22 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Introduction
In Cold Lake and Lloydminster heavy oil reservoirs, cold produc-
tion is used to increase heavy oil production rates by producing
sand along with the oil. Sand production results in the creation of
high-permeability wormholes that enhance oil production. Fol-
lowing cold production, the pay zone has become a network of
wormholes, which extend radially outward from production wells.
During a follow-up process, these wormholes can provide reservoir
access for an injection fluid, such as solvent or steam.
After approximately 5% 10% of the initial oil in place has been
recovered, the process becomes uneconomical because of reservoir
pressure depletion or water encroachment to the production well.
Detailed studies of the cold production process have been presented
by many researchers [Bratli and Risnes
(1)
, Bratli et al.
(2)
, Chang
(3)
,
Dusseault and Santarelli
(4)
, Dusseault et al.
(5)
, Dusseault and El-
Sayed
(6)
, Geilikman and Dusseault
(7,8)
, Risnes et al.
(9)
, Sawatzky et
al.
(10,11)
, Tremblay et al.
(12,13)
, Tremblay
(14,15)
].
The experiment described in this paper was carried out to eval-
uate the performance of a 28% C
3
H
8
72% CO
2
solvent mix-
ture in a post-cold production CSI follow-up process. It indicated
the potential viability of the cyclic solvent process using a 28%
C
3
H
8
72% CO
2
solvent mixture as the oil recovery after primary
production and six solvent cycles was 50%.
A numerical model was developed at AITF to simulate CSI pro-
cesses. The model includes a representation of nonequilibrium be-
haviour during solvent dissolution and exsolution. The model has
been validated based on the experiment described in this paper, as
well as by other experiments not discussed here.
Experiment
The radial drainage physical simulation model was built to capture,
at real-scale dimensions and time, radial flow of fluids into and out
of a 6-cm diameter wormhole during primary cold production and
follow-up processes (Fig. 1).
Stepped cone laboratory models (3 m long) were constructed
from sections of pipe that approximated the cross-sectional flow
area of the irregular cone (Fig. 2). The inside diameter of the
bottom cylinder of the stepped cone was 1 cm and that of the top
cylinder was 9.7 cm.
The experimental model was packed with cleaned produced res-
ervoir sand. Approximately 2.5 PV of water was pumped through
the pack from the top end and its absolute permeability was de-
termined. Approximately 1.5 PV of live Rush Lake oil, which had
been previously saturated with CH
4
at 3.0 MPa and 20C, was
pumped through the top of the pack to complete the saturation of
the pack. Volumes of water and oil injected and produced during
saturation were measured to calculate initial fluid saturations.
During the experiment, the model was configured in a vertical
alignment with the narrow end down. The pressure was measured
at six locations along the model and the temperature measured at
five locations. In addition, the pressure difference between the
Investigation of Cyclic Solvent Injection
Process for Heavy Oil Recovery
J. Ivory, J. Chang, R. Coates, and K. Forshner, Alberta Innovates Technology Futures
Abstract
This paper summarizes numerical and experimental simula-
tion results of a cyclic solvent injection process study, which
was part of a continuing investigation into the use of solvents
as a follow-up process in Cold Lake and Lloydminster reser-
voirs that have been pressure-depleted by cold heavy oil pro-
duction with sand (CHOPS). Typically only 5%10% of the
original oil in place (OOIP) is recovered during cold produc-
tion; therefore, an effective follow-up process is required.
The cyclic solvent injection (CSI) experiment consisted of
primary production followed by six solvent (28% C
3
H
8
72%
CO
2
) injection cycles. Oil recovery after primary production
and six solvent cycles was 50%, which indicates the potential
viability of the CSI process.
Concurrently with the laboratory physical simulation, a nu-
merical simulation model was developed to represent the phys-
ical behaviour of the experimental results. A history match of
the primary production portion of the experiment was obtained
using an Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (AITF) foamy
oil model. This resulted in the characterization (fluid satura-
tions and pressures) of the oil sandpack at the start of the sol-
vent injection process. The history match of the subsequent
six solvent injection cycles was used to validate the numerical
model of the CSI process developed at AITF.
This model includes nonequilibrium rate equations that
simulated the delay in solvent reaching its equilibrium con-
centration as it dissolves or exsolves in the oil in response to
changes in the pressure and/or gas-phase composition. Disso-
lution of CH
4
, C
3
H
8
and CO
2
in oil and CO
2
in water were con-
sidered, as was exsolution of CH
4
, C
3
H
8
and CO
2
from oil and
CO
2
from water. Reduced gas-phase permeabilities resulting
from gas exsolution were also included.
The history match simulations indicated that:
Theimportantmechanismswererepresentedinthesimu-
lations.
Significant oil swelling by solvent dissolution occurs
during solvent injection periods. This can reduce solvent injec-
tivity and penetration into a heavy oil reservoir during solvent
injection periods.
Lowoilandgas-phaserelativepermeabilitiesarerequired
during production periods to match the experimental oil and
gas production during solvent cycles.
A parametric simulation study showed that the quantity of gas
injected in an injection period was relatively insensitive to the
oil-phase diffusion coefficients, but was sensitive to solvent sol-
ubility in oil, dissolution rates, gas-phase diffusion coefficients,
molar densities in the oil phase, gas-phase relative permeability
and capillary pressure. It was shown that oil production is highly
dependent on how quickly solvent can dissolve in the oil during
injection and exsolve from the oil during production.
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9 23
top and bottom of the model was recorded. The production fluids
entered the top of the accumulators, each of which had a piston.
Below the piston, the accumulators contained pressurized N
2
,
which was adjusted to control the experimental pressure. A Par-
agon data logging and control system was used in combination
with a Tesco pressure regulator to reduce the production pressure
at a rate of 167 kPa/d during primary production and 125 kPa/d
during CSI production periods. Production periods were termi-
nated when the cumulative oil production and cumulative gas pro-
duction reached a level value.
The solvent, a mixture of 28 vol. % C
3
H
8
and 72 vol. % CO
2
,
was injected into the narrow end of the model from a pressurized
cylinder, through a pressure regulator set at the desired injection
pressure. The model was then left connected to the solvent cylinder
throughout the remainder of the injection period in order to main-
tain pressure as the solvent dissolved in the oil.
Detailed information that explains the experiment is provided in
Tables 1 and 2.
The experiment consisted of primary production and six solvent
injection cycles. During the solvent injection period, which lasted
at least 62 days long in each cycle, the model was pressured to ap-
proximately 3.3 MPa and during the production period the model
pressure was decreased to a minimum of approximately 0.6 MPa
(Table 3). The solvent mixture was chosen to be totally in the va-
pour phase at the lower pressure and only in the two-phase region
at the upper pressure, as shown in Fig. 3.
A linear pressure drawdown strategy was applied during produc-
tion periods (Fig. 4). The maximum pressure drop (between the
top and bottom of the sandpack) was approximately 200 kPa during
the solvent cycle production periods as compared to 1,200 kPa
during primary production (Fig. 5). Solvent dissolution reduced
the oil viscosity and, as a result, foamy oil stability. It is expected
that both of these effects were responsible for the lower pressure
drop during solvent cycles.
As a result of fluctuations in ambient temperature, the tempera-
ture in the sandpack varied between 15C and 25C (Fig. 6) over
the course of the experiment. In later experiments, better control of
the ambient temperature was achieved.
The oil recovery after primary production was 6.8% and for
the entire test it was 50.4% of the OOIP (Fig. 7). Because of in-
creasing solvent penetration into the sandpack with each cycle, the
greatest oil production occurred during Cycles 4 and 5 where re-
coveries of 9.6% and 11.9% were obtained. The CSI experiment
produced 50.4% oil recovery from the oil above a wormhole. It is
anticipated that oil recovery in a field application of CSI would
be lower and would depend on the operating strategy used and the
properties of the reservoir following CHOPS. Numerical simula-
tions, based on history matches of field pilot data, are used in the
design of CSI operating strategies and in estimating oil recovery for
particular field applications.
The produced C
3
H
8
gas composition was initially high in the
Cycle 1 production period, but then declined with time (Fig. 8).
Because of its higher solubility in oil, C
3
H
8
was preferentially dis-
solved (relative to CO
2
) in the oil at the bottom of the test bed
during solvent injection. When this oil was produced at the begin-
ning of the production period, it contained more C
3
H
8
than CO
2
,
but at later times in a production period, more of the produced fluid
originated from higher in the test bed and the CO
2
concentration
increased. With time, the C
3
H
8
/(C
3
H
8
+CO
2
) ratio approached that
(0.28) in the injected solvent. Similar behaviour was also observed
in subsequent cycles.
There was little CH
4
in the produced gas for the first 7 days
(Fig. 9) of Cycle 1. This delay in CH
4
production was caused by
CH
4
being displaced from the oil into the gas phase by the injected
C
3
H
8
and CO
2
and its upward movement in the sandpack in the
Cycle 1 injection period.
Wormhole
Well
300 cm
E
l
e
m
e
n
t

Fig. 1: Radial drainage experimental representation of field-
scale CSI.
Fig. 2: Laboratory experiment setup and logging system.
TABLE 1SAND PACK CONDITIONS
Primary + 6 Solvent Cycles (28% C
3
H
8
and 72% CO
2
)
Rush Lake dead oil density @ 20C (g/cm
3
) 0.988
Dead oil viscosity (mPa.s) 39,320 @ 20C
345 @ 75C
48.4 @ 120C
Permeability (darcy) 4.5
Porosity (%) 38
Initial GOR (std cm
3
/cm
3
) 8
Initial S
o
0.88
Initial S
w
0.12
Initial pressure (MPaa) 3.3
24 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
More CH
4
was produced in Cycle 1 of solvent production than
in primary production (Table 4). The injected solvent reduced
the CH
4
concentration in the gas phase resulting in CH
4
exsolving
from the oil phase in order to achieve an equilibrium state.
Following the experiment, samples were taken (at atmo-
spheric pressure) at nine different locations along the test bed
and a Dean Stark analysis was performed to determine their oil,
water and solids contents. The fluid saturations were then calcu-
lated assuming a sand density of 2.65 g/cm
3
. The post-run sat-
urations for the experiment are shown in Fig. 10. For greater
clarity, dashed lines connect the different sample points. The
post-run oil saturation was low at the bottom of the test bed be-
cause of oil production. Oil saturation was also low at the top be-
cause of its displacement by gas, which migrated to the top during
the experiment.
Numerical Simulations
A numerical simulation model was developed for history matching
the radial drainage experiment. The simulations were performed
using the CMG STARS simulator. A radial grid (30011) was
used to represent the physical model for both primary produc-
tion and CSI. Each of the 300 blocks was 1-cm long0.78-cm
thick20C. The simulations were performed assuming iso-
thermal behaviour.
70% CH
4
, 30% C
3
H
8
28% C
3
H
8
, 72% CO
2
Cyclic Pressure
Range
55% CH
4
, 45% C
2
H
6
40% C
2
H
6
, 60% CO
2
25% n-C
4
H
10
, 75% CO
2
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
Temperature, C
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

k
P
a
Fig. 3: Solvent phase behaviour during CSI.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time, days
4 000
3 500
3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

k
P
a

Cycle 1
Cycle 6
Test 8
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
Fig. 4: Measured pressure profile during injection periods.
TABLE 2PRODUCTION DATA FOR EXPERIMENT
Gas/Solvent (std. L)
Produced Gas
Composition (std. L)
Period
(days)
Oil
Produced
(cm
3
) Injected Produced CH
4
C
3
H
8
CO
2

Produced
GOR (std.
cm
3
/cm
3
)
Oil
Recovery

(%)
Primary 48 279 5.481 6.8
Injection 62 121 Cycle 1
Production 25 217 58.4 9.0 14.1 35.3 267 5.3
Injection 80 208 Cycle 2
Production 23 182 99.8 3.6 30.6 65.7 549 4.9
Injection 64 224 Cycle 3
Production 26 234 108.2 0.4 42.7 63.8 462 5.9
Injection 63 298 Cycle 4
Production 17 389 147 0.03 73.7 72.4 378 9.6
Injection 66 247 Cycle 5
Production 21 486 174 0.06 79.3 94.9 358 11.9
Injection 78 159 Cycle 6
Production 20 246 147 0.03 52.8 94.2 598 6.0
TABLE 3FINAL PRESSURE AT END OF EACH CYCLE
Final Drawdown Pressure (MPaa)

Production
Injection
Pressure (MPaa)
Drawdown
Rate (kPa/d)
Top of
Test Bed
Bottom of
Test Bed
Primary (CSI) 167
Cycle 1 3.32 125 0.60 0.70
Cycle 2 3.26 125 0.67 0.69
Cycle 3 3.29 125 0.77 0.79
Cycle 4 3.31 125 1.27 1.31
Cycle 5 3.47 125 1.34 1.38
Cycle 6 3.43 125 1.01 1.04
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9 25
Primary Production Model
In order to simulate the CSI follow-up process, it was first nec-
essary to determine the conditions (fluid saturation and pressure
distributions) in the model at the end of primary production. This
was accomplished using a gas exsolution model [Uddin
(16)
]. In this
model, a total of three oil-phase components (oil, dissolved CH
4

and dispersed CH
4
bubbles) and one gas-phase component (con-
nected CH
4
bubbles) are used. The exsolution of dissolved CH
4
is
represented by the following four steps:
CH
4
LCH
4
DB, ..........................................................................(1)
CH
4
L+CH
4
DB2 CH
4
DB ........................................................(2)
Equations (1) and (2) are forward pseudoreactions that represent
bubble formation. The rate of Equation (1) is equal to N
1
(c
CH4L

c
CH4Leqm
), where c
CH4L
is the mole fraction of CH
4
L in the oil
phase, and c
CH4Leqm
is its equilibrium value. The rate of Equation
(2) is equal to N
2
(c
CH4L
c
CH4Leqm
)
2
c
CH4DB
, where c
CH4DB
is the
concentration of dispersed CH
4
bubbles in the oil phase. N
1
and N
2

are rate constants.
CH
4
L+CH
4
DB2 CH
4
G, ..........................................................(3)
CH
4
DBCH
4
G, ..........................................................................(4)
where CH
4
L is dissolved methane in oil phase, CH
4
DB is dispersed
methane bubble (considered to be in the oil phase) and CH
4
G is
gaseous methane.
Equations (3) and (4) are forward pseudoreactions that represent
bubble growth. The rate of Equation (3) is equal to G
1
c
CH4DB
. The
rate of Equation (4) is equal to G
2
(c
CH4L
c
CH4Leqm
)
2
c
CH4DB
. G
1

and G
2
are rate constants.
The constants N
1
, N
2
, G
1
and G
2
were obtained by history
matching several laboratory rate and pressure depletion experiments.
Dissolved CH
4
and dispersed CH
4
bubbles are considered to be
part of the oil phase and flow with the oil phase.
Development of CSI Model
In developing the CSI numerical simulation model, the nonequilib-
rium representation of solvent (C
3
H
8,
CO
2
and CH
4
) solubility, sol-
vent/oil mixture viscosities (C
3
H
8
/CO
2
/CH
4
/oil mixture) and the
mixing parameters of the process (diffusion and dispersion) were
incorporated into the reservoir fluid model. In the model, the delay
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time, days
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
.

k
P
a
Fig. 5: Measured pressure drop profile during injection periods.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time, days
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

C

300 cm
173 cm
12 cm
Cycle 1 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6 Cycle 2
Primary
Fig. 6: Measured temperature during experiment.




0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
,

c
m

3
Rate
Cumulative
Primary
6.8% recovery
1st Cycle
5.3% recovery
2nd Cycle
4.9% recovery
3rd Cycle
5.9% recovery
4th Cycle
9.6% recovery
5th Cycle
11.9% recovery
6th Cycle
6.0% recovery
Total Recovery 50.4%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time, days
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
R
a
t
e
,

c
m
3
/
d

Fig. 7: Measured oil production rate and cumulative oil
production during experiment.
CO
2
C
3
H
8
CH
4
Cycle 160 day soak
Test 8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, days
100
80
60
40
20
0
G
a
s

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

m
o
l
e
%

Fig. 8: Measured composition of produced gas during Cycle 1
injection.
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Primary
Cycle 3
Test 8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, days
10 000
9 000
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
H
4

P
r
o
d
.
,

s
t
d

c
m
3
Fig. 9: Methane production during Cycle 1.
26 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
in a gaseous component dissolving or exsolving from the oil de-
pends on the difference between its current concentration in the oil
phase (x
i
) and its equilibrium concentration in the oil phase (x
ieqm
),
as determined from its concentration in the gas phase, its tempera-
ture and its pressure.
Equilibrium pressure, volume and temperature (PVT) relation-
ship behaviour is represented by the use of equilibrium K values
(gas/liquid equilibrium factor) for each component i as follows:
i
i
i
x
y
K =
, ...............................................................................................................
(5)
where x
i
is equilibrium mole fraction of i in oil phase and y
i
is equi-
librium mole fraction of i in the gas phase.
In the CMG STARS simulator, the equilibrium K value of a spe-
cific gas is calculated using a modified version of the Antoine
Equation,
) (
exp
) (
5
4
3 2
1
kv T
kv
kv P kv
P
kv
K

+ + =
) (
, ................................(6)
where P is the pressure (kPa), T is the temperature (K) and kv
1
, kv
2
,
kv
3
, kv
4
and kv
5
are the coefficients for specific gases.
In CSI simulations, effective prediction of oil-phase properties
and gas solubility in the oil is essential.
Gas Dissolution
Nonequilibrium gas dissolution in oil is represented by:
CH
4
G+CH
4
L2 CH
4
L, .............................................................(7)
C
3
H
8
G+C
3
H
8
L2 C
3
H
8
L, ........................................................(8)
CO
2
G+CO
2
L2 CO
2
L, .............................................................(9)
where CH
4
L is the dissolved CH
4
in oil phase, C
3
H
4
G is the CH
4
in
gaseous phase, C
3
H
8
L is the dissolved C
3
H
8
in oil phase, C
3
H
8
G is
the C
3
H
8
in gaseous phase, CO
2
L is the dissolved CO
2
in oil phase
and CO
2
G is the gaseous CO
2
.
The delay in CH
4
, C
3
H
8
and/or CO
2
dissolving in the oil is rep-
resented by a nonequilibrium equation whereby the rate of dissolu-
tion of component i is proportional to (x
ieqm
x
i
)
n
.
For isothermal conditions, the dissolution rate for C
3
H
8
is:
( )
2
8 3
1
8 3 8 3
*
8 3
* * *
8 3
n
G H C g
n
L H C Leqm H C o H C
y N x x N k
t
N
L H C
=

, ............(10)
where k
C3H8
is the rate constant for propane dissolution, N
g
is the
moles of gas phase/m
3
of gridblock, N
C3H8L
is the moles of C
3
H
8

in oil phase/m
3
of gridblock, N
o
is the moles of oil phase/m
3
of
gridblock and is equal to porosityoil saturationoil density, n1 is
the exponent for x
C3H8eqm
x
C3H8
and n2 is the exponent for y
C3H8
.
The rate equation constants k
C3H8
, n1 and n2 can be determined
from experimental results (e.g., by history matching laboratory ex-
periments or field tests). Similar equations are used for CH
4
and
CO
2
.
Gas Exsolution
Nonequilibrium gas exsolution is represented as follows for CH
4
,
C
3
H
8
and CO
2
by:
CH
4
LCH
4
G, ...........................................................................(11)
C
3
H
8
LC
3
H
8
G, ........................................................................(12)
CO
2
LCO
2
G .............................................................................(13)
During gas exsolution, foamy oil behaviour can be part of the
nonequilibrium process. However, the allowance for foamy oil be-
haviour was not part of the model when the simulations described
in this paper were performed. The allowance has since been in-
cluded in the model and will be described in a future paper.
Solvent/Oil Mixing Process
Solvent and oil are mixed in a reservoir as a result of the combined
effect of the following mechanisms: convection, diffusion, disper-
sion and dissolution.
In diffusion, the flow of a component toward regions of lower
concentration in a fluid phase is represented by Ficks First Law:
k C D S J
ij mij j ijk
/ ) ( =
, ......................................................(14)
where
ijk
J is the flux of component i in Phase J in the k direction
(gmoles/m
2
/d), is the porosity, S
j
is the saturation of Phase J, Dm
ij

is the molecular diffusion coefficient of component i in Phase J
(m
2
/d) and C
ij
/k is the concentration gradient of component i in
Phase J in the k direction (gmoles/m
3
/m).
So
Sg
Sw
So
Sw
Sg
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Model Height, cm
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
P
o
s
t
-
R
u
n

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

Model height is the distance in cm from
narrow (bottom) end of test bed
Fig. 10: Fluid saturations in test bed at end of experiment.
TABLE 4METHANE PRODUCTION IN THE EXPERIMENT
Cycle
CH
4
Produced
in Cycle (std L)
% Of Initial Dissolved
CH
4
Produced in
Cycle
% Of Initial Dissolved
CH
4
Produced
(Cumulative)
Total Gas (CH4
+C
3
H
8

+CO
2
) Produced in
Cycle (std L)
Primary 5.5 17.10 17.10 5.5
Cycle 1 9.0 27.61 44.71 58.4
Cycle 2 3.6 10.84 55.55 99.8
Cycle 3 0.4 1.25 56.79 108.2
Cycle 4 0.03 0.08 56.87 147
Cycle 5 0.06 0.20 57.06 174
Cycle 6 0.03 0.08 57.15 147
Total 18.6 740
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9 27
In a porous media, allowance is made for the increased flow
length caused by the tortuous flow path through the pore spaces.
Thus, the apparent diffusion coefficient (D) used for porous media
is lower than the molecular diffusion coefficient and:

m
D D =
, ...................................................................................(15)
where is the tortuosity.
Individual streamlines flow in a tortuous route through porous
media. A fluid particle can transfer (disperse) from one stream-
line to another by diffusion or through turbulent eddies that disrupt
the streamlines. Mechanical dispersion in porous media arises from
complex flow paths, which create mechanical mixing that is inde-
pendent of molecular diffusion. This is caused by velocity gradi-
ents, heterogeneous flow paths and mechanical mixing.
Both longitudinal (in direction of flow) and lateral (orthogonal
to flow) mixing are controlled by diffusion at low velocities and
by convection at high velocities. Velocity variations parallel
to the mean flow direction are greater than those perpendicular
to the main flow. Thus, longitudinal dispersion is greater than
transverse dispersion. At high velocities, Blackwell
(17)
observed
that longitudinal dispersion was approximately 24 times that of
lateral dispersion.
Neuman
(18)
examined over 130 longitudinal dispersivity values
obtained from worldwide laboratory and field tracer studies in po-
rous and fractured media. The dispersivity values ranged from less
than 1 mm to greater than 1 km for studies ranging from less than
10 cm to greater than 100 km.
For laminar flow conditions in typical unconsolidated, random
packs, some dispersion correlations are as follows [Perkins and
Johnston
(19)
]:
Longitudinal Dispersion Correlation
1
0.5 where 50
p p
L
m m m
ud ud
K
D F D D

= + <
..................................(16)
Transverse Dispersion Correlation
4
1
0.0157 where 10
p p
T
m m m
ud ud
K
D F D D

< + =
, ..........................(17)
where D
m
is the molecular diffusion coefficient, d
p
is the particle
diameter, u is the local fluid velocity, is the inhomogeneity factor
and F is the formation factor=1/() also used for quantifying
electrical conductivity through porous media.
Viscosity Reduction
The STARS default logarithmic mixing rule was used to determine
the oil-phase viscosity:
( ) ( ) ( )

=
i i oil live
ln X ln
, ....................................................(18)
where
i
is the pseudoviscosity of component i.
The pseudoviscosities used for the liquid components at 20C
are provided in Table 5.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, days
300
200
100
0
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

c
m
3
Experiment
Simulation
Fig. 11: History match of primary oil production.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time, days
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0

Experiment
Simulation
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

G
a
s
,

s
t
d

c
m
3
Fig. 12: History match of primary gas production.
P
cow
P
cgo
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S
w
and S
lt

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
P
c
o
w

a
n
d

P
c
g
o
,

k
P
a

Fig. 13: Capillary pressures during history match.
TABLE 5COMPONENT PSEUDO-VISCOSITY
Liquid Viscosity (mPas)
Water 0.9
Oil 39,320
CH
4
L 14.8
C
3
H
8
L 20.0
CO
2
L 15.0
TABLE 6COMPONENT K VALUES AT INITIAL AND
FINAL PRESSURES
K values K at 0.6 MPaa K at 3 MPaa
CH
4
21.3 4.5
C
3
H
8
2.1 0.6
CO
2
6.7 1.6
28 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
History Match
An excellent match was obtained for both primary oil and gas pro-
duction (Figs. 11 and 12).
The post-run pressure and saturations in the test model obtained
from the primary history match were used as the initial conditions
for simulating the solvent cycles. Capillary pressure was considered
(Fig. 13). The relative permeabilities used in history matching of
the experiments were provided previously [Ivory et al.
(20)
] and al-
lowed for the effect of gas exsolution in reducing gas-phase rela-
tive permeability. K values at 0.6 and 3 MPa are shown in Table 6.
The diffusion coefficient for each component in the gas phase
was 0.04 m
2
/d (4.6310
3
cm
2
/s) and 4.3210
5
m
2
/d (510
6

cm
2
/s) in the oil phase. Mechanical dispersion was not considered.
The overall match of oil production was reasonable (Fig. 14).
However, oil production was higher in Cycles 2 and 3 in the simu-
lation and in Cycles 4 and 5 in the experiment. This difference in
behaviour may be partly caused by ambient temperature changes
during the experiment, which was especially prevalent in Cycle 4
(Fig. 6).
Predicted and experimental cumulative gas production was sim-
ilar (Fig. 15). The simulation resulted in lower C
3
H
8
production
(Fig. 16) and higher CH
4
and CO
2
production (Fig. 17) than the
experimental values. Improvements to the history match can be
made by tuning K values and dissolution and exsolution rate con-
stants. In addition, allowance for changes in oil properties over the
546 days it was exposed to solvent can be made.
The viscosity of the oil phase had little variation along the model
at the start of an injection period, but varied at the end of Injection
Period 1 (Figs. 18 and 19) because of the dissolved solvent con-
centration gradient. The viscosity decreased during a production
period as solvent came out of solution.
At the end of the first solvent injection period, negligible gas
saturation was obtained at the top of the test bed (model height 140
cm 300 cm) in the simulation (Fig. 20). This resulted from oil
swelling caused by solvent dissolution, which essentially eliminated
void areas and impeded solvent penetration. This implies that the
production period should extend long enough to create low-oil sat-
uration near the well and increase subsequent solvent injectivity.
At the end of the last production period, predicted gas saturation
values were approximately 0.25 throughout the sandpack.
At the end of the first injection period, the composition of the oil
phase varied throughout the test bed (Fig. 21). At the bottom of the
test bed, most of the oil phase on a molar basis was dissolved sol-
vent (0.95 dissolved solvent mole fraction in oil phase). At the top
of the test bed, the dissolved gas mole fraction in the oil phase was
0.4. Thus, the oil phase at the bottom of the test bed had swollen
and restricted solvent flow to the top. Because of its high concen-
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

c
m
3

500
1000
1500
2000
0
Time, days
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Fig. 14: Experimental and history matched oil production.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time, days
800 000


600 000
400 000


200 000
0
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

G
a
s
,

s
t
d

c
m
3
Fig. 15: Experimental and history matched gas production.
C
3
H
8
Experiment
C
3
H
8
L
C
3
H
8
G
C
3
H
8
Simulation
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
3
H
8
,

s
t
d

c
m
3
100 000
200 000
300 000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time, days
Fig. 16: Experimental and history matched C
3
H
8
production.

CO
2
Simulation
CO
2
Experiment
CO
2
L
CO
2
G
500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
O
2
,

s
t
d

c
m
3
Fig. 17: Experimental and history matched CO
2
production.
Start of Injection Period 1
End of Injection Period 1
End of Cycle 6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Model Height, cm
100 000
10 000
1 000
100
10
0
O
i
l

V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
,

c
P

Fig. 18: Oil viscosity in test bed during history match.
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9 29
tration in the gas phase, more CO
2
was dissolved in the oil than
CH
4
or C
3
H
8
, even at the bottom of the model.
During Cycle 1, the C
3
H
8
and CO
2
mole fractions in the oil
phase were much lower at the top of the model than at the bottom,
but there was little variation in oil phase composition along the test
bed at the end of Cycle 6 and most of the oil phase at that time was
dissolved solvent (Figs. 2124). In addition to solvent dissolu-
tion, the dead oil mole fractions are low as a result of its high-mo-
lecular weight in comparison to the solvent components.
The deviation with time of the C
3
H
8
concentration in the oil
phase from its equilibrium value at gridblocks in the middle and
top of the model is shown in Figs. 25 and 26. At the midpoint,
the C
3
H
8
concentration was less than the equilibrium value for the
first cycle before increasing to the equilibrium value in the second
cycle. Concentration was greater than the equilibrium value for the
last four cycles (Fig. 25). This was caused by the complex interac-
tion between the CH
4
, C
3
H
8
and CO
2
having different equilibrium
solubility values and dissolving in and exsolving from the oil at
different rates. The C
3
H
8
concentration in the top gridblock gradu-
ally moved toward its equilibrium value as C
3
H
8
penetrated to the
top of the model (Fig. 26).
Parametric Investigations
Simulation runs were performed to determine the effect of a number
of parameters on the first CSI cycle. These parameters included:
Gridblocksize.
K values/dissolution rate constants.
Oil-phasediffusioncoefficients.
Gas-phasediffusioncoefficients.
Molardensitiesofoil-phasecomponents.
Oil-phaserelativepermeability.
Gas-phaserelativepermeability.
Maximumallowedinjectionrate.
Capillarypressures(P
cow
and P
cgo
).
AllowanceforCO
2
dissolution in water.
The parametric study showed that the quantity of gas injected in
an injection period was relatively sensitive to nonequilibrium rate
constants, gas-phase diffusion coefficients, molar densities in the
E
n
d

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
6
2

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
8
7

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

6

(
5
9
3

d
a
y
s
)

mPa
.
s mPa
.
s
S
t
a
r
t

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
0

d
a
y
s
)

30,000
27,000
24,000
21,000
18,000
15,000
12,000
9,000
6,000
3,000
0
12,000
10,800
9,600
8,400
7,200
6,000
4,800
3,600
2,400
1,200
0
Fig. 19: Oil-phase viscosity during history match simulation.
E
n
d

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
6
2

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
8
7

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

6

(
5
9
3

d
a
y
s
)

S
t
a
r
t

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
0

d
a
y
s
)

0.35
0.31
0.20
0.25
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.00
Fig. 20: Gas saturation during history match simulation (contours).
Test 8
x
CH4
x
CO2
x
C3H8
x
oil
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Model Height, cm
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

O
i
l

P
h
a
s
e

@

E
n
d

o
f

S
o
a
k

1


Fig. 21: Oil composition in test bed at end of Cycle 1 injection
period of history match.
x
CH4
x
oil
x
CO2
x
C3H8
0 50 100 150 200 250 30 0
Model Height, cm
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
M
o
l
e

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

O
i
l

Fig. 22: Oil composition in test bed at end of Cycle 6 of history
match.
30 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
oil phase, solvent solubility in oil, gas-phase relative permeability
and capillary pressures.
Effect of Grid Size
The radial grid used in most of the simulations was 30011. In
order to determine the effect of using larger gridblocks, a simulation
was run for a radial grid of 511 where the five blocks in the I
direction were 1 cm, 9 cm, 90 cm, 100 cm and 100 cm, respectively.
The inner block was kept at 1 cm so that the same well index could
be used for both. In both simulations an initial (preCSI) pressure of
500 kPa was used and the initial oil, gas and water saturations were
0.84, 0.04 and 0.12, respectively. The initial dead oil and CH
4
mole
fractions in the live oil were 0.96 and 0.04. Less gas (29%) was in-
jected for the case with larger gridblocks. This was because of a
rapid increase in small bottom-block gas saturation when solvent
was injected, which results in a shift in the gas-phase relative perme-
ability. This effect is more pervasive in the small-block case.
Effect of K Values/Dissolution Rate Constant
Reducing the component K value increases solvent solubility and,
consequently, more gas can be dissolved. Reducing the K values
of CH
4
, C
3
H
8
and CO
2
by 48% increased the solvent injected by a
factor of 10.
Dissolution rate constants are obtained by matching exper-
imental or field data. In the field, the bottomhole pressure is
matched for specified injection rates. The more soluble the injected
gas and the quicker it dissolves, the lower the rise in bottomhole
pressure during an injection period. In contrast, the injection of a
low solubility or slowly dissolving gas will cause a relatively rapid
rise in injection pressure.
The rate constants will depend on gridblock size as greater non-
equilibrium behaviour occurs in larger gridblocks (i.e., it takes
longer to reach equilibrium in a large block). Diffusion, dispersion,
PVT and nonequilibrium behaviour are all interrelated and this
makes the modelling of field behaviour more complex.
Effect of Diffusion Coefficient
The cumulative gas injected in the first injection period was essen-
tially the same whether the oil-phase diffusion coefficient was 0.0
m
2
/d, 0.0000432 m
2
/d or 0.000864 m
2
/d.
The effect of increasing the gas-phase diffusion coefficient for
injection periods was complicated by the CO
2
mole fraction in the
gas at the top of the model becoming greater than its mole fraction
at the bottom. Because C
3
H
8
is more soluble, it is preferentially
dissolved near the injection well (bottom of the test bed) and more
of the CO
2
moves to the top. Thus, diffusion causes C
3
H
8
to move
upward, CO
2
to move downward and the overall effect on solvent
injection is difficult to predict especially because the concentration
gradients of the different components change significantly during a
solvent cycle. Of four diffusion coefficients considered (0.0, 0.01,
0.04 and 0.1 m
2
/d), 0.01 m
2
/d resulted in the greatest quantity of
solvent injected during the first injection period (Fig. 27).
















C3H8eqm
C3H8
x
x
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, days
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 C
3
H
8

M
o
l
e

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

O
i
l

a
t

1
5
0
,

1
,

1

Fig. 25: C
3
H
8
mole fraction at midpoint of model during
history match.
C3H8eqm
C3H8
x
x
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, days
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 C
3
H
8

M
o
l
e

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

O
i
l

a
t

3
0
0
,

1
,

1

Fig. 26: C
3
H
8
mole fraction at top of model during history match.
E
n
d

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
6
2

d
a
y
s
)

S
t
a
r
t

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
0

d
a
y
s
)


E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
8
7

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

6

(
5
9
3

d
a
y
s
)

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Fig. 23: Propane mole fraction in oil phase during history
match simulation.
E
n
d

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
6
2

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
8
7

d
a
y
s
)

E
n
d

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

6

(
5
9
3

d
a
y
s
)

S
t
a
r
t

o
f

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d

1

(
0

d
a
y
s
)

0.70
0.63
0.56
0.49
0.42
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.14
0.07
0.00
Fig. 24: CO
2
mole fraction in oil phase during history match
simulation (contours).
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9 31
Effect of Oil-Phase Molar Densities
Concentration and temperature dependent molar densities for dead
oil and solvent components should be determined from experi-
mental measurements. The values selected had a significant impact
on volume of solvent injected (Fig. 28). A higher-molar density
for dissolved solvent reduced oil-phase volume and allowed greater
gas space for additional injected solvent. The molar densities used
in all the simulations, with the exception of some of those used
to obtain Fig. 28, were 18,750 moles/m
3
(CH
4
), 11,539 moles/m
3

(C
3
H
8
) and 18,795 moles/m
3
(CO
2
). These values were based on
the densities for pure CH
4
, C
3
H
8
and CO
2
liquids at atmospheric
pressure as obtained from the GPSA Engineering Data Book
(21)
.
Effect of Capillary Pressure
Capillary pressure had a significant impact on solvent injected,
oil produced and gas produced in solvent cycles. Increasing the
capillary pressure by a factor of 10 increased the gas injection by
7%, gas production by 11% (Fig. 29) and oil production by 9%
(Fig. 30). Increasing the capillary pressures by a factor of 100 in-
creased the gas injection by 26%, gas production by 29% and oil
production by 59%.
Effect of Maximum Allowed Injection Rate
Reducing the maximum allowed injection rate, which is specified
in the model, from 20 std L/d to 10 std L/d resulted in only 4%
lower gas injection. This was because the injection rate was limited
because of the confined volume and the oil swelling that occurred
during injection periods.
Effect of CO
2
Dissolution in Water
To evaluate the effect of CO
2
nonequilibrium dissolution and exso-
lution from the water phase, components CO
2
W (CO
2
in the water
phase) and CO
2
G (CO
2
in the gas phase) and the following two
mass transfer reactions were used:
CO
2
G+CO
2
W2 CO
2
W, .........................................................(19)
CO
2
WCO
2
G ...........................................................................(20)
Published solubility data [Chang et al.
(22)
] for CO
2
in water were
used to determine K values at 20C over the pressure range of in-
terest (0.5 to 3.5 MPa).
Allowing for CO
2
solubility in water had a minor impact by
increasing solvent injection by 2.7%, oil production by 0.7% and
decreasing gas production by 0.7%. At high-water saturations,
CO
2
solubility may have a more significant effect and it would
then be important to use the additional component (CO
2
W) and
rate equations.
Conclusions
The cyclic solvent process shows potential (50% recovery in six
cycles) as a post-cold production process.
The primary production foamy oil model used resulted in an ex-
cellent history match.
The CSI model captures the main mechanisms involved in CSI.
More data on PVT and nonequilibrium behaviour is required for
tuning the CSI simulation model.
At a laboratory scale, the quantity of gas injected is relatively
insensitive to the oil-phase diffusion coefficients and the oil-phase
relative permeability, but is sensitive to dissolution rates, gas dis-
persion coefficients, molar densities in the oil phase, K values, rela-
tive permeability to gas and capillary pressures.
Increasing the block size reduces the predicted solvent
injection.
0.01 m
2
/d
0.04 m
2
/d
0.1 m
2
/d
0.0 m
DISP_GAS=0.0 m
2
/d
DISP_GAS=0.01 m
2
/d
DISP_GAS=0.04 m
2
/d
DISP_GAS=0.1 m
2
/d
2
/d
0 20 40 60 80
Time, days
140 000

120 000

100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
0
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

G
a
s
,

s
t
d

c
m
3


Fig. 27: Effect of gas phase diffusion coefficients on solvent
injection in Cycle 1.
800 000
600 000
400 000

200 000
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time, days
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

G
a
s
,

s
t
d

c
m
3

CH
4
C
3
H
8
CO
2
Molar Densities: 18750, 11539, 18795 moles/m
3
Molar Densities: 21563, 13270, 21614
Molar Densities: 20000, 20000, 20000
Molar Densities: 25000, 25000, 25000
Molar Densities: 30000, 30000, 30000
Molar Densities: 40000, 40000, 40000
Fig. 28: Effect of oil-phase component molar densities on
solvent injection in Cycle 1.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, days
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
Pc
HM
= history match
capillary pressure
100 * Pc
HM

10 * Pc
HM

Pc
HM

Experiment
No capillary pressure
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

G
a
s
,

s
t
d

c
m
3
Fig. 29: Effect of capillary pressures on solvent injection in Cycle 1.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, days
500
400
300
200
100
0
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

c
m
3100 * Pc
HM

10 * Pc
HM

Pc
HM

Experiment
No capillary
pressure
Fig. 30: Effect of capillary pressures on oil production in Cycle 1.
32 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Oil swelling may have a significant impact on cyclic solvent pro-
cesses when initial oil saturations are high because it impedes sol-
vent injection.
As a result of its higher solubility in oil and its initial production
in the oil phase, the C
3
H
8
concentration of the produced gas was
initially higher than that of CO
2
. As production began to originate
from higher in the model, the CO
2
concentration became signifi-
cantly greater than the C
3
H
8
concentration.
There was a delay in CH
4
production during each production pe-
riod of a solvent cycle as a result of CH
4
being displaced upward in
the test bed by injected solvent.
Acknowledgements
The assistance of Dennis Coombe of CMG, Ron Sawatzky and
Mafiz Uddin is appreciated.
Nomenclature
b
c
= connected bubble component in the gas phase
b
d
= dispersed bubble component in the oil phase
CH
4
L = dissolved methane in oil phase
CH
4
G = gaseous methane
C
3
H
8
L = dissolved propane in oil phase
C
3
H
8
G = gaseous propane
CO
2
L = dissolved carbon dioxide in oil phase
CO
2
G = gaseous carbon dioxide
CO
2
W = dissolved carbon dioxide in water phase
CDOR = (calendar day oil rate) total oil production/total
number of days, m
3
/d
gd = dissolved gas component in the oil phase
GOR = volume of dissolved gas per unit volume of oil, std
m
3
/m
3
k
h
= absolute permeability in horizontal direction, darcy
k
rgro
= gas relative permeability at S
wc
+S
org
k
rocw
= oil relative permeability at irreducible water
saturation
k
row
= oil-phase relative permeability in the presence of
water
k
rw
= water-phase relative permeability
k
rwc
= water relative permeability at residual oil saturation
k
v
= absolute permeability in vertical direction, darcy
K
i
= y
i
/x
i
OOIP = original oil in place, m
3
P = pressure, kPa
PV = pore volume, cm
3
S
gr
= critical gas saturation
S
org
= residual oil saturation for oil-gas system
S
orw
= residual oil saturation for oil-water system
S
W
= water saturation
S
wr
= irreducible water saturation
vis
i
= viscosity of component I in oil phase, mPa.s
vis
oil
= oil-phase viscosity, mPa.s
x
i
= mole fraction of component i in oil phase
y
i
= mole fraction of component i in gas phase
= porosity
References
1. Bratli, R.K. and Risnes, R. 1981. Stability and Failure of Sand Arches.
SPE J. 21 (2): 236238. SPE-8427-PA. doi: 10.2118/8427-PA.
2. Bratli, R.K., Dusseault, M.B., Santarelli, F.J., and Tronvoll, J. 1998.
Sand Management Protocol Increases Production Rates, Reduces
Completion Costs. Presented at the 12th Biennial Business and Tech-
nology Conference, Trinidad and Tobago, 10-13 March.
3. Chang, J. 2000. System Dynamics Approaches for Sand Production
Simulation and Prediction (A Semi-Analytical Implementation). MS
thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
4. Dusseault, M.B. and Santarelli, F.J. 1989. A Conceptual Model for
Massive Solid Production in Poorly-Consolidated Sandstone. Proc.,
International Symposium on Rock at Great Depth, Pau, France, 2831
August, 789797.
5. Dusseault, M.B., Geilikman, M.B., and Spanos, T.J.T. 1998. Mecha-
nisms of Massive Sand Production in Heavy Oils. Proc., 7th Unitar
Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Beijing, 2730 October,
119.
6. Dusseault, M.B. and El-Sayed, A. 1999. CHOP-Cold Heavy Oil Pro-
duction. Paper 086 presented at the 10th European Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 1820 August.
7. Geilikman, M.B. and Dusseault, M.B. 1997. Dynamics of Wormholes
and Enhancement of Fluid Production. Paper presented at the 48th
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society in Calgary, Cal-
gary, 811 June.
8. Geilikman, M.B. and Dusseault, M.B. 1999. Sand Production Caused
by Foamy Oil Flow. Transport in Porous Media 35 (2): 259272. doi:
10.1023/A:1006532804609.
9. Risnes, R., Bratli, R.K., and Horsrud, P. 1982. Sand Arching- A Case
Study. Proc., European Petroleum Conference, London, 2528 Oc-
tober, EUR 310, 313318.
10. Sawatzky, R.P., Lillico, D.A., Vilcsak, G., and Tremblay, B. 1996.
Initiation of Sand Production in the Cold Production Process. Paper
presented at the Petroleum Society of CIM Annual Technical Meeting,
Calgary, 1012 June.
11. Sawatzky, R.P., Lillico, D.A., Tremblay, B.R., and Coates, R.M. 2002.
Tracking Cold Production Footprints. Paper CIPC 2002-086 pre-
sented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
1113 June. doi: 10.2118/2002-08.
12. Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Forshner, K. 1998. Modelling of
Sand Production from Wells on Primary Recovery. J Can Pet Technol
37 (3): 4150. JCPT Paper No. 98-03-03. doi: 10.2118/98-03-03.
13. Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Vu, D. 1999. A Review of Cold
Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Paper presented at the 10th Eu-
ropean Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 1820
August.
14. Tremblay, B. 2003. Modelling of Sand Transport Through Wormholes.
Paper CIPC 2003-101 presented at the Canadian International Petro-
leum Conference, Calgary, 1012 June.
15. Tremblay, B. 2009. Cold Flow: A Multi-Well Cold Production
(CHOPS) Model. J Can Pet Technol 48 (2): 2228. JCPT Paper No.
09-02-22. doi: 10.2118/09-02-22.
16. Uddin, M. 2005. Numerical Studies of Gas Exsolution in a Live
Heavy-Oil Reservoir. Paper SPE 97739 presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/
CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium,
Calgary, 13 November. doi: 10.2118/97739-MS.
17. Blackwell, R.J. 1962. Laboratory Studies of Microscopic Dispersion
Phenomena. SPE J. 2 (1), 18; Trans., AIME, 225. SPE-1483-G. doi:
10.2118/1483-G.
18. Neuman, S.P. 1990. Universal Scaling of Hydraulic Conductivities
and Dispersivities in Geologic Media. Water Resources Research 26
(8): 17491758. doi: 10.1029/WR026i008p01749.
19. Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C. 1963. A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media. SPE J. 3 (1): 7084; Trans., AIME, 228.
SPE-480-PA. doi: 10.2118/480-PA.
20. Ivory, J., Chang, J., Coates, R., and Forshner, K. 2009. Investigation of
Cyclic Solvent Injection Process for Heavy Oil Recovery. Paper CIPC
2009-161 presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Confer-
ence, Calgary, 1618 June. doi: 10.2118/2009-161.
21. GPSA Engineering Data Book, Vol. 2, eleventh edition, 23-222-3.
1998. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Gas Processors Suppliers Association.
22. Chang, Y., Coats, B.K., and Nolen, J.S. 1998. A Compositional Model
for CO
2
Floods Including CO
2
Solubility in Water. SPE Res Eval &
Eng 1 (2): 155160. SPE-35164-PA. doi: 10.2118/35164-PA.

This paper (2009-161) was accepted for presentation at the 10th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference (the 60th Annual Technical Meeting of
the Petroleum Society), Calgary, 16-18 June, 2009, and revised for publi-
cation. Original manuscript received for review 27 March 2009. Revised
paper received for review 29 June 2010. Paper peer approved 7 July 2010
as SPE Paper 140662.
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9 33
Authors Biographies
John Ivory is a senior research engineer at
AITF (formerly Alberta Research Council)
in the areas of enhanced oil recovery (pri-
marily solvent, steam, steam-solvent and in-
situ combustion processes) and gas
separation/purification using membranes,
adsorption or absorption technologies since
1981. He is currently leader of AITFs reser-
voir simulation group. He has extensive ex-
pertise in both designing experiments and
performing numerical simulations related to enhanced heavy oil
and bitumen recovery processes. Ivory holds a Ph.D. degree in
chemical engineering from the University of Alberta.
Jeannine Chang is a research scientist at
AITF in Edmonton, Alberta. She is cur-
rently focusing on reservoir simulation of
EOR technologies, including the cyclic in-
jection processes (solvent, steam and steam-
solvent), VAPEX, SAGD and primary
production. She has expertise in petroleum
geomechanics and hydrogeology and has
been an environmental consultant focusing
on environmental assessments and petro-
leum contaminant remediation. Chang holds an M.Sc. degree in
earth sciences from the University of Waterloo.

Roy Coates is a senior research engineer
with the heavy oil and oil sands research de-
partment of AITF. He has been extensively
involved in researching heavy oil and bi-
tumen recovery processes for over 30 years,
including in-situ combustion, steam assisted
gravity drainage and cold production. Re-
cently he has been a member of the team in-
vestigating solvent-based and in-situ
combustion heavy oil recovery processes
and has been the program manager for the AERI/ARC Carbonate
Research Program. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from
the University of Alberta and is a member of APPEGA.
Ken Forshner is a senior research technolo-
gist at AITF in the areas of enhanced oil re-
covery (primarily solvent, steam and in-situ
combustion processes) and development of
x-ray scanning. He is currently a lead tech-
nologist in AITFs reservoir engineering
group. He has extensive expertise in both
designing and fabricating experiments re-
lated to enhanced heavy oil and bitumen re-
covery processes.
*Online orders available in the US only. International orders
may be completed by phone (608-935-8397), fax (608-937-
5491), or email (nationalsales2@landsend.com).
Society of Petroleum Engineers
save 10% at
Lands End.
Shop online: ces.landsend.com/SPE
or call: 800.419.1097
Lands End offers outtting ideas that t the way
you work. And smart incentives or awards that last
long after the event ends. Well add your Society of
Petroleum Engineers logo to the items you want. Or
send you undecorated apparel. The choice is yours.
Youll always save 10% on product & logo fees. Plus
theres no minimum to buy.

LandsEnd_HH.indd 1 10/13/09 3:09:20 PM