Thermal Solvent Reflux and Thermal

Solvent Hybrid Experiments

J. Ivory, T. Frauenfeld, C. Jossy, Alberta Research Council

Abstract The steam-solvent hybrid process delivers heat through co-in-

jected steam, (Figure 2).
The experiments and numerical simulations described in It is well known that diffusion and dispersion play an important
this paper were performed to determine the effectiveness of the role in the VAPEX process(16). Oil rate is primarily dependent on
thermal solvent reflux and steam solvent hybrid processes and to diffusion/dispersion of the solvent into the oil and on the gravity
determine the key parameters involved in these two processes. drainage of the oil-solvent mixture.
Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is the current tech- In diffusion, the flow of a component towards regions of lower
nology of choice for Athabasca reservoirs. It is commercially concentration in a fluid phase is caused by collisions between mol-
proven and delivers high oil rates and high ultimate recoveries. ecules and is represented by Ficks First Law:
However, it is energy intensive. In addition, steam injection may
be limited by lack of water, by regulatory issues or by the fact
that some reservoirs are water sensitive.
( )
J ijk = S j D*ij /F jk cij / k
.................................................................. (1)
Vapour-assisted petroleum extraction (VAPEX) does not have
where Jijk = flux of component i in phase j in k direction (moles/
the energy and water problems associated with SAGD. However,
cm2/min), = porosity, Sj =saturation of phase j, D*ij = molec-
it is inherently slower than SAGD.
ular diffusion coefficient of component i in phase j (cm2/min),
One solution to the above difficulties is to combine processes
by heating the horizontal wellbores. The heat serves to initiate
communication between the injector and the producer. In addi- Overburden
tion, it will increase the rate of diffusion of the solvent into the
oil. Heat may be applied by electric heaters, with a closed steam
or glycol loop, or by direct injection of steam. In the first three Vapour
of four experiments described in this report, the wells were elec- Chamber
trically heated. In the fourth experiment, steam was co-injected
with the solvent.
Two experiments using Hillmond oil showed that similar re-
sults were obtained whether heating was obtained by electrically
heating the wells (thermal solvent reflux process) or by direct
steam injection (steam solvent-hybrid process). For these two ex-
periments, the oil rate and recovery were similar. Numerical sim-
ulations were used to history match the experiments and effective
diffusivity values were estimated.

Introduction
Underburden
The objective of the thermal solvent reflux experiments was to
develop a solvent-assisted process for recovery of heavy oil from FIGURE 1: Thermal solvent process schematic.
thick, cold reservoirs such as Cold Lake and Athabasca.
Overburden
overburden
The thermal solvent process concept (Figure 1) is
Inject solvent and produce oil through horizontal wells vapor
Heat the injection and production wells to reboil the solvent Vapour
chamber
Chamber Mobilized oil
in situ (solvent reflux) (i.e., in-situ recycle of solvent)
The advantages of the thermal solvent reflux process are
Requires less heat than SAGD
Less steam plant emissions
Injector
Injector Oil sand
Smaller solvent recycle plant on surface
Solvent + steam
Smaller injection facility needed Solvent + steam
Does not inject water into the reservoir
Suitable for reactive reservoirs Producer
No treatment of boiler feed water required
Steam heat for startup
Minimal water disposal
Underburden
Minimal oil/water separation facilities required
Heat will speed mass transfer over cold VAPEX FIGURE 2: Hybrid solvent process schematic
February 2010, Volume 49, No. 2 23
Table 1: Summary of experiments.
(
Oil Rate 2 = A DT + Dn ) .................................................................. (4)
Field Oil
Oil Rate for where A = constant obtained from fit of data, DT = specified trans-
Recovery Lab. Oil 1,000 m verse dispersion coefficient and Dn = numerical dispersion.
(including Rate Well
Test Description blowdown) (cm3/min) (m3/day)
1 Thermal Solvent; 42% 1.38 31.8
Hillmond oil; Wells
Experiments
heated throughout
test Experimental Scaling
2 Thermal Solvent; 11% 0.96 13.8 The experimental tests were designed to conform to a scaling
bitumen; Wells heated approach developed by Pujol and Boberg(8). This method has the
for 1.1 hours following requirements:
3 Thermal Sovent; 15% 1.41 19.3 1. The field and model must be geometrically similar (i.e., width
bitumen; Wells heated to length ratio and height to length ratio must be the same).
throughout test
2. The values of fluid and some rock properties of the field and
4 Hybrid Solvent; 36% 3.60 50.7 model must be equal.
Athabasca bitumen;
3. The field and laboratory must have the same initial condi-
No well heating
tions (i.e. pressure and temperature).
This scaling method effectively captures gravity forces, viscous
Fjk = tortuosity experienced by phase j in k direction and cij/k forces and diffusion, but it does not correctly scale viscous fin-
= Concentration gradient of component i in phase j in k direction gering, capillary forces or dispersion.
(moles/m4). A scaling factor of 100 was chosen for the experiments, re-
From the Wilke-Chang and Stokes-Einstein equations, the oil sulting in the following relationships:
phase diffusion coefficient is considered to be proportional to
the temperature/oil phase viscosity. The viscosity decreases ex-
ponentially with increasing temperature. Thus, it is apparent that Geometry : Length field =100 Lengthlab
............................................ (5)
oil phase diffusion coefficient will be much greater at higher
temperatures.
The diffusion coefficient has been considered approximately Volume :Volume field = 1003 Volumelab
proportional to oil phase viscosity0.5 [Reid et al.(7) and Das and ............................................ (6)
Butler(4)] rather than to oil phase viscosity1.0 as indicated above.
Mechanical dispersion is caused by velocity gradients, hetero-
geneous flow paths and mechanical mixing. It is dependent on the Time:Time field = 1002 Timelab
phase velocity and can be represented by: ............................................................. (7)

( )
J ijk = S j jk u j cij / k
.................................................................... (2)
where jk = mechanical dispersivity for phase j in direction k (m)
and uj = absolute value of interstitial velocity of phase j.
In all but one of the simulations in this report, total dispersion
was used to simulate both diffusion and dispersion. In one of the
simulations discussed in this report, both diffusion and mechanical
(velocity dependent) dispersion were considered separately. Dis-
persion has the same form as the diffusion equation:
( )
J ijk = S j Dij /F jk cij / k
.................................................................... (3)
where Dij = total dispersion coefficient of component i in phase j or
it equals D*ij/Fjk + jkuj.
In numerical simulations, numerical dispersion contributes in
addition to the (explicit) dispersion, which is entered in the input
file. Numerical dispersion results from the fact that when fluid en-
ters a grid block, it is immediately dispersed throughout the grid
block as a result of averaging the block properties. The larger the
grid blocks, the greater is the numerical dispersion.
Cuthiell et al.(3) estimated numerical dispersion in VAPEX for
a given grid block size by fitting the following equation to the oil
rate (after solvent breakthrough) from a number of simulations
with different transverse dispersion coefficients.
Rate: Rate field =100 Ratelab
.................................................................. (8)
Permeability : Permeability field = 0.01 Permeabilitylab
........................ (9)
Thus, 1 minute of lab time represents 6.944 days in the field.
The oil rate in Hele-Shaw experiments(2) was directly propor-
tional to the square root of the permeability (k) times the height (h).
Using thin packs (1.9 1.6 cm cross section) with lengths between
21 and 247 cm, Oduntan et al.(6) also observed that the oil rate was
proportional to the square root of the height of the pay zone for a
uniform 126 darcy glass bead pack at a dip of 45.
Karmaker and Maini(5) observed that the square root relationship
did not hold for the VAPEX process in sand packs with heights be-
tween 7.5 and 30 cm and absolute permeabilities between 220 and
640 darcy. These latter experiments indicated that oil rate was al-
most linearly dependent on the sand pack height and the square
root of the permeability.
Experimental Set Up
The laboratory set up consisted of the following several
components:

Table 2: Summary of operating conditions used in Tests 1 4.

Injection Production Total Total %Oil

Initial Production Well Well Solvent Steam Recovery
Temp. Pressure Temp. Temp. Injected Injected (incl.
Test Oil (C) (kPaa) (C) (C) Liquid (L) (gm) blowdown)
1 Hillmond 22 1,000 118 118 0.68 - 42
2 Athabasca 10 900 80 (1.1 h) 45 (1.1 h) 2.00 - 11
3 Athabasca 10 840 165 135 0.91 - 15
4 Athabasca 10 880 175 140 1.09 5,500 36

24 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Table 3: Summary of results from Test 1 Test 4.

Oil Recovery Lab. Oil Field Oil Rate

(including Rate for 1,000 m Well
Test Description blowdown) (cm3/min) (m3/day)
1 Thermal Solvent; Hillmond oil; Wells heated throughout test 42% 1.38 31.8
2 Thermal Solvent; Athabasca bitumen; Wells heated for 1.1 hours 11% 0.96 13.8
3 Thermal Solvent; Athabasca bitumen; Wells heated throughout test 15% 1.41 19.3
4 Hybrid Solvent; Athabasca bitumen; No well heating 36% 3.60 50.7

Table 4: Summary of operating conditions used in Tests 1 4.

Injection Prod. Total Total Total Solvent Solvent %Oil

Initial Prod. Well Well Solvent Solvent Steam in Inj. in Inj. Recovery
Initial Temp. Pressure Temp. Temp. Injected Injected Injected Gas Gas (incl.
Test Oil So (C) (MPaa) (C) (C) (Liquid L) (std cm3) (gm) (%mass) (%vol) blowdown)
1 Hillmond 0.86 22 1,000 118 118 0.68 181,344 - 100 100 42
2 Athabasca 0.85 10 900 80 (1.1 h) 45 (1.1 h) 2.00 546,775 - 100 100 11
3 Athabasca 0.85 10 840 165 135 0.91 249,547 - 100 100 15
4 Athabasca 0.85 10 880 175 140 1.09 311,659 5,500 10 4.4 36

An experimental model with a containment pressure vessel
and associated temperature and overburden pressure control
A steam and solvent injection system
A produced fluid collection system
A produced fluid separation and measurement station
A computer data acquisition and control system
A schematic of the physical model used in the Hillmond oil ex-
periment (Test 1) is presented in Figure 3. The model used in Tests
2 4 is shown in Figure 4.
In Test 1, the model contained segments of a horizontal well pair
(80 m spacing in the field) and represented one-half of a vapour
chamber as the wells were on one side of the model (symmetry). In
Tests 2 4, the model represented the full vapour chamber as the
wells were in the middle of the sand pack rather than at the edge. In
these tests, 90 m horizontal well pair spacing was represented.
The model was insulated for heat loss and confined by an N2
overburden. The solvent used in all four tests was 99% propane.
The injector and producer were both electrically heated in Tests 1
3. In Test 4, the injected steam provided the necessary heat.
Physical Model Preparation
In Test 1, the experimental model had the dimensions 12.5 45
20 cm high (Figure 3). In Tests 2 4, the model was 10 90 30
cm high (Figure 4). Both models contained Ottawa sand and were
enclosed in a pressure vessel. Post Run
The experimental model was then flooded with water and heavy
oil.
In the first test described, the oil used was Husky Hillmond oil
(27,240 mPas at 20C). Athabasca UTF bitumen (47,000 mPas at
30C) was used in Tests 2 4.
Test Conditions
A similar configuration was used for Tests 1 3 and for Test
4 except that electrical heaters were used to heat the injection
and production wells in Tests 1 3. In Test 4, the test model was
initially at 10C and was heated by steam injected through the in-
jection and production wells. Test conditions are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2.
Experimental Procedure
The solvent (99% propane) was liquid, stored in the solvent in-
jection accumulators. It was injected with a positive displacement
pump. The solvent was flashed as the pressure was reduced, and the
solvent was mixed with any injected steam. The gaseous solvent
mixture flowed into the injection well, through the lab model, and
out the production well, displacing bitumen and water and gas into
pressurized sample collection accumulators. The data acquisition
and control system automatically switched collection of produced
fluids between accumulators. Filled accumulators were removed
from the production facility and flashed into a sample collector to
measure the off gas, and oil was removed and weighed.
Data Logging and Control
Pressures, heaters and production station valve switching were
controlled by a computerized data logging and control system
(Paragon). Temperature and pressure data were also recorded. The
experiments lasted about 15 hours each.
At the end of an experiment, the model was depressurized to at-
mospheric pressure. During depressurization volumes of gas pro-
duced were measured and gas samples taken for analysis.
The post-run oil sand at selected locations was analyzed for
%oil, %water, and %sand using the Dean-Stark procedure. Table
2 is a summary of the operating conditions used in the four experi-
ments. Test 1 was performed on an oil sand containing Hillmond
oil. The injection and production wells were heated throughout the
experiment. Athabasca UTF bitumen was used in Tests 2 4. The
wells were heated for the first 1.1 hours of Test 2 (VAPEX test)

Table 5: Summary of laboratory production data.

Solvent-Oil Nett Steam-Oil
Average Average Average Ratio Solvent-Oil (incl. blow-
Run Oil Solvent Water Oil Prod. Gas Prod. Water Prod. (excl. Ratio down)
Time Production Production Production Rate Rate Rate blow-down) (incl. blow-down) (liq.cm3/cm3)
Test (min) 3
(cm ) 3
(std cm ) 3
(cm ) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(cm /min) (std cm /min) (cm /min) (liq.cm /cm ) (liq.cm /cm ) Ratio
798 1,097.8 125,502 163
1 1.38 157.3 0.20 0.61 0.07 -
(1,154.6)1 (159,467) (163)
810 776.5 319,041 146
2 0.96 393.9 0.18 2.62 0.68 -
(832.8) (394,471) (184)
900 1,201.5 180,194 108
3 1.34 200.2 0.12 0.77 0.13 -
(1230.8) (208,091) (112)
1 Values in brackets include blow-down. 1 liq. cm3 = 268.7 std cm3

February 2010, Volume 49, No. 2 25

Table 6: Production data converted to field conditions.

Oil Production Solvent Water Average Oil Average Gas Average Water
from Production Production Prod. Rate Prod. Rate Prod. Rate
Run 1,000 m Well from 1,000 m from 1,000 m from 1,000 m from 1,000 m from 1,000 m
Time (m3) Well Well Well Well Well
Test (years) (excl. blowdown) (std m3) (m3) (m3/day) (std m3/day) (m3/day)
1 15.2 175,648 2.01 x 107 26,000 31.8 3,624 4.6
2 15.4 77,650 3.19 x 107 14,560 13.8 5,672 2.6
3 17.1 127,170 2.08 x 107 11,210 19.3 2,883 1.7
4 16.0 302,080 2.64 x 107 53,820 50.7 4,231 90.1

In Test 1, the rates (cm3/min) for a 12.5 cm long well in the lab were converted to rates (m3/day) for a 1,000 m long well in the field by
multiplying by 2 * 100 * (1,000 m/12.5 m) * 60 min/h * 24 h/d * 10-6 m3/cm3 = 23.04. Scaling factor = 100

In Tests 2 - 4, the rates (cm3/min) for a 10 cm long well in the lab were converted to rates (m3/day) for a 1,000 m long well in the field by
multiplying by 100 * (1,000/10) * 60 * 24 * 10-6 = 14.4

and throughout Test 3. In Test 4, steam was injected with the sol-
vent after an initial 30 minute period of solvent-only injection.
Experimental Results
The production data for the experiments is summarized in
Table 5.
Using the Pujol and Boberg scaling criteria(8), the lab results
were used to predict oil production rates for a 1,000 m long hori-
zontal well in the field. These predictions are summarized in Table
4. The predicted oil rate of 31.8 m3/d for a Hillmond oil at an ini-
tial temperature of 22C (Test 1, thermal solvent) is significantly
greater than the value of 19.3 m3/d for Athabasca bitumen initially
at 10C (Test 3, Thermal Solvent). When the wells were heated for
only 1.1 hours (Test 2, VAPEX) instead of continuously), the pre-
dicted Athabasca bitumen production rate fell from 19.3 to 13.8
m3/d even though twice as much solvent was injected in the latter
case.
Injecting steam and solvent (90%/10% by volume) increased
the oil rate to 50.7 m3/d. After 16 years scaled time, the predicted
bitumen recovery for the steam solvent hybrid process in Atha-
basca bitumen (Test 4) was 36%.
The specific gravities for the dissolved gases were taken from
the published(9) specific gravities of liquid for these compounds.
The properties used in the initial history matches are consistent
for all simulations.
The two-phase relative permeabilities were based on Coats
power law, and the values were calculated at different saturations
and included in the STARS input file.
Variables a, b, c and d are constants representing the shape of
the relative permeability curves. A value of 1 represents a linear
curve. Also, kro = relative permeability to oil, krog = relative perme-
ability to oil in oil-gas system, krow = relative permeability to oil
in oil-water system, krocw = oil relative permeability at Swir, krw =
relative permeability to water, krwc = krw at Sorw, Sl = liquid satura-
tion = So + Sw, SlA = highest Sl value at which krog is 0.0 = Swr + Sorg,
Sorw = residual oil saturation for water flood and Swr = irreducible
water saturation.
The three phase permeability curves were determined in STARS
using Stones Model II.
The viscosity of Hillmond oil was 7,980 mPas at 30C. The
viscosity of UTF bitumen was 47,300 mPas at 30C. The linear
logarithmic mixing rule was used to determine the oil + solvent
viscosity [i.e., ln (visoil) = xi ln (visi)].
K values for each component are calculated as follows:

( )
( )
KV4i/ T - KV5i
K i = KV 1i /P+KV 2i P+KV 3i e
..................................... (10)
Numerical Simulations
The CMG STARS 2003 numerical simulator was used in the K i = yi /xi
numerical simulations. The same relative permeability curves, ............................................................................................. (11)
rock properties, thermal conductivities and oil phase total disper- which equals gas phase mole fraction/oil phase mole fraction.
sion coefficients were used for the initial history matches for each
The KV values for propane in Hillmond oil and Athabasca bi-
of the four tests. As the solvent was 99% propane (the remaining
tumen were based on experimental measurements. The KV values
1% was assumed to be ethane), gas phase dispersion coefficients
for ethane were taken from the STARS manual.
were only used in Test 4 simulations where the presence of water
The effect of the value of oil phase dispersion coefficients on
vapour affected the transport of gaseous solvent.
oil production was evaluated for the conditions of Test 3. In one of
Two-phase relative permeability curves based on Coats repre- the simulations of Test 3, both diffusion and mechanical dispersion
sentation were used. The same relative permeability curves were were considered instead of total dispersion.
used for all of the simulations in this report. Three phase relative The effect of the well heaters on VAPEX production was deter-
permeability curves in STARS were based on Stones Model II. mined for Test 1 operating conditions.
2.5 cm from wall
5 cm
T.C. Rod #7
T.C. Rod #1
Numerical Simulations of Test 1 (Hillmond
7.5 cm from wall
Oil)
A 42 1 23 Cartesian grid was used. The physical model
in Test 1 was surrounded by concrete insulation, which was
20 cm 250 Darcy oil -saturated sand represented by a 5 cm thick non-active layer in the numerical
simulations.
Injector
The actual experimental production well pressure and the sol-
heater
injector vent injection rate in the injection well were specified as input in
heater all of the numerical simulations.
12.5 cm producer Oil-saturated sand
Producer The injection and production temperatures are shown in Figure
heater
heater
5. These values were specified in the simulation input file. The
40 cm
production well bottomhole pressure (BHP) was also specified at
FIGURE 3: Hybrid solvent process schematic. different times (Figure 6).
26 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 200,000
Test 1: Actual gas production

Cumulative Gas SC, cm3

Test 1: Predicted gas production
Test 1: Gas injection
150,000
30
cm

100,000

5 cm
50,000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000

2 cm from bottom Time, min

FIGURE 4: Model used in Athabasca bitumen experiments. FIGURE 7: Gas injection and production in Test 1 (Hillmond oil).

140 1,200
Test 1: Actual oil production
Test 1: Predicted oil production
1,000

Cumulative Oil SC, cm3

120
Temperature, C

100 800

80 600

60 400

40 200
Test 1: Injector temperature
Test 1: Producer temperature
20 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Time, min Time, min
FIGURE 5: Injection and production well temperatures in Test 1. FIGURE 8: Oil production in Test 1 (Hillmond oil).

History Match Results Comparing Figure 9 to Figure 10, one can see that the experi-
mental and predicted temperature profiles were similar at run times
Using the properties listed, a good history match of gas and oil of 780 minutes.
production was obtained (Figures 7 and 8). In the figures based on
The post-run oil saturation (So) and gas saturation (Sg) were de-
numerical simulation results, SC refers to volumes measured at
termined from the Dean-Stark results. The experimental and pre-
standard conditions of 0C and 101.35 kPa.
dicted post-run So profiles are provided in Figures 11 and 12. The
experimental profile deviates a little from the classic VAPEX
*
krw= krwc a
S wt S wir / 1 S wr Sorw ( )( ) ............................................. (12)
shape. This may be due to some oil movement when the test-bed
was depressurized at the end of Test 1.

( )( )
b
krow=k*rocw 1 S w Sorw / 1 S wr Sorw ...................................... (13) Effect of Well Heaters
The well heaters were not used in one simulation of Test 1, and
the test bed remained at approximately 22C throughout the sim-
( )( )
c
krg = k*rgro 1 Sl S gc / 1 SlA S gc ulation. Use of well heaters increased oil production by 65% as a
............................................ (14) result of viscosity reduction and solvent recycling through evapo-
ration at the heated production well (Figure 11).

*
krog = krocw S S / 1 S dl
l lA lA ( )( ) ........................................................ (15) Numerical Simulations of Test 2 (Athabasca
Bitumen)
1,400
An 89 1 30 Cartesian grid was used. Layers of ply-
Producer Bottom-hole Pressure, kPa

wood, Teflon and Nomex insulation in Tests 2 4, replaced the

1,200

1,000

20
800
40

600 60
80

400 100
120
200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Insulation
Time, min
FIGURE 9: Experimental temperature profile after 780 minutes of Test
FIGURE 6: Producer bottom-hole pressure in Test 1 simulation. 1 (Hillmond oil).
February 2010, Volume 49, No. 2 27
 200,000 1,200

Cumulative Gas Produced, cm3

Cumulative gas - well heaters
Cumulative oil - well heaters
Cumulative gas - no well heaters 1,000

Cumulative Oil SC, cm3

122 Cumulative oil - no well heaters
150,000
112
800
102
91
81 100,000 600

71
61 400
51 50,000
40 200
30
SC = std. conditions = 0C and 101.35 kPaa
20
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Time, min
FIGURE 10: Numerical simulation temperature profile after 780 FIGURE 13: Cumulative oil and gas production for simulation with and
minutes of Test 1. without well heaters.

100

0.0
0.1 80 Test 2: Injector temperature
Test 2: Producer temperature
0.2

Temperature, C
0.3
0.4 60
0.5
0.6
0.7 40
0.8
0.9
20

0
FIGURE 11: Hillmond oil experiment - post-run So based on 0 200 400 600 800
experimental analysis.
Time, min
concrete insulation of Test 1. This insulation was represented by FIGURE 14: Injection and production well temperatures in Test 2.
heat transfer coefficients at the outer grid blocks (i.e., there were no
inactive grid blocks used in these simulations). This was a VAPEX cm2/min and 0.006 cm2/min, respectively, resulted in a much better
test with a 1 hour period of well heating for startup. The injection match of oil and gas production (Figures 17 and 18).
and production well temperatures are provided in Figure 14. The
production well BHP was 750 900 kPag. Cumulative solvent in-
jection is shown in Figure 15. Numerical Simulations of Test 3 (Athabasca
Bitumen)
History Match Results
The injection and production well temperatures were main-
Some of the same properties were used for all 4 tests, and as a tained at 150C and 120C, respectively. Cumulative solvent in-
result the predicted oil and gas production deviated from the exper- jection is shown in Figure 19.
imental values in the initial history match of Test 2. Predicted gas
production was high and predicted oil production was low (Fig-
History Match Results
ures 15 and 16).
The experimental and simulation temperature profiles were A good match, using the original oil phase dispersion coeffi-
similar at a run time of 70 minutes. The well heaters were shut off cients of 0.0003 cm2/min and 0.003 cm2/min, was obtained for gas
after 66 minutes, and the pack cooled significantly at later times in production (Figure 19), oil production (Figure 20) and temperature
both the experiment and the simulation. profiles (Figure 21).
Doubling the oil phase total dispersion coefficients from 0.0003
600,000
cm2/min (oil in oil) and 0.003 cm2/min (solvent in oil) to 0.0006
Cumulative Gas SC, cm3

500,000
0.95 Test 2: Actual gas production
Test 2: Predicted gas production
0.86 Test 2: Gas injection
0.76 400,000
0.66
0.57 300,000

0.47
0.38 200,000

0.28
0.19 100,000

0.09
0.00 0
0 200 400 600 800

FIGURE 12: Hillmond oil experiment - post-run So from numerical Time, min
simulation. FIGURE 15: Gas injected and produced in Test 2 (UTF oil).
28 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 800 250,000

Test 3: Actual gas production

Test 2: Actual oil production

Cumulative Gas SC, cm3

Cumulative Oil SC, cm3 200,000 Test 3: Predicted gas production
Test 2: Predicted oil production Test 3: Gas injection
600

150,000

400

100,000

200
50,000

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800

Time, min Time, min

FIGURE 16: Oil production in Test 2. FIGURE 19: Gas injection and production in Test 3 (UTF oil).

600,000 1,400
Test 2: Actual gas production
Test 2: Predicted gas production Test 3: Actual oil production
1,200
Cumulative Gas SC, cm3

Test 2: Gas injection

Cumulative Oil SC, cm3

500,000 Test 3: Predicted oil production

1,000
400,000
800

300,000
600

200,000 400

100,000 200

0
0 0 200 400 600 800
0 200 400 600 800
Time, min
Time, min
FIGURE 20: Oil production in Test 3.
FIGURE 17: Gas injection and production in Test 3 (adjusted oil phase
dispersion coefficients). oil production. Gas production is decreased as a result of solvent
retention in the oil and an increase in the size of the gas chamber
Oil Phase Total Dispersion Coefficients due to increased oil production.
The effect of oil phase dispersion coefficients was evaluated by The enlargement of the VAPEX chamber resulting from in-
performing two additional simulations. In the first of these simu- creased oil phase dispersion coefficients is apparent (Figure 24)
lations, all of the oil phase dispersion coefficients were set at 0.0 as its effect on the propane mole fraction in the oil phase and the
cm2/min. In the second, the oil phase total dispersion coefficients oil viscosity. The region with oil viscosity less than 100 mPas
were increased by a factor of 100 (relative to those used in the orig- is similar for the different values of oil phase dispersion coef-
inal history match of Test 3) to 0.03 cm2/min for bitumen and 0.3 ficient. However, the region with oil viscosity less than 1,000
cm2/min for solvent. mPas increased significantly with increased oil phase dispersion
Increasing the oil phase dispersion coefficients from 0.0 to coefficients.
0.0003 cm2/min bitumen) and 0.0 to 0.003 cm2/min (solvent) in-
creased oil production and decreased gas production. However, Mechanical (Velocity Dependent) Dispersion
these changes in production were much lower than those obtained
when the oil phase dispersion coefficients were further increased to Test 3 was also history matched using a combination of diffu-
0.03 cm2/min and 0.3 cm2/min (Figure 23 and Table 5). Increasing sion and velocity dependent dispersion in the oil phase. The dif-
the oil phase dispersion coefficients caused more solvent to dis- fusion coefficients used were an order of magnitude lower than
perse in the oil, thereby reducing the oil viscosity and increasing
1,000 20
40
Test 2: Actual oil production 60
Test 2: Predicted oil production 80
100
Cumulative Oil SC, cm3

800
120
140
160
170
600

170
400 154
138
122
106
200
90
73
57
0 41
0 200 400 600 800
25
Time, min 9

FIGURE 18: Oil production in Test 2 (adjusted oil phase dispersion FIGURE 21: Experimental and numerical temperature profile after 780
coefficients). minutes of Test 3 (UTF oil).
February 2010, Volume 49, No. 2 29
 250,000 Gas injection Oil phase dispersion
Gas production in experiment
Gas production for DC in oil = 0.0 m3/d coefficients = 0.0 m2/d
Gas production for DC in oil = 0.0003 & 0.003 m3/d
Cumulative Gas SC, cm3
Gas production for DC in oil = 0.03 & 0.3 m3/d
200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000
Oil phase dispersion coefficients = 0.0003 (oil in
oil) and 0.003 m2/d (solvent in oil)
0
0 200 400 600 800

Time, min
FIGURE 22: Effect of oil phase dispersion coefficients on gas
production (Test 3).

2,500

Experiment
Cumulative Oil SC, cm3

DC in oil = 0.0 m3/d

2,000 DC in oil = 0.0003 & 0.003 m3/d
DC in oil = 0.03 & 0.3 m3/d

Oil phase dispersion coefficients = 0.03 (oil in

1,500 oil) and 0.3 m2/d (solvent in oil)

1,000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800

Time, min FIGURE 24: Effect of oil phase dispersion coefficients on gas
saturation after 720 minutes (Test 3).
FIGURE 23: Effect of oil phase dispersion coefficients on oil
production (Test 3). An improved history match was obtained for Test 2 by dou-
bling the oil phase total dispersion coefficient.
the total dispersion coefficients used in the other simulations [i.e.,
the coefficients were 0.00003 cm2/min (bitumen) and 0.0003 cm2/ For Test 3 conditions, the oil phase dispersion coeffi-
min (solvent)]. The mechanical dispersion coefficient was 0.5 cm. cients also had a profound effect on cumulative oil and gas
Satisfactory predictions of gas and oil production were obtained production.
(Figure 25). Velocity dependent dispersion was examined for Test 3 con-
ditions and a satisfactory history match was obtained.
Numerical Simulations of Test 4 (Athabasca Numerical simulations indicated that for Test 1 (Hillmond
BitumenSteam Solvent Hybrid) oil) conditions, oil production was increased 65% by the use
of well heaters.
History Match Results
A reasonable history match was obtained for gas production al-
though predicted oil production was low. The oil phase dispersion Conclusion
coefficients and oil phase relative permeability could be increased
to allow for the fact that, due to the steam injected with the solvent, Use of Pujol and Boberg(8) scaling and the results of the ex-
higher temperatures and velocities were obtained than in previous periments, indicated that high oil production rates would be
Tests 1 3. achieved in the field. However, the scaling methodology
The experimental and predicted temperature profiles at 720 250,000
minutes were similar (Figure 27). Test 3: Actual gas production
Test 3: Predicted gas production
Test 3: Gas injection
Cumulative Gas SC, cm3

200,000

Discussion
150,000
Use of the same relative permeability curves and total disper-
sion coefficients for four different tests resulted in reasonable
history matches of experimental results. 100,000

Table 7: Effect of oil phase diffusion coefficients on oil

and gas production. 50,000

Oil Phase Oil Gas

Diffusion Production Production 0
0 200 400 600 800
Coefficients (cm3) (std cm3)
0.0 1,017.9 204,550 Time, min
0.0003 & 0.003 cm2/min 1,238.8 191,464 FIGURE 25: Gas injection and production in Test 3 (velocity
0.03 & 0.3 cm2/min 2,047.9 52,439 dependent dispersion).
30 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 1,400 4. Das, S.K. and Butler, R.M. 1996. Diffusion Coefficients of Propane
and Butane in Peace River Bitumen. The Canadian Journal of Chem-
1,200 Test 3: Actual oil production ical Engineering 74 (6): 985992. doi:10.1002/cjce.5450740623.
Test 3: Predicted oil production
Cumulative Oil SC, cm3
5. Karmaker, K. and Maini, B.B. 2003. Experimental Investigation
1,000 of Oil Drainage Rates in the Vapex Process for Heavy Oil and Bi-
tumen Reservoirs. Paper SPE 84199 presented at the SPE Annual
800 Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 58 October. doi:
10.2118/84199-MS.
600
6. Oduntan, A.R., Chatzis, I., Smith, J., and Lohi, A. 2001. Heavy Oil
400
Recovery Using the VAPEX Process. Paper 2001-127 presented at
the Petroleum Societys Canadian International Petroleum Confer-
200 ence 2001: The Energy Odyssey, Calgary, 1214 June.
7. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., and Sherwood, T.K. 1977. The Properties
0 of Gases and Liquids, third edition, 574. New York: McGraw-Hill.
0 200 400 600 800
8. Pujol, L. and Boberg, T.C. 1972. Scaling Accuracy of Laboratory
Time, min Steam Flooding Models. Paper SPE 4191 presented at the SPE
California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 810
FIGURE 28: Oil production in Test 3 (velocity dependent dispersion). November. doi: 10.2118/4191-MS.
9. GPSA Engineering Data Book, Vol. 2, eleventh edition, 23-222-3.
20 1998. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Gas Processors Suppliers Association.
40
60
80
100
120 ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Thermal Solvent
140
Reflux and Thermal Solvent Hybrid Experiments (Paper 2007-067;
160
180 SPE Paper 133202). Abstract submitted for review March 30, 2007; edito-
rial comments sent to the author(s) October 27, 2009; revised manuscript
180 received November 13, 2009; paper approved for pre-press January 4,
163 2010; final approval January 12, 2010.
146
129
112
95
78 Authors Biographies
61
44 John Ivory has been a research engineer
27 at the Alberta Research Council since 1981
10 in the areas of enhanced oil recovery (pri-
marily steam and solvent based processes
FIGURE 29: Experimental and numerical temperature profile at 720
minutes of Test 4 (UTF bitumen). and in-situ combustion) and gas separa-
tion and purification using membranes, ad-
needs to be more closely examined when extending from sorption or absorption technologies. He has
steam-only processes to steam solvent injection, as diffusion extensive experience in both designing ex-
is correctly scaled but not dispersion. periments and performing numerical sim-
Satisfactory history matches were obtained for the 4 ulations related to heavy oil and bitumen
experiments. recovery using cold production, solvent in-
jection, steam injection and in-situ combustion. Ivory is currently
As with the non-thermal VAPEX process, the value of the
leader of ARCs Reservoir Simulation Group.
dispersion/diffusion coefficients has a profound effect on
predicted oil and gas production in the Thermal Solvent
Ted Frauenfeld is a senior research en-
processes. However, the decision on what value to use for
gineer in the heavy oil and oil sands busi-
these parameters is more difficult for the thermal processes
ness unit at Alberta Research Council. He
as they are highly dependent on temperature as well as
has been a co-leader of the hybrid steam-
concentration.
solvent strategic area and coordinates sev-
Both heat and solvent play a major role in improving oil pro- eral projects investigating the application of
duction in the thermal solvent processes. solvents to heavy oil and bitumen recovery
processes. Frauenfeld has worked on a va-
riety of oil recovery processes, including
Acknowledgements thermal recovery and miscible flooding.
He holds a BS degree in mechanical engi-
As usual, the skillful editing of Valerie Pinkoski is appreciated. neering and an MS degree in petroleum engineering, both from the
The assistance of Xiaohui Deng, Litong Zhao and Jian-Yang Yuan University of Alberta. Frauenfeld is a member of APEGGA, the
is also appreciated. Petroleum Society of CIM and SPE. He is currently living in the
South Okanagan in BC.
References Chris Jossy is a research technologist with
1. Boustani, A. and Maini, B.B. 2001. The Role of Diffusion and Con- the heavy oil and oil sands group at Al-
vective Dispersion in Vapour Extraction Process. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. berta Research Council. He is responsible
40 (4): 6877. for the lab model experiments investigating
2. Butler, R.M. and Mokrys, I.J. 1989. Solvent Analog Model of Steam- thermal and non-thermal recovery pro-
Assisted Gravity Drainage. AOSTRA Journal of Research 5 (1): cesses for heavy oils. Jossy has worked on a
1732. variety of projects related to the recovery of
3. Cuthiell, D., McCarthy, C., Frauenfeld, T., Cameron, S., and Kissel, heavy oil and bitumen. He holds a diploma
G. 2003. Investigation of the VAPEX Process Using CT Scanning in electronics engineering technology from
and Numerical Simulation. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 42 (4): 4149. NAIT.
February 2010, Volume 49, No. 2 31