PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2002-256

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Sand Production in Oil Sand

Under Heavy Oil Foamy Flow
R.C.K. Wong
The University of Calgary

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2002, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 11 – 13, 2002. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the
technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for
publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT
Sand production and foamy oil flow are the two key
factors contributing the success in cold flow production
in Alberta and Saskatchewan. However, two mechanisms
have been treated and studied separately as
geomechanics and multiphase flow problems,
respectively. Special experiments were designed to
combine these two processes, and conducted to study
their interaction. The experiments involved flow of dead
and live heavy oil in undisturbed heavy oil sand cores. It
was found that gas nucleation in heavy-oil is the major
factor in causing initiation of sand production in oil
sand. This finding is consistent with field observation. A
model for sand production in heavy oil reservoir is
developed based on field and experiment observation.
This model includes the effects of geomechanics and gas
exsolution phenomena such as strength of oil sand, stress
distribution in the reservoir, solution gas diffusion, foamy
oil gas and fluid phase properties.
INTRODUCTION
Sand production and foamy oil flow are interrelated
mechanisms in primary production (cold production) of
heavy oil reservoirs in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Massive sand production could cause excessive
deformation in oil sand and overburden resulting in
detrimental effects on the production facilities. However,
sand control measures tend to reduce the oil production
rate. Numerical studies have been conducted to predict
sand production in heavy-oil reservoirs (Wong et al.
1994; Geilikam et al. 1994; Geilikam et al. 1995; Fang
and Wong 1996). However, limited experimental work
has been performed to study the sand production in oil
sand. Trembaly et al. (1996; 1997) used computer
tomography imaging technique to examine the sand
production process in sand pack columns using dead oil
injected at a constant rate. They observed that a channel-
like cavity was developed and evolved under a critical
flow pressure gradient. However, there is no
experimental reported study on sand production using

1
natural oil sand cores and live heavy oil. The main
objective of the paper is to investigate the effects of
bitumen, oil sand interlocked structure, pressure gradient,
and gas exsolution on sand production near a perforation
in heavy-oil reservoir. The first part of this paper
describes testing material, testing equipment, test details
and results. The second part focuses on interpretation and
analysis of test results and observation, followed by
conclusions. Details of mathematical models used in the
analysis of test results are presented in Appendix.
TESTING MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT
The oil sand cores for the experimental study
presented in this paper were recovered at a depth of 424
m from an observation well (3-66-4-W4M) at a site near
Cold Lake, Alberta. Core sampling was carried out using
a conventional rotary core barrel of 89 mm inside
diameter. Cores recovered were frozen at site and kept
inside PVC tubes in a freezer. Prior to any testing, the
frozen cores were x-rayed for sample selection.
A high-pressure (70-MPa capability) stainless steel
triaxial cell was used to conduct the sand production
tests. The top and bottom platens used to provide
confining pressure to the test core were modified to allow
fluid injection and sand production (Fig. 1). Inlet and
outlet drainage ports were provided at the top and bottom
platens so that fluid could be injected through the core
using a displacement pump or pressurized reservoirs. The
bottom platen was made up of a removable disc and a
hollow cylindrical section. The removable disc has a
circular hole of varying diameter (0.3, 0.5 and 0.8 inch)
simulating the wellbore perforation. The hollow section
with a recess was used to store any produced sand.
TEST DETAILS AND RESULTS
Reconstituted Oil-free Sand Specimen
The objective of this test series is to study sand
production in reconstituted sand under constant flow rate
fluid injection. The reconstituted oil sand specimen was
prepared as follows: (i) remove the bitumen from the oil
sand cores using Dean Stark method, (ii) flush the sand
with acetone to make the sand water wet, (iii) compact
the clean sand in a stainless mold of 89 mm in diameter
2
and 150 mm in height to a porosity of 33% close to the in
situ state using moisture tampering method, and (iv)
freeze the specimen inside the steel mold under a small
axial load. The frozen specimen was allowed to thaw and
consolidate under a 200-kPa confining pressure inside the
triaxial cell with a 0.3-inch hole disc (Fig. 1). After
consolidation, the confining pressure was gradually
increased. It was observed that sand was pushed out
through the hole and the neoprene sleeve burst when the
confining pressure was increased to 1.3 MPa. This
finding is consistent with the results observed from the
borehole stability tests on reconstituted oil-free oil sand
hollow cylindrical specimens (Wong and Leung 2002). In
their tests, sand around the hole started to deform and
yield inward when the external confining pressure
applied to the hollow cylindrical specimen has reached to
750 kPa. Massive yielding occurred at a pressure of 850
kPa.
Oil-removed Oil Sand Specimens under
Constant Flow Rate Injection and Choking
The objective of this test series is to study the effect of
bitumen as a binding material on sand production in oil
sand specimen under constant flow rate fluid injection
and choking. An intact oil sand specimen was secured
inside a Teflon shrinkable sleeve with two stainless
sintered porous ends. Bitumen was removed from the oil
sand specimen using Dean-Stark distillation method,
followed by acetone distillation. Then, the oil-removed
specimen was mounted inside the triaxial cell with a 0.3-
inch hole disc, and consolidated under a 10-MPa
confining pressure. Constant flow rate injection tests
were conducted with the outlet opened to atmosphere.
Water was injected at rates ranging from 0.33 to 1.2
L/min for 7 hours. The oil-removed sand specimen had a
measured permeability value of 0.3 Darcy. The maximum
pressure gradient measured across the specimen was
about 8.9 MPa/m. Traces of sand were produced. Then,
the sand production tests were repeated with 0.5- and 0.8-
inch hole discs. Again, small amount of sand was
produced.
Then, a constant 3-MPa pressure was applied at the
upstream inlet using a pressurized water reservoir while
the downstream outlet was closed. When the pore
pressure reached to the constant pressure, then the inlet
valve was opened instantaneously. This choking
procedure was repeated for several times. X-ray image of
the specimen (Fig. 2) shows that some sand was produced
forming a small conical cavity. Tensile fractures were
also induced along the specimen length.
Oil Sand Specimen under Constant Pressure
Gradient and Choking
The objective of this test series is to study sand
production in oil sand specimen under constant pressure
gradient and choking. An intact oil sand specimen was
consolidated under a 10-MPa confining pressure inside
the triaxial cell with a 0.8 inch hole disc. Then, a constant
3-MPa pressure was applied at the upstream inlet using a
pressurized water reservoir while the downstream outlet
was opened to atmosphere. The pressure gradient applied
to the specimen was 20 MPa/m that was much higher
than those in the constant rate injection tests. However,
no sand was produced after 2 hours of water injection.
Then, the 3-MPa pressure choking procedure was
applied to the specimen for several times. A channel-like
cavity was developed at the perforation (Fig. 3).
Oil Sand Specimen under Gas Exsolution
The objective of this test series is to study sand
production in oil sand specimen under gas exsolution. An
intact oil sand specimen was consolidated under a 10-
MPa confining pressure inside the triaxial cell with a 0.8
inch hole disc. Then, the specimen was saturated with
live heavy oil with a gas-oil ratio of 8 and viscosity of
about 69000 cp at 21oC. The saturation process involved
displacement of dead heavy oil inside the specimen by
live oil while maintaining the pore pressure above the
bubble point pressure of 2 MPa. After two-pore volume
displacement, then the pore pressure was maintained at a
value of 3 MPa. The effective confining stress was 7 MPa
that was close to the in situ value. Then, the outlet
pressure was gradually decreased in step pressure
declines of 0.1 MPa while the upstream pressure was
maintained at a constant pressure of 3 MPa. In each step
pressure decline, the pore pressure was allowed to
equilibrate prior to the subsequent decline. Gas and oil
was produced and collected at the outlet. No sand was
produced when the outlet pressure was above the bubble
3
point pressure. When the outlet pressure dropped slightly
below 2 MPa, sand was flushed out with foamy oil so fast
that the test had to be terminated without rupturing the
neoprene sleeve. X-ray image of the specimen (Fig. 4)
shows that a bulb-like cavity was formed and tensile
parting was induced in the sand matrix around the cavity.
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
Reconstituted Oil-free Sand Specimen
Sand started to yield and flow out of the 0.3-inch
perforation hole when the confining pressure reached to a
value of 1.3 MPa. This is consistent with those
observations in the borehole stability tests (Wong and
Leung 2002). There was no support stress to the sand
face at the perforation. A sand arch was developed
around the perforation hole by mobilizing the friction of
sand particles since the strength derived from the
interlocked structure and bitumen was removed in the
reconstituted sand. When the confining stress exceeded
the ultimate capacity of the sand arch, sand yielded and
flowed. Such stress induced sand yield and flow was not
observed in experiments conducted by Trembaly et al.
(1996; 1997) because their sand specimen was packed
inside a rigid-walled long column and not subjected to a
controlled confining stress. Thus, the sand production in
our series of tests is due to sand yielding caused by stress
failure rather than fluid flow pressure gradient as detected
by Trembaly et al. (1996).
Oil-removed Oil Sand Specimens under
Constant Flow Rate and Choking
In this series of tests, bitumen was removed from the
oil sand specimen to eliminate the effect of bitumen as a
binding material on the sand production and promote
single fluid phase flow. Small amount of sand was
produced under high rate water injection of 1 L/min. The
measured pressure gradient across the specimen length
was about 8.9 MPa/m. Wong et al. (1994) developed an
analytical solution relating the critical pressure gradient
dp/dr destabilizing the sand arch around a cavity by shear
failure:
dp  φ 
= N c cot(45 o − )  ................................................. [1]
dr  2 
where N = shape factor (N = 2 and 4 for long circular and
spherical cavities, respectively); c and φ = cohesion and
friction angle of oil sand, respectively. Assuming φ = 45o
and N = 4, the back-calculated cohesion could be as high
as 0.9 MPa that will be discussed in subsequent
paragraphs along with results from choking tests.
Oil Sand Specimen under Constant Pressure
Gradient and Choking
A constant differential pressure of 3 MPa applied to
the specimen produces a pressure gradient of 20 MPa/m.
Assuming φ = 45o and N = 4, the back-calculated
cohesion could be as high as 2.1 MPa. This cohesion
value is much higher than those derived from the
unconfined and triaxial compression tests of oil sand
reported in the literature. This peculiar behaviour raises
the question as to why the oil sand is so strong around the
perforation under flow flux. This behavior was also
observed in the borehole stability tests in oil sand (Wong
and Leung 2002). They suggested that the effect of stress
path, intermediate stress and size could enhance the shear
strength. Another important factor is the response of the
interlocked structure of oil sand under different imposed
boundary actions. The interlocked structure has low
resistance to tensile loading mode, but offers high
resistance to shearing mode, particularly in passive mode
under confinement. High external compressive or shear
load can be transmitted through the interlocked structure
enhancing the overall stability. Thus, the resistance of the
interlocked structure increases with confining pressure. It
was observed that interlocked oil sand was difficult to
mine or erode under high pressure hydraulic jetting
(Sharpe et al. 1997).
Instant choking provides infinite pressure gradient at
the perforation, but this steep gradient only lasts for a
short duration. This explains why sand was produced in
each choking procedure, but in a small amount.
Oil Sand Specimen under Gas Exsolution
No sand was produced when the fluid pressure of live
oil was reduced from 3 MPa to 2 MPa in pressure decline
steps of 0.1 MPa. It took less than 15 minutes for the
differential pressure between the upstream and
downstream to equilibrate in each step. However, at the
step pressure decline from 2 MPa to 1.9 MPa, sand
4
particles were washed out with the live oil
instantaneously. It appears that the massive sand
production in this test was associated with gas exsolution
when the pressure dropped below the bubble point.
Consider the response of a sand element at the
perforation hole under the step pressure decline from 2 to
1.9 MPa. In order to analyze the stability of the sand
element, it is necessary to study the interaction between
the matrix stress and foamy oil pressure. Solutions to
such coupled problem are complex and difficult to obtain
(see Appendix). However, some assumptions can be
made to produce tractable solutions. Since the sand was
produced instantaneously in the step pressure decline, it
is reasonable to assume that free gas flow was not
significant. In addition, fluid flux in and out of the sand
element was small at the instant of sand production, i.e.,
the sand element was subjected to an instantaneous
undrained unloading. The effective radial stress is always
zero at the perforation since the confining pressure was
provided by the fluid. With these simplifications, one
only needs to determine the fluid pressure response of the
sand element under undrained unloading below the
bubble point. The fluid pressure reacts to the step
pressure decline and drops from 2.0 to 1.9 MPa. Below
the bubble point, the live oil becomes supersaturated with
dissolved gas solute resulting in gas exsolution. The fluid
pressure starts to rebound as gas bubbles nucleate and
grow with no net flux. The final equilibrium pressure and
gas saturation can be determined by setting equation [A3]
of Appendix to zero, i.e.
∂ρ o ∂φ ∂( So )
φ (So ) + ρ o ( So ) + ρ oφ = 0 ..............[2]
∂t ∂t ∂t
The first term of [2] relates to the change in volume
due to fluid compressibility by pressure change. The
second term defines the change in volume due to the sand
matrix compressibility by pressure change. The third term
quantifies the evolution of oil or gas saturation due to gas
exsolution below the bubble point. For 0.1-MPa pressure
decline, the volume changes due to fluid and sand matrix
compressibility are 0.0015% and 0.01% respectively,
given that cf (fluid compressibility) = 4.8x10-4/MPa; ce
(matrix compressibility) = 10-3/MPa; φ (porosity) = 0.32
(Wong et at. 1993; Wong et al. 1999). The gas saturation
at thermodynamic equilibrium is 0.0265% that is small to
affect the total compressibility. The gas bubbles evolved
at this step pressure decline just below the bubble point
can be considered to be small, dispersed and rigid. This
implies that the fluid pressure would rebound back to a
pressure close to that before the decline. Based on the
mass balance of the gas phase existed in bubbles and
solution, the equilibrium gas pressure in bubbles due to
changes in gas saturation and production is given by:
 RT 
GOR ( 22.4 )
 
pg = .................................. [3]
 (1 − α p ) RT 
 GOR ( ) + Sg 
 pb 22.4 
where pg = gas pressure; GOR = solution gas-oil ratio; αp
= oil fraction produced from unit oil pore volume; pb =
bubble point; R = universal gas constant; T = absolute
temperature. For ideal gas law, one mole of gas occupies
22.4 L. Undrained unloading condition satisfies the
condition of αp = 0, i.e., no net flux. In our case with GOR
= 8, pb = 2 MPa, RT/22.4 = 0.101 MPa and Sg =
0.0265%, the calculated pg is 1.998 MPa. For small
capillary pressure effect, the gas pressure is equal to the
fluid (oil) pressure. This justifies that the fluid pressure
rebounds back to a pressure close to that before the
decline. This is important to note this full pressure
rebound is only valid for unloading just below the bubble
point or at small gas saturation. For high gas saturation,
the total compressibility of the system is so large that a
large amount of gas is required to pressurize the system.
The evolution time for thermodynamic equilibrium of
gas exsolution depends on many factors such as bubble
nucleation site and population, imposed conditions
(pressure decline or withdrawal), gas-solution ratio and
diffusion coefficient of dissolved gas (Szekely, J. and
Martins, G.P. 1971; Kumar and Pooladi-Darvish 2001).
In this study, simplistic models are assumed for solution
diffusion of dissolved gas in live heavy oil (Craig 1997).
Gas solute diffuses towards the bubbles of constant
diameter, constant strength and fixed spacing (Fig. 5).
Two bubble populations or densities were considered in
the analysis. The bubble density (Fig. 5) is defined by the
5
ratio (n) of the average spacing of bubbles (ζ) to the
average diameter of the bubbles (d). The evolution of
fluid pressure, gas saturation and effective radial stress
are plotted against normalized time for n = 5 and 100, in
Figs. 6 to 8, respectively. The solution diffusion process
depends on bubble density and spacing (n and ζ), and
diffusion coefficient (D). It is important to note that the
effective radial stress becomes negative when the gas
exsolution commences. It is postulated that the oil sand
would lose its interlocked grain contacts when the
negative effective stress exceeds the tensile strength of
the interlocked structure. Since the sand production
occurred almost instantaneously in the test, it infers either
the interlocked structure of oil sand has a low tensile
strength or the rate of gas exsolution is rapid. The tensile
strength must be less than 0.1 MPa. Destabilization of
intact oil sand around a cavern was also observed in
hydraulic mining in deep heavy oil reservoir (Wong
1996). A 5-m wide cavern at a depth of 450 m was mined
out using high pressure water jetting. The cavern
remained stable when the fluid pressure inside the cavern
was maintained at its hydrostatic pressure of 5 MPa.
However, when the fluid pressure was lowered to the
bubble point pressure of 2 MPa, massive sand was
produced from mining. The cavern grew extensively to
10 m wide. This field observation is in agreement with
those observed in this series of sand production tests.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the sand
production experiments:
• Sand production in remolded or reconstituted oil
sand pack is induced by stress induced yielding
rather than fluid flow pressure gradient
• The interlocked structure of natural oil sand
provides a very high shear resistance against the
seepage force generated by the fluid flow.
However, the oil sand is weak in resisting tensile
failure mode.
• Solution gas evolved at the pressure state just
below the bubble point could induce negative
effective stresses in oil sand at unsupported
cavities or unscreened perforations. This unravels
 the oil sand interlocked structure by tensile failure
or parting, resulting in massive sand production.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research investigation was funded through an
NSERC-Imperial Oil CRD Research Grant. Assistance
provided by Bill Barr was appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Craig, R.F. 1997 Soil mechanics; E & FN Spon, New
York, 481 pages.
2. Fung, L. and Wong, R.C.K. 1996. Modelling of
cavity stability and sand production in heavy-oil
reservoirs. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 35 ( ): 46-52.
3 . Geilikman, M.B., Dusseault, M.B. and Dullien,
F.A.L. 1994. Sand production and yield propagation
around wellbores. Paper CIM 94-89 presented at the
1994 Annual Technical Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, June 12-15, 1994.
4 . Geilikman, M.B., Dusseault, M.B. and Dullien,
F.A.L. 1995. Dynamic effects of foamy fluid flow n
sand production instability. Paper SPE 30251
presented at the International Heavy Oil Symposium,
Calgary, Alberta, June 19-21, 1995.
5. Kumar, R. and Pooladi-Darvish, M. 2001. Effect of
viscosity and diffusion coefficient on the kinetics of
bubble growth in solution-gas drive in heavy oil.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 40(3):
30-37.
6. Sharpe, J.A., Shinde, S.B. and Wong, R.C.K. 1997.
Cold Lake borehole mining. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 36(1): 58-63.
7. Szekely, J. and Martins, G.P. 1971. Non-equilibrium
effects in the growth of spherical gas bubbles due to
solution diffusion. Chemical Engineering Science,
26: 147-159.
8. Trembaly, B., Sedgwick, G. and Forshner, K. 1996.
Imaging of sand production in horizontal pack by x-
ray computed tomography. SPE Formation
Evaluation, pp. 94-98, June 1996.
6
9. Trembaly, B., Sedgwick, G. and Forshner, K. 1997.
Simulation of cold production in heavy oil
reservoirs: wormhole dynamics. SPE Reservoir
Engineering, pp. 110-117, May 1997.
10. Wong, R.C.K., Barr, W.E. and Kry, P.R. 1993.
Stress-strain response of Cold Lake oil sands.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30:220-235.
11. Wong, R.C.K., Samieh, A.M. and Kuhlemeyer, R.
1994. Oil sand strength parameters at low effective
stresses - its effects on sand production, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 30(6), 44-50.
12. Wong, R.C.K. 1996. Behaviour of water pressurized
caverns in oil sand and shale. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 33: 610-617.
13. Wong, R.C.K., Guo, F., Weaver, J.S. and Barr, W.E.
1999. Heavy oil flow under solution-gas drive:
pressure depletion tests. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 38(4): 31-37.
14. Wong, R.C.K. and Leung, K.C. 2002. Borehole
stability oil sand in drilling. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 30 (1): 44-50.
APPENEDIX - COUPLED STRESS-FOAMY OIL
FLOW PROBLEM
Sand production involves physical detachment of sand
particles from its matrix and transport through flow
medium. In order to analyze the mechanics triggering the
initiation of detachment, it is necessary to study the
equations governing the coupled mechanical-hydraulic
process around a wellbore perforation.
Equilibrium and Compatibility Equations
Stresses around a spherical cavity under a hydrostatic
overburden pressure are given by stress equilibrium and
strain compatibility equations, respectively:
dσ r σ −σ r
−2 θ = 0 ..............................................[A1]
dr r
dε θ ε − εr
+2 θ = 0 .....................................................[A2]
dr r
where σr and σθ are total radial and tangential stresses,  kk kk rg  d [φ ( S g ρ g + ρ dg S o )]..... [A4]
∇ ⋅  ρ dg ro ∇po + ρ g ∇p g  =
respectively; εr and ε θ are radial and tangential strains,  µ µ  dt
 o g 
respectively; r is the radial distance. The strains can be
expressed in terms of total radial and tangential stresses, where ρg and ρd g are average free gas and dissolved gas
fluid (oil) pressure po and gas pressure pg using effective densities; krg is gas relative permeability values; pg is gas
stress-strain constitutive laws. pressure; Sg is gas saturation. In [A4], ρd gis highly
boundary condition dependent parameter that is governed
Mass Conservation Equations
by the gas exsolution process, i.e., mass diffusion of
Oil phase dissolved gas in oil phase to the bubbles of free gas
Oil is assumed to be the only mobile fluid phase, i.e., (Szekely and Martins 1971; Kumar and Pooladi-Darvish
water exists in a connate saturation. The continuity 2001)
condition yields the following equation:

Equations [A1] to [A4] provide a mathematical

 kk  dρ φS framework for the coupled stress-foamy oil flow process
∇ ⋅  ρ o ro ∇po  = o o .................................. [A3]
 µo  dt around a spherical cavity in oil sands. Total radial and
tangential stresses, oil pressure and oil saturation are the
where four dependent variables. Gas pressure can be related to
oil pressure using capillary pressure curve. Gas and oil
dρ oφS o ∂ρ ∂φ ∂ (S o )
= φ (S o ) o + ρ o ( S o ) + ρ oφ ; saturations are totaled to unity. The average dissolved gas
dt ∂t ∂t ∂t density is dependent on the gas pressure through Henry’s
ρο is oil density; k and kr ο are absolute and relative law. It can be seen that all four variables appear in each
of the four governing equations. Solutions to such fully
permeability values, respectively; φ is porosity; Sο is oil
coupled systems of equations are very complex and
saturation. In [A3], oil pressure, gas pressure and total
difficult. Since sand production is likely to occur at the
stresses are implicitly embedded.
periphery of the cavity, it is attempted to make some
Gas phase reasonable assumptions to make the solution tractable.
Gas phase exists as free gas in bubbles and dissolved
gas solute in oil. Thus, the mass conservation equation of
gas phase is given as:

7
 triaxial cell

inlet

sleeve

core

disc
outlet

produced
sand
Fig. 1. Triaxial cell details for sand production tests Fig. 3. X-ray image of oil sand specimen under constant
pressure gradient and choking

Fig. 2. X-ray image of oil-removed oil sand specimen Fig. 4. X-ray image of oil sand specimen under gas
under constant flow rate injection and choking exsolution

8
 bubble 0.03

0.025

Gas saturation (%)

η=5
0.02 η=100
0.015

2ζ 0.01

0.005

2ζ 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
T=Dt/ζ2
perforation hole
Fig. 7. Evolution of gas saturation due to gas exsolution
zero effective in oil sand
radial stress

Fig. 5. Gas exsolution in a sand element near wellbore

perforation

2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Fluid pressure (MPa)

0
1.98 η=5
Effective stress (kPa)

η=100 -20
1.96
-40
1.94
-60
1.92
-80 η=5 η=100
1.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 -100

T=Dt/ζ2 T=Dt/ζ2

Fig. 6. Evolution of fluid pressure due to gas exsolution Fig. 8. Evolution of effective stress due to gas exsolution
in oil sand in oil sand