Downhole Catalytic Process for

Upgrading Heavy Oil: Produced

Oil Properties and Composition
M. GREAVES, T.X. XIA
University of Bath

Injection, is an integrated horizontal wells-thermal process, also

Abstract
The level of in situ upgrading of heavy Wolf Lake oil
achieved by a downhole catalytic process, which is a catalytic
variant of the THAI processToe-to-Heel Air Injectionhas
been investigated using various analytical methods. These
included gas chromatography (GC), elemental analysis, simulat-
ed distillation (SIMDIS), micro-activity test (MAT), plus densi-
ty and viscosity. The tests were performed on the oil produced
from the downhole catalytic upgrading process, which was con-
ducted in semi-scaled 3D combustion cells. The tests employed
a standard hydrogen de-sulphurisation (HDS) catalyst, which
was gravel packed around the horizontal producer well, form-
ing an annular radial inflow type reactor.
Although the analytical measurements made were necessarily
selective in their scope, they nevertheless provide a good indica-
tion of what the potential may be for downhole upgrading in the
field. Downhole catalytic upgrading produces a light oil, char-
acterized by a low viscosity of around 60 mPas, or less. The
produced oil is readily converted into gasoline and diesel frac-
tions, with a higher conversion on an FCC basis than that
obtained with normal virgin bitumen vacuum gas oil.
Environmentally, there are also very significant potential bene-
fits regarding in situ removal (and retention) of heavy metals,
and reduction of sulphur in the oil.
fitting into the short-distance displacement category (Figure 1),
but with some unique features. Briefly, there is no necessity for
communication into, or displacement through, the oil layer down-
stream of the combustion front. Rather, this is excluded by THAI,
since the cold heavy oil region downstream of the combustion
front provides a natural barrier by virtue of its very high viscos-
ity, as well as providing a seal around the horizontal producer
well. Figure 1 illustrates the moving window effect in THAI,
due to the propagation of the combustion front. Simply, all of the
fluids mobilized by the high temperature generated in the process
flow directly (forced flow) into the exposed section of the hori-
zontal producer well, immediately ahead of the combustion front.
This effect can be seen more clearly in Figure 2, which shows the
downhole catalytic variant of THAI. The mobile oil zone (MOZ)
is defined as the region between the leading edge of the combus-
tion front and the trailing edge (or trickling edge) of the immobile
cold downstream oil region. This unique property of THAI, in

Introduction
Fireflooding, in situ combustion (ISC), or heavy oil air injec-
tion (HOAI) is a process wherein a combustion front is propagat-
ed through the formation, vapourizing the oil and water ahead of
it. Conventional forward combustion is a long-distance displace-
ment process (Figure 1), so that vapourized oil and water are
condensed in the cooler parts of the reservoir and are eventually
produced from a producer well. Theoretically, forward combus-
tion is intended to burn the least desirable fraction of the oil, leav-
ing a clean formation behind. Its main drawback is that there must
be sufficient mobility for the vapourized oil and water to be pro-
duced after they have condensed ahead of the combustion front.
This factor, frequently leading to loss of air injectivity and conse-
quent inability to maintain the process in a high temperature oxi-
dation (HTO) mode, has probably been responsible for the poor
performance, or failure, of many field applications of the conven-
tional ISC process.
Short-distance displacement (Figure 1) is a concept that was
made possible by the development of horizontal well technology.
FIGURE 1: Long-distance and short-distance displacement
SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage) is the most well-known
processes.
thermal process in this category. THAIToe-to-Heel Air
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)

September 2004, Volume 43, No. 9 25

 Temp. Viscosity
10,000
C cp
15 48,500
1,000 17.4 34,900
18.9 26,400
20 24,400
25 13,500

Viscosity (cp)
100 30 7,620
35 4,700
40 3,020
10 45 1,900
49.2 1,360
55 960
1 60 755
66.4 409
Measured data 80 260
0.1 Fitted curve

0.01
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Temperature ( C)

FIGURE 3: Viscosity of Wolf Lake heavy oil vs. temperature.

FIGURE 2: Schematic diagram of the downhole catalytic
upgrading process.
effect, creates a downhole reactorpart thermal (THAI) and part
catalytic upgrading. The way in which the mobile oil zone oper-
ates is also responsible for preserving downhole upgrading, since
oil is immediately produced via the open section of the horizontal
producer well instead of being displaced into the downstream oil
layer. Details of THAI are given by Greaves et al.(1-3).
Weismann et al.(4) and Moore et al.(5) were the first to introduce
the concept of placing a solid catalyst in the reservoir to achieve
downhole upgrading. Moore et al. performed two combustion tube
tests, one containing a dummy sand section in the bottom part
of the tube, and the other containing a standard refining catalyst.
The latter test achieved significant upgrading of the Middle East
medium heavy crude used (7.9 API). Either a cyclic turn-and-
burn or a form of gas overriding in situ combustion were pro-
posed. Both arrangements are susceptible to rapid fouling of the
catalyst, due to the mobilized oil contacting a single mass of cata-
lyst located near the production well. In fact, the catalyst also has
to process a significant amount of virgin crude oil first, before it is
contacted by partially (thermally) upgraded oil. The THAI
arrangement avoids the main problems associated with long-
distance displacement air injection.
The main focus in this paper is on compositional measurements
of the oil produced from the downhole catalytic upgrading
process. The measured analytical data, although somewhat limited
in its comprehensiveness, serves to indicate useful trends.
Experimental
The downhole catalytic upgrading tests were carried out using
a 3D combustion cell, which was of rectangular construction,
measuring 0.4 m 0.4 m 0.1 m (Cell 1) or 0.4 m 0.6 m 0.1
m (Cell 2). Full details of the experimental procedure are given by
Xia and Greaves(6). The main focus of attention in this paper
concerns aspects of compositional and physical analysis of the oil
produced from the downhole catalytic process, together with a
baseline comparison against a THAI test (non-catalytic).
Principally, we have obtained measured data from gas chro-
matography (GC), elemental analysis, simulated distillation
(SIMDIS), a micro activity test (MAT) involving a further pro-
cessing stage using a micro fluid catalytic cracker (FCC), SARA
(saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes), and density and
viscosity. These analyses are somewhat selective, mainly because
of the time and cost involved. Nevertheless, there is sufficient
consistency in the main trends obtained to allow meaningful inter-
pretations to be made.
The conditions for the 3D combustion cell experiments are
given in Table 1. All of the tests involved the use of 3 wt% kaoli-
nite in the sandpack, in order to simulate the natural activity pre-
sent in a reservoir matrix. A thin layer of ceramic insulation was
incorporated on the internal surfaces of Cell 1 and Cell 2 for all of
the tests, except in Run 986. The internal insulation proved to be
very effective in improving the overall adiabatic state of the sand-
pack, not achievable solely by external heat compensation.
Generally, it had the effect of raising the baseline for in situ
upgrading achieved by thermal cracking. For the Wolf Lake crude
oil used in these experiments (specially dried steamflood oil), the
API gravity was 10.5 and the viscosity was 48,500 mPas at
15 C. The variation of viscosity with temperature is shown in
Figure 3.
The catalysts used were standard refinery FCC (Grace
Chemicals) or (mainly) HDS type catalysts (Ketjenfine, NiMo,
CoMo, Akzo Chemicals, Netherlands). With the exception of one
test, to be discussed in the next section (first preliminary down-
hole catalytic upgrading test), only fresh new catalyst was used,
either as a fine powder (FCC), extrudates, or in a crushed form.
The downhole catalytic reactor process was created by surround-
ing the horizontal producer well(s) with an annular layer of the
catalyst having a maximum O.D. of 0.025 m. The O.D. of the
producer well was 6 mm. In one test (Run 9905), the annular

TABLE 1: 3D cell experimental conditions.

Run 9861 9871 9881 9891 9,9011 9,9032 9,9042 9,9052

Sandpack Buckland Silica W50 + 3% Clay
Oil Wolf Lake Heavy Oil
Configuration Well HIHP HIHP HIHP HI2HP HIHP HIHP HIHP HIHP
Catalyst Name FCC No NiMo(E) NiMo(C) CoMo(C) CoMo(C) NiMo(C) NiMo(C)
Porosity (%) 38.5
Soi (%) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Swi (%) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Initial temp. ( C) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Air flux (m3/m3h) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 13.5 9.0 11.25 11.25 13.5
WAR (m3/1,000m3) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.0 0.5 0.68
Back pressure (psig) 20 25 25 25 25 15 15 15
1 0.4 m Cell; 2 0.6 m Cell; E extrudate; C Crushed catalyst (250 m ~500 m);
O.D. of Catalyst layer: 2.54 cm, except Run 9905: 1.25 cm

26 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 Results and Discussion
First Catalytic Test(7)
Two exploratory trials of the downhole catalytic process were
made under dry and wet combustion conditions (7) . The wet
combustion test (Run 976) employed a partially spent CoMo HDS
catalyst, which was dark in colour as opposed to the light greyish-
blue colour of the fresh catalyst. The spent catalyst was presul-
phided. However, all of the other tests reported here used fresh,
non-presulphided catalyst. It was assumed that there was suffi-
cient sulphur in the Wolf Lake crude oil (ca. 4.5% wt) to in situ
sulphide the fresh catalyst.
Gas chromatograms for the Wolf Lake crude oil and the cat-
alytically-processed oil produced from Run 976 are given in
Figure 4. Comparing Figures 4a and 4b, it is quite evident that the
original crude oil has undergone considerable conversion, and that
a very large proportion of the heavy ends have disappeared. The
average API gravity increase of the produced oil from this
test was 10.05, and the viscosity was reduced to 34 mPas
(18 C), compared to the original crude value of over 35,000
mPas (Figure 3).

FIGURE 4: GC trace for (a) Wolf Lake crude oil and (b)
catalytically upgraded oil from Run 976 (Analysed by BP
Sunbury, UK)(7).
thickness of the catalyst layer was reduced by reducing the O.D.
to 0.0125 m. In principle, the reactor geometry represents a radial
inflow annular reactor type. In a field operation, the catalyst
could be gravel-packed around the horizontal well using normal
procedures.
Overall Production
A summary of the main results of the downhole catalytic
upgrading tests is given in Table 2. In all cases, high combustion
front temperatures were achieved, typically close to 700 C,
except in Runs 986 and 9904. Both of the latter tests included
periods of wet combustion, which may have had some adverse
effect on combustion front temperature if the latter was allowed to
fall too far before water injection was stopped. In THAI, wet com-
bustion does not have precisely the same effect as it does in con-
ventional ISC. Mainly, there is much less latent heat transport into
the oil layer ahead of the combustion front. There is not any clear
indication that fuel consumption is reduced, as one would ordinar-
ily expect during wet combustion, particularly considering Runs
9903 (dry) and Runs 9904 and 9905 (part wet). It may be possible
that THAI and the downhole catalytic process would benefit more
at lower WARs, say less than 0.5.
Overall, the outstanding characteristics of the downhole cat-
alytic upgrading process are: very high oil recovery, in the region
of 85 wt% OOIP (in most cases), and very substantial upgrading
of the produced oil. Improvements in the degree of experience
in carrying out, what are quite complex 3D tests of this type, sug-
gests that the most recent, i.e., Runs 9901 to 9905, are a better

TABLE 2: Results summary.

Run 986 987 988 989 9901 9903 9904 9905

Catalyst loading (g) 124.5 82 200 100 159.3 120.9 50.0
Overall period (hrs) 13.5 14.9 12.7 12.2 12.6 11.75 15.2 13.25
Pre-ignition period (hrs) 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.75
Air injection period (hrs) 11 12.9 11 11 11 10.2 13.7 10.5
Dry phase (hrs) 7 8.7 6.8 6 8.3 10.2 9.7 7.5
Wet phase (hrs) 4 4.2 4.2 5 2.7 3.0 3.0
Peak temperature (C) 530 600 690 690 700 700 640 700
Produced gases (%, average)
CO2 11.27 11.56 12.8 12.47 13.39 12.85 14.06 14.73
CO 3.98 4.20 4.7 4.46 3.90 4.13 4.38 4.45
O2 4.22 2.27 3.0 3.28 0.93 0.834 1.26 2.10
CO/(CO2+CO) 0.261 0.266 0.269 0.263 0.226 0.243 0.238 0.232
H/C 1.025 1.47 0.667 0.748 1.250 1.422 0.819 0.377
O2/fuel requirement (Sm3/kg) 9.7 2.7 9.18 9.90 10.2 10.86 9.533 8.90
O2 utilisation (%) 83.9 89.2 85.7 84.4 95.6 96.0 94.0 90.0
Fuel burned (kg) 0.36 0.413 0.390 0.378 0.392 0.410 0.527 466
Fuel consumption (% of OOIP) 8.30 11.6 10.8 10.9 8.43 6.61 8.70 7.52
Air/Oil Ratio (m3/m3) 1,660 1,510 1,290 1,330 1,030 805 970 800
Oil recovery (%wt OOIP) 55.0 85 85.0 85.5 83 84.3 85.8 87.9
API of produced oil (average) 19 16.5 22.2 25.3 21.77 21.6 21.3 19.8
Combustion front velocity (m/hr) 0.015 0.025 0.031 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06
Residual oil (%wt OOIP) N/A 7.5 7.0 8.7 6.9 7.7 6.9 5.7

September 2004, Volume 43, No. 9 27

 2,000 26 TABLE 3: SIMDIST analyses of Wolf Lake crude oil and

Viscosity (mPas,@15 C)
1,000 Viscosity catalytically produced oil.
800 API 24
600
400 22 Boiling Range (C) Wt% off
200

API
20 Wolf Lake Produced Oil
100
80 Crude Run 9761 Run 9892
60 18
40 IBP to 204 1 13.5 12.7
16
20 204 to 343 18 46 48.3
10 14
120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 343 to 525 33 36.6 39.0
Time (min) + 525 48 3.9 0
(a) Run 9903 IBP 171 127 68.9
Viscosity (mPas,@15 C)

2,000 26 FBP 720 619 513.5

1,000 Viscosity
800 24 Total wt% off 83.11 99.5 100
600 API
400 22 1 Analysis by BP Sunbury, UK
200

API
20 2 Analysis by NCUT, Alberta, Canada
100
80
60 18
40
20 16 TABLE 4: Microactivity test (MAT)1 results, Run 989
10 14
(NCUT, Alberta, Canada).
120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660
Time (min) Normalized
(b) Run 9904 Compound Wt% Vol%
Viscosity (mPas,@15 C)

2,000 24 Hydrogen 0.05

1,000
800 22 Hydrogen sulphide 0.68
600
400 Methane 0.58
API

200 20 Ethane 0.52

100
80 18 Ethylene 0.35
60
40 Total Dry Gas 2.17
Viscosity 16
20 API Propane 1.20 2.14
10 14 Propylene 2.42 4.17
60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540
Time (min) Iso-butane 2.98 4.77
(c) Run 9905 Normal-butane 0.70 1.09
Iso-butylene 0.59 0.87
FIGURE 5: API gravity and viscosity vs. combustion time.
Normal butylenes 1.87 2.76
Total Liquified Petroleum Gas 9.77
indication of expected performance of what is attainable.
Pentanes + gasoline 41.65 49.46
Certainly, as indicated by Run 9005, the ultimate oil recovery
Light cycle oil2 32.72 31.66
achieved is very high, exceeding 85 wt% OOIP.
Heavy cycle oil3 8.48 7.41
Coke 5.21
API Gravity and Viscosity Conversion 58.80 60.93
Figure 5 shows the trend of API gravity and viscosity of the Material Balance 100.00 104.33
produced oil. Focusing on Runs 9903 to 9905 in Figure 5, the 1 Reactor temperature: 510 C; catalyst to oil ratio: 6.9 g/g
main active period of catalytic activity follows the initial steep 2 Boiling range 216 to 343 C
decline in viscosity. Thereafter, the viscosity of the produced oil 3 Boiling range 343 to 525 C
stays low, less than about 100 mPas, decreasing to 60 mPas, or
less for most of the time in Run 9903. Generally, the downhole
catalytic upgrading process achieves an increase of 12 to 14 API Microactivity Test (MAT)
points, compared to the original crude oil value (10.5). This is
normally about 4 to 6 API points higher than is possible using The MAT test was performed at NCUT (National Centre for
THAI (non-catalytic). Comparing Run 987 (non-catalytic) with Upgrading Technology), Alberta, using a fluidized bed reactor
Run 989 (catalytic), it is very clear from Table 1 that the catalytic operated at 510 C using a standard FCC catalyst. This test gives
process achieves significantly higher upgrading, around ten addi- an indication of the processability of the oil by a resid fluid cat-
tional API points. This is due to two horizontal producers alytic cracking (FCC) unit, used by refineries for production of
(HI2HP) in RUN 989, i.e., twice catalyst loading, compared to transportation fuels. The results of the analysis of the oil produced
Runs 988 and 9901. from Run 989 are given in Table 4. As the oil had a high sulphur
content, a significant amount of hydrogen sulphide was generated
(0.69 wt%). The downhole catalytically upgraded oil was convert-
Simulated Distillation ed to 41.7 wt% gasoline, 32.7 wt% light cycle oil (diesel), 8.5
The Wolf Lake oil used in the experiments is a typical heavy wt% heavy cycle oil, and 5.2 wt% coke. These results are better
oil, albeit produced originally by a steam flood operation. The oil than when a virgin bitumen vacuum gas oil is cracked under the
was specially dried at 10 bar pressure under nitrogen to less than same conditions (cracking performance can be optimized by
0.1 wt% water. Thus, as shown in Table 3, it has a high residue removing the naphtha and light gas oil fractions from the whole
content of 48%, and virtually no light ends. The oil produced from oil and by adjusting test severity, i.e., catalyst to oil ratio). The
Run 976, in comparison, contains substantial light ends and mid- preliminary assessment from this analysis is that the upgraded oil
dle distillates, and very little residue (+525 C fraction). The ini- produced from the downhole catalytic process contains neither
tial and final boiling points are also considerably reduced. Run residue (+525 C material) nor asphaltenes. It meets pipeline spec-
989 shows further upgrading improvement, because there is no ifications with regard to API gravity (22 points). From a refinery
residue and the IBP and FBP are also further reduced, compared perspective, the oil contains significant quantities of sulphur
to Run 976. (see further comment under Elemental Analysis), nitrogen, and

28 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 5: Elemental analyses of Wolf Lake crude oil, catalytically produced oil, and burned matrix.

Element Wolf Lake Crude

a b c Run 976a Run 989b Run 9903b Run 9904b Run 9905b Solid matrix
C (%) 83.7 84.2 84.9
H (%) 10.62 11.03 11.79
N (%) 0.25 0.38 0.2 0.01
S (ppm) 43,400 45,000 5,100 29,600 30,300 29,900 32,200 0.18%
Ni (ppm) 73 75 3 12 <5 6.6 6.2
V (ppm) 195 192 8 30 <5 13 20
Fe (ppm) 5 <1
H/C 1.573 1.64C
a Analysis by BP Sunbury, UK
b Analysis by Medac Ltd, Surrey, UK
c University of Bath

undergo a substantial increase in the amount of saturates

TABLE 6: SARA analysis of produced oil+.
Fractions,
Wt% Saturates Aromatics Resins Asphaltenes
Wolf Lake Crude 25.18 37.40 27.33 10.09
Run 9903 Faulty Result
Run 9904 54.78 26.32 17.34 1.56
Run 9905 53.5 28.1 16.4 2 assumed that the sulphur in the crude oil was at a sufficiently high
(dry mode)
Run 9905 55 26.82 16.7 1.48
(wet mode)
+ Analysis by Chemical Engineering Unit,
University of Salford, UK
aromatics. However, it is readily converted into gasoline and
diesel fuel fractions using FCC technology.
Elemental Analysis
A collection of results is given in Table 5. These results are
somewhat scattered in their coverage, but serve to highlight some
interesting observations. First, concerning sulphur in the produced
oil, the value for Run 976 (5,100 ppm) is much lower than that
obtained in all of the subsequent tests (around 30,000 ppm). So, in
Run 976, sulphur removal was much more efficient (> 90%),
whereas in all of the other cases, it was only about 30%. This may
be because the partially spent HDS catalyst used in this initial test
was presulphided, creating increased catalytic activity.
In situ removal of heavy metals is another important environ-
mental benefit of the downhole catalytic upgrading process. The
data in Table 5 shows that Nickel and Vanadium are reduced to
low levels in the produced oil. In Run 9903, metals removal from
the oil is about 85%. It is significantly higher than this in all of the
other tests, achieving greater than 90% removal of these heavy
metals. The single result for the solid matrix (taken from the
burned zone in the sandpack of Run 9905 after the test) indicates
that these heavy metals are retained on the sand/reservoir matrix.
This is confirmed from a material balance on the sandpack, which
initially contained (approximately) 6 litres of crude oil and 26 kg
of sand. This heavy metals removal capability is, therefore, of
considerable environmental value in the upgrading process via
downhole catalytic upgrading. The utility of these processes
to achieve substantial in situ sulphur removal from heavy oil,
especially at the level indicated in Run 976, warrants further
investigation.
SARA Analysis
A few analyses of downhole catalytically upgraded produced
oils were made using SARA (saturates, aromatics, resins,
asphaltenes) analysis. This was done using a Mark 5 Iatroscan
thin layer chromatograph (TLC) system at the University of
Salford, UK Compared to the original crude oil, the produced oils
(> 100%), and there is also significant reduction in aromatics
(~ 25%), resins (> 35%), and asphaltenes (85%).
It is possible to speculate on what may be the chemical path-
ways responsible for upgrading in the downhole catalytic upgrad-
ing process. As mentioned in the first section above (First
Catalytic Test), the CoMo catalyst used in Run 976 was partly
spent (presulphided). In all of the other tests, fresh catalyst was
used, which had not been presulphided. This was because it was
concentration (ca. 4.5 wt%) to effect in situ sulphiding of the cata-
lyst. For the most part, this appears to have been the case, judging
by the trends in upgrading achieved. However, the question
remains as to whether using a presulphided catalyst in fact
achieves a higher sulphur removal. Further tests with presulphided
catalyst are required to confirm this.
Conclusions
1. Considerable upgrading benefits may be possible using
THAI and downhole catalytic upgrading. Overall, there was
an approximately 4 to 6 API points increase for the oil
produced from Wolf Lake crude (produced from a prior
steamflood operation) via downhole catalytic processing,
compared to thermal upgrading only (THAI). Typically, the
produced oil viscosity was reduced by nearly four orders of
magnitude.
2. A micro activity test (MAT) on the light oil produced
from the downhole catalytic process showed that it con-
tained neither residue (+525 C) nor asphaltenes. From a
refinery perspective, it was readily converted into gasoline
and diesel fractions, with a higher conversion than obtained
with normal virgin bitumen vacuum gas oil.
3. Very substantial environmental benefits may be possible
using the downhole catalytic process. In this case, the
removal of heavy metals (V, Ni) was greater than 90%.
These heavy metals were trapped on the burned sand
matrix in the reservoir. The majority of the tests used a non-
presulphided, standard HDS catalyst, achieving about 30%
reduction of the sulphur in the oil. However, one test using a
partially spent, presulphided catalyst achieved greater than
90% sulphur removal.
4. SARA analysis of downhole catalytically processed oil
shows that there is a very substantial increase in the saturates
content compared to the original Wolf Lake oil (> 100%),
accompanied also by significant reductions in the aromatics
(~ 25%), resins (> 35%), and asphaltenes (> 85%).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC), UK, for providing financial support
via Research Grant GR/L71773. We would also like to thank BP,

September 2004, Volume 43, No. 9 29

Sunbury-on-Thames, UK, for supplying the Wolf Lake oil and
carrying out some of the analyses. We are also grateful to the
National Centre for Upgrading Technology (NCUT), Devon,
Alberta, Canada for performing the MAT and other analyses, and
also to the Chemical Engineering Unit, Salford University, UK,
for performing the SARA analyses.
REFERENCES
1. GREAVES, M., XIA, T.X., TURTA, A., and AYASSE, C., Recent
Laboratory Results of THAI and its Comparison With Other IOR
Processes; paper SPE 59334, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 3 5, 2000.
2. XIA, T.X. and GREAVES, M., Upgrading Athabasca Tar Sand
Using Toe-to-Heel Air Injection; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 51-57, 2002.
3. GREAVES, M., SAGHR, A.M., XIA, T.X., TURTA, A., and
AYASSE, C., THAINew Air Injection Technology for Heavy Oil
Recovery and In Situ Upgrading; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 38-47, 2001.
4. WEISSMAN, J.G., KESSLER, R.V., SAWICKI, R.A.,
BELGRAVE, J.D.M., LAURESHEN, C.J., MEHTA, S.A.,
MOORE, R.G., and URSENBACH, M.G., Downhole Catalytic
Upgrading of Heavy Crude Oil; Energy & Fuels, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.
883-889, 1996.
5. MOORE, R.G., LAURESHEN, C.J., MEHTA, S.A., URSENBACH,
M.G., BELGRAVE, J.D.M., WEISSMAN, J.G., and KESSLER,
R.V., A Downhole Catalytic Upgrading Process for Heavy Oil Using
In Situ Combustion; paper 96-72, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 38, No. 13, 1999.
6. XIA, T.X. and GREAVES, M., 3D Physical Model Studies of
Downhole Catalytic Upgrading of Wolf Lake Heavy Oil Using
THAI; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 41, No. 8.
pp. 58-64, 2002.
7. GREAVES, M, SAGHR, A.M., and XIA, T.X., CAPRI Horizontal
Well Reactor for Catalytic Upgrading of Heavy Oil; ACS
Symposium, Division of Petroleum Chemistry on Advances in Oil
Downhole Upgrading Field Chemistry, Washington D.C., ACS
Preprints, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 595-598, August 20 25, 2000.
ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Downhole
Catalytic Process for Upgrading Heavy Oil: Produced Oil Properties
and Composition (2001-023), first presented at the 2nd Canadian
International Petroleum Conference (the 52nd Annual Technical Meeting
of the Petroleum Society), June 12-14, 2001, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract
submitted for review December 15, 2000; editorial comments sent to the
author(s) June 23, 2004; revised manuscript received July 6, 2004; paper
approved for pre-press July 13, 2004, final approval August 11, 2004.

30
Authors Biographies
Malcolm Greaves is a professor of chemi-
cal engineering and also head of the
improved oil recovery group in the
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Bath, England. He was previ-
ously at the University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, and also worked for Imperial
Chemical Industries and Shell Refining,
UK. His main research interests are in
IOR/EOR processes, thermal oil recovery,
air injection techniques applied to heavy oil and light oil reser-
voirs, horizontal well technology, downhole upgrading, and reser-
voir simulation. He has published over 100 research papers and
consults for oil companies. He is a frequent presenter at CIPC,
SPE, and other international meetings. He earned B.Tech. and
Ph.D. degrees from Loughborough University, England and is a
member of the Petroleum Society, SPE, Fellow of the Institution
of Chemical Engineers, and a Chartered Engineer.
Tianxiang Xia is a research officer in the
IOR research group at the University of
Bath. He graduated from the Zhejiang
University, China with a B.Eng. (1984) and
a M.Eng. (1987) in chemical engineering.
He holds a Ph.D. degree (1997) in chemical
engineering, specialising in advanced con-
trol systems, from the University of Wales,
Swansea. Currently, his research interests
are in the areas of advanced IOR processes,
focussing on air injection for oil recovery, in situ upgrading of
heavy oil, downhole gasification for improved oil recovery, and
numerical simulation of air injection processes. He is a member of
the Petroleum Society, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
& Petroleum, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology