample water content.
Table 6 in the Tables Appendix summarizes the unconfined compression test result.
2.6
Swell Test Method A
The swell test (Method A) was undertaken to estimate the swell potential (both percent swell and swell
pressure) for the caprock specimen from Lower Clearwater Shale formation by testing at vertical stresses
25, 75, 150, and 350 kPa following ASTM D45465 (S-1 to 4).
A summary of the swell test (Method A) results is provided in Table 7 in the Tables Appendix.
2.7
Consolidated Drained Direct Shear Tests
Three consolidated drained direct shear tests (DS-1 to 3) were performed on Lower Clearwater Shale
formation according to ASTM D30806 at effective normal stresses of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.5 MPa. The trimmed
specimen was installed in the direct shear box and consolidated under the effective normal stress. The
consolidation data was used to calculate the box displacement rate to achieve a drained condition during
shear. The specimen was then sheared under a constant strain rate until the maximum displacement of the
shear box was reached to derive peak shear strength. The residual shear strength was determined by
displacing the box manually three times to establish complete failure then shearing it under a constant
displacement rate. Two methods are commonly used to calculate the box displacement rate for drained
condition, Head’s (1992) and ASTM. Head’s rate was found to be slower and it was used to determine the
peak strength and residual strength under the normal stress. The displacement rate for all three direct
shear tests was 0.005 mm/min. A summary of direct shear test results is provided in Table 8 in the
Tables Appendix.
Dry density, void ratio, and porosity were calculated from measured water content and specific
gravity values.
ASTM 2008. D2166 Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil. ASTM International,
volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
5 ASTM 2008, D4546 Standard test method for one-dimensional swell or settlement potential of cohesive soils. ASTM
International, volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
6 ASTM 2008. D3080 Standard test method for direct shear test for soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM
International, volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
4
3
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
2.8
Consolidated Drained (CD) Triaxial Compression Tests
A total of three consolidated drained triaxial tests were conducted on specimens from Lower Clearwater
Shale at effective confining stresses of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.5 MPa following ASTM D47677.
After trimming, the specimens were installed in a triaxial cell. The specimen saturation was performed
under a back pressure of 400 kPa for CD-1 and a backpressure of 500 kPa for CD-2 and 3. In all cases an
effective confining stress of about 10 kPa (i.e., the cell pressure is about 410 kPa for CD-1 and 510 kPa for
CD-2 and 3) was applied for saturation. The saturation of specimen was confirmed by achieving the degree
of saturation at least 95% (Skempton’s B value = 0.95). Once saturation was confirmed, the specimen was
allowed to consolidate under the required effective confining pressure. Volume and height changes during
the consolidation were measured.
After the consolidation was completed, the specimen was sheared under drained conditions by applying an
axial load through advancing the piston at a constant rate of strain. The strain rate was determined from
the consolidation data. The strain rate was 0.01 mm/min for CD-1 and 0.005 mm/min for CD-2 and 3.
Shearing was continued until a post-peak strength was reached.
During shearing, the axial displacement, axial load, and volume change were measured continuously. To
maintain a drained condition, the sample drainage valve was kept opened such that pore pressure of the
specimen was maintained constant during shearing. Maintaining constant pore pressure and cell pressure
resulted in the constant effective lateral stress (σ3') under drained conditions.
The effective minor principal stress (σ3') was calculated from applied constant cell pressure and measured
pore pressure. The effective major principal stress (σ1') was calculated from axial load, cross section area of
specimen, and σ3'. The area of the specimen was calculated from measured height change of the specimen
during deformation.
With the completion of the final measurement, the apparatus was disassembled; the specimen was
removed, slabbed, and photographed. For all specimens the final mass and water content were measured.
Table 9 in the Tables Appendix summarizes the CD triaxial tests. The following properties were calculated
with the test results.

Effective angle of internal friction (ϕ') and effective cohesion (c') calculated from a line that passes
through the peak strength state plotted on the modified Mohr-Coulomb s'-t graph where s'=(σ1'+σ3')/2
and t=(σ1'-σ3')/2;

Modulus of elasticity (Young’s modulus) using the tangent modulus at approximately 50% of the peak
strength on the stress-strain curve; and

Poisson’s ratio at peak strength state (failure).
Dry density, void ratio, and porosity were calculated from measured water content and specific
gravity values.
ASTM 2008. D4767 Standard test method for consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive soils.
ASTM International, volume 4.08, Soil and Rock (I), West Conshohocken, PA.
7
4
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
3.0
RESULTS
The index tests (Atterberg Limits, hydrometer and specific gravity) are presented in Appendix B.
The unconfined compression test result for Lower Clearwater Shale formation is presented in Appendix C.
3.1
Swell Test (Method A) Test Results for Lower Clearwater Samples
Figure 2 in the Figures Appendix presents stress versus wetting induced swell or collapse from the result of
four swelling tests. Appendix D includes the time versus swell curve for each test. From Figure 2 it can be
deduced that swell pressure which is the minimum pressure required for preventing swelling is
approximately 340 kPa. The free swell which is the swell strain corresponding to a near zero stress of 1 kPa
is approximately 15%.
3.2
Drained Direct Shear Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale formation
The summary page of consolidated drained direct shear test for Lower Clearwater Shale formation is
presented in Figure 3 in the Figures Appendix. Test plots and data for all three consolidated drained direct
shear tests are included in Appendix E.
Effective angle of internal friction (ϕ'peak) at peak strength state was calculated from a line fitted through the
peak stress states plotted on the Mohr-Coulomb graph. Effective cohesion (c'peak) was calculated from the
line intercept of shear stress axis (y-axis). The strength parameters at residual stress state (ϕ'resid and c'resid)
were also calculated as described above.
For the direct shear tests:

ϕ' = tan-1(slope); and

c' = cohesion intercept on vertical axis.
The Mohr-Coulomb parameters are summarized in Table 10 in the Tables Appendix.
3.3
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale samples
Three Triaxial compression test results on Lower Clearwater Shale formation including summary page, test
plots, and specimen description page results are included in Appendix F.
Mohr circle plots for peak values were plotted and presented in Figure 4 in the Figures Appendix. Modified
Mohr-Coulomb s'-t graph, as presented in Figure 5, was used to determine linear best-fit slope angle (α)
and vertical axis intercept (a). The s'-t linear best fit slope angle (α) and vertical intercept (a) were
converted to the Mohr Coulomb parameters, as presented in Table 10 in the Tables Appendix,
using equations:

ϕ' = sin-1(tanα)

c' = a/cosϕ'
5
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Post peak strength values from each triaxial tests were used and plotted into modified Mohr-Coulomb s'-t
graph to determine the post peak friction angle (ϕ') and cohesion (c'). Table 10 in the Tables Appendix
presents the post peak strength for Lower Clearwater Shale formation.
From the Mohr circle plot shown in Figure 4, it can be seen that reasonable linear failure plot can be drawn.
Considering linear failure envelop, Mohr Coulomb parameters were determined from s'-t plot that is
presented in Figure 5 in the Figures Appendix.
Table 11 in the Tables Appendix presents Young’s modulus at one-half the maximum deviatoric stress
(E50) and Poisson’s ratio for each consolidated drained triaxial test.
Photographs 1 to 6, in the Photographs Appendix, show the pre and post failure of triaxial specimens.
4.0
DISCUSSION
All of the cores sent to EBA were reported by Weatherford to be from Lower Clearwater Shale formation.
Based on the integrity of the samples received most of the tests for this program were conducted from
samples collected from Core 10, Tube 2 (304.50-306.00 m). However, the unconfined compression test and
one swelling test (S-4) were conducted on samples from Core 6, Tube 1 (294.33-294.64 m). The results
show Core 6, Tube 1 samples had slightly higher moisture content and higher void ratio when compared to
samples from Core 10, Tube 2.
The swelling pressure for the Lower Clearwater Shale was determined to be 340 kPa. There are various
empirical equations to estimate swelling pressure based on Atterberg Limits, Clay fraction and water
content of the soil. Estimations of swelling pressure based on empirical equations suggests swelling
pressure to be around 250 to 300 kPa for the formation. If swelling pressure is a key parameter in the
geomechanical modelling, appropriate conservatism should be used for this reported parameter.
6
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
5.0
CLOSURE
We trust this report meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact the undersigned.
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Nafisul Islam, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Geotechnical Engineer
Direct Line: 780.451.2310 x355
nislam@eba.ca
Mark D. Watson, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Principal Consultant
Direct Line: 780.451.2130 x277
mwatson@eba.ca
/my
7
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
TABLES
Table 1
Details of Received Cores from May River Area
Table 2
Details of Specimen (Lower Clearwater Shale) Tested
Table 3
Details of Atterberg Limits Test
Table 4
Details of Hydrometer Test
Table 5
Details of Specific Gravity
Table 6
Details of Unconfined Compression Test
Table 7
Details of Swell Test (Method A)
Table 8
Details of Direct Shear Tests
Table 9
Details of Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests on Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
Table 10
Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Strength Envelope Parameters
Table 11
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio for Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 8, 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Table 1: Details of Received Cores from May River Area
Core No.
9
Tube
Sample No.
Top Depth, m
Bottom Depth, m
Comments
2
FD1 (14-18)
317.40
317.70
14-18-77-08 W4
11
2
FD2 (14-18)
323.96
324.26
14-18-77-08 W4
6
1
FD1 (08-18)
294.33
294.64
08-18-77-08 W4
10
2
-
304.50
306.00
08-18-77-08 W4
Table 2: Details of Specimen (Lower Clearwater Shale) Tested
3
3
Test No
Qu-1
Depth (m)
w (%)
γdry (kg/m )
γwet (kg/m )
e
n
294.34-294.49
16.5
1,752
2,041
0.52
0.34
S-1
305.61-305.64
11.8
1,905
2,130
0.40
0.29
S-2
305.15-305.18
12.8
1,814
2,046
0.47
0.32
S-3
305.18-305.21
12.6
1,880
2,119
0.42
0.30
S-4
294.51-294.54
17.0
1,778
2,080
0.50
0.33
DS-1
305.00-305.02
11.4
1,918
2,137
0.39
0.28
DS-2
305.03-305.05
12.5
1,953
2,197
0.36
0.27
DS-3
305.08-305.10
11.8
1,966
2,197
0.35
0.26
CD-1
305.32-305.43
13.4
1,846
2,095
0.44
0.31
CD-2
305.45-305.55
13.5
1,861
2,112
0.43
0.30
CD-3
305.75-305.85
12.7
1,930
2,175
0.38
0.28
Table 3: Details of Atterberg Limits Test
Test
No.
AL-1
AL-2
Formation
Depth (m)
LL (%)
PL (%)
PI (%)
Modified USCS
Symbol
Soil Description
Lower Clearwater
Shale
305.30
62
15
47
CH
High Plastic
Lower Clearwater
Shale
294.4
60
18
42
CH
High Plastic
Table 4: Details of Hydrometer Test
Test No.
H-1
Formation
Depth (m)
Soil Description
Lower Clearwater Shale
305.30
Clay and Silt
Formation
Depth (m)
Gs
Lower Clearwater Shale
305.30
2.66
Table 5: Details of Specific Gravity
Test No.
SG-1
Table 6: Details of Unconfined Compression Test
Test No.
QU-1
Tables
Formation
Depth (m)
Qu (kPa)
Speak (kPa)
εpeak (%)
Lower Clearwater
Shale
294.34-294.49
152
76
5.8
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 8, 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Table 7: Details of Swell Test (Method A)
305.61-305.64
Initial
Moisture
Content
(%)
11.8
Final
Moisture
Content
(%)
20.4
305.15-305.18
12.8
19.8
S-3
305.18-305.21
12.7
S-4
294.51-294.54
17.0
Test
No.
Depth (m)
S-1
S-2
Dry
Density
(kg/m³)
Applied
Pressure
(kPa)
1,905
25
Initial
Specimen
Height
(mm)
25.18
1,814
75
25.24
17.4
1,880
150
19.3
1,778
350
Specimen
Deformation
(mm)
%
Swell
%
Collapse
2.39
9.49
-
0.67
2.64
-
25.50
0.40
1.57
-
25.28
-0.02
-
0.06
Table 8: Details of Direct Shear Tests
σn
(kPa)
Test No
Depth
(m)
Displacement Rate, d
(mm/min)
speak
(kPa)
sresid
(kPa)
DS-1
305.00-305.02
500
0.005
415
145
DS-2
305.03-305.05
1500
0.005
1045
415
DS-3
305.08-305.10
3500
0.005
2066
965
Table 9: Details of Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests on Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
Test
No.
CD-1
Depth (m)
B
(%)
σcell
(kPa)
σback
(kPa)
σ'c
(kPa)
ε
(%/min)
σ'1,fail
(kPa)
σ'3,fail
(kPa)
ε fail
%
305.32-305.43
95
900
400
500
0.01
2044
500
3.4
CD-2
305.45-305.55
97
2000
500
1500
0.005
4209
1500
4.6
CD-3
305.75-305.85
96
4000
500
3500
0.005
9459
3500
3.3
Table 10: Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Strength Envelope Parameters
Test
Triaxial
Direct Shear
Formation
Lower
Clearwater
Shale
Test No.
Peak Strength State
ϕ'peak
(deg)
c'peak
(kPa)
CD-1 to 3
25.3
131
DS-1 to 3
28.6
177
Residual State
(Direct Shear tests)
ϕ'resid
c'resid
(deg)
(kPa)
Post Peak State
(Triaxial tests)
ϕ'post-peak
c'post-peak
(deg)
(kPa)
19.0
15.3
0
7
Table 11: Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio for Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
Tables
Test No.
CD-1
Confining Stress (MPa)
Depth (m)
E50 (MPa)
ν
0.5
305.32-305.43
46.8
0.38
CD-2
1.5
305.45-305.55
84.0
0.46
CD-3
3.5
305.75-305.85
223.0
0.48
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
FIGURES
Figure 1
Geological Stratification Table of 08-18-77-08-W4, May River, Alberta.
Figure 2
Stress vs. Wetting Induced Swell/Collapse Strain, Lower Clearwater Shale
Figure 3
Summary of Direct Shear Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale Formation
Figure 4
Mohr Circle Plots for Peak Values for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests conducted on Lower
Clearwater Shale Formation
Figure 5
Consolidation Drained Triaxial Compression Tests Strength Envelop (s’-t) for Lower Clearwater Shale
Formation
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
Lower Clearwater Shale
Wabiskaw Member
Clearwater Formation
Upper Clearwater Sand
Wabiskaw C
McMurray A Sand
McMurray C
McMurray Formation
McMurray A Shale
Lower McMurray
Beaverhill Lake Formation
Figure 1: Geological Stratification Table of 08-18-77-08-W4, May River, Alberta.
16
Stress versus Wetting-Induced Swell/Collapse Strain, Method A
May River Caprock Core
Geomechanical Testing of Grizzly Oil Sands
08-18-77-08 W4
14
12
May River Wabiskaw Shale
Vertiical Strain, %
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0
50
100
150
200
Vertical Stress, kPa
Figure 2: Stress vs. Wetting Induced Swell/Collapse Strain, Lower Clearwater Shale.
250
300
350
400
SUMMARY of DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D3080
Project :
May River Geomechanics
Sample No.: Core 10
Project No. : E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.00-350.10
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Date :
May 10, 2013
Attention:
Kristian Nespor
Tested By:
SK
Office:
Edmonton
Email:
3000
peak
line
Residual
line
Shear Stress (kPa)
2250
1500
750
0
0
750
1500
2250
3000
3750
4500
Normal Stress (kPa)
Inferred Shear Strength Parameters :-
Cohesion Intercept
Peak Strength:
Residual Strength:
Inferred Angle of
Shearing Resistance
(kPa)
(Degrees)
177
28.6
7
15.3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not
responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein
have been performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Figure 3: Summary of Direct Shear Test Results for Lower Clearwater Shale Formation.
P.Eng.
10000
Mohr Circle Plots for Peak Values
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
May River Caprock Core, Wabiskaw shale formation
Geomechanical Testing of Grizzly Oil Sands
08-18-77-08 W4
9000
8000
7000
6000
CD1 (500 kPa)
5000
Shear
Stress,
kPa
CD2 (1000 kPa)
CD3 (2500 kPa)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Normal Stress, kPa
Figure 4: Mohr Circle Plots for Peak Values for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests Conducted on Lower Clearwater Shale.
10000
3500.0
s'-t plot for Peak values
Consolidation Drained Triaxial Test
May River Caprock Core, Wabiskaw shale formation
Geomechanical testing of Grizzly Oil Sands
08-18-77-08 W4
3000.0
y = 0.4281x + 188.45
R² = 0.9981
t = (σ'1-σ'3)/2
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
s'-t plot for peak values
1000.0
Linear (s'-t plot for peak values)
500.0
0.0
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
s'=(σ'1+σ'3)/2
Figure 5: Consolidation Drained Triaxial Compression Tests Strength Envelop (s'-t) for Lower Clearwater shale Formation.
7000.0
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 500 kPa before shear (CD-1)
Photo 2
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 500 kPa after shear (CD-1)
Photo 3
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 1500 kPa) before shear (CD-2)
Photo 4
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 1500 kPa) after shear (CD-2)
Photo 5
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 3500 kPa) before shear (CD-3)
Photo 6
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress 3500 kPa) after shear (CD-3)
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Photo 1:
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress
500 kPa before shear (CD-1)
Photo 2:
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress
500 kPa after shear (CD-1)
Photographs E12103087-01.002
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Photo 3:
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress
1500 kPa before shear (CD-2)
Photo 4:
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress
1500 kPa after shear (CD-2)
Photographs E12103087-01.002
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
Photo 5:
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress
3500 kPa before shear (CD-3)
Photo 6:
Lower Clearwater Shale Formation, Triaxial Specimen (confining stress
3500 kPa after shear (CD-3)
Photographs E12103087-01.002
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
APPENDIX A
EBA’S GENERAL CONDITIONS
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.
1.0
4.0
USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP
This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a specific
development and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any
other sites nor should it be relied upon for types of development
other than that to which it refers. Any variation from the site or
development would necessitate a supplementary geotechnical
assessment.
Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based upon
commonly accepted systems and methods employed in
professional geotechnical practice. This report contains descriptions
of the systems and methods used. Where deviations from the
system or method prevail, they are specifically mentioned.
Classification and identification of geological units are judgmental in
nature as to both type and condition. EBA does not warrant
conditions represented herein as exact, but infers accuracy only to
the extent that is common in practice.
This report and the recommendations contained in it are intended
for the sole use of EBA’s Client. EBA does not accept any
responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analyses or
the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when
the report is used or relied upon by any party other than EBA’s
Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA. Any
unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user.
Where subsurface conditions encountered during development are
different from those described in this report, qualified geotechnical
personnel should revisit the site and review recommendations in
light of the actual conditions encountered.
This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either
wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA.
Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon
request.
2.0
5.0
ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT
6.0
Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA’s instruments of
professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter
who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. EBA’s
instruments of professional service will be used only and exactly as
submitted by EBA.
STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The stratigraphic and geological information indicated on drawings
contained in this report are inferred from logs of test holes and/or
soil/rock exposures. Stratigraphy is known only at the locations of
the test hole or exposure. Actual geology and stratigraphy between
test holes and/or exposures may vary from that shown on these
drawings. Natural variations in geological conditions are inherent
and are a function of the historic environment. EBA does not
represent the conditions illustrated as exact but recognizes that
variations will exist. Where knowledge of more precise locations of
geological units is necessary, additional investigation and review
may be necessary.
Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and
submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBA
makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with
the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES
Unless stipulated in the report, EBA has not been retained to
investigate, address or consider and has not investigated,
addressed or considered any environmental or regulatory issues
associated with development on the subject site.
1
General Conditions - Geotechnical.docx
LOGS OF TESTHOLES
The testhole logs are a compilation of conditions and classification
of soils and rocks as obtained from field observations and
laboratory testing of selected samples. Soil and rock zones have
been interpreted. Change from one geological zone to the other,
indicated on the logs as a distinct line, can be, in fact, transitional.
The extent of transition is interpretive. Any circumstance which
requires precise definition of soil or rock zone transition elevations
may require further investigation and review.
Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of
reports, drawings and other project-related documents and
deliverables (collectively termed EBA’s instruments of professional
service), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered
final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version
archived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project.
3.0
NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND
ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
7.0
11.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND
Excavation and construction operations expose geological materials
to climatic elements (freeze/thaw, wet/dry) and/or mechanical
disturbance which can cause severe deterioration. Unless otherwise
specifically indicated in this report, the walls and floors of
excavations must be protected from the elements, particularly
moisture, desiccation, frost action and construction traffic.
8.0
Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are installed
within or around a structure, the systems which will be installed
must protect the structure from loss of ground due to internal
erosion and must be designed so as to assure continued
performance of the drains. Specific design detail of such systems
should be developed or reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Unless otherwise specified, it is a condition of this report that
effective temporary and permanent drainage systems are required
and that they must be considered in relation to project purpose and
function.
SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND
STRUCTURES
Unless otherwise specifically advised, support of ground and
structures adjacent to the anticipated construction and preservation
of adjacent ground and structures from the adverse impact of
construction activity is required.
9.0
12.0 BEARING CAPACITY
Design bearing capacities, loads and allowable stresses quoted in
this report relate to a specific soil or rock type and condition.
Construction activity and environmental circumstances can
materially change the condition of soil or rock. The elevation at
which a soil or rock type occurs is variable. It is a requirement of
this report that structural elements be founded in and/or upon
geological materials of the type and in the condition assumed.
Sufficient observations should be made by qualified geotechnical
personnel during construction to assure that the soil and/or rock
conditions assumed in this report in fact exist at the site.
INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There is a direct correlation between construction activity and
structural performance of adjacent buildings and other installations.
The influence of all anticipated construction activities should be
considered by the contractor, owner, architect and prime engineer
in consultation with a geotechnical engineer when the final design
and construction techniques are known.
10.0 OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION
13.0 SAMPLES
Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental nature
of geotechnical engineering, as well as the potential of adverse
circumstances arising from construction activity, observations
during site preparation, excavation and construction should be
carried out by a geotechnical engineer. These observations may
then serve as the basis for confirmation and/or alteration of
geotechnical recommendations or design guidelines presented
herein.
EBA will retain all soil and rock samples for 30 days after this report
is issued. Further storage or transfer of samples can be made at the
Client’s expense upon written request, otherwise samples will be
discarded.
14.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EBA BY OTHERS
During the performance of the work and the preparation of the
report, EBA may rely on information provided by persons other than
the Client. While EBA endeavours to verify the accuracy of such
information when instructed to do so by the Client, EBA accepts no
responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information
which may affect the report.
2
General Conditions - Geotechnical.docx
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
APPENDIX B
INDEX TEST RESULTS
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT
ASTM D4318
Project:
May River Caprock Testing
Sample Number:
Borehole Number:
Core 10
Project No: E12103087-01.002
Depth:
305.30 - 305.45m
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
Sampled By:
Attention:
Kristian Nespor
Date Sampled:
Email:
Kristian.Nespor@GrizzlyOilSands.com
Date Tested:
Tested By: MN
May 17, 2013
Sample Description:
Plasticity Chart
Plasticity Index (Ip)
50
CH
40
CI
30
20
CL
10
CL-ML
MH or OH
ML or OL
ML
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Liquid Limit (Wl)
Liquid Limit (W 1) :
62
Natural Moisture (%)
Plastic Limit :
15
Soil Plasticity:
High
Plasticity Index (Ip) :
47
Mod.USCS Symbol:
CH
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by
any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to
recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
C.E.T.
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST REPORT
ASTM D4318
Project:
Geomechanical Testing
Sample Number:
on Grizzly Oil Sand cores
Borehole Number:
Project No: E12103087-01
Depth:
Client:
Weatherford Canada Partnership
Sampled By:
Attention:
Kristian Nespor
Date Sampled:
Email:
Kristian.Nesport@grizzlyoilsands.com
Date Tested:
Core 6 Tube 1
294.4 m
Tested By: KTP
July 22, 2013
Sample Description:
Plasticity Chart
Plasticity Index (Ip)
50
CH
40
30
CI
20
CL
10
CL-ML
MH or OH
ML or OL
ML
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Liquid Limit (Wl)
Liquid Limit (W 1) :
60
Natural Moisture (%)
Plastic Limit :
18
Soil Plasticity:
Plasticity Index (Ip) :
42
Mod.USCS Symbol:
High
CH
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not responsible,
nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been
performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of
specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
C.E.T.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (Hydrometer) TEST REPORT
ASTM D422
Project:
May River Caprock Testing
Sample No.:
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
Borehole/ TP:
Core 10
Project No.:
E12103087-01.002
Depth:
305.30- 305.45m
Date Tested
May 15, 2013
Tested By:
MN
Location:
Description **:
Particle
Size
Percent
Passing
CLAY, and Silt - Brown
Clay size
Silt Size
Sand
Fine
Gravel
Medium
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
100
100 mm
75 mm
P 90
e
r
80
c
e
n 70
t
50 mm
38 mm
25 mm
19 mm
13 mm
10 mm
60
F
i
n 50
e
r
40
5 mm
2 mm
850 µm
425 µm
250 µm
100
150 µm
100
75 µm
100
27 µm
76
18 µm
68
11 µm
60
8 µm
55
5 µm
52
3 µm
45
1 µm
37
b
y 30
Material Description
Proportion (%)
M
20
a
s
s 10
Clay Size *
41
Silt Size
59
Sand
0
Gravel
Cobbles
0
0
0
2
80
Particle Size (µm)
400
2
5
20
Particle Size(mm)
75
Remarks: * The upper clay size of 2 µm is as per the Canadian Foundation Manual.
** The description is behaviour based & subject to EBA description protocols.
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not responsible,
nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been
performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of
specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
Specific Gravity of Soil
ASTM D854
Project:
May River Caprock Testing
Borehole No:
Core 10
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Depth:
305.30- 305.45m
Client:
Sample Description:
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
Date Tested: 27-May-13
Tested By:
MN
CLAY, and Silt - Grey.
TRIAL
1
2
Pycnometer No.
P
Q
Wt. of Soil, Pycnometer & Water (g)
311.24
313.32
Wt. of Pycnometer (g)
93.89
92.67
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
29.35
34.41
23
23
Wt. of Pycnometer & Water @ Tx ºC (g)
292.89
291.86
Specific Gravity
2.668
2.657
Temp. of Soil & Water (Tx ºC)
Avg. Specific Gravity
2.663
Gs =
Where:
Wo
Wo + Wa - Wb
W o = Dry wt. of soil
W a = Wt. of Pycnometer & Water @ Tx ºC
W b = Wt. of Soil, Pycnometer & Water
Gs = Specific gravity of sample
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not
responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein
have been performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
3
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
APPENDIX C
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULT
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
ASTM D2166
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Number:
QU-1
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Test Hole No.:
FD1
Client:
Depth (m):
294.34-294.49
Date Tested:
May 30, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands
Attention:
Soil Description:
Silty Shale
Initial Sample Conditions
Moisture Content (%):
3
Wet Density (Mg/m ):
3
Dry Density (Mg/m ):
Rate of Strain (%/min):
16.5
2.041
1.752
0.5
Peak Stress (kPa):
152
Strain @ Peak Stress (%):
5.8
Compressive Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Strain (%)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not
responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein
have been performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
APPENDIX D
SWELL (METHOD) TEST RESULTS
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
Log Time vs. Deformation
1
2.40
2.20
2.00
10
100
1000
Job Number…………….: E12103087-01.002
Test Number...................: S-1
Test Hole Number……..: 08-18-77-08 W4
Depth .…......................…: 305.61-305.64 m
Load to (kPa)……………: 25
Date………………………: 05-28-2013
1.80
Deflection, mm
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
Time (min.)
10000
100000
Log Time vs. Deformation
1
2.40
2.20
2.00
10
100
1000
Job Number…………….: E12103087-01.002
Test Number...................: S-2
Test Hole Number……..: 08-18-77-08 W4
Depth .…......................…: 305.15-305.18 m
Load to (kPa)……………: 75
Date………………………: 05-29-2013
1.80
Deflection, mm
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
Time (min.)
10000
100000
Log Time vs. Deformation
1
2.40
2.20
2.00
10
100
1000
Job Number…………….: E12103087-01.002
Test Number...................: S-3
Test Hole Number……..: 08-18-77-08 W4
Depth .…......................…: 305.18-305.21 m
Load to (kPa)……………: 150
Date………………………: 05-29-2013
1.80
Deflection, mm
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
Time (min.)
10000
100000
Log Time vs. Deformation
1
2.40
2.20
2.00
10
100
1000
Job Number…………….: E12103087-01.002
Test Number...................: S-4
Test Hole Number……..: 08-18-77-08 W4
Depth .…......................…: 294.51-294.54 m
Load to (kPa)……………: 350
Date………………………: 05-30-2013
1.80
Deflection, mm
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
Time (min.)
10000
100000
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
APPENDIX E
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Hole No.:
Core 10
Project No.:
E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.00-305.02
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Test No.:
DS-1
Date Tested:
April 19, 2013
Machine:
2
Description:
Mudstone, blocky
Preparation:
Undisturbed
Normal Stress (kPa) =
500
Peak Stress (kPa) =
Moisture Content (%) =
Wet Density (Mg/m ) =
415
Residual Stress (kPa) =
11.4
3
2.137
3
Dry Density (Mg/m ) =
145
1.918
Shear Stress (kPa)
600
Peak
Residual
400
200
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Vertical Deflection (mm)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not
responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein
have been performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Hole No.:
Core 10
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.00-305.02
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Test No.:
DS-1
Attention:
0.000
Date Tested:
April 19, 2013
Moisture Content (%)
3
Wet Density (Mg/m )
3
Dry Density (Mg/m )
Initial
Final
11.4
19.6
2.137
2.294
1.918
1.918
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(kPa)
0.00
0.07
0.15
0.25
0.34
0.44
0.53
0.64
0.74
0.84
0.94
1.05
1.15
1.26
1.36
1.46
1.57
1.67
1.77
1.87
1.98
2.08
2.18
2.28
2.39
2.54
2.69
2.84
2.99
3.12
3.30
3.46
3.61
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.011
0.016
0.024
0.032
0.036
0.038
0.041
0.043
0.044
0.044
0.045
0.046
0.046
0.051
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.059
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.071
0.074
0.075
0.079
0.081
0.078
0.075
0.075
0.0
68.7
136.7
212.7
289.9
349.1
391.4
414.7
404.8
393.3
362.7
319.9
307.0
299.8
292.9
288.9
284.1
279.8
274.4
270.0
266.6
264.1
262.8
260.9
258.9
255.9
252.5
249.6
247.8
242.7
234.3
230.6
227.4
3.76
3.91
4.07
4.22
4.38
4.53
4.68
4.84
4.99
5.14
5.28
5.43
5.58
5.73
5.89
6.04
6.19
6.34
6.49
6.64
6.80
6.95
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
8.10
8.30
8.50
8.71
8.91
9.11
0.074
0.076
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.074
0.076
0.076
0.077
0.076
0.076
0.075
0.075
0.074
0.074
0.074
0.073
0.073
0.072
0.072
0.071
0.071
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.069
0.069
0.069
0.071
0.073
0.074
0.077
224.9
223.2
220.8
218.7
216.1
214.6
212.5
210.5
208.7
207.6
205.4
204.5
203.1
202.1
201.1
200.0
197.9
197.0
196.4
194.9
194.0
192.2
191.0
188.4
185.6
184.4
183.4
181.5
179.8
179.2
177.6
176.4
175.7
RESIDUAL STRENGTH TEST
ASTM D3080
Project: May River Geomechanics
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Sample No.:
Shear Stress
Horizontal
Displacement
Core 10
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
0.000
(kPa)
0.0
(mm)
0.00
8.43
-0.083
(kPa)
164.0
0.15
-0.016
46.0
8.64
-0.082
164.0
0.34
-0.031
108.2
8.84
-0.081
163.5
0.53
0.73
-0.042
-0.047
131.5
140.5
9.05
9.25
-0.081
-0.080
163.3
162.9
0.93
1.14
1.34
1.55
1.75
1.95
2.16
2.36
2.57
2.77
2.97
3.18
3.38
3.59
3.79
4.00
4.21
4.41
4.61
4.82
5.02
5.22
5.41
5.61
5.82
6.02
6.23
6.43
6.62
6.83
7.03
7.23
7.43
7.62
7.83
8.03
8.23
-0.054
-0.059
-0.062
-0.066
-0.069
-0.070
-0.073
-0.073
-0.076
-0.076
-0.076
-0.076
-0.079
-0.079
-0.082
-0.079
-0.082
-0.083
-0.084
-0.081
-0.088
-0.080
-0.094
-0.086
-0.083
-0.087
-0.087
-0.084
-0.085
-0.084
-0.084
-0.083
-0.084
-0.085
-0.083
-0.084
-0.083
148.2
153.4
165.0
169.7
169.8
170.1
170.7
168.1
167.7
169.7
172.1
174.8
175.7
176.0
176.8
177.7
177.5
177.0
177.2
177.0
176.4
175.9
174.7
173.8
173.1
172.5
171.8
170.2
170.4
169.4
168.3
167.1
166.3
165.6
165.4
164.8
163.8
9.45
9.66
9.86
10.06
10.26
10.45
10.65
10.85
11.06
11.26
11.45
11.66
11.85
12.05
12.25
12.45
12.65
12.84
13.05
13.25
13.45
13.66
13.86
14.07
14.28
14.49
14.70
14.90
15.11
15.28
-0.081
-0.079
-0.079
-0.079
-0.078
-0.077
-0.077
-0.076
-0.077
-0.074
-0.074
-0.074
-0.074
-0.070
-0.069
-0.071
-0.070
-0.070
-0.070
-0.069
-0.068
-0.067
-0.066
-0.065
-0.064
-0.064
-0.064
-0.063
-0.061
-0.061
162.0
161.4
161.0
160.6
159.8
159.4
158.8
158.7
158.3
157.1
156.5
155.5
154.9
154.7
154.2
153.6
152.5
152.1
150.7
149.8
149.1
148.8
148.2
147.5
147.3
147.1
146.9
145.8
145.5
144.9
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Hole No.:
Core 10
Project No.:
E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.03-305.05
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Test No.:
DS-2
Date Tested:
April 26, 2013
Machine:
2
Description:
Mudstone, blocky
Preparation:
Undisturbed
Normal Stress (kPa) =
1500
Peak Stress (kPa) =
Moisture Content (%) =
Wet Density (Mg/m ) =
1045
Residual Stress (kPa) =
12.5
3
2.197
3
Dry Density (Mg/m ) =
415
1.953
Shear Stress (kPa)
1500
Peak
Residual
1000
500
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Vertical Deflection (mm)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not
responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein
have been performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Hole No.:
Core 10
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.03-305.05
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Test No.:
DS-2
Attention:
0.000
Date Tested:
April 26, 2013
Moisture Content (%)
3
Wet Density (Mg/m )
3
Dry Density (Mg/m )
Initial
Final
12.5
18.7
2.197
2.317
1.953
1.953
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(kPa)
0.00
0.08
0.17
0.25
0.32
0.41
0.50
0.59
0.68
0.79
0.89
1.00
1.10
1.21
1.31
1.42
1.52
1.62
1.78
1.93
2.09
2.24
2.38
2.54
2.69
2.84
3.00
3.15
3.31
3.46
3.62
3.77
3.92
0.000
0.001
-0.001
-0.003
-0.004
-0.008
-0.010
-0.012
-0.013
-0.016
-0.017
-0.022
-0.024
-0.026
-0.026
-0.028
-0.031
-0.031
-0.030
-0.033
-0.034
-0.031
-0.033
-0.033
-0.032
-0.032
-0.032
-0.030
-0.029
-0.027
-0.027
-0.027
-0.028
0.0
52.3
120.2
271.2
504.0
685.6
829.5
950.1
1045.3
1040.8
967.2
851.8
824.0
800.1
776.4
759.2
745.9
732.5
714.1
699.9
688.7
679.0
670.7
662.6
654.3
648.7
641.3
636.4
632.1
626.9
620.5
615.6
611.8
4.08
4.23
4.38
4.54
4.69
4.84
4.99
5.14
5.29
5.44
5.59
5.74
5.89
6.04
6.20
6.35
6.50
6.65
6.80
6.95
7.10
7.25
7.45
7.64
7.85
8.05
8.25
8.45
8.66
8.86
9.06
9.27
9.47
-0.028
-0.027
-0.026
-0.026
-0.025
-0.025
-0.022
-0.021
-0.020
-0.020
-0.016
-0.017
-0.016
-0.012
-0.011
-0.009
-0.006
0.000
0.002
-0.001
0.006
0.008
0.013
0.017
0.019
0.015
0.015
0.017
0.013
0.010
0.009
0.006
0.006
607.6
604.7
602.1
598.0
594.6
591.8
586.2
581.7
579.3
576.5
574.2
573.0
569.4
567.3
564.6
564.0
561.9
561.4
559.4
559.9
557.7
556.9
555.4
553.2
547.8
541.0
537.7
535.6
531.9
525.8
519.6
515.5
512.0
RESIDUAL STRENGTH TEST
ASTM D3080
Project: May River Geomechanics
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Sample No.:
Shear Stress
Horizontal
Displacement
Core 10
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
0.000
(kPa)
0.0
(mm)
0.00
8.18
-0.111
(kPa)
459.3
0.16
-0.014
102.1
8.39
-0.111
457.5
0.35
-0.028
248.2
8.59
-0.110
456.4
0.54
0.74
-0.040
-0.052
318.4
345.5
8.79
8.99
-0.113
-0.114
454.5
453.2
0.94
1.14
1.35
1.55
1.76
1.96
2.16
2.37
2.56
2.77
2.97
3.18
3.38
3.58
3.79
3.99
4.11
4.26
4.45
4.66
4.85
5.05
5.25
5.45
5.66
5.85
6.05
6.26
6.47
6.66
6.87
7.07
7.27
7.47
7.60
7.78
7.98
-0.061
-0.070
-0.076
-0.081
-0.087
-0.092
-0.095
-0.099
-0.102
-0.103
-0.104
-0.106
-0.106
-0.107
-0.108
-0.110
-0.110
-0.111
-0.112
-0.111
-0.112
-0.107
-0.112
-0.112
-0.112
-0.112
-0.112
-0.111
-0.110
-0.111
-0.110
-0.110
-0.110
-0.109
-0.110
-0.111
-0.111
363.9
379.4
392.1
404.1
415.2
424.3
433.4
441.0
445.2
449.1
453.3
457.4
460.5
462.9
467.0
470.9
473.6
474.9
475.1
475.2
475.7
476.0
475.3
474.3
474.9
474.3
473.2
472.7
471.8
471.1
469.9
468.3
467.2
466.1
464.4
462.2
461.0
9.17
9.38
9.58
9.78
9.98
10.18
10.38
10.57
10.77
10.97
11.18
11.37
11.57
11.76
11.96
12.16
12.36
12.55
12.75
12.96
13.15
13.35
13.56
13.76
13.97
14.18
14.39
14.58
14.79
14.99
-0.113
-0.115
-0.115
-0.120
-0.120
-0.119
-0.121
-0.120
-0.122
-0.120
-0.123
-0.122
-0.123
-0.126
-0.126
-0.127
-0.127
-0.130
-0.131
-0.133
-0.133
-0.135
-0.135
-0.138
-0.141
-0.137
-0.142
-0.144
-0.146
-0.149
452.2
450.7
449.5
447.9
446.6
444.8
443.0
441.7
440.1
438.2
436.9
435.4
433.9
432.6
431.2
428.5
426.9
425.7
425.4
424.9
424.2
422.9
421.7
420.9
420.3
419.5
418.5
417.4
416.2
414.9
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Hole No.:
Core 10
Project No.:
E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.08-305.10
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Test No.:
DS-3
Date Tested:
May 6, 2013
Machine:
2
Description:
Mudstone, blocky
Preparation:
Undisturbed
Normal Stress (kPa) =
3500
Peak Stress (kPa) =
Moisture Content (%) =
Wet Density (Mg/m ) =
2066
Residual Stress (kPa) =
11.8
3
2.197
3
Dry Density (Mg/m ) =
965
1.966
3000
Shear Stress (kPa)
Peak
Residual
2000
1000
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Vertical Deflection (mm)
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not
responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein
have been performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or
opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Test Hole No.:
Core 10
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Depth (m):
305.08-305.10
Client:
Grizzly Oil Sands
Test No.:
DS-3
Attention:
0.000
Date Tested:
May 6, 2013
Moisture Content (%)
3
Wet Density (Mg/m )
3
Dry Density (Mg/m )
Initial
Final
11.8
18.0
2.197
2.319
1.966
1.966
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(kPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(kPa)
0.00
0.08
0.17
0.24
0.32
0.39
0.49
0.56
0.65
0.74
0.83
0.93
1.02
1.12
1.22
1.33
1.43
1.53
1.64
1.74
1.85
1.95
2.06
2.16
2.26
2.36
2.46
2.62
2.77
2.93
3.08
3.23
3.39
0.000
-0.008
-0.016
-0.024
-0.032
-0.040
-0.047
-0.055
-0.063
-0.071
-0.079
-0.091
-0.098
-0.104
-0.111
-0.114
-0.120
-0.124
-0.128
-0.130
-0.134
-0.138
-0.140
-0.139
-0.147
-0.150
-0.151
-0.155
-0.160
-0.166
-0.170
-0.174
-0.178
0.0
105.7
268.9
390.9
652.1
883.8
1097.6
1288.1
1470.7
1631.1
1759.5
1870.7
1982.8
2059.3
2066.4
2051.8
2035.2
2012.0
1990.7
1968.8
1911.0
1881.3
1859.8
1843.6
1826.5
1809.5
1794.6
1742.0
1701.4
1667.6
1637.6
1614.2
1593.1
3.55
3.70
3.85
4.01
4.17
4.32
4.47
4.63
4.78
4.93
5.08
5.23
5.38
5.54
5.69
5.84
6.00
6.15
6.30
6.45
6.61
6.76
6.91
7.06
7.26
7.46
7.66
7.86
8.07
8.27
8.47
8.68
8.88
-0.180
-0.183
-0.187
-0.187
-0.191
-0.194
-0.196
-0.198
-0.200
-0.203
-0.207
-0.210
-0.213
-0.214
-0.215
-0.216
-0.218
-0.217
-0.222
-0.225
-0.226
-0.230
-0.232
-0.234
-0.235
-0.236
-0.236
-0.237
-0.239
-0.240
-0.241
-0.243
-0.245
1575.3
1559.4
1544.0
1529.0
1514.2
1502.4
1489.8
1475.0
1463.4
1452.5
1440.0
1431.6
1421.8
1410.7
1401.8
1393.6
1385.8
1375.8
1369.0
1361.7
1354.2
1347.4
1339.1
1333.3
1324.1
1314.2
1303.1
1293.5
1280.5
1270.2
1261.0
1250.5
1240.4
RESIDUAL STRENGTH TEST
ASTM D3080
Project: May River Geomechanics
Horizontal
Displacement
Vertical
Displacement
Sample No.:
Shear Stress
Horizontal
Displacement
Core 10
Vertical
Displacement
Shear Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
0.000
(kPa)
0.0
(mm)
0.00
8.36
-0.175
(kPa)
999.7
0.16
-0.010
124.3
8.56
-0.179
997.5
0.33
-0.021
347.8
8.77
-0.184
995.6
0.48
0.66
-0.031
-0.043
605.8
809.5
8.97
9.17
-0.184
-0.185
994.8
992.7
0.86
1.06
1.26
1.46
1.66
1.87
2.08
2.28
2.47
2.68
2.88
3.08
3.29
3.50
3.71
3.91
4.11
4.32
4.52
4.73
4.93
5.12
5.33
5.53
5.73
5.94
6.13
6.34
6.54
6.75
6.95
7.15
7.35
7.55
7.75
7.96
8.15
-0.053
-0.063
-0.071
-0.073
-0.076
-0.080
-0.085
-0.092
-0.097
-0.099
-0.102
-0.104
-0.107
-0.111
-0.117
-0.119
-0.120
-0.124
-0.132
-0.136
-0.135
-0.136
-0.140
-0.140
-0.147
-0.149
-0.153
-0.153
-0.154
-0.158
-0.163
-0.162
-0.166
-0.171
-0.169
-0.173
-0.177
887.1
925.0
951.7
969.7
984.5
996.2
1005.7
1013.6
1019.3
1024.8
1029.9
1034.2
1037.7
1039.6
1041.0
1041.3
1042.5
1042.3
1042.5
1039.6
1038.4
1037.9
1035.9
1032.8
1032.6
1029.3
1027.5
1024.3
1021.9
1017.9
1015.3
1012.5
1010.2
1007.0
1005.5
1004.1
1001.8
9.38
9.59
9.79
10.00
10.19
10.39
10.59
10.79
11.00
11.19
11.39
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.59
12.79
12.99
13.20
13.40
13.61
13.82
14.02
14.23
14.44
14.65
14.86
15.06
-0.188
-0.191
-0.192
-0.194
-0.194
-0.195
-0.197
-0.200
-0.201
-0.201
-0.206
-0.207
-0.210
-0.212
-0.213
-0.215
-0.215
-0.217
-0.217
-0.220
-0.225
-0.218
-0.222
-0.224
-0.227
-0.229
-0.232
-0.234
-0.237
991.4
989.3
988.5
987.8
985.8
985.2
983.3
982.5
982.6
981.6
980.7
981.7
980.7
980.8
981.4
978.9
978.3
977.2
974.2
973.3
971.8
970.6
971.3
970.5
969.1
968.1
967.3
967.3
965.5
GEOMECHANICAL LABORATORY TESTING – MAY RIVER CAPROCK CORE
EBA FILE: E12103087-01.002 | AUGUST 2013 | ISSUED FOR REVIEW
APPENDIX F
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST RESULTS
RPT - May River Caprock Core - IFR
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 1 of 3
Test Number:
CD-1
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.32-305.43
Date Tested:
April 5, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
Soil Description: Silty Shale
Back Pressure (kPa):
Cell Pressure (kPa):
Strain Rate (%/mm):
400
900
0.010
Initial Diameter (mm):
Initial Height (mm):
Specific Gravity:
50.25
102.55
2.66
Pore Pressure Parameter B:
Time for 100% Consolidation (min.):
0.95
47
Consolidation Pressure (kPa):
Area after Consolidation (cm2):
500
18.52
Deviator Stress @ Failure (kPa):
Effective Major Stress @ Failure(kPa):
1544
2044
Axial Strain @ Failure (%):
Effective Minor Stress @ Failure (kPa):
3.4
500
Initial
Final
Moisture (%)
Dry Density
(Mg/m3)
Wet Density
(Mg/m3)
Void Ratio
Saturation (%)
13.4
18.3
1.846
1.881
2.095
2.225
0.44
0.42
80.9
100
2000
Deviator Stress (kPa)
1500
1000
500
0
0
5
10
Axial Strain (%)
15
20
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 2 of 3
Test Number:
CD-1
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.32-305.43
Date Tested:
April 5, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
0.0
-4.0
-8.0
0
5
10
15
20
Axial Strain (%)
5
4
s'1/s'3
Volume Change (cm3)
4.0
3
2
1
0
5
10
Axial Strain (%)
15
20
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 3 of 3
Test Number:
CD-1
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.32-305.43
Date Tested:
April 5, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
1000
q ((s'1-s'3)/2)
750
500
250
0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
p' ((s'1+s'3)/2)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not responsible,
nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been
performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of
specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 1 of 3
Test Number:
CD-2
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.45-305.55
Date Tested:
April 15, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
Soil Description: Silty Shale
Back Pressure (kPa):
Cell Pressure (kPa):
Strain Rate (%/mm):
500
2000
0.005
Initial Diameter (mm):
Initial Height (mm):
Specific Gravity:
50.96
98.24
2.66
Pore Pressure Parameter B:
Time for 100% Consolidation (min.):
0.97
160
Consolidation Pressure (kPa):
Area after Consolidation (cm2):
1500
18.34
Deviator Stress @ Failure (kPa):
Effective Major Stress @ Failure(kPa):
2709
4209
Axial Strain @ Failure (%):
Effective Minor Stress @ Failure (kPa):
4.6
1500
Initial
Final
Moisture (%)
Dry Density
(Mg/m3)
Wet Density
(Mg/m3)
Void Ratio
Saturation (%)
13.5
18.6
1.861
1.857
2.112
2.202
0.43
0.43
83.2
100
4000
Deviator Stress (kPa)
3000
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
Axial Strain (%)
15
20
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 2 of 3
Test Number:
CD-2
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.45-305.55
Date Tested:
April 15, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
0
5
10
15
20
Axial Strain (%)
5
4
s'1/s'3
Volume Change (cm3)
2.0
3
2
1
0
5
10
Axial Strain (%)
15
20
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 3 of 3
Test Number:
CD-2
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.45-305.55
Date Tested:
April 15, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
2000
q ((s'1-s'3)/2)
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
p' ((s'1+s'3)/2)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not responsible,
nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been
performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of
specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 1 of 3
Test Number:
CD-3
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.75-305.85
Date Tested:
April 25, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
Soil Description: Silty Shale
Back Pressure (kPa):
Cell Pressure (kPa):
Strain Rate (%/mm):
500
4000
0.005
Initial Diameter (mm):
Initial Height (mm):
Specific Gravity:
50.28
99.49
2.66
Pore Pressure Parameter B:
Time for 100% Consolidation (min.):
0.96
400
Consolidation Pressure (kPa):
Area after Consolidation (cm2):
3500
17.42
Deviator Stress @ Failure (kPa):
Effective Major Stress @ Failure(kPa):
5959
9459
Axial Strain @ Failure (%):
Effective Minor Stress @ Failure (kPa):
3.3
3500
Initial
Final
Moisture (%)
Dry Density
(Mg/m3)
Wet Density
(Mg/m3)
Void Ratio
Saturation (%)
12.7
16.5
1.930
2.009
2.175
2.340
0.38
0.33
89.1
100
Deviator Stress (kPa)
9000
6000
3000
0
0
4
8
Axial Strain (%)
12
16
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 2 of 3
Test Number:
CD-3
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.75-305.85
Date Tested:
April 25, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
0
4
8
12
16
Axial Strain (%)
5
4
s'1/s'3
Volume Change (cm3)
1.0
3
2
1
0
4
8
Axial Strain (%)
12
16
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Test
ASTM D 4767
Project:
May River Geomechanics
Page 3 of 3
Test Number:
CD-3
Project No.: E12103087-01.002
Sample No.:
Core 10
Client:
Depth (m):
305.75-305.85
Date Tested:
April 25, 2013
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC
6000
q ((s'1-s'3)/2)
4500
3000
1500
0
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
9000
p' ((s'1+s'3)/2)
Remarks:
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA A Tetra Tech Company is not responsible,
nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been
performed to recognized industry standards, unless noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of
specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
P.Eng.