THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY

PAPER 99-44

Laboratory Evaluation of Solution

Gas Drive Recovery Factors in Foamy
Heavy Oil Reservoirs
B.B. Maini
Petroleum Recovery Institute

This paper is to be presented at the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society Joint Convention, Digging Deeper, Finding a Better Bottom Line,
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 14 18, 1999. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in
writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered
for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT
The field experience in Western Canada has shown that
the primary depletion behaviour of several heavy oil fields is
anomalous and inconsistent with conventional theories. It is
believed that at least foamy oil flow effects cause a part of
this anomaly. It has been theorised that during primary
production, the solution gas released from heavy oil does not
disengage from the liquid immediately but remains dispersed
in the form of small gas bubbles which tend to flow with the
oil. This paper presents an experimental study of solution
gas drive in foamy oil systems.
Primary depletion tests were conducted in a two meters
long sand-pack using several different oils to evaluate the
effects of different process parameters, such as oil viscosity
and pressure decline rate. The results show that the
performance of solution gas drive depends on the pressure
decline rate (or drawdown pressure) imposed on the system.
Experiments, in which the pressure at the production port

was decreased very slowly, resulted in low recovery factors.

When the pressure at the production port was reduced
rapidly, high recovery factors were obtained. It was
observed that a large pressure gradient developed and
persisted in fast decline experiments while in slow decline
experiments the pressure gradient remained very small. The
results suggest that a different drive mechanism, which may
be called foamy solution gas drive, becomes operative in fast
depletion tests.
The oil viscosity was found to have only a modest effect on
the recovery factors observed in fast pressure decline
experiments. However, the critical rate of pressure decline
needed to maintain the foamy drive mechanism was viscosity
dependent; increasing sharply with decreasing oil viscosity.
The results also showed that, other factors being the same,
the presence of asphaltenes did not affect recovery factors in
high rate solution-gas-drive tests.

INTRODUCTION
EQUIPMENT MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cold production of heavy oil has become an attractive

heavy oil production method past few years. Although cold
production has been very successful in many heavy oil pools,
it is not risk free. The final primary recovery factors differ
widely among reservoirs having similar permeability and
viscosity characteristics. Even within the same reservoir,
some wells are better producers while others perform rathe
poorly. The reasons for such performance differences remain
obscure. Numerical simulation of primary production
(Loughead and Saltuklaroglu; 1992) suggests that the wells,
which perform poorly, are showing the normal solution gas
drive behaviour while the wells which are prolific producers
are anomalous. Several reasons have been suggested for
higher than expected productivity and unexpectedly high
primary recovery factors. These include formation of
wormholes around the well, increased permeability due to
sand dilation, and foamy oil flow. The first two appear to be
responsible for higher than expected production rates and the
foamy oil flow is thought to be the main reason for high
primary recovery factors (Maini, Sarma and George; 1993).

Apparatus
The equipment used for laboratory scale solution drive
experiments is shown schematically in Figure 1. A two metre
long coreholder with six intermediate pressure taps was used to
confine the sand pack. These pressure taps (spaced 33
centimetres apart from one another) were used for dynamic
monitoring of the pressure distribution during the primary
depletion tests. The dimensions of the core holder and the
properties of the sand-pack used in primary depletion tests are
listed in Table 1.
Recombined oil (also referred to as "live oil") was prepared by
saturating the oil with methane gas in the recombination
equipment connected to the inlet end of the coreholder. A
schematic lay-out of the recombination equipment is also
provided in Figure 1.
A back pressure regulator was used for controlling the
pressure at the production port of the sand pack. The back
pressure was held constant in some tests while in others, a mass
flow controller connected to the gas dome of the back pressure
regulator was used to continuously decrease the pressure at the
production port of the sand-pack.

Advances in horizontal well technology have removed some

of the uncertainty from cold heavy oil production. Long
horizontal wells lead to economically attractive (high)
production rates even in the absence of wormholes and other
unusual effects. However, the uncertainty concerning the final
primary recovery factor remains due to a lack of understanding
of the factors needed for anomalously high recovery.

Produced oil flowed into a small pressure vessel placed on

an electronic balance for monitoring of the oil production rate.
The produced gas was collected in a large pressure vessel
connected to the oil collection vessel. The gas production rate
was monitored by measuring the increase in pressure of the gas
collection vessel.

Currently we do not know what reservoir characteristics are

conducive to foamy oil flow. Furthermore, we also do not
know which production practices promote foamy oil flow and
which ones tend to suppress it. It is very difficult to make
reliable predictions of oil reserves added by a new well until
sufficient production has occurred to establish a decline rate.

An automated data acquisition system was employed for

reliable and dynamic recording of the oil production rate, gas
production rate and the values of gauge pressure at seven
different points along the length of the sand pack.

This paper presents the results of an experimental study

aimed at developing an improved understanding of the solution
gas drive process in foamy heavy oil reservoirs. The main
objective was to evaluate the possible range of primary
recovery factors under different operating conditions. Solution
gas drive experiments were carried out in 200 cm long sandpacks using several different foamy oils.

MATERIALS
Oils

A synthetic mineral oil and four different crude oils were

used in the primary depletion tests. These are briefly described
below.

TEST PROCEDURES

PAO-100 Oil

Live oil was prepared by recombining the cleaned gas-free

oil with methane (or the simulated separator gas) at the selected
saturation pressure. This was achieved by spraying the oil
through a gas cap in a large capacity high pressure cell, as
shown schematically in Figure 1. The solution gas oil ratio
(GOR) was evaluated periodically during the recombination
process by withdrawing live oil samples and measuring their
gas content. Equilibrium was assumed when three consecutive
samples taken at least 8 hours apart showed the same solution
GOR. Generally, it took about seven days of mixing to reach
equilibrium.

Preparation of Live Oil

This solids-free, clear and colourless synthetic (poly-butene)

oil was supplied by Nye Inc. of New Bedford, Massachusetts.
At room temperature, it had a density of 0.85 g/mL and a
viscosity of 2520 mPa.s.
Crest Hill Oil
Of the five different crude oils used in this study, this was
the lightest. The wellhead sample obtained from the field was
cleaned by ultra-centrifugation to remove water and suspended
solids. The cleaned oil had a density of 0.928 at 20oC and its
viscosity was 250 mPa.s at 20oC.

Preparation of Sand-Pack
The sand pack was prepared by wet packing the sand into
the sand-pack holder. The holder was mildly vibrated during
the packing. The sand was confined by application of 7 MPa
overburden pressure. After packing, the sand was flushed with
acetone and it was dried by flowing nitrogen through it.

Hamaca Oil
This 9.4o API crude oil was supplied by Intevep S.A. of
Venezuela. Tests with this oil were conducted an elevated
temperature of 67oC. At the test temperature it had a density of
0.976 g/mL and a viscosity of 3300 mPa.s.

The pore volume of the pack was measured by evacuating it

to a high vacuum and then filling it with a metered volume of
water. The absolute permeability of the sand-pack was
measured by flowing water through it at constant flow rate and
measuring the pressure drop.

Boscan Oil
This 10o API crude oil was supplied by Intevep S.A. of
Venezuela. Tests with this oil were conducted at a temperature
of 77oC. At the test temperature, its viscosity was 560 mPa.s
and density was 0.973 g/mL.

Live oil was then injected into the sand-pack to displace the
water. A back pressure equal to the saturation pressure of live
oil was maintained at the outlet port during this step. The oil
flood was continued to about 1.5 pore volumes of oil injection.

Gases
Technical grade methane was used for preparing live oil in
most of the tests. However, in tests with the Boscan oil a
simulated reservoir gas was used. In addition to methane, it
contained 0.8% nitrogen, 3.9% ethane, 1.2 % CO2, 4.7%
propane and 1.9% butanes.

Solution Gas Drive Test

The solution gas drive tests started with the sand-pack fully
saturated with live oil and a small connate water saturation.
The pressure at the outlet end was reduced in a preprogrammed manner using the back pressure regulator. The
effluent fluids from the sand-pack were passed to a small
pressure vessel, which acted as the gas separator. The released
gas was collected in a large gas tank. The cumulative weight of
oil produced and the cumulative volume of gas collected were

Sand
Clean, round grain, 140 to 200 mesh size, silica sand was
used in preparing the sand-packs. It was supplied by Agsco
Corporation of Wheeling, Illinois.

recorded periodically. The in-situ pressure at seven different

locations in the sand-pack was also recorded periodically. The
depletion test was continued until the pressure within the sandpack declined to a low (near atmospheric) value and the
production of oil and gas stopped.

pressure drop was present even at the end of the test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of a slow depletion test in which the pressure at

the outlet port was reduced linearly over a period of 10 days
are shown in Figure 3. The reduced speed of pressure decline
had a very detrimental effect on the oil recovery performance.
The final volume of oil produced in this test was only 120 mL
which represents a recovery level of 11.7% of OOIP. Another
noticeable difference was in the pressure drop behaviour. The
pressure difference between the far end and the outlet end
remained very low. Only for a brief period, during which the
pressure at the outlet port decreased from 3.9 MPa (565 psi) to
2.4 MPa (350 psi), was there a readable pressure difference
between the far end and the production end. Figure 3 also
shows the cumulative GOR behaviour. During the initial
period the cumulative GOR was only slightly below the
solution GOR.

The gas production behaviour is shown in the lower half of

Figure 2 as plots of the cumulative volume of gas produced and
the cumulative gas oil ratio (GOR) versus the volume of oil
produced. It is seen that the produced GOR remains below the
solution GOR during the initial phase of production.

SOLUTION GAS DRIVE TESTS WITH PAO-100 OIL

Four solution gas drive tests were carried out at room
temperature with the synthetic mineral oil, PAO-100 and
methane. This poly-alkene oil was totally free of asphaltenes.
The live oil was prepared at 4.8 MPa (700 psi) pressure and
room temperature (23oC). All tests started with the sand-pack
fully saturated with live oil and connate water saturation. Table
2 summarises the results obtained with this system.
Figure 2 shows the production and pressure drop history of a
test in which the maximum possible pressure drawdown was
applied by abruptly opening the production port to the
atmospheric pressure.. Initially the oil production rate was
very high while the gas production rate was low. The high oil
production rate continued for about 20 hours and then declined
gradually. The rate of gas production increased sharply after
about 15 hours and began to decline gradually after about 30
hours. The test was continued for 135 hours. The total volume
of oil produced was 275 mL. This represents a recovery factor
of 26.8% of the original oil in place (OOIP).

Effect of Pressure Decline rate:

Figure 4 shows the effect of pressure decline rate on oil
recovery. Here the cumulative volume of oil produced is
plotted against the mid-point pressure. It is seen that the
recovery efficiency diminishes as the rate of pressure decline at
the outlet becomes slower. A similar plot for gas production is
shown in Figure 5. It shows that the gas production behaviour
is much less sensitive to the rate of pressure decline. It should
be mentioned that these tests were done during the period over
which the experimental techniques were still being developed
and improved. In particular, the technique used for monitoring
the cumulative volume of produced gas was not sensitive
enough to provide reliable data during the initial production
period.

Figure 2 also includes the pressure history of three different

locations in the sand-pack. The pressure at the outlet end
declined sharply and remained low throughout the depletion
test. The small positive value of the outlet end pressure was
caused by the pressure drop in the production tubing. The
pressure at the mid-point and the far end declined rapidly to
about 3.5 MPa (500 psi) and then bounced back a little as the
solution gas was released. The differential pressure between
the far end and the production end, which is the force that
drives the oil toward the production port, reached a peak of
over 3.5 MPa and remained high during the first phase of oil
production. It was noted that the pressure drop declined slowly
during the final phase of pressure depletion but a measurable

The pronounced effect of pressure decline rate on oil

recovery in this synthetic mineral oil system was somewhat
surprising. It shows that the solution gas drive parameters,
such as the critical gas saturation and the oil gas relative
permeability curves, may have changed with the imposed

diffusion. The differential pressure between the far end and the
outlet end, which drives the oil toward the production port,
reached a peak of over 3.5 MPa and remained high during the
first phase of oil production. This pressure difference declined
slowly during the final phase of pressure depletion. However a
measurable pressure gradient was present even at the end of the
test.

pressure decline rate. It was later found that, although the oil
was asphaltene free, its foaminess was comparable to crude
oils.
SOLUTION GAS DRIVE TESTS WITH CREST HILL
OIL
Four solution gas drive tests were carried out at room
temperature with the recombined Crest Hill oil. This live oil
was also prepared at 4.8 MPa (700 psi) pressure and room
temperature. The initial oil saturation of the sand-pack in this
case was 87%. Table 3 provides a summary of these tests.

In Figure 7 the gas production behaviour is shown by

plotting the cumulative volume of gas produced and the
cumulative GOR against the volume of oil produced. It is seen
that the produced GOR remains below the solution GOR
during a substantial part of the oil production. About two
thirds of the oil is produced before the cumulative GOR
becomes higher than the solution GOR. Figure 7 also shows
that the cumulative gas production increases almost linearly
with the cumulative volume of oil produced for more than half
of the oil production after which the gas production increases
sharply. Therefore it is apparent that the free flow of gas as a
separate phase does not start until at least half of the total oil
production has occurred.

In the first test, the maximum possible pressure drawdown

was applied by abruptly opening the production port to the
atmospheric pressure. The cumulative production of oil and
gas, recorded periodically, is shown in Figure 6. Initially the
oil production rate was very high while the gas production rate
was low. This high rate oil production continued for about two
hours and then declined rapidly. The rate of gas production
increased sharply after about 1.5 hours and began to decline
gradually after 2.5 hours. The test was continued for 20 hours
even though the pressure had declined to a low value after 8
hours of production. The total volume of oil produced was 306
ml. This represents a recovery factor of 31% of the OOIP.

In the second test, the pressure at the production port was

decreased linearly over a period of five hours. The history of
cumulative oil and gas production as well as the pressure
history are shown in Figure 8. In this case the pressure at all
three locations dropped down to about 3.5 MPa (500 psi)
before any significant volume of oil was produced. As in the
previous test, the release of solution gas started only after a
substantial supersaturation had occurred. A brief period during
which the pressure at the mid point and at the far end was
increasing was observed in this test also. By comparing these
results with the previous test, it was noted that the degree of
supersaturation generated before solution gas was released was
much lower in this test.

Figure 6 also includes the pressure readings at three different

locations in the sand-pack. The pressure at the outlet end
declined sharply and remained low throughout the depletion
test. The pressure readings at the mid-point and the far end of
the sand-pack show an interesting feature of the solution gas
drive experiment. Soon after the outlet port was opened, the
pressure at these locations dropped very rapidly. This rapid
decline in the pressure was caused by the expansion of a low
compressibility liquid phase. What is interesting is the low
value reached before the pressure started bouncing back due to
release of the solution gas. The fluid pressure at both locations
dropped down to about 2.1 MPa (300 psi), before the release of
solution gas started providing pressure maintenance. Thus a
high value of super-saturation was needed to initiate gas
release.

The final volume of oil produced in this test was 312 ml

which represents about 32% of OOIP. Thus the recovery level
achieved in this test was similar to that obtained in the previous
test. During the period in which oil was produced at relatively
high rate, the pressure drop between the far end and the outlet
port remained high. Most of the pressure drop was between the
mid-point and the outlet end.

The pressure at the far end continued to increase for almost

one hour. Apparently the release of gas from solution did not
occur very rapidly and may have been limited by slow rate of

These results suggest that the flow mechanism changed

dramatically after the outlet pressure was reduced suddenly.
The gas was flowing as a continuous phase at this point and the
existing free gas was able to flow out quickly after the pressure
reduction. This resulted in a sharp reduction in the local
pressure at all points within the sand-pack which induced a
release of the solution gas. However, this released solution gas
did not flow out at a rapid rate due, we think, to the formation
of a foamy dispersion during the rapid release of the solution
gas.

In the third test, the pressure at the outlet port was reduced
linearly over a period of 4.5 days. The results are shown in
Figure 9. The reduced speed of pressure decline had a
detrimental effect on the oil recovery performance. The final
volume of oil produced in this test was only 70 mL which
represents a recovery level of 7% of OOIP. Another noticeable
difference was in the pressure drop behaviour. The pressure
drop between the far end and the production end remained very
low. Only for a brief period, during which the pressure at the
production port decreased from 4.27 MPa (610 psi) to 3.72
MPa (530), was there a measurable pressure difference
between the far end and the production end. The maximum
value of this pressure drop was only 80 kPa (11.5 psi). Thus a
large pressure gradient capable of mobilizing the oil at high
rate was never generated.

Figure 11 shows the GOR behaviour for this test. The

earlier part of the test is consistent with previous tests. The
initial oil production occurs at GOR below the solution GOR.
The oil production beyond 150 mL was after the sudden
reduction in pressure at the outlet port. During most of this
production, the cumulative GOR declined. Very little gas was
produced with oil in this phase of the test.

Variable Rate Pressure Decline at the Production Port:

In this test, a variable rate pressure decline was obtained by
allowing the dome gas of the back pressure regulator to expand
at constant volumetric rate using a Ruska pump. This
produced a hyperbolic pressure decline which was continued to
about 1.4 MPa (200 psi). The pressure at the outlet port was
then suddenly reduced to near atmospheric pressure. The
pressure and production history of this test are shown in Figure
10. This test reveals some interesting characteristics of the
process. Toward the end of hyperbolic decline, the oil
production was levelling off and it appears that its continuation
would have resulted in very little additional oil recovery. The
pressure data show that a substantial pressure gradient
developed below 4.2 MPa (600 psi). However, the decreasing
pace of pressure reduction resulted in diminishing pressure
gradient and toward the end of the hyperbolic decline the
pressure gradient was too small to be measured. It appears that
by this time, the gas phase had become continuous and it was
flowing out of the sand-pack with little or no accompanying oil.
The sudden decrease of production port pressure to a low value
changed this picture. There was a brief period of high rate gas
production during which only a small amount of oil was
produced. This was followed by substantial oil production at
relatively high rate, with only a small amount of gas
production. The pressure gradient in the sand-pack was
relatively high during this period of oil production.

Effect of Pressure Decline rate:

Figure 12 compares the cumulative oil versus mid-point
pressure curves for the four tests using Crest Hill Oil. It is
apparent that the pressure decline rate has a dramatic effect on
the recovery behaviour. The abnormal shapes for the sudden
pressure release test and the 5 hours test are caused by the
bounce back in pressure at the mid-point. At the same level of
decline, the fast experiments produce much more oil compared
to the slow (4.5 days) experiment. The variable rate
experiment falls in between the fast and slow tests.
The gas production curves, shown in Figure 13, again show
that different drive mechanisms may be involved in the fast and
slow tests. At any level of pressure decline, the fast tests result
in lower gas production. Therefore, some mechanism is
present in the fast pressure decline tests to trap a larger portion
of the released gas within the sand pack. We suggest that this
mechanism is related to the formation of a foamy dispersion of
gas.
SOLUTION GAS DRIVE TESTS WITH HAMACA OIL
Four primary depletion tests were conducted with the
Hamaca oil at the reservoir temperature of 66oC. The results
are summarised in Table 4. The same 200 cm long sand-pack

come out of solution in response to the decreased pressure in

the liquid phase. The figure also shows that high pressure
gradients develop in the sand-pack to mobilize the oil and gas.
Most of the oil was produced during the period in which the
difference between the far end pressure and the outlet end
pressure remained high.

(used in the previously described tests with Crest Hill oil) was
used. The sand-pack was initially saturated with water at room
temperature. It was subsequently heated to 66oC. The volume
of water expelled by heating (to 66oC) was 25 mL. Live oil
was prepared by saturating the Hamaca crude with technical
grade methane at 66oC and 7 MPa (1000 psi). The solution
GOR of the recombined oil was 16.5 standard mL of gas per
mL of the oil. Live oil was injected into the sand-pack to
displace the water at 66oC. Initial oil saturation achieved was
94%. The initial volume of live oil in the sand-pack was 987
mL.

The second test involved a very slow depletion in which the

outlet pressure was reduced to near atmospheric value over a
period of 22 days. The production behaviour observed in this
test was remarkably different from the fast drawdown test. As
shown in Figure 16, the total volume of oil recovered was only
50.6 mL which represents a recovery factor of 5.1 percent.
The volume of gas recovered was 16.5 litres which is nearly
100% of the solution gas originally in the system.

The first test employed maximum pressure drawdown, i.e.

the outlet pressure was reduced to near atmospheric value at
the start of the test. This test exhibited very good solution gas
drive performance. The final volume of oil produced was
262.3 mL, which represents 26.6% of original oil in place.
Figure 14 shows a plot of the cumulative oil and gas produced
versus time. The rate of oil production started at a high level
and declined gradually. About half of the total production
occurred in first four hours of the test. The test was continued
for 70 hours, at which time the pressure at the far end of the
sand-pack had declined to 172 kPa (25 psi). The final volume
of gas recovered was 15.73 L, or 96.6% of the initial solution
gas in the system.

An interesting feature of this test was that, within the

accuracy of the pressure transducers (~1 psi), the pressure at
different points in the sand-pack declined in tandem. In other
words, during most of the recorded test history, the pressure
difference between the far end and the outlet end was smaller
than the measurement error.
It was noted that a large fraction of the oil production
occurred early in the test when the pressure was still high. The
oil production versus time plot displays two distinct zones.
The first zone shows relatively high production rate and lasts
till the pressure drops below 6.3 MPa (900 psi). The second
zone shows relatively low rate of oil production.

Figure 15 shows the pressure history at three different

locations in the sand-pack. In this figure, the solid line
represents the pressure at the outlet face of the sand. Although,
the pressure at the production point was dropped to near
atmospheric level instantaneously, the pressure at the outlet
face of the sand did not drop to this level immediately.
Because of the pressure drop in the tubing used to connect the
sand-pack outlet port to the oil collection vessel, pressure at the
outlet face of the sand initially remained near 2 MPa (285 psi)
level and then slowly declined to the near atmospheric
pressure. The dotted curve represents the pressure at the
middle of the sand-pack and the dashed curve represents the
pressure at the far end. These two curves show the effect of
gas nucleation kinetics. The pressure at these locations drops
rapidly as the outlet is opened, but later shows a brief recovery
period during which the pressure increases with time. This
brief period of increasing pressure is caused by the relatively
slow rate of gas evolution. It takes some time for the gas to

Figure 17 shows a plot of the volume of gas produced from

the sand-pack against the pressure at the mid-point of the sandpack. A straight line can be fitted over most of the pressure
decline, showing that the gas release was similar to what would
be observed in a differential liberation test conducted in a
phase behaviour cell. This also suggests that the gas was
flowing freely as a continuous phase. The oil production curve
shows two distinct zones; one before the linear increase in gas
production started and one during the continuous gas
production phase.
Figure 18 shows the GOR history. It is seen that the GOR
stayed below the solution GOR level during the initial
production period during which the oil production rate was
relatively high. Subsequently it increased to much higher

faster rate. When the volume of gas produced is plotted against

the cumulative oil production, the contrast between the two
mechanisms becomes very easy to see (see Figure 21). In the
slow depletion tests, a lot of gas is produced without much
accompanying oil production. The critical gas saturation in
these slow tests appears to be low (less than 3 percent) while in
the fast experiments it appears to be high (higher than 10
percent).

levels.
The overall behaviour of this test is consistent with the
conventional picture of solution gas drive in viscous oil
systems. The initial oil production is at GOR below the
solution GOR due to trapping of the evolved gas by the sand.
Once the critical gas saturation is reached in the sand, free gas
flow starts and GOR rises above the solution GOR and
continues to increase. The final solution gas drive recovery
factor remains low.

Figure 22 shows a plot of the cumulative GOR against the

volume of oil produced. It is readily seen that the GOR rises
very rapidly in the two slow tests but remains relatively low in
the two fast depletion tests. Plots of the producing GOR
against the cumulative oil production give the same message.

The depletion time was reduced to 8 days in the third test.

The solution gas drive behaviour observed in this test was very
similar to the behaviour of the 22 days decline. It appeared to
fit the conventional solution gas drive model and showed little
or no foamy oil flow effects.

Figure 23 shows a plot of producing GOR against the

pressure at the mid-point of the sand-pack. It is seen that the
slow decline tests lead to very high producing GOR. The GOR
increases till the pressure has declined to about 2.8 MPa (400
psi) and decreases beyond that.

In the next test the pressure decline period was reduced to

24 hours. The behaviour observed in this test was similar to
that observed in the first test, in which the pressure at the outlet
was reduced to near atmospheric value instantaneously. It can
be suggested that significant foamy oil flow effects were
involved in this test and the maximum drawdown test.

SOLUTION GAS DRIVE TESTS WITH BOSCAN OIL

A sample of oil from Boscan reservoir was obtained from
Intevep, S.A. of Venezuela. The Boscan reservoir has a very
large structural closure which ranges from 1100 metres subsea
to 2925 metres subsea. However, the most productive part lies
between 2000 metres and 2500 metres subsea, with a mid-point
datum of 2240 metres subsea. At this level the reservoir has a
temperature of 76.7 oC. The reservoir produces heavy oil of
10.0 oAPI gravity. The solution GOR in the reservoir is 23
(SCC/mL) and the bubble point pressure is estimated to be 9.5
MPa (1350 psi).

Figure 19 presents a plot of the cumulative oil production

against the pressure at the mid-point of the sand-pack for all
four tests. It is noted that two types of behaviour are displayed.
In the two slow depletion tests (22 days and 8 days) the rate of
oil production slows down considerably as the pressure at the
mid point declines below 5.6 MPa (800 psi). In the two fast
depletion cases (maximum drawdown and 24 hours decline),
the oil production continues down to very low pressure levels.
The slow test (22 days decline) may be representing a limiting
case in which the behaviour is very close to what would be
expected in the conventional solution gas drive. The
experimental data also suggest that a critical pressure
drawdown rate may be involved. Experiments conducted at
slower decline rates follow the conventional solution gas drive
model with little or no foamy oil effects. Experiments
conducted at rates faster than this critical value display
significant foamy oil effects.

Seven solution gas drive tests were carried out with this oil.
These tests were conducted at the reservoir temperature of
76.7oC and 7 MPa (1000 psi) saturation pressure. The
saturation pressure used was lower than the actual reservoir
bubble point pressure due to the limitations of our equipment.
The first three tests were conducted with methane as the
solution gas. A simulated Boscan solution gas was used in the
next four tests. Table 5 summarizes the displacement
performance of all seven tests.

Figure 20 shows a plot of cumulative gas production against

the pressure at the mid-point of the sand-pack. In the slower
experiments the volume of gas produced rises at somewhat

Solution Gas Drive Tests with Methane as the Solution

200 cm long sand-pack. Therefore, this decline rate may close

to the limiting slow rate behaviour.

Gas:
Three tests were conducted with pure methane as the
solution gas. The first test was conducted at the highest
pressure decline rate. The outlet pressure was reduced from 7
MPa (1000 psi) to near atmospheric pressure over a time
period of 1.5 days. Even at this high decline rate the pressure at
different locations within the sand-pack showed only small
differences. High differential pressure normally associated with
foam formation did not develop with this system at this decline
rate. The final solution gas drive recovery at this decline rate
was 177 mL of oil which represents a recovery factor of 18.7
%OOIP. The recovery factors were lower at slower rates of
pressure decline; being 10.7 % in the 3 days decline and 11.2
% in the 15 days decline.

The gas production behaviour at different decline rates is

compared in Figure 27. As in the tests with methane, a
reduction in the rate of pressure decline causes more gas to be
produced at intermediate levels of depletion.
Effect of Gas Composition on Solution Gas Drive
Performance:
Figure 28 compares the solution gas drive performance
obtained with methane and the simulated Boscan gas at similar
rate of pressure decline. Surprisingly, the performance
observed with methane as the solution gas was somewhat
superior even though the pressure decline rate was marginally
faster in the test with the simulated Boscan gas and the solution
GOR was significantly higher in the case of simulated Boscan
gas. As seen in the gas production comparison (Figure 29), the
test with simulated gas produced higher cumulative volume of
gas at any depletion level.

Figure 24 compares the oil recovery performance at

different decline rate by plotting the cumulative volume of oil
produced against the pressure at the mid-point of the sandpack. It is seen that the fast depletion produces much more oil
during the second half of depletion. The gas production
behaviour is shown in Figure 25. As would be expected, the
final volume of gas produced was more or less same in all three
tests. However, at intermediate levels of depletion, the slowest
decline gave highest cumulative gas production. These results
clearly show that in faster decline tests, a larger fraction of the
released gas is retained in the sand-pack.

EFFECT OF PRESSURE DECLINE RATE

All of the oil-gas systems investigated, more or less, show a
similar influence of pressure decline rate on the oil recovery
performance. Highest recovery factors were observed in
experiments involving the fastest pressure decline rate while
the lowest recoveries were obtained with the slowest pressure
decline rate. The difference between the recovery levels at fast
decline rate and very slow decline rate was at least a factor of
two, often much larger. The mechanism responsible for such a
pronounced effect of pressure decline rate is not fully clear. It
could be related to the decline rate dependence of critical gas
saturation. The critical gas saturation would be highest at the
fastest pressure decline rate (Sheng and Maini, 1996). This
increase in the critical gas saturation is caused by nucleation of
gas bubbles at a much larger number of nucleation sites.
Because of larger supersaturation created in the faster decline
rate experiment, more nucleation sites can become active.

Solution Gas Drive Tests with Simulated Boscan Gas.

Four depletion tests were carried out with the simulated
Boscan gas. The first test was a fast depletion in which the
outlet port was abruptly opened to the atmospheric pressure. It
provided a relatively high level of oil recovery, at 32.9
%OOIP. It was also the only test in which a large differential
pressure developed between the mid-point and the outlet end of
the sand-pack. The recovery level declined as the rate of
pressure depletion was made slower. Figure 26 compares the
oil recovery performance at four different depletion rates. It is
readily seen that the recovery performance becomes steadily
worse as the rate of pressure decline is made slower. Except
for the sudden decline case, only a small differential pressure
between the two ends of the sand-pack was observed. In the 8
days decline, the pressure remained virtually uniform in the

Although the above mentioned mechanism involving

progressive activation of nucleation sites can explain many of
the observed results, another possibility is suggested by the
experimental observations. High pressure gradients, often

relatively poor at slow pressure decline rates. The recovery

factors for slow depletion tests are in the range of 5 to 10
%OOIP. The GOR behaviour of slow depletion tests is
consistent with conventional solution gas drive theory in that it
increases rapidly with declining pressure. The fast depletion
tests, in contrast, exhibit low GOR throughout the depletion
and result in much higher recovery factors. The field
observations in foamy oil reservoirs show that GOR remains
low even after the pressure has declined to less than half the
bubble point pressure. This would suggest that the solution gas
drive mechanism in the field is similar to that observed in the
fast depletion tests in the laboratory. The problem is that the
depletion rates needed to induce the foamy solution gas drive
in laboratory experiments are much faster than the field rates.
Direct extrapolation of the laboratory tests to the field would
suggest that foamy solution gas drive should not occur in the
field.

exceeding 50 kPa/m, were observed in fast depletion tests

while the pressure gradient in slow depletions was always very
small. It is possible that the dispersed flow of gas is created by
the high pressure gradient. If the pressure gradient is large
enough to mobilise the isolated gas bubbles, the gas bubbles
will start migrating with the flowing oil and may divide into
smaller bubbles during the flow. The pressure gradient based
mechanism for the generation of dispersed flow can also
explain why the foamy solution gas drive occurs even at slower
decline rates when the oil viscosity increases; the pressure
gradients are higher in high viscosity systems.
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY
The viscosity of the four oils used in this study ranged from
250 mPa.s to 3300 mPa.s. The viscosity appears to be an
important factor in the solution gas drive process. However, its
effect on the primary recovery factors observed in these
experiments is very different from what would be expected
from the conventional solution gas drive theory. The recovery
factors obtained in the fast pressure decline experiments were
virtually independent of viscosity.

This conflict between the laboratory tests and the field

observations can be resolved by suggesting that the flow
behaviour is governed not by the rate of pressure change with
time but by the pressure gradient that develops in the sand. It
was noted that the recovery factors were higher whenever the
depletion test produced large pressure gradient. The pressure
gradients present in the field case can be much higher than the
pressure gradients observed in the slow depletion experiments,
especially when sand is produced with the oil. Allowing 1-3%
sand to enter the wellbore with the fluids can result in
propagation of a front of sharp pressure gradients away from
the wellbore (Geilikman et al., 1994). These sharp pressure
gradients occur at the advancing edge of the dilated zone and
may be a key factor in making the foamy solution gas drive
possible in the field. It is not known how far from the wellbore
the dilated zone can propagate. However, it is likely that the
effectiveness of this mechanism will diminish as the front
moves further away from the wellbore.

The most significant effect of oil viscosity appeared to be

reflected in the effect of pressure decline rate. With low
viscosity oil the transition to conventional solution gas drive
behaviour occurs at relatively higher rate of pressure decline.
As the oil viscosity increases, the transition point shifts to
slower pressure decline rates.
ROLE OF ASPHALTENES
A comparison of the solution gas drive behaviour of PAO100 oil with that of the Hamaca oil can be used to infer the
effect of asphaltenes. These two oils have very similar
viscosity and exhibit similar solution gas drive recovery in high
rate depletions. Therefore, it appears that the presence or
absence of asphaltenes has little or no effect on recovery
factors in high rate solution gas drive tests. However,
additional tests are needed to confirm this observation.

Foamy oil flow behaviour can have serious implications on

how such reservoirs should be developed and operated. The
optimum well spacing for foamy solution gas drive may be
much smaller than that needed for conventional solution gas
drive. The drawdown pressure for maintaining the optimum
performance may also be different. The laboratory tests
suggest that drive energy can be wasted in slow depletions

FIELD IMPLICATIONS
The laboratory scale depletion tests with all four oils have
one feature in common. The solution gas drive performance is

10

that do not induce foamy drive. Therefore, it would be

advisable to develop foamy oil reservoirs at a smaller well
spacing and to apply maximum drawdown pressure at the
onset of production and maintain it thereafter.

3.

CONCLUSIONS
1.

Foamy oil flow appears to play an important role in the

solution gas drive process with viscous oils. However,
high depletion rates were needed to induce foamy oil flow
in laboratory experiments.

2.

The solution gas drive recovery factor increased

dramatically as the rate of pressure decline was increased.

3.

Relatively high pressure gradients were observed in fast

depletion tests that produced high recovery factors.

4.

The pressure gradient remained very low in slow depletion

tests.

5.

The oil viscosity was found to have only a minor effect on

the recovery factors observed in very fast pressure decline
experiments and very slow pressure decline experiments.

6.

The critical rate of pressure decline at which the solution

gas drive performance was still at the high end depended
on the oil viscosity.

7.

Other factors being the same, the presence of asphaltenes

does not affect recovery factors in high rate solution gas
drive tests.

4.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contribution of Mr. F. Nicola in maintaining the
apparatus and carrying out the experiments is gratefully
acknowledged. The author is also grateful to Mr. Roy Woo
for providing the data acquisition program.
REFERENCES
1.

2.

Geilikman, M.B., Dusseault, M.B. and Dullien, F.A.L.

(1994); "Sand Production and Yield Propagation Around
Wellbores", paper CIM 94-89 presented at the CIM
1994 Annual Technical Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
June 12-15.
Loughead, D.J.
and Saltuklaroglu, M. (1992):

11

"Lloydminster Heavy Oil Production: Why So Unusual?",

paper presented at the Ninth Annual Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands Symposium, Calgary, Alberta (Mar. 11).
Maini, B.B., Sarma, H.K., and George, A.E. (1993):
"Significance of Foamy-Oil Behaviour in Primary
Production of Heavy Oils," JCPT, 32, No. 9 (Nov.).
Sheng, J.J. and Maini, B.B. (1996); "Foamy Oil Flow in
Primary Production of Heavy Oil - A Literature Review",
PRI Report 1995/96-7, February 1996.

Table 1: Properties of the Sand-Pack Used in Depletion Tests.

Length (cm)

200

Cross-Sectional Area (cm2)

Sand Grain Size (Mesh)
Porosity (fraction)
Permeability (m 2)

16.1
140-200
0.33
3.33

Table 2: Summary of solution gas drive tests with PAO-100 oil

Test
#1
Pressure decline period
Original Oil In Place (mL)
Solution GOR (SCC/mL)
Live Oil Viscosity (mPa.s)
Final Volume of Oil
Produced (mL)
Recovery Factor %OOIP

Test #2

Test #3

Test #4

Sudde
n
1025
15
1530
275

4.5
Days
1025
15
1530
196

10
Days
1025
15
1530
120

17
Days
1025
15
1530
74

26.8

19.1

11.7

7.2

Table 3: Summary of solution gas drive tests with Crest Hill oil
Test
#1

Test
#2

Test
#3

Test #4

Pressure decline period

Sudd
en

5
Hours

4.5
Days

983

983

983

2 Days
(Variable
Rate)
983

Original Oil In Place

(mL)
Solution
GOR
(SCC/mL)
Live Oil Viscosity
(mPa.s)
Final Volume of Oil
Produced (mL)
Recovery
Factor
%OOIP

17.5

17.5

17.5

17.5

124

124

124

124

306

312

70

261

31.1

31.7

7.1

26.6

Table 4: Summary of solution gas drive tests with Hamaca oil

Pressure decline period

Original Oil In Place (mL)

Test
#1

Test
#2

Test
#3

Test
#4

Sudde
n
987

22
Days
987

8
Days
987

1 Day

12

987

Solution GOR (SCC/mL)

Live Oil Viscosity (mPa.s)
Final Volume of Oil
Produced (mL)
Recovery Factor %OOIP

16.5
750
262.3

16.5
750
50.6

16.5
750
51.7

16.5
750
228

26.6

5.1

5.2

23.1

13

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF PRIMARY DEPLETION TESTS WITH BOSCAN OIL

Test #

Gas Used

Methane

Methane

Methane

Simulated
Mixture

Simulated
Mixture

Simulated
Mixture

Simulated
Mixture

Test Temperature (oC)

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

Saturation Pressure (psi)

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

Solution GOR (mL/mL)

16.5

16.5

16.5

19.7

19.7

19.7

19.7

Live Oil Viscosity (mPa.s)

325

325

325

295

295

295

295

Pore Volume (mL)

1119

1119

1119

1119

1119

1119

1190

Initial Oil in Place (mL at

test condition)

1022

1022

1022

1022

1022

1022

1022

Initial Oil in Place (mL at

room condition)

945

945

945

945

945

945

945

Pressure Decline Period

(Days)

1.5

15

Sudden

1.3

2.5

Outlet Pressure
Rate (psi/hour)

Decline

25.8

13.6

2.74

Sudden

32.3

16.5

5.44

Final Volume of Oil

Produced (mL at 23 oC)

177

101

105.5

310.7

138.4

104.4

69.3

Recovery Factor (%OOIP)

18.7

10.7

11.2

32.9

14.6

11.0

7.3

Table 6: Effect of Oil Viscosity on Primary Recovery Factor in Fast Pressure Decline Tests
Oil

Viscosity at Test Temperature (mPa.s)

Recovery Factor (% OOIP)

Crest Hill

250

31.0

PAO-100

2520

26.8

Boscan

560

32.9

Hamaca

3300

26.6

14