SPE 143390

Recovery Processes of Extra Heavy Oil - Mechanistic Modelling and

Simulation Approach
Y. Y. Foo, S. C. Chee, Z. M. Zain, PETRONAS Sdn. Bhd., D. D. Mamora, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1921 July 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Heavy/ extra heavy oil has captured the global attention as an unconventional hydrocarbon resource which may satisfy the
ever-increasing energy demand in the future. Heavy/ extra heavy oil is often characterized as viscous and immobile fluid with
high content of impurities and heavy metals, such as Nickel and Vanadium. These inherited characteristics impose great
challenges not only to oil recovery optimization, but also various costs pertaining to downstream processing. Due to this fact,
reservoir modelling and simulation are commonly conducted to evaluate the performances of enhanced recovery processes at
early project stage. In this paper, the conceptual models for Oilfield Alpha are developed using CMG STARS reservoir
simulator. They are grouped into 3 categories, i.e. (I) Horizontal wells, (II) 5-spot pattern vertical wells and (III) Horizontal
well pairs, based on the nature and well configuration of the recovery techniques. These techniques are Horizontal Well
(HORZ), Steam Flooding (SF), Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS), Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), Vapour
Extraction (VAPEX) and some of their variations. Performance indicators, typically the Recovery Factor (RF) and
Cumulative Steam-Oil-Ratio (CSOR), for each model are evaluated and compared within the category. The simulation results
generally show that, after 20 years of production, the thermal methods have prevalently higher oil recovery factor, i.e. 7 - 37
% of OOIP, compared to that of cold methods, i.e. 8 - 13 % of OOIP. Further sensitivity analysis on Expanding Solvent-
SAGD (ES-SAGD) and VAPEX are also conducted in order to investigate the effects of injected fluid composition imposed
on the process performance. From the results, 95 % of steam and 5 % binary components of C3 and C6 presents as the
optimum injected fluid composition for ES-SAGD method. On the other hand, injected fluid comprising 60 % of C1 and 40
% of C3 delivers the best oil recovery factor for VAPEX method.

Introduction

A wide spectrum of unconventional hydrocarbon, such as heavy/ extra heavy oil and oil sands, has emerged as the potential
resources to secure the energy demand in the foreseeable future. With approximately 6 trillion bbls of-in-place attributed to
the heavy oil globally, it is triple the amount of combined world reserves of conventional oil and gas (Curtis et al., 2002). The
international Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that the major heavy oil resources are deposited across Western Canada (2.5
trillion bbls), Venezuela (1.5 trillion bbls), Russia (1.0 trillion bbls), United States (180 billion bbls) and other countries.
Despite the vast volume of oil-in-place, majority of the heavy oilfields still remain untapped or undeveloped due to its
recovery challenges and marginal economics.

High viscosity and density are amongst the oil characteristics that give rise to the oil mobility and flowability problem. Crude
oil with oil gravity less than 20o API is classified as heavy oil and heavy oil with API gravity less than 10o is further
classified as extra or ultra heavy oil. Nevertheless, one should not be confused by oil sands and extra heavy oil because there
is a significant difference in the market value of the mentioned end-products. Although the oil gravities of oil sands and extra
heavy oil are both less than 10o API, oil sands in the solid form are usually deposited on the surface. Open pit mining using
truck and shovel method is commonly applied to recover the shallow bitumen and oil sands.
2 SPE 143390

Physical Properties Heavy Oil Light Oil

o
Oil Gravity ( API) < 20 30 35
Viscosity >1000 5 20
Sulphur (Weight %) 2.5 4.0 <1
Nitrogen (Weight %) 0.4 0.8 < 0.05
Ni (ppm) 85 150 -
V (ppm) 269 500 -

Table 1 Classification of unconventional hydrocarbon resources (IEA Conference in Non-conventional

Oil, Calgary, 2002).

Strategic reservoir development planning is mandatory in developing heavy oilfields in order to maximize the return of
investment. It is almost essential to incorporate an Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) method in the heavy oil development plan
even in the preliminary appraisal stage. An appropriate EOR will not only yield an additional oil recovery but also accelerate
oil production which, in turn, improves Net-Present-Value (NPV) of the project. For the above-mentioned purposes, reservoir
simulation is commonly adopted to assess the technical viability of the potential EOR methods prior to any development
project or pilot test. Through mechanistic modelling and numerical simulation, this study aims to evaluate various EOR
methods on the recovery of Venezuelan extra heavy oil from the perspectives of technical performances. General aspects of
the mentioned methods, such as well configuration, recovery processes and challenges will also be addressed.

Conceptual Reservoir Modelling

In this paper, nine heavy oil recovery processes of are grouped into three categories based on the nature of the process and
well configurations, as are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Category I: Horizontal wells

Category II: 5-spot pattern vertical wells
Category III: Horizontal well pairs

Each recovery process was modelled and simulated using CMG STARS reservoir simulator in order to estimate their
technical performances, such as their oil ecovery factor (RF), Cumulative Steam-Oil-Ratio (CSOR), etc. Table 2 summarizes
the grid block description corresponding to the conceptual models.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2 Illustrations of the conceptual models for (a) Category I: Horizontal wells, (b) Category II: 5-spot
pattern vertical wells and (c) Category III: Horizontal well pairs.

Category I consists of Horizontal Well (HORZ), Multilateral HORZ confirgured in fishbone and stacked dual manner. A
horizontal well is typically outfitted with an Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) or a Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP) to lift
the heavy oil to the surface. Naphtha or lighter oil is often injected as diluent to reduce the downhole viscosity and to
improve dehydration. Horizontal wells with laterals are often attached to tap more oil. The multilateral horizontal wells
described in this study are configured in fishbone and stacked dual manner.
SPE 143390 3

Category II consists of Steam Flooding (SF), Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) and combination of SF+CSS methods. 10 acres
of normal 5-spot well pattern are applied. Steam with temperature of 617 oF and steam quality of 80 % is injected via the four
corner injectors. Intensive heat transfer takes place between the steam, formation and heavy crude oil, resulting in the
condensation of steam to hot water. For SF method, the mixtures of hot water and diluted oil are swept to the center producer
for continuous production. For CSS method, all of the wells serve as cyclic steam injector-producer. A complete cycle
involves a short period of injection and soaking, following by a much longer production period. The mixtures of condensed
water and oil are produced by these wells until the economic limit has been reached and the cycle recurs. The major
challenges of steam injection are the gravity override of the low-density steam, reservoir heterogeneities and monitoring of
the steam front (Alboudware et. al., 2006).

Category III consists of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), Expanding Solvent-SAGD (ES-SAGD) and Vapour
Extraction (VAPEX) methods. In this category, a horizontal injector is placed above a parallel horizontal producer in the
same vertical plane. The models of SAGD, ES-SAGD and VAPEX methods share the common production concepts but
differ in the type of injected fluids, i.e. superheated steam for SAGD method, steam and hydrocarbon solven for ES-SAGD
method and solvent in cold vapour form for VAPEX method. As the fluid is continuously injected, steam or vapour rises to
form a chamber above the wells. At the chamber edge, fluids consisting of both heavy crude oil and condensate flow under
the action of gravity to the bottom well.

Category Recovery Method Number of Grid Blocks Grid Block Dimensions

HORZ
(I) Horizontal Wells Multilateral HORZ (Fishbone) 39 x 13 x 5 = 2,535 6,396 ft x 6,500 ft x 75 ft
Multilateral HORZ (Stacked Dual)
SF
(II) 5-spot Pattern Vertical Wells CSS 35 x 35 x 5 = 6,125 679 ft x 679 ft x 75 ft
CSS+SF
SAGD
(III) Horizontal Well Pairs ES-SAGD 123 x 30 x 5 = 18,450 984 ft x 2,400 ft x 75 ft
VAPEX

Table 2 The number of grid blocks and grid block dimensions of the conceptual reservoir models.

Conceptual Model Inputs

Some input parameters were determined to be common for all of the models. These include reservoir (geological data),
component (PVT data) and rock-fluid (relative permeability data) properties. The values of the common input parameters for
Oilfield Alpha were determined with reference to Oilfield Review (Curtis et al., 2002) and listed in Table 3. All of the
models in this study were simulated for a period of 20 years.

For numerical methods control, the First Time step After Well Change (DTWELL) specifies the size of the first time step
after the previous reference time (CMG STARS Manual). For more complex thermal system involving variable changes
within a small timeframe, a smaller timestep size of DTWELL is used. For the models in Category I it was determined to be
0.1 day and reduced to 0.001 day for the models in Category II and III.

Input Parameter Value

Reference Depth 1,300 ft
Initial Pressure 650 psi
o
Reservoir Temperature 110 F
Porosity 30 %
Horizontal Permeability 1750 mD
Vertical Permeability 1400 mD
-5
Formation Compressibility 1.8 x 10 1/psi
3
Volumetric Heat Capacity 35.0401 Btu/(ft F)

Thermal Conductivity for Reservoir Rock 44 Btu/(ft*day*F)

4 SPE 143390

Thermal Conductivity for Water 8.6 Btu/(ft*day*F)

Thermal Conductivity for Oil 1.8 Btu/(ft*day*F)

Thermal Conductivity for Gas 0.3 Btu/(ft*day*F)
Thermal Conductivity of Overburden and Underburden 24 Btu/(ft*day*F)
o
Oil Gravity @ Standard Condition 8 API
o
Viscosity @ 98 F 20,000 cP
o
Viscosity @ 110 F 2,940 cP

Table 3 The common input parameters and values for the conceptual models.

For the models in Category I, the horizontal producers were perforated at the 5th layer. On the other hand, the vertical
injectors of the models corresponding to the SF method were only perforated at the 3rd, 4th and 5th layer in order to minimize
steam overriding and the producers were only perforated at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th layer for the same purpose. For the models in
Category III, the top horizontal injector was perforated at the 3rd layer whereas the bottom horizontal producer was perforated
at the 5th layer. The distance between the injector and producer is therefore 30 ft in total.

Table 4 summarizes the operating well constraints applied to the models. All of the models were simulated in fulfilling the
assigned constraints. In the event that more than one operating constraints were present, the model would honour the
constraints in the assigning order. In general, for this study, the optimized Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) of the producers were
determined to be 200 psi minimum. One-third rule was adopted as the reservoir pressure is approximately 650 psi. On the
other hand, the injector BHP should not exceed 900 psi in order to avoid fracturing the formation.

For the CSS model, the injection, soaking and production period are 10, 10 and 335 days respectively. For the model
corresponding to SAGD and ES-SAGD method, STEAMTRAP constraint, which is the value by how much the steam
temperature corresponding to well BHP exceeds the temperature of the produced water (CMG STARS Manual), was
assigned to the horizontal producer in order to prevent the steam production. For the VAPEX model, the BHP constraints
were strategically assigned such that pressure difference could be minimized in order to avoid the entrainment of vapour from
the injector to the producer.

Category Recovery Method Injector Constraint Producer Constraint

HORZ
STO max. 700 bbl/day
(I) Horizontal Wells Multilateral HORZ (Fishbone) N/A
BHP min. 200 psi
Multilateral HORZ (Stacked Dual)
SF

CSS BHP max. 900 psi

(II) 5-spot Pattern Vertical Wells BHP min. 200 psi
STW min. 200 bbl/day
SF+CSS

SAGD BHP min. 200 psi

BHP max. 900 psi
STF min. 400 bbl/day
ES-SAGD
(III) Horizontal Well Pairs
BHP max. 700 psi
VAPEX 3
STG min. 50,000 ft
STO max. 400 bbl/day
o
STEAMTRAP min. 50 F
BHP min. 650 psi
STO max. 400 bbl/day

Denotation:

BHP Bottom Hole Pressure

STW Surface Water Rate
STF Surface Fluid Rate
STG Surface Gas Rate

Table 4 The operating well constraints of the conceptual reservoir models.

SPE 143390 5

Results and Discussion: Oil Saturation and Temperature Profiles

(a) (b)

Fig. 3 The areal view of oil saturation profiles for the (a) HORZ model and (b) Multilateral HORZ
(Fishbone) model after 20 years of production.

Fig. 3 illustrates the areal view of oil saturation profile of the models corresponding to HORZ and Multilateral HORZ
(Fishbone) methods respectively. Both of the models indicate that, after 20 years of production, the oil saturation still remain
as high as its initial condition, i.e. 0.8. This result infers that the field has a huge potential for early EOR implementation as
the in-place oil recovery via primary recovery method is not promising. The Multilateral HORZ (Fishbone) method recovers
slightly more than that of HORZ method because of its branching sections which are deliberately attached to drain more oil.
However, cost and placement of the multilateral are usually the dictating factors that justify the need and types of
multilaterals. The cost relative to single lateral for 8-ribs fishbone configuration is approximately 1.18 (Curtis et al., 2002).

Fig. 4 The 3D view of temperature profiles of the SF model (a) at the initial condition, (b) after 10 and (c)
20 years of production.

Fig. 4 illustrates the 3D view of temperature profiles of the SF model at the initial condition, after 10 and 20 years of
production respectively. When steam was injected, the reservoir temperature, initially 110 oF, adjacent to the injector
wellbore increased tremendously. Heat transfer from the injected steam to formation occurred as evident from the reservoir
temperature increase. It is also observed that at any period, temperatures in the upper layers adjacent to the injector wells are
higher than that of the lower layers. This phenomenon indicates the occurrence of steam overriding due to its lower density.
6 SPE 143390

(a) (b)

Fig. 5 The cross-sectional view of (a) temperature and (b) oil saturation profile of SAGD model after 20
years of production.

Fig. 5 illustrates the cross-sectional view of temperature and oil saturation profiles of the SAGD model after 20 years of
production. As steam was continuously injected through the top injector, it rose upwards and formed a steam chamber due to
its high temperature and low density. The volume of the steam chamber increased and the steam at the edge transformed to
liquid state when its condensation temperature had been reached. Subsequently, the mixtures of hot water and crude oil
drained towards producers by gravity. Under the same condition, it had been studied that the coupling of expanding solvent
with steam, i.e. ES-SAGD method, may reduce the quantity of the steam needed (Nasr, 2003; Li and Mamora, 2010). Ideally,
the solvent should have a phase behaviour as closed as possible to steam, such that the solvent could be condensed, separated
and recycled with hot water (Li and Mamora, 2010).

(a) (b)

Fig. 6 The cross-sectional view of (a) temperature and (b) oil saturation profile of ES-SAGD model after
20 years of production.

Fig. 6 illustrates the cross-sectional view of temperature and oil saturation profiles of ES-SAGD models after 20 years of
production. In this study, 5 vol. % of mixtures of Hexane (C6) and Propane (C3) was identified as the optimum composition
of hydrocarbon solvent after a sensitivity analysis was carried out. C6 has the closest vaporization temperature to the injected
steam and results in higher oil drainage rate (Nasr et al., 2005). The purpose for C3 addition is to alleviate the cost of the
mixtures.
SPE 143390 7

Fig. 7 The cross-sectional view of oil saturation profiles of VAPEX model after 20 years of production.

The VAPEX method recovers oil with the aid of gravity and does not utilize thermal energy. Only a solvent vapour is
injected to react and dissolve the heavy crude oil. The major drawback of this method is the limitation of operating pressure.
Above maximum allowable saturation pressure of the vapour, the injected vapour could not be condensed and recovered.
Despite the absence of steam, the injection pressure should also be carefully determined such that the entrainment of the
vapour to the producer could be prevented or minimized. On the other hand, the produced oil is lighter and higher in quality
due to its partial in situ upgrading and de-asphalting. Fig. 7 illustrates the cross-sectional view of oil saturation profiles of the
VAPEX model after 20 years of production. Comparing the chamber developed by VAPEX method to that of SAGD and ES-
SAGD methods, the size of the chamber was significantly smaller as the cold vapour was lacking buoyant force and the oil
drainage was also slower.

Results and Discussion: Oil Recovery and Production

Fig. 8 The Recovery Factor curves of the methods in Cat. I (HORZ, Multilateral HORZ Fishbone and
Multilateral HORZ Stacked Dual methods), Cat. II (SF, CSS and CSS+SF methods) and Cat. III (SAGD, ES-
SAGD and VAPEX methods.
8 SPE 143390

Category Recovery Method Recovery Factor (% of OOIP)

HORZ 8.3

(I) Horizontal Wells Multilateral HORZ (Fishbone) 11.1

Multilateral HORZ (Stacked Dual) 7.3

SF 37.1

(II) 5-spot Pattern Vertical Wells CSS 6.5

CSS+SF 28.7

SAGD 20.1

(III) Horizontal Well Pairs ES-SAGD 20.9

VAPEX 12.7

Table 6 The Recovery Factor of the methods in Cat. I, II and II after 20 years of production.

Oil recovery factor (RF), defined as the quantity of oil produced relative to its original oil-in-place (OOIP), was used as the
main parameter of the technical performance for each process in this study. Fig. 8 depicts the RF curves of recovery
processes in Category I, II and III. Table 6 summarizes the values of RF for all of the recovery processes after 20 years of
production.

Category I

HORZ methods are commonly applied for primary recovery. In the absence of thermal energy, the oil recovered is always
restraint by its oil mobility due to its high viscosity and considerable amount of impurities and heavy components. By
comparison, Multilateral HORZ method could recover more oil than the HORZ method within a certain period because the
branching laterals are able to penetrate and expose the untapped area, though the difference of RF between the two methods
is not significant in this study, i.e. 2.8 % of OOIP. Stacked dual configuration was also investigated but it was found to
produce even lower RF.

Category II

CSS and SF methods provide RF of 6.5 and 37.1 % of OOIP respectively. It is indicated that the oil production ceased after
four years of production for CSS method. Although the CSS operation is simple and economical, it suffers from the
limitation of drainage radius for oil production. The steam was only injected to the near wellbore area within a short period
and, hence, viscosity reduction of heavy oil was concentrated near the wellbore area, beyond which the oil is unaffected. On
the other hand, SF method is effective in displacing oil to the producers but this method is extremely energy intensive,
resulting in excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. The common strategy in the heavy oil extraction is to condition the
oilfield by conducting several cycles of CSS prior to the SF. Although the RF may be slightly lower than that of SF alone, i.e.
28.7 % of OOIP, the oil production and gain of Net Present Value (NPV) could be accelerated in the intial stage.

Category III

SAGD, ES-SAGD and VAPEX methods provide RF of 20.1, 20.9 and 12.7 % of OOIP respectively. The difference in oil
recovery for SAGD and ES-SAGD methods is not significant but ES-SAGD gains benefit from energy saving. Under the
same operating conditions, ES-SAGD method utilizes less amount of steam than the SAGD method. By comparison, the RF
of VAPEX method is lower than that of SAGD and ES-SAGD because the vapour diffusion to the heavy oil requires a much
longer period than that of condensation and latent heat transfer between steam and formation. Despite this disadvantage,
VAPEX method is applicable to the reservoirs which are not viable for thermal method, such as thin reservoirs or reservoirs
with an underlying aquifer. The VAPEX method has not been deployed in large-scale field operation due to its low
production rate. Some other aspects, for instances the effect of reservoir heterogeneity, asphaltenes precipitation etc., which
affect the effectiveness of VAPEX process are still being researched.

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to study the effect of injected fluid composition for ES-SAGD method. The injected
fluid consists of various vol.% combination of steam and hydrocarbon solvent in gaseous form, i.e. Hexane (C6) and Propane
(C3). C6 was selected as it has the closest phase behaviour with steam and C3 was added for the cost consideration. Fig. 9
shows the RF and CSOR curves corresponding to the respective injected fluid composition. With addition of the solvent, it is
SPE 143390 9

indicated that the RFs after 20 years of production for all ES-SAGD cases are very closed but differ in the oil production rate.
Addition of 25 vol. % of solvents presents a lower CSOR value but the oil is produced in a slower rate. Hence, it is prudent to
conduct an economic evaluation in order to justify the cost of solvent addition versus the benefits gained from the lower
steam utilization. Similarly, a sensitivity analysis for the injected fluid composition of VAPEX methods was also carried out.
The injected fluid comprised of different combinations of Methane (C1) and Propane (C3). Fig. 10 shows that the mixtures of
60 % of C1 and 40 % of C3 deliver the best oil recovery factor for VAPEX method.

(a) (b)

Fig. 9 The (a) Recovery Factor and (b) Cumulative Steam-Oil-Ratio curves corresponding to different
injected fluid compositions of the ES-SAGD method.

Fig. 10 Recovery Factor curves corresponding to different injected fluid compositions of the VAPEX
method

Results and Discussion: Cumulative Steam-Oil-Ratio (CSOR) and Economics Indication

Steam-Oil-Ratio (SOR) is a common parameter adopted to monitor the cost efficiency of oil production processes based on
the volume of steam injection. It measures the volume of Cold-Water-Equivalent (CWE) amount of steam required to
produce one unit volume of oil. In this study, the Cumulative Steam-Oil-Ratio (CSOR) was used as the measure of economic
viability for the steam injection processes, i.e. SF, CSS, CSS+SF, SAGD and ES-SAGD methods. Table 7 summarizes the
values of CSOR after 20 years of production for the mentioned processes.
10 SPE 143390

Steam Injection Method CSOR (CWE/bbl Oil Produced)

SF 2.8

CSS 0.9

CSS+SF 2.8

SAGD 1.9

ES-SAGD 1.6

Table 7 Cumulative Steam-Oil-Ratio (CSOR) for the steam injection methods after 20 years of production.
CSOR of 3.0 CWE/bbl or below is commonly referred as economically desirable in thermal operations, above which the
energy consumption is considered to be significant. Other practical factors, such as the availability of energy and water
sources, should also be taken into consideration. In this study, all of the optimized models demonstrate CSOR values lower
than 3.0 CWE/bbl in achieving their respective RF after 20 years of production. Amongst these steam injection methods, SF
method has the highest CSOR value, i.e. 2.8 CWE/bbl whereas SAGD and ES-SAGD methods have the CSOR values of 1.9
and 1.6 CWE/bbl respectively. Compared to SAGD method, ES-SAGD method demonstrates as a more favourable recovery
method as its CSOR value is lower and the production plateau period may sustain longer under the same operating
conditions. This finding is consistent with the explanation that the solvent film formed at the ceiling of the steam chamber
impedes the heat loss of steam to the overburden (Deng, 2005), thereby reducing the thermal energy requirement.

Conclusion
As anticipated, the thermal methods in general provide higher oil recovery factors than the non-thermal methods. For
Category I, Multilateral HORZ method configured in fishbone manner is able to recover more oil than HORZ method.
Although SF is indicated as the most effective method in Category II, several CSS cycles is preferred to expedite oil
production prior to the application of continuous SF. For Category III, ES-SAGD is preferable from the technical aspects as it
is more favourable in oil recovery and energy consumption.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd. for their funding support and data provision in this study.

References
Alboudware, H., Felix, J.J., Taylor, S., Badry, R., Bremmer, C., Brough, B., Skeates, C., Baker, A., Palmer, D., Pattison,
K., Beshry, M., Krawchuk, P., Brown, G., Calvo, R., Triana, J.A.C., Hathcock, R., Koerner, K., Hughes, T., Kundu, D.,
Cardenas, J.L.D., West, C., Highlighting Heavy Oil, Oilfield Review, Summer 2006.
Curtis, C., Kopper, R, Decoster, R., Guzman-Garcia, A., Huggins, C., Knauer, L., Minner, M., Kupch, N., Linares, L.M.,
Rough, H. and Waite, M., Heavy-Oil Reservoirs, Oilfield Review, Autumn 2002.
CMG STARS Manual, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., 2009.
Deng, X, Recovery Performance and Economics of Steam/Propane Hybrid Process. SPE 97760 presented at International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2005.
Li, W. and Mamora, D. D., Experimental Investigation of Solvent Co-Injection in Vapor and Liquid Phase to Enhance
SAGD Performance, SPE 133277, SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition 2010, Florence, Italy, 2010.
Li, W. and Mamora, D. D., Phase Behaviour of Steam with Solvent Co-Injection under Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD) Process, SPE 133277, EAGE/SPE Europe 2010, Barcelona, Spain, 2010.
Nasr T. N. and Ayodele O. R., Thermal Techniques for the Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen, SPE 97488, SPE
International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2005,
Nasr T. N., Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD): A New Oil Production Technology For Heavy Oil And
Bitumens, CSEG Recorder, 2003.
www.heavyoilinfo.com
www.iea.org Resources to Reserves Oil and Gas Technologies for the Energy Markets of the Future, International
Energy Agency, Paris, 2005.