CANADIAN HEAVY

OIL ASSOCIATION


SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739
PS2005-329
Numerical Studies of Gas Exsolution in a Live Heavy-Oil Reservoir
M. Uddin, Alberta Research Council Inc.
Copyright 2005, SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13 November 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA Program Committee
following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Petroleum SocietyCanadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum, or the Canadian
Heavy Oil Association and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the SPE or PS-CIM/CHOA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

Gas phase formation in supersaturated live heavy oil occurs by
bubble nucleation and growth. Modeling the dynamics of
these processes in cold production is essential, since they are
key mechanisms in determining oil recovery. The greatest
challenge in field scale simulations of cold production is to
quantify the spatial and temporal changes of the gas exsolution
and transport processes.

This paper describes a new kinetic model which, when
coupled with a thermal reservoir simulator, can simulate the
dynamics of gas exsolution and transport processes in a heavy
oil reservoir. In this model, two relatively simple types of
mass transfer equations predict bubble nucleation and growth
in a live heavy reservoir. The model structure and parameters
were investigated in comparison with a previously published
model.

The capability of the proposed kinetic model to handle the
dynamics of gas phase formation in a heavy oil reservoir was
explored in two sets of laboratory experimental data. In set 1,
numerical history matches of pressure data were performed for
eight constant withdrawal rate experiments. In set 2,
numerical history matches of oil and gas production data were
performed for four pressure depletion experiments. A close
agreement was achieved between numerical simulation and
experimental results. The model can be applied in the field
scale simulations of cold production to predict gas exsolution
and gas builds up in an oil reservoir.

Introduction
Gas formation in a live heavy oil reservoir occurs by gas
bubble nucleation and growth. Bubble nucleation can be
initiated in a flow system when the reservoir pressure is
reduced below the saturation pressure (i.e., supersaturation
conditions). Initially, gas bubbles remain dispersed in the oil
phase. Gradually, these bubbles grow and become free gas.

Published laboratory CT experiments data have shown a
very wide distribution of gas bubbles and bubble clusters in a
live heavy oil flow system (Treinen et al.
1
; Sahni
2
). It is well
known that, at an early stage of primary cold production, the
flow system contains a large number of fairly uniform
dispersed small gas bubbles (bubbles with diameters less than
the pore throat size) and, at a later stage, the flow system
appears as a highly heterogeneous distribution of small
bubbles, large bubbles and gas bubble clusters. The reservoir
engineer needs the capability to quantify the spatial and
temporal dynamics of gas bubble accumulation in field scale
cold production simulation.

Previously, several papers discussed the kinetics of bubble
nucleation and bubble growth mechanisms in a live heavy oil
porous media (for example, Moulu
3
; Yortsos and Parlar
4
;
Kashichiev and Firoozabadi
5
). The field scale application of
the kinetics approach with an existing numerical simulator has
remained a big challenge with its need to deal with large
number of process mechanisms (for example, geological
parameters, well operating constrains) using larger size of grid
blocks.

In this paper, alternative formulations for bubble
nucleation and growth have been presented. The formulations
can easily couple with the numerical simulator via a set of
pseudo kinetic reactions. The numerical simulator can then
describe the dynamics of bubble nucleation and growth
processes in a heavy oil reservoir. The numerical predictive
capability of the proposed nucleation and growth model was
evaluated against laboratory gas exsolution data.

Background
Bubble Nucleation. Gas bubble nucleation occurs
spontaneously in supersaturated oil when a thermodynamic
fluctuation of sufficient magnitude occurs to form a cluster of
molecules bigger than a certain critical size (Moulu
3
; Wall and
Khurana
6
; El-Yousfi et al.
7
). Several parameters such as
supersaturation, oil viscosity, gas-oil interfacial tension, gas
solubility and some other petrophysical parameters play an
important role in the overall nucleation in an oil reservoir.
2 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739
Nucleation in an oil reservoir takes place on foreign
matter, such as the surfaces of the particles in porous media,
poorly wetted cavities, and existing bubbles trapped in cavities
(El-Yousfi et al.
7
; Bernath
8
; Danesh et al.
9
; Li and Yortsos
10
;
Cole
11
; Kamath and Boyer
12
; Fisch et al.
13
). Claridge and
Prats
14
suggested that the adsorption of asphaltenes on bubble
surfaces could stabilize the bubbles at a very small size. This
view was later repudiated by Maini
15
.

In viscous foamy oil flow, pore geometry and low
diffusivity restrict bubble growth. Hence, supersaturation is
not easily relieved. Higher supersaturation levels would cause
more sites to be nucleated. Sites available for nucleation
could exist in foamy oil as suspended solids Maini et al.
16
.
Wieland and Kennedy
17
noted that the rate of diffusion would
affect the number of bubbles formed. If the diffusion
coefficient is relatively high, the dissolved gas in the oil
surrounding a single bubble will tend to diffuse into the
bubble rather then forming other bubbles. On the other hand,
the formation of a larger number of bubbles will tend to occur
if the diffusion coefficient is very low.

Danesh et al.
9
suggested that the presence of connate water
might delay bubble nucleation, because diffusion of the light
components of the oil into the water phase reduces the
population of low-density clusters in the oil and prevents the
formation of bubbles. In contrast, Kamath and Boyer
12

suggested, as oil has a lower surface energy compared to
water, it is possible that there are more hydrophobic sites than
oleophobic sites. Hence, nucleation may be easier when cores
contain connate water saturation.

Bubble Growth. Gas bubble growth in a flow system is
generally controlled by mass, momentum and/or heat transfer
across the bubble-liquid interface (Theofanous et al.
18
;
Szekely and Martins
19
; Szekely and Fang
20
; Kashchiev and
Firoozabadi
5
). Mass transfer occurs primarily by diffusion,
coalescence, and evaporation/condensation at the gas-oil
interface. Momentum transfer is governed by hydrodynamic
forces in connection with the capillary pressure, liquid inertia
and viscosity. Heat transfer takes place by the flow of heat
between the liquid and the bubble.

Lillico et al.
21
described the growth of bubbles due to
coalescence as a result of collisions caused by Brownian
motion and shearing flow. This process eventually leads to
the formation of a wide distribution of bubble sizes within the
porous medium. At the beginning of the process, coalescence
is less likely to occur, since the bubbles are relatively small
and sufficiently far from each other. The study also found the
effect of oil viscosity on bubble distributions was significant
with the heavier oil having a tendency to allow more small
bubbles to survive at high gas saturations. In heavy oil
reservoirs, the effect of viscous forces is expected to be
significant in controlling bubble growth. The expansion of the
gas phase by diffusion must overcome the resistance caused
by the surrounding viscous oil. The growth rate is likely to
decrease with increasing oil viscosity.


The non-equilibrium effects such as liquid inertia, surface
tension and viscous forces play an important role in
controlling the gas bubble growth in a supersaturated liquid
where the bubble growth is not solely determined by heat or
mass transfer processes (Szekely and Martins
19
). The gas
bubbles within a porous medium do not grow spherically
because of viscous resistance and pore geometry constraints.
The competition between growing clusters in a porous
medium is different from that in the bulk. In the bulk, the
competition is based on the dependence of solubility on
bubble curvature, and the larger bubbles grow at the expense
of smaller ones. In porous media, cluster growth is typically
controlled by the porous medium capillary characteristics.
The dependence of solubility on growth radius is an
insignificant factor (Li and Yortsos
10
). It is generally accepted
that bubble growth by diffusion follows a percolation pattern
when the pressure decline rate is low. However, when viscous
forces become dominant, the bubble growth pattern will
deviate from percolation (Li
22
). Dominguez et al.
23
, based on
Hele-Shaw cell and micro-model studies, showed that the gas
cluster growth became elongated in the direction of gravity
when the Bond number (relative importance of gravity and
capillary forces) increases.

Model Development

A new gas exsolution kinetic model using a non-equilibrium
mass transfer approach is presented in this study. In this
kinetic model, a system of first order rate equations is
formulated in order to capture dynamic of gas bubble
nucleation and growth in a heavy oil reservoir. The rate
equations can then be coupled as a source term in the
governing flow equations of the numerical simulator (for
example, CMG STARS
24
). An earlier development of the
present gas exsolution model was presented in AERI/ARC
Core Industry Research Program reports (Uddin et al.
25, 26
).

Governing Equation. The assumptions imposed when
developing the flow equations are: (i) local thermodynamic
equilibrium, (ii) immobile solid phases, (iii) slightly
compressible rock and fluids, (iv) Fickian dispersion, and (v)
Darcian flow. The governing mass conservation equation of
any flowing component, i, under these assumptions in a
porous media grid block can be defined as:

( )


= =
= = =
+ +

+ =

r
F
n
k
k ki
ki
j
i jk j
n
n
i j ji v
j
j i j j i v
j
i j j fl
r s s V j q
j D j T Ad j S
t
V
1
'
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
) (

(1)

where the left hand side of the equation is the rate of change of
accumulation, the first right hand term is the net rate of inflow,
the second right hand term is the external source/sink (for
example, well injection or production) and the third right hand
term is the internal source/sink (for example, chemical
reaction). An analogous equation holds for heat flow, with the
thermal conductivity term replacing the diffusive flux term.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739 3
The variables are listed in the nomenclature.

An important aspect of the current gas exsolution kinetic
model is the treatment of the internal source/sink term. In this
case, reaction rate, r
k
, in the source/sink term represents the
bubble nucleation and growth rates.

Kinetic Model. A five component kinetic model was
developed to simulate gas bubble nucleation and growth in a
live heavy oil reservoir. The components are water (H
2
O) in
aqueous phase, heavy oil (HC), dissolved gas (g
d
) and
dispersed gas bubbles (b
d
) in oleic phase and connected gas
bubbles (b
c
) in gaseous phase. The present gas exsolution
model can be organized into a component-phase chart as in
Table 1.

Table 1: Components and phases Gas exsolution
model

Phase
Component
Aqueous Oleic Gaseous

Water (H
2
O)
Heavy oil (HC)
Dissolved gas (g
d
)
Dispersed bubble (b
d
)
Connected bubble (b
c
)

X


X
X
X





X

It should be noted that a phase is a physical manifestation
of (and is composed of) one or more components. For
example, the component water may be found in liquid,
gaseous and solid phases. All physical properties are assigned
to a model component in terms of the phases in which that
component may be found. The necessary component
properties can be obtained from the literature. In this kinetic
model, all components except dispersed bubble (b
d
) retain
their usual definitions. Here, we assume that the dispersed
bubble is a pseudo component in the oleic phase when gas
bubble size is smaller than the pore throat size in a porous
medium. As bubble growth continues and their size increases
to the pore throat size, the dispersed bubble then becomes a
connected bubble (b
c
) in the gaseous phase. The physical
characterization and quantification of the basic properties of
the pseudo dispersed bubble component are described in the
following section.

Dispersed Bubble. Gas bubbles ranged from critical size
to pore throat size are assumed to be dispersed bubbles. The
critical size is a meta-stable equilibrium such that only a
bubble greater than the critical radius continues to grow to a
large bubble. According to the nucleation theory, the critical
bubble radius, r
cr
, and the nucleation energy, E, can be
expressed as, r
cr
= 2/(fP), and E = 16
3
/3(fP)
2
. Here,
is the gas-oil interfacial tension and fP is the fraction of the
excess energy (see Appendix A). This illustrates that the
distribution of the critical bubbles in an oil reservoir will be
dictated by the oil properties, viscous force and characteristics
of the porous media.

The micro-model and CT experiment data in Figure 1
observed a large number of persistent small bubbles most of
them of 3 to 5 m size. The peak visible bubble counts in
micro-model oil of 12,780 mPa.s were 48 and 34 per pore
body at 0.03 m/day and 0.001 m/day, respectively.


Bubble moving through pore throat
Sand grain Oil
Bubble within
pore body
Stage I Stage II
Bubble moving
Stage III Stage IV
Bubbles coalescence Bubbles coalescence
Bubble moving through pore throat
Sand grain Oil
Bubble within
pore body
Stage I Stage II
Bubble moving Bubble moving through pore throat
Sand grain Oil
Bubble within
pore body
Bubble within
pore body
Stage I Stage II
Bubble moving
Stage III Stage IV
Bubbles coalescence Bubbles coalescence
Stage III Stage IV
Bubbles coalescence Bubbles coalescence





















Figure 1: Gas bubble visualization within heavy oil in a dual depth
micro-model.

The above studies showed an existence of many possible
physical scenarios of dispersed bubbles in an oil reservoir
ranged from critical bubble size to pore throat size. However,
as the porous media porosity is statistically a normally
distributed parameter, one can assign some statistical
properties for the distribution of dispersed bubbles in a given
flow system.

In this study, a simple approach was used to quantify the
dispersed bubbles in a given flow system. Let us assume a
single representative size (for example, an average value of
the dispersed bubbles size) of the dispersed bubbles in a grid
block which is greater than the critical bubble size and less
than the mean pore throat size. Further, the compressibility of
this dispersed component is assumed to be gas like
compressibility. Using the ideal gas law, the volumetric mole
density can then be estimated to approximate flow system
expansion resulting from the appearance of the dispersed
bubbles. All other necessary basic thermodynamic properties
can be assigned to the properties of the dissolved gas
component.

Bubble Nucleation. The gas bubble nucleation equation,
dN/dt exp(-E/k
B
T), has been widely discussed in literature.
This is similar to the Maxwell statistical approach to find a
critical gas bubble of energy, E = 16
3
/3(fP)
2
, in an
excess energy field. The parameters k
B
and T are the
Boltzmann constant and energy field temperature,
respectively.
4 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739
In the present gas exsolution model, two forward pseudo
kinetic reactions are used to describe an alternate form of
bubble nucleation equation, Equation A-9.

Reaction 1 [ ] [ ]
d d
b g
Reaction 2 [ ] [ ] [ ]
d d d
b b g 2 +

Here, [g
d
] and [b
d
] are the dissolved gas and dispersed bubble
components in the oleic phase, respectively. The mass
transfer rates for the above kinetic reactions can be defined as:

(
gd gd
d
c c N r =
1
) 1 (
)
bd gd gd
d
c c c N r
2
2
) 2 (
=
)
(2)
( ) ( ) (3)

Where, r
d
(1)
and r
d
(2)
are the mass transfer rates per unit
volume per unit time of dissolved gas into dispersed bubbles,
N
1
and N
2
are the transfer coefficients or nucleation
parameters, c
gd
is the actual dissolved gas concentration
estimated as c
gd
=(S
o

o
)(x
gd
), where, S
0
is the oil saturation,

o
is the oil phase mole density and is the porosity, x
gd
is the
dissolved gas mole fraction, c
gd
is the

equilibrium dissolved
gas concentration defined by c
gd
= (S
o

o
)(x
gd
), where, x
gd
is
the equilibrium dissolved gas mole fraction estimated as x
gd
=
y/K, where K is the phase equilibrium constant and y is the
gas mole fraction.

Bubble Growth. When a gas bubble has surpassed the
critical radius (i.e., bubble radius, r r
cr
), it can grow
irreversibly with a certain growth rate. Here, several
mechanisms play a critical role in controlling bubble growth
such as evaporation and condensation at the gas-oil interface,
diffusion, hydrodynamic forces (capillary pressure, liquid
inertia and viscosity) and heat transfer. Several studies
proposed a simple power-type growth equation.

In the present model, two forward pseudo kinetic reactions
are used to describe an alternate form of bubble growth
equation.

Reaction 3 [ ] [ ]
c d
b b
Reaction 4 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
c d d d
b g b g + +

Here, [g
d
] and [b
d
] are the dissolved gas and dispersed bubble
components in the oleic phase, respectively, and [b
c
] is the
connected bubble component in the gaseous phase. The
component [g
d
] in reaction 4 is used to define supersaturation
and will not participate in reaction. Now, using a simple
probabilistic approach, the mass transfer rates for the above
kinetic reactions can be formulated as:

(
bd c
c G r
1
) 1 (
= (4)
( ) ( )
bd gd gd c
c c c G r
2
2
) 2 (
= (5)

Where, r
c
(1)
and r
c
(2)
are the transfer rates of dispersed bubbles
into connected bubbles, G
1
and G
2
are the transfer coefficients
or growth parameters. All other parameter definitions have
been given previously. It should be noted that the present
form of the growth kinetics agrees with the power-form of
bubble growth rate as mentioned in the literature.

Model Application

The gas exsolution model coupled with the numerical
simulator-CMG STARS was applied in history matches of
several laboratory rate and pressure depletion test data. The
best fitted nucleation (N
1
and N
2
) and growth parameters (G
1

and G
2
) were obtained. The sensitivity of these kinetic
parameters under different flow regimes was studied.

Experimental Data. During this study, a large number of
published laboratory gas exsolution data including CT
experiment were compiled (for example, Sahni
2
; Tang and
Firoozabadi
27
; Lillico et al.
21
; Kumar et al.
28
; Pooladi-Darvish
and Firoozabadi
29
). This data showed some common trends
such as gas saturation and oil recovery increase with pressure
depletion rate and a wide distribution of gas bubbles and
bubble clusters in a flow field.

Several studies have also shown relatively higher critical
gas saturation for faster depletion experiments. Previous
studies claimed that the higher critical gas saturation obtained
in faster depletion experiments occured due to a greater
number of gas bubbles nucleation in the flow system. Some
studies in an external energy drive (i.e., non-exsolution
process) flow showed that the residual gas saturation or the
critical gas saturation decreases with increased viscous force
or pressure depletion rate (for example, Delshad
30
).

The previous studies emphasized that the relative
permeability and the PVT data will play a critical role in
numerical history matches of gas exsolution data. Hence, the
laboratory gas exsolution experimental data were carefully
selected depending on the availability and reliability of the
PVT data and the relative permeability data.

Rate Experiments. The laboratory gas exsolution tests in
the live heavy oil sand pack were conducted at Alberta
Research Council. Alberta heavy oils produced from
Lloydminster and Cold Lake areas with dead oil viscosity of
1,367 mPa.s, 32,380 mPa.s, and 51,615 mPa.s at 20 C were
used. The oil was dewatered, filtered to remove fines, and
saturated with methane, achieving a GOR (gas to oil ratio) of
8.0 to 8.5 std. m
3
/m
3
.

The gas exsolution tests were conducted in a vertical sand
pack which was 27.50 cm long and 7.74 cm in diameter. A
schematic diagram of the laboratory experimental setup is
shown in Figure 2 (I). Further details of the experimental setup
and procedure can be found in the literature (Lillico et al.
21
).







SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739 5

























Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of the experimental setups I. Rate
experiment and II. Pressure depletion experiment.

The experimental tests were conducted in +150 200 mesh
Ottawa sand, packed to a porosity of 35.4% to 37.5% and a
permeability of 2.0 to 4.0 Darcy. The sand pack volumes
varied from 1,014 cm
3
to 1,053 cm
3
. The sand pack was
saturated first with water, then with live heavy oil, leaving
water saturations of 2.5% to 10.0%. Mercury was then
injected into the bottom of the pack and the live oil was
displaced out through the top of the pack. The injection
continued until mercury was produced at the top end. The oil
and mercury saturations were slightly different from test to
test. The key parameters for eight mercury withdrawal tests
are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2: Test parameters - Mercury withdrawal
experiments

Test #
Initial conditions
R1 R2 R3 R4
Main
Visc. (mPa.s)
(1)
Temperature (C)
W. rate (cm
3
/min)
Others
Porosity
Oil saturation
Mercury saturation
Water saturation
GOR (std m
3
/m
3
)
Pressure (kPa ga)

32,380
20
0.0019

0.356
0.472
0.428
0.100
7.970
3980

32,380
20
0.0077

0.356
0.590
0.353
0.057
8.210
4020

32,380
20
0.0303

0.355
0.639
0.321
0.040
8.200
3975

32,380
20
0.1200

0.355
0.565
0.372
0.063
8.070
3950


Table 3: Test parameters - Mercury withdrawal
experiments
II. Pressure depletion experiment
Sand pack
(Length - 300 cm
B. diameter - 1 cm
T. diameter - 9.1 cm)
P

&

T

r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
Outlet pressure
system
Top end pressure
system
Isco pump
Oil
Water
Mercury
Transparent
tubing
BPR, Accumulator
Isco pump
Sand pack
(Length 27.50 cm
Diameter 7.74 cm)
I. Rate experiment
CH
4
gas above
saturation pressure
II. Pressure depletion experiment
Sand pack
(Length - 300 cm
B. diameter - 1 cm
T. diameter - 9.1 cm)
P

&

T

r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
Outlet pressure
system
Top end pressure
system
Isco pump
Oil
Water
Mercury
Transparent
tubing
BPR, Accumulator
Isco pump
Sand pack
(Length 27.50 cm
Diameter 7.74 cm)
I. Rate experiment
CH
4
gas above
saturation pressure

Test #
Initial conditions
R5 R6 R7 R8
Main
Visc. (mPa.s)
Temperature (C)
W. rate (cm
3
/min)
Others
Porosity
Oil saturation
Mercury saturation
Water saturation
GOR (std m
3
/m
3
)
Pressure (kPa ga)

32,380
(1)
20
0.4974

0.354
0.512
0.388
0.100
8.170
3,980

32,380
50
0.0303

0.369
0.692
0.283
0.025
7.800
6,448

1,367
20
0.0303

0.375
0.583
0.352
0.066
7.800
3,892

51,615
20
0.0303

0.374
0.580
0.378
0.042
8.030
5,903

(1)
Oil viscosities 2,735 mPa.s at 50
o
C, 349 mPa.s at 80
o
C,
and oil density 0.991 gm/cm
3

During the test, the top of the pack was shut-in and the
mercury was withdrawn at the bottom of the pack. The
mercury withdrawal continued at a constant rate until the
mercury phase became discontinuous and substantial volumes
of gas were produced. During this withdrawal period, the top
and bottomhole pressures were continuously monitored and
recorded. All of the tests were conducted under isothermal
conditions at 20 C except one (Test R6), which was
conducted at 50 C.

The concept behind the mercury withdrawal experiments
was to quantify the exsolution of dissolved gas from live
heavy oil within a porous medium. The mercury withdrawal
increased the pore volume available to the live oil, allowing it
to expand entirely within the porous media.

Pressure Depletion Experiments. The pressure depletion
tests were conducted in a large scale laboratory model at
Alberta Research Council. Alberta heavy oil produced from
Lloydminter area with dead oil viscosity of 39,320 mPa.s at 20
C was used.

The laboratory physical model was a vertical 300 cm long
stepped cone which was 1 cm in diameter at the bottom
production end and 9.1 cm at the top. The purpose of this
large scale irregular physical model was to evaluate solvent
based recovery processes. This topic is outside the scope of
this paper and will not be discussed here. A schematic
diagram of the laboratory experimental setup is shown in
Figure 2 (II).

The overall material and method (for example, packing
and recording systems) were similar to the rate experiments as
discussed in the previous section. The stepped cone was
packed with clean reservoir sand of absolute permeability of
3.5 to 4.5 Darcy. During sand packing, the physical model was
oriented vertically with the narrow end at the top in order to
get a more densely packed sand pack. During flooding with
water and oil, the physical model was inverted so that the
narrow end was at the bottom. The key parameters for the
four selected tests are summarized in Table 4.

6 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739
Table 4: Test parameters - Pressure depletion
experiments


(1)
Oil viscosities 343 mPa.s at 75
o
C, 48.4 mPa.s at 120
o
C,
and oil density 0.991 gm/cm
3


The oil and gas production at the bottom end of the sand
pack were continuously monitored and recorded. The
temperature and pressure were measured at several locations
along the sand pack.

Numerical Data. The chemical reaction term available with
the numerical simulator-CMG STARS (i.e., source/sink term
in the governing flow equation, Equation 1) was utilized to
represent the formulated gas bubble nucleation and growth
processes in the sand pack.

In the present five-component kinetic model, the
components are: one water component, three components in
the oleic phase (heavy oil, dissolved CH
4
, and dispersed
bubble), and one component in the gaseous phase (connected
bubble). The dispersed bubbles in the flow system can be
treated as small bubbles (diameters less than pore throat),
which are carried with the continuous oil phase. Usually, this
component will have the same chemical properties as the
dissolved CH
4
, but will contribute to high oil phase
compressibility. In the simulator, the gas like compressibility
with an appropriate partial molar density can be used.

Component Properties. The necessary basic properties of
the model components (water, oil, dissolved CH
4
and free
CH
4
) such as molecular mass M
m
, molar density ,
compressibility c
p
, critical pressure P
cr
, and critical
temperature T
cr
, were obtained from the literature. Values of
the component properties are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Component basic properties Gas
exsolution experiment

Component
M
m
(kg/gmol)

(g mol/cm
3
)
c
p
(kPa
-1
)
P
cr
(kPa)
T
cr
(
o
C)

Water
Oil
Diss. CH
4
Disp. Bub.
Free CH
4

0.201
0.511
0.016
0.016
0.016

6.76x10
-2
1.92x10
-3
18.72x10
-3
4.50x10
-4
-

4.0x10
-8
1.0x10
-6
7.5x10
-6
7.5x10
-6
gas

22,107
1,158
4,600
4,600
4,600

374
913.46
-82.5
-82.5
-82.5


With the exceptions that are discussed, the properties of
the dispersed bubble (pseudo component) were assumed to be
the same as dissolved CH
4
. The molar density of the
dispersed bubbles was assigned to be 4.5x10
-4
gmole/cm
3
,
while the dissolved CH
4
molar density was assigned to be that
of liquid CH
4
of 18.723x10
-3
gmole/cm
3
at a temperature of 20
C and pressure of 101 kPa. A slightly different value of
molar density can be used as well. In that case, the numerical
history match parameters (i.e., nucleation and growth rates
parameters) will be adjusted accordingly. The dissolved CH
4

compressibility was obtained by numerically history matching
the initial pressure decline of the mercury withdrawal
experiments. The best fitted compressibility for dissolved
CH
4
was found to be 7.50 x 10
-6
kPa
-1
. The other necessary
thermal properties such as heat capacity and heat conductivity
were obtained from the CMG STARS manual.
Test #
Initial conditions
P1 P2 P3 P4
Main
Oil visc. at 20
o
C (mPa.s)
(1)
Temperature (C)
Others
Porosity
Oil saturation
Water saturation
GOR (std m
3
/m
3
)
Pressure (kPa ga)

39320
22.9

0.37
0.88
0.12
7.39
3260

39320
19.9

0.36
0.88
0.12
8.30
3425

39320
20.7

0.39
0.88
0.12
8.30
3358

39320
20.7

0.38
0.88
0.12
8.02
3500

Phase Viscosities. The oil phase viscosity was obtained
by a logarithmic mixing, ln(
o
) = x
i
ln(
oi
), where,
oi
is the
measured or estimated viscosity of the liquid phase
components (dead oil, water, dissolved gas and dispersed
bubble), and x
i
is the components mole fraction. The gas
phase (i.e., connected bubble) viscosity was defined by a
correlation,
g
= 0.0136+3.8x10
-5
T, where, T is the
temperature in C. It should be noted that gas phase viscosities
usually are much smaller than liquid phase values, and hence
will tend to dominate the flow when gas bubble is mobile.

K-Value. The gas/oil equilibrium K-value of dissolved
CH
4
is the main driving parameter in the present gas
exsolution model. At a given temperature and pressure, this
parameter can be defined by K = y/x, where, x and y are the
dissolved CH
4
equilibrium mole fraction in the oil and gas
phases, respectively.

The equilibrium K-values were calculated from the
laboratory PVT data. The computed K-values as a function of
temperature and pressure are given in Figures 3 and 4.
















0
100
200
300
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure (kPa)
K
Lloydminster & Cold Lake Heavy Oil @ 20
0
C
(1) - 1,367 mPa.s
(2) - 5,274 mPa.s
(3) - 32,380 mPa.s
(4) - 51,615 mPa.s
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
0
100
200
300
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure (kPa)
K
Lloydminster & Cold Lake Heavy Oil @ 20
0
C
(1) - 1,367 mPa.s
(2) - 5,274 mPa.s
(3) - 32,380 mPa.s
(4) - 51,615 mPa.s
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


Figure 3. CH
4
gas/oil K-value obtained from PVT data:
Lloydminster and Cold Lake heavy oils at a temperature of 20
0
C.


SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739 7















0
0 1000 2000 3000
Pressure (kPa)
K
Lloydminster oil (32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C)
20
0
C
50
0
C
80
0
C
Figure 4. CH
4
gas/oil K-value obtained from PVT data:
Lloydminster heavy oil at temperatures of 20, 50 and 80
0
C.

Results and Discussions

Rate Experiments. The gas exsolution model was applied to
history matches of eight mercury withdrawal experiments, five
at different withdrawal rates, and three with different oil
viscosities and temperatures. Depending on the withdrawal
rates, the sand pack flow system can be categorized into
relatively slower and faster flow regimes.

Figures 5 to 8 show the comparisons between the
experimental and numerical pressure responses at the bottom
of the sand pack. The numerical history matches were
organized into slower rate tests in Figures 5, 7 and 8 and faster
rate tests in Figure 6. The numerical predictions showed a
good agreement with the experimental results.

The general shape of the pressure responses can be
characterized as a steep initial draw down, followed by a
rebound in pressure, and then by a steady decrease in pressure
that slowly approaches the equilibrium behavior. This process
can be explained by the volume expansion due to increased
bubble nucleation and growth. The steep initial draw down
period shows only miniscule amounts of gas being generated
by the slow nucleation of tiny bubbles. This behavior also
illustrates the dependency of the degree of non-equilibrium on
the mercury withdrawal rate. Higher gas suppression can be
noticed at higher rates of mercury withdrawal. Due to greater
supersaturation at higher withdrawal rates, the volume
expansion within the sand pack is much greater than the
amount of gas bubble nucleation, thus it takes longer for the
pressure to approach equilibrium.

In numerical methodology, first a detailed numerical
history match was performed for Test R3 (relatively moderate
rate test, average flow velocity of 0.0093 m/day) by tuning the
nucleation (N
1
and N
2
) and growth (G
1
and G
2
) parameters.
The best-fitted nucleation parameters N
1
and

N
2
were 2.0x10
-5

min
-1
and 2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
, respectively, and the
growth parameters G
1
and G
2
were 0.0 and 1.6x10
8

(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
, respectively. Numerical history matches
were then performed for all other tests with minor adjustment
of the above nucleation and growth parameters.















Figure 5. Experimental (line) and numerical (marker) pressure
responses for three relatively slower rate mercury withdrawal
tests


















Figure 6. Experimental (line) and numerical (marker) pressure
responses for two relatively faster rate mercury withdrawal tests.

The numerical history matches in Figures 5, 7 and 8
illustrate that the gas exsolution model calibrated with Test R3
showed good matches for all the relatively slower to moderate
withdrawal tests for wide ranges of temperature (20 - 50
0
C)
and viscosity (1,367 - 51,615 mPa.s) flow regimes. The
history match also showed that the growth parameter G
1
is not
a sensitive parameter for relatively slow to moderate rate
experiments. Here, the parameter G
1
was assumed to be
negligible (i.e., Reaction 3 was not important)

Figure 6 shows the nucleation parameter N
1
and the growth
parameter G
1
increased significantly for relatively faster rate
experiments (Tests R4 and R5). The parameter G
1
for Tests
R4 and R5 were found to be 1.0x10
-3
min
-1
and 3.0x10
-2
min
-1
,
respectively. The role of the growth parameter G
1
can be
explained by bubble growth due to coalescence from shear or
Brownian motion. The value of the parameter G
1
should be
increased to match the higher withdrawal rate experiments
because of higher shear flow. The laboratory micro-model
data in Figure 1 demonstrated that a significant number of
dispersed bubbles get connected by overcoming the Capillary
force when the flow system is viscous dominated.
100
200
300
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Pressure (kPa)
K
Lloydminster oil (32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C)
20
0
C
50
0
C
80
0
C
100
200
300
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
0.0303 cm
3
/min
0.0077 cm
3
/min
0.0019 cm
3
/min
T = 20
0
C, = 32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
0.0303 cm
3
/min
0.0077 cm
3
/min
0.0019 cm
3
/min
T = 20
0
C, = 32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
0.4974 cm
3
/min
0.1200 cm
3
/min
T = 20
0
C, = 32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C
N
1
=1.0x10
-3
N
2
=2.0x10
8
G
1
= 3.0x10
-2
G
2
=1.6x10
8
N
1
=3.5x10
-5
N
2
=2.0x10
8
G
1
= 1.0x10
-3
G
2
=1.6x10
8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
0.4974 cm
3
/min
0.1200 cm
3
/min
T = 20
0
C, = 32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C
N
1
=1.0x10
-3
N
2
=2.0x10
8
G
1
= 3.0x10
-2
G
2
=1.6x10
8
N
1
=3.5x10
-5
N
2
=2.0x10
8
G
1
= 1.0x10
-3
G
2
=1.6x10
8
8 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739
Figure 7 shows a very similar trend of the pressure curves
for the tests at temperatures 20 C and 50 C, except that the
pressure curve at 50 C is shifted upward. For the limited
temperature measurements studied the kinetic parameters
appear approximately constant. Numerical simulation
illustrated that temperature had little effect on the parameters,
N
1
, N
2
and G
2
. However, G
1
was negligible at lower
temperature and increased at higher temperature.

















Figure 7. Experimental (line) and numerical (marker) pressure
responses for experiments conducted at two different
temperatures.

Figure 8 shows a good numerical history matches for two
different types of heavy oils, with viscosities of 1,367 mPa.s
and 51,615 mPa.s at 20 C. An important trend can be
observed that the non-equlibrium pressure rebounds in the
pressure curves are closed to each other. It should be noted
that no noticeable changes in the overall composition of the
test oils were observed. At pressure > 1,000 kPa, the gas/oil
equilibrium K-values in Figure 3 are not significantly
different.

















Figure 8. Experimental (line) and numerical (marker) pressure
responses for two different oil viscosity tests.

A detailed sensitivity analysis was conducted to
demonstrate the role of the gas exsolution parameters on a
heavy oil flow system. It was observed that the nucleation
parameter N
1
mainly controls the early part of the pressure
curves, whereas the effect of parameter N
2
can be seen over
the entire run. The growth parameters G
1
and G
2
control the
free gas production. In both cases, the system pressure
gradually increases with an increase in values of the
parameters. The sensitivity results depend upon the input
parameters such as compressibility and molar density.

Pressure Depletion Experiments. Figures 9 to 12 show
numerical predictions of oil and gas production in comparison
with the tests results. In the pressure depletion tests, the
average pressure drawdown conditions were 33 days at 0.058
kPa.min
-1
for Test P1, 25 days at 0.085 kPa.min
-1
for Test P2,
33 days at 0.087 kPa.min
-1
for Test P3 and 18 days at 0.116
kPa.min
-1
for Test P4. The initial pressures ranged from 3,260
kPa in Test P1 and 3,500 kPa in Test P4. In comparison with
the rate control experiments in the previous section, all of
these four pressure depletion tests can be categorized into
relatively slower rates experiments. Here, the gas ex-solution
parameters for the slower rate mercury withdrawal tests were
chosen.
0

The results showed a good agreement between the
numerical prediction and experimental data for all four tests.
At the later stages, some deviation can be observed in the
numerical history matches, particularly, oil prediction in
Figure 9 and gas prediction in Figure 10. This deviation could
be related to the deviation of relative permeability end points,
or some other flow resistance factors.














Figure 9. Cumulative gas and oil production results for Test P1 -
Experimental (marker) and numerical (line).














Figure 10. Cumulative gas and oil production results for Test P2 -
Experimental (marker) and numerical (line).
0
4000
8000
12000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0 , G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
0
4000
8000
00
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0 , G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
120
1000
00
00
00
00
00
00
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
20
0
C
50
0
C
q = 0.0303 cm
3
/min, = 32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
20
0
C
50
0
C
q = 0.0303 cm
3
/min, = 32,380 mPa.s at 20
0
C
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
1367 mPa.s at 20
0
C
51615 mPa.s at 20
0
C
T = 20
0
C, q = 0.0303 cm
3
/min
0
4000
8000
12000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m
.

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
0
4000
8000
12000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m
.

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
1367 mPa.s at 20
0
C
51615 mPa.s at 20
0
C
T = 20
0
C, q = 0.0303 cm
3
/min
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739 9

















Figure 11. Cumulative gas and oil production results for Test P3 -
Experimental (marker) and numerical (line).


















Figure 12. Cumulative gas and oil production results for Test P4 -
Experimental (marker) and numerical (line).

Conclusions

A five component kinetic model has been developed for
simulating gas exsolution in a live heavy oil reservoir. The
components are water (H
2
O) in aqueous phase, heavy oil
(HC), dissolved gas (g
d
) and dispersed gas bubbles (b
d
) in
oleic phase and connected gas bubbles (b
c
) in gaseous phase.
The kinetic model contains two types of mass transfer
equations: one nucleation equation transfers dissolved gas into
dispersed bubbles and one growth equation transfers dispersed
bubbles into connected bubbles.

The gas exsolution model was applied to history matches
of eight rate experiments and four pressure depletion
experiments. By tuning the nucleation and growth parameters,
good agreement was obtained between the numerical
simulations and experimental results. The numerical history
matches for all slower rate experiments, flow rate 0.0093
m/day, showed no noticeable changes in the model
parameters. The gas exsolution model coupled with a
compositional thermal simulator can be applied in field cold
production simulation.
0
4000
8000
12000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
0
4000
8000
12000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. J. Ivory and Dr. D.
Coombe for their helpful technical discussions and Dr. D.
Lillico, R. Coates and E. Jossy for their useful discussions
about the experimental methodology. The financial support
provided by the AERI/ARC Core Industry Research Program
and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) is gratefully acknowledged.

Nomenclature

Ad
i
= adsorbed component per unit mass of rock
c
i
= component actual concentration in oil
c
i
= component equilibrium concentration in oil
c
p
= compressibility
D
ij
= total dispersion coefficient
E
a
= gas bubble activation energy
0
G
1
& G
2
= gas bubble growth rate parameters
j
i
= phase mole fraction
k = absolute permeability
k
r
= relative permeability
k
B
= Boltzmann constant
M
m
= molecular mass
n
F
= number of neighbouring grid block faces
N
1
& N
2
= gas bubble nucleation rate parameters
P = actual pressure
P
e
= equilibrium pressure
q
jk
= volumetric well phase rate
r = gas bubble radius
r
k
= volumetric reaction rate
s
ki
= reactant stoichiometric coefficient
s
ki
= product stoichiometric coefficient
S
j
= saturation
t = time
T = temperature
T
j
= transmissibility between two regions
V = total phase volume
x
i
= component actual mole fraction in oil phase
x
i
= component equilibrium mole fraction in oil phase
y
i
= component actual mole fraction in gas phase
y
i
= component equilibrium mole fraction in gas phase
E = gas bubble nucleation energy
J
i
= mole fraction difference between nodes

j
= potential difference between adjacent regions

j
= phase mole density
= gas-oil interfacial tension

v
= void porosity

fl
= fluid porosity

j
= phase viscosity

Subscripts:

cr = critical
F = face
i = component
2000
4000
6000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Time (min)
C
u
m

g
a
s

(
c
m
3
)

&

P
b
h

(
k
P
a
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
C
u
m

o
i
l

(
c
m
3
)
N
1
=2.0x10
-5
min
-1
, N
2
=2.0x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
G
1
= 0.0, G
2
=1.6x10
8
(gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
P
bh
Oil
Gas
2000
4000
6000
10 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739
j = phase (typically, water, oil and gas)
k = reaction

References

1. Treinen, RJ, et al.: Hamaca: solution gas drive recovery in a
heavy oil reservoir, experimental results, Paper SPE 39031
presented at the 1997 Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Aug. 30 Sept. 3.

2. Sahni, A. at el.: Experiments and analysis of heavy oil solution
gas drive, SPE 71498, presented at the 2001 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30
Oct. 3.

3. Moulu, J.C.: Solution gas drive: experiments and simulation,
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. (Oct. 1989) 2, 379.

4. Yortsos, Y.C. and Parlar, M.: Phase change in binary systems
in porous media: application to solution-gas drive, Paper SPE
19697 presented at the 1989 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of SPE of AIME, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.

5. Kashchiev, D. and Firoozabadi, A.: Kinetics of the initial stage
of isothermal gas phase formation, J. Chem. Phys. (Mar. 1993)
98, 4690.

6. Wall, C.G. and Khurana, A.K.: The effect of rate pressure
decline and liquid viscosity on low-pressure gas saturations in
porous media, J. Inst. Pet. (Nov. 1972) 58, 335.

7. El-Yousfi, A. at el.: Mechanisms of solution gas drive
liberation during pressure depletion in porous media, C.R.
Acad. Sci. Paris (1991) 313, Serie II, 1093.

8. Bernath, L.: Theory of bubble formation in liquids, Ind. Eng.
Chem. (Jun. 1952) 1310.

9. Danesh, A. at el.: Pore level visual investigation of oil recovery
by solution gas drive and gas injection, paper SPE 16956
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30.

10. Li, X. and Yortsos, Y.C.: Visualization and numerical studies
of bubble growth during pressure depletion, Paper SPE 22589
presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6-9.

11. Cole, R.: Boiling Nucleation, Adv. Heat Trans. (1974) 10, 85.

12. Kamath, J. and Boyer, R.E.: Critical gas saturation and
supersaturation in low-permeability rocks, Paper SPE 26663
presented at the 1993 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6

13. Fisch, J.C. at el.: Nucleation, J. Appl. Phys. (1948) 19, 775.

14. Claridge, E.L. and Prats, M.: A proposed model and
mechanism for anomalous foamy heavy oil behavior, Paper
SPE 29243 presented at the 1995 International Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, AB, Jun. 19-21.

15. Maini, B.B.: Foamy-oil Flow, Paper SPE 68885, J. Cdn. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 2001) 54

16. Maini, B.B. at el.:, Significance of foamy-oil behaviour in
primary production of heavy oils, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1993) 32, 50.

17. Wieland, D.R. and Kennedy, H.T.: Measurement of bubble
frequency in cores, Trans. AIME (1957) 210, 122.

18. Theofanous, T. at el.: Theoretical study on bubble growth in
constant and time-dependent pressure fields, Chem. Eng. Sci.
(1969) 24, 885.

19. Szekely, J. and Martins, G.P.: Non-equilibrium effects in the
growth of spherical gas bubbles due to solute diffusion, Chem.
Eng. Sci. (1971) 26, 147.

20. Szekely, J. and Fang, S.D.: Non-equilibrium effects in the
growth of spherical gas bubbles due to solute diffusion II: The
combined effects of viscosity, liquid inertia, surface tension, and
surface kinetics, Chem. Eng. Sci. (1973) 28, 2127.

21. Lillico, D.A. at el.: Gas bubble nucleation kinetics in a live
heavy oil, Colloids and Surfaces, A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects (2001) 192, 25.

22. Li, X.: Bubble growth during pressure depletion in porous
media, Ph.D Dissertation, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA (May 1993).

23. Dominguez, A. at el.: Gas cluster growth by solute diffusion in
porous media. Experiments and automaton simulation on pore
network, International Journal of Multiphase Flow (Jan. 2000)
26, 1951.

24. CMG STARS: Advanced Process and Thermal Reservoir
Simulator, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., Office #200, 3512-
33 Street N.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2L 2A6, (1999).

25. Uddin, M. et al.: Modelling of gas exsolution in a live heavy
oil, AERI/ARC Core Industry Research Program, Report No.
0203-2, Alberta Research Council, Alberta, (Oct. 2002).

26. Uddin, M. et al.: Parameter estimation of the foamy oil model
for different flow regimes, AERI/ARC Core Industry Research
Program, Report No. 0304-3, Alberta Research Council,
Alberta, (Jul. 2003).

27. Tang, G.Q. and Firoozabadi, A.: Gas and liquid-phase relative
permeabilities for cold production from heavy oil, SPE 56540,
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.

28. Kumar, R. at el.: An Investigation into enhanced recovery
under solution gas drive in heavy oil reservoirs, SPE 59336
presented at the 2000 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, OK, Apr. 2-5.

29. Pooladi-Darvish, M. and Firoozabadi, A.: Solution gas drive in
heavy oil reservoirs, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech., (Apr. 1999) 38, 54.

30. Delshad, M.: Trapping of micellar fluids in berea sandstone,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, (1990).

Appendix A: Bubble Nucleation in Heavy Oil

Non-equilibrium Pressure. Gas bubble nucleation in live
heavy oil occurs when the flow system pressure is reduced
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97739 11
below the equilibrium pressure. The deviation of the system
pressure from the equilibrium value can be considered as an
excess energy density in the live heavy oil. This non-
equilibrium pressure deviation was appeared in constant rate
gas exsolution tests in live heavy oil sand pack. The pressure
responses versus gas saturation for two constant rate
experiments are shown in Figure A-1.



















Figure A-1. Non-equilibrium pressure responses in the live heavy
oil sand pack.

Nucleation Energy. Let us assume P
e
is the equilibrium
pressure and P is the actual pressure in an isothermal flow
system at temperature T. The pressure difference, P =P
e
P,
can be considered as the excess energy density in the live
heavy oil. Since the system is energy dissipative, only a
fraction of excess energy, fP (f is the fraction coefficient),
will be used for gas bubble nucleation and the remaining
fraction (1-f)P will be consumed by viscous dissipation as
the heavy oil expands (Lillico et al.
21
).

Consider a spherical gas bubble of radius r in an
isothermal flow system of excess energy P. In this flow field,
the following energy conservation equation holds for a
spherical gas bubble:


2 3
4
3
4
r P f r E + = (A-1)
where, E is the free bubble energy and is the gas-oil
interfacial tension. Under this condition, the critical bubble
size can be determined by the size at which the bubble energy
E reaches a maximum. This condition can be satisfied as:

0
) (
=

dr
E d
(A-2)
By combining Equations A-1 and A-2, the critical bubble
radius r
cr
can be obtained as:

P f
r
cr

=
2
(A-3)

By substituting Equation A-3 into Equation A-1, the
maximum bubble energy or nucleation energy can be obtained
as:

2 3
2
4
2
3
4

=
P f
P f
P f
E (A-4)
2
3
) ( 3
16
P f
E

=

(A-5)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Gas Saturation
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
`
Equilibrium
0.0077 cm
3
/min
0.0303 cm
3
/min
Bubble point
P
(P, T)
(P
e
, T)
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Gas Saturation
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
`
Equilibrium
0.0077 cm
3
/min
0.0303 cm
3
/min
Bubble point
P
(P, T)
(P
e
, T)

Nucleation Rate. The nucleation in porous media depends
upon several key factors such as, the available excess energy,
fluid densities, gas-oil interfacial tension, and gas solubility.
Using the well known Maxwell statistical distribution, gas
bubble population or bubble nucleation in a live heavy oil
flow system can be defined as:

T k
E
t
N
B
exp (A-6)

2
) (
exp
P
B
A
t
N
(A-7)

Where, A (cm
-3
min
-1
) and B (kPa
2
) are the nucleation
parameters, k
B
is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
temperature.

If suppose the dissolved gas equilibrium concentration c
gd

is known from PVT data, and then a given pressure
supersaturation P can be translated into an equivalent
concentration supersaturation, C = (c
gd
-c
gd
).

Now, consider a grid block containing dispersed gas
bubbles with concentration c
bd
at time t. Further, assume
concentration supersaturation C is an alternate gas exsolution
driving force in the flow system. Then using a simple
statistical approach, the dispersed bubbles concentration rate
can be defined as:

( ) ( )
bd
B
a
B
a bd
c C
T k
E
n C
T k
E
n
t
c
2
2 1
) exp( ) exp( + =

(A-8)

Where, n
1
and n
2
are the mass transfer coefficients, and E
a
is
the activation energy. After simplifying Equation A-8, the
overall nucleation rate can be written as:

( ) ( )
bd
c C N C N
t
N
2
2 1
+ =

(A-9)

Where, N
1
(min
-1
) and N
2
((gmole/cm
3
)
-2
min
-1
) are the
nucleation parameters defined as N
1
, N
2
= (n
1
, n
2
)

exp(-E
a
/k
B
T).