Investigation of Cyclic Solvent Injection

Process for Heavy Oil Recovery

J. Ivory, J. Chang, R. Coates, and K. Forshner, Alberta Innovates Technology Futures

Abstract

This paper summarizes numerical and experimental simulation results of a cyclic solvent injection process study, which
was part of a continuing investigation into the use of solvents
as a follow-up process in Cold Lake and Lloydminster reservoirs that have been pressure-depleted by cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS). Typically only 5% 10% of the
original oil in place (OOIP) is recovered during cold production; therefore, an effective follow-up process is required.
The cyclic solvent injection (CSI) experiment consisted of
primary production followed by six solvent (28% C3H8 72%
CO2) injection cycles. Oil recovery after primary production
and six solvent cycles was 50%, which indicates the potential
viability of the CSI process.
Concurrently with the laboratory physical simulation, a numerical simulation model was developed to represent the physical behaviour of the experimental results. A history match of
the primary production portion of the experiment was obtained
using an Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (AITF) foamy
oil model. This resulted in the characterization (fluid saturations and pressures) of the oil sandpack at the start of the solvent injection process. The history match of the subsequent
six solvent injection cycles was used to validate the numerical
model of the CSI process developed at AITF.
This model includes nonequilibrium rate equations that
simulated the delay in solvent reaching its equilibrium concentration as it dissolves or exsolves in the oil in response to
changes in the pressure and/or gas-phase composition. Dissolution of CH4, C3H8 and CO2 in oil and CO2 in water were considered, as was exsolution of CH4, C3H8 and CO2 from oil and
CO2 from water. Reduced gas-phase permeabilities resulting
from gas exsolution were also included.
The history match simulations indicated that:
The important mechanisms were represented in the simulations.
Significant oil swelling by solvent dissolution occurs
during solvent injection periods. This can reduce solvent injectivity and penetration into a heavy oil reservoir during solvent
injection periods.
Low oil and gas-phase relative permeabilities are required
during production periods to match the experimental oil and
gas production during solvent cycles.
A parametric simulation study showed that the quantity of gas
injected in an injection period was relatively insensitive to the
oil-phase diffusion coefficients, but was sensitive to solvent solubility in oil, dissolution rates, gas-phase diffusion coefficients,
molar densities in the oil phase, gas-phase relative permeability
and capillary pressure. It was shown that oil production is highly
dependent on how quickly solvent can dissolve in the oil during
injection and exsolve from the oil during production.

22

Introduction

In Cold Lake and Lloydminster heavy oil reservoirs, cold production is used to increase heavy oil production rates by producing
sand along with the oil. Sand production results in the creation of
high-permeability wormholes that enhance oil production. Following cold production, the pay zone has become a network of
wormholes, which extend radially outward from production wells.
During a follow-up process, these wormholes can provide reservoir
access for an injection fluid, such as solvent or steam.
After approximately 5% 10% of the initial oil in place has been
recovered, the process becomes uneconomical because of reservoir
pressure depletion or water encroachment to the production well.
Detailed studies of the cold production process have been presented
by many researchers [Bratli and Risnes(1), Bratli et al.(2), Chang(3),
Dusseault and Santarelli(4), Dusseault et al.(5), Dusseault and ElSayed(6), Geilikman and Dusseault(7,8), Risnes et al.(9), Sawatzky et
al.(10,11), Tremblay et al.(12,13), Tremblay(14,15)].
The experiment described in this paper was carried out to evaluate the performance of a 28% C3H8 72% CO2 solvent mixture in a post-cold production CSI follow-up process. It indicated
the potential viability of the cyclic solvent process using a 28%
C3H8 72% CO2 solvent mixture as the oil recovery after primary
production and six solvent cycles was 50%.
A numerical model was developed at AITF to simulate CSI processes. The model includes a representation of nonequilibrium behaviour during solvent dissolution and exsolution. The model has
been validated based on the experiment described in this paper, as
well as by other experiments not discussed here.

Experiment

The radial drainage physical simulation model was built to capture,

at real-scale dimensions and time, radial flow of fluids into and out
of a 6-cm diameter wormhole during primary cold production and
follow-up processes (Fig. 1).
Stepped cone laboratory models (3 m long) were constructed
from sections of pipe that approximated the cross-sectional flow
area of the irregular cone (Fig. 2). The inside diameter of the
bottom cylinder of the stepped cone was 1 cm and that of the top
cylinder was 9.7 cm.
The experimental model was packed with cleaned produced reservoir sand. Approximately 2.5 PV of water was pumped through
the pack from the top end and its absolute permeability was determined. Approximately 1.5 PV of live Rush Lake oil, which had
been previously saturated with CH4 at 3.0 MPa and 20C, was
pumped through the top of the pack to complete the saturation of
the pack. Volumes of water and oil injected and produced during
saturation were measured to calculate initial fluid saturations.
During the experiment, the model was configured in a vertical
alignment with the narrow end down. The pressure was measured
at six locations along the model and the temperature measured at
five locations. In addition, the pressure difference between the
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Element

Well

300 cm

Wormhole

Fig. 1: Radial drainage experimental representation of fieldscale CSI.

top and bottom of the model was recorded. The production fluids
entered the top of the accumulators, each of which had a piston.
Below the piston, the accumulators contained pressurized N2,
which was adjusted to control the experimental pressure. A Paragon data logging and control system was used in combination
with a Tesco pressure regulator to reduce the production pressure
at a rate of 167 kPa/d during primary production and 125 kPa/d
during CSI production periods. Production periods were terminated when the cumulative oil production and cumulative gas production reached a level value.
The solvent, a mixture of 28 vol. % C3H8 and 72 vol. % CO2,
was injected into the narrow end of the model from a pressurized
cylinder, through a pressure regulator set at the desired injection
pressure. The model was then left connected to the solvent cylinder
throughout the remainder of the injection period in order to maintain pressure as the solvent dissolved in the oil.
Detailed information that explains the experiment is provided in
Tables 1 and 2.
The experiment consisted of primary production and six solvent
injection cycles. During the solvent injection period, which lasted
at least 62 days long in each cycle, the model was pressured to approximately 3.3 MPa and during the production period the model
pressure was decreased to a minimum of approximately 0.6 MPa
(Table 3). The solvent mixture was chosen to be totally in the vapour phase at the lower pressure and only in the two-phase region
at the upper pressure, as shown in Fig. 3.
A linear pressure drawdown strategy was applied during production periods (Fig. 4). The maximum pressure drop (between the
TABLE 1SAND PACK CONDITIONS
Primary + 6 Solvent Cycles (28% C3H8 and 72% CO2)
3

Rush Lake dead oil density @ 20C (g/cm )

Dead oil viscosity (mPa.s)

Permeability (darcy)

0.988
39,320 @ 20C
345 @ 75C
48.4 @ 120C
4.5

Porosity (%)

38
3

Initial GOR (std cm /cm )

Initial So

0.88

Initial Sw

0.12

Initial pressure (MPaa)

3.3

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

Fig. 2: Laboratory experiment setup and logging system.

top and bottom of the sandpack) was approximately 200 kPa during
the solvent cycle production periods as compared to 1,200 kPa
during primary production (Fig. 5). Solvent dissolution reduced
the oil viscosity and, as a result, foamy oil stability. It is expected
that both of these effects were responsible for the lower pressure
drop during solvent cycles.
As a result of fluctuations in ambient temperature, the temperature in the sandpack varied between 15C and 25C (Fig. 6) over
the course of the experiment. In later experiments, better control of
the ambient temperature was achieved.
The oil recovery after primary production was 6.8% and for
the entire test it was 50.4% of the OOIP (Fig. 7). Because of increasing solvent penetration into the sandpack with each cycle, the
greatest oil production occurred during Cycles 4 and 5 where recoveries of 9.6% and 11.9% were obtained. The CSI experiment
produced 50.4% oil recovery from the oil above a wormhole. It is
anticipated that oil recovery in a field application of CSI would
be lower and would depend on the operating strategy used and the
properties of the reservoir following CHOPS. Numerical simulations, based on history matches of field pilot data, are used in the
design of CSI operating strategies and in estimating oil recovery for
particular field applications.
The produced C3H8 gas composition was initially high in the
Cycle 1 production period, but then declined with time (Fig. 8).
Because of its higher solubility in oil, C3H8 was preferentially dissolved (relative to CO2) in the oil at the bottom of the test bed
during solvent injection. When this oil was produced at the beginning of the production period, it contained more C3H8 than CO2,
but at later times in a production period, more of the produced fluid
originated from higher in the test bed and the CO2 concentration
increased. With time, the C3H8/(C3H8+CO2) ratio approached that
(0.28) in the injected solvent. Similar behaviour was also observed
in subsequent cycles.
There was little CH4 in the produced gas for the first 7 days
(Fig. 9) of Cycle 1. This delay in CH4 production was caused by
CH4 being displaced from the oil into the gas phase by the injected
C3H8 and CO2 and its upward movement in the sandpack in the
Cycle 1 injection period.
23

TABLE 2PRODUCTION DATA FOR EXPERIMENT

Primary

Period
(days)

Oil
Produced
3
(cm )

48

279

Cycle 1

Injection
Production

25

Cycle 2

Injection

80

Production

23

Cycle 3

Injection

64

Production

26

Cycle 4

Injection

63

Production

17

Cycle 5

Injection

66

Production

21

Cycle 6

Injection

78

Production

20

Produced Gas
Composition (std. L)

Gas/Solvent (std. L)
Produced

Injected

CH4

C3 H8

Produced
GOR (std.
3
3
cm /cm )

CO2

Oil
Recovery
(%)

5.481

62

6.8

121
217

58.4

9.0

14.1

35.3

267

5.3

99.8

3.6

30.6

65.7

549

4.9

108.2

0.4

42.7

63.8

462

5.9

147

0.03

73.7

72.4

378

9.6

174

0.06

79.3

94.9

358

11.9

147

0.03

52.8

94.2

598

6.0

208
182
224
234
298
389
247
486
159
246

TABLE 3FINAL PRESSURE AT END OF EACH CYCLE

Final Drawdown Pressure (MPaa)
Injection
Pressure (MPaa)

Drawdown
Rate (kPa/d)

Primary (CSI)

167

Cycle 1

3.32

125

0.60

0.70

Cycle 2

3.26

125

0.67

0.69

Cycle 3

3.29

125

0.77

0.79

Cycle 4

3.31

125

1.27

1.31

Cycle 5

3.47

125

1.34

1.38

Cycle 6

3.43

125

1.01

1.04

More CH4 was produced in Cycle 1 of solvent production than

in primary production (Table 4). The injected solvent reduced
the CH4 concentration in the gas phase resulting in CH4 exsolving
from the oil phase in order to achieve an equilibrium state.
Following the experiment, samples were taken (at atmospheric pressure) at nine different locations along the test bed
and a Dean Stark analysis was performed to determine their oil,
water and solids contents. The fluid saturations were then calculated assuming a sand density of 2.65 g/cm3. The post-run saturations for the experiment are shown in Fig. 10. For greater
clarity, dashed lines connect the different sample points. The
post-run oil saturation was low at the bottom of the test bed be10 000

4 000

Test 8

3 500
3 000

40% C2H6, 60% CO2

28% C3H8, 72% CO2

55% CH4, 45% C2H6

0
60

2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000

Cyclic Pressure
Range

2 000

0
40

20

20

40

Cycle 6

500

60

Temperature, C

Fig. 3: Solvent phase behaviour during CSI.

24

A numerical simulation model was developed for history matching

the radial drainage experiment. The simulations were performed
using the CMG STARS simulator. A radial grid (30011) was
used to represent the physical model for both primary production and CSI. Each of the 300 blocks was 1-cm long0.78-cm
thick20C. The simulations were performed assuming isothermalbehaviour.

Pressure, kPa

Pressure, kPa

4 000

Numerical Simulations

25% n-C 4H10, 75% CO2

6 000

Bottom of
Test Bed

cause of oil production. Oil saturation was also low at the top because of its displacement by gas, which migrated to the top during
the experiment.

70% CH4, 30% C3H8

8 000

Top of
Test Bed

Primary

Production

80

Cycle 1

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Time, days
Fig. 4: Measured pressure profile during injection periods.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

35

1400

1000
800
600
400

25
20
15

100

200

300

400

500

600

5th Cycle
11.9% recovery

Total Recovery 50.4%

Rate, cm /d

4th Cycle
9.6% recovery

280

2000
Cumulative

3rd Cycle
5.9% recovery
2nd Cycle
1st Cycle 4.9% recovery
Primary 5.3% recovery
6.8% recovery

80

100

200

300

100

2400

1600
1200
800

Rate

Cumulative, cm 3

360

120

400

Cycle 6

20

40

60

80

100

120

600

400

80
CO 2

60
40
CH 4

20
C3 H8

140

160

180

10

Primary Production Model

In order to simulate the CSI follow-up process, it was first necessary to determine the conditions (fluid saturation and pressure
distributions) in the model at the end of primary production. This
was accomplished using a gas exsolution model [Uddin(16)]. In this
model, a total of three oil-phase components (oil, dissolved CH4
and dispersed CH4 bubbles) and one gas-phase component (connected CH4 bubbles) are used. The exsolution of dissolved CH4 is
represented by the following four steps:
CH4LCH4DB,...........................................................................(1)
CH4L+CH4DB2CH4DB.........................................................(2)
Equations (1) and (2) are forward pseudoreactions that represent
bubble formation. The rate of Equation (1) is equal to N1(cCH4L
cCH4Leqm), where cCH4L is the mole fraction of CH4L in the oil
phase, and cCH4Leqm is its equilibrium value. The rate of Equation
(2) is equal to N2 (cCH4LcCH4Leqm)2cCH4DB, where cCH4DB is the
concentration of dispersed CH4 bubbles in the oil phase. N1 and N2
are rate constants.
CH4L+CH4DB2CH4G,...........................................................(3)
CH4DBCH4G,...........................................................................(4)
where CH4L is dissolved methane in oil phase, CH4DB is dispersed
methane bubble (considered to be in the oil phase) and CH4G is
gaseous methane.
Equations (3) and (4) are forward pseudoreactions that represent
bubble growth. The rate of Equation (3) is equal to G1cCH4DB. The

20

25

30

Fig. 8: Measured composition of produced gas during Cycle 1

injection.
Cumulative CH4 Prod., std cm 3

Fig. 7: Measured oil production rate and cumulative oil

production during experiment.

15

Test 8

Time, days

Time, days

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

500

Cycle 160 day soak

40
0

Cycle 5

Fig. 6: Measured temperature during experiment.

Gas Composition mole%

6th Cycle
6.0% recovery

160

Cycle 4

Time, days

400

200

Cycle 3

700

Fig. 5: Measured pressure drop profile during injection periods.

240

Cycle 2

10

Time, days

320

Cycle 1
Primary

200
0

300 cm
173 cm
12 cm

30

Temperature, C

Pressure. kPa

1200

10 000

Cycle 1

Test 8

9 000
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000

Cycle 2

3 000

Primary

2 000
1 000

Cycle 3

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time, days

Fig. 9: Methane production during Cycle 1.

rate of Equation (4) is equal to G2(cCH4LcCH4Leqm)2cCH4DB. G1

and G2 are rate constants.
The constants N1, N2, G1 and G2 were obtained by history
matching several laboratory rate and pressure depletion experiments.
Dissolved CH4 and dispersed CH4 bubbles are considered to be
part of the oil phase and flow with the oil phase.

Development of CSI Model

In developing the CSI numerical simulation model, the nonequilibrium representation of solvent (C3H8, CO2 and CH4) solubility, solvent/oil mixture viscosities (C3H8/CO2/CH4/oil mixture) and the
mixing parameters of the process (diffusion and dispersion) were
incorporated into the reservoir fluid model. In the model, the delay
25

TABLE 4METHANE PRODUCTION IN THE EXPERIMENT

Cycle

CH4 Produced
in Cycle (std L)

% Of Initial Dissolved % Of Initial Dissolved Total Gas (CH4+C3H8

+CO2) Produced in
CH4 Produced in
CH4 Produced
Cycle
(Cumulative)
Cycle (std L)

Primary

5.5

17.10

17.10

5.5

Cycle 1

9.0

27.61

44.71

58.4

Cycle 2

3.6

10.84

55.55

99.8

Cycle 3

0.4

1.25

56.79

108.2

Cycle 4

0.03

0.08

56.87

147

Cycle 5

0.06

0.20

57.06

174

Cycle 6

0.03

0.08

57.15

147

Total

18.6

740

in a gaseous component dissolving or exsolving from the oil depends on the difference between its current concentration in the oil
phase (xi) and its equilibrium concentration in the oil phase (xieqm),
as determined from its concentration in the gas phase, its temperature and its pressure.
Equilibrium pressure, volume and temperature (PVT) relationship behaviour is represented by the use of equilibrium K values
(gas/liquid equilibrium factor) for each component i as follows:

Ki =

yi

, ................................................................................................................(5)

xi
where xi is equilibrium mole fraction of i in oil phase and yi is equilibrium mole fraction of i in the gas phase.
In the CMG STARS simulator, the equilibrium K value of a specific gas is calculated using a modified version of the Antoine
Equation,

K=

( kvP + kv P + kv ) exp ( (T kv kv ) ) , .................................(6)

1

where P is the pressure (kPa), T is the temperature (K) and kv1, kv2,
kv3, kv4 and kv5 are the coefficients for specific gases.
In CSI simulations, effective prediction of oil-phase properties
and gas solubility in the oil is essential.

Gas Dissolution

where CH4L is the dissolved CH4 in oil phase, C3H4G is the CH4 in
gaseous phase, C3H8L is the dissolved C3H8 in oil phase, C3H8G is
the C3H8 in gaseous phase, CO2L is the dissolved CO2 in oil phase
and CO2G is the gaseous CO2.
The delay in CH4, C3H8 and/or CO2 dissolving in the oil is represented by a nonequilibrium equation whereby the rate of dissolution of component i is proportional to (xieqmxi)n.
For isothermal conditions, the dissolution rate for C3H8 is:
N C 3 H 8 L
n1
n2
= kC 3 H 8 * N o * (xC 3 H 8Leqm xC 3 H 8 L ) * N g * yC 3 H ,.8G............(10)
t

where kC3H8 is the rate constant for propane dissolution, Ng is the

moles of gas phase/m3 of gridblock, NC3H8L is the moles of C3H8
in oil phase/m3 of gridblock, No is the moles of oil phase/m3 of
gridblock and is equal to porosityoil saturationoil density, n1 is
the exponent for xC3H8eqmxC3H8 and n2 is the exponent for yC3H8.
The rate equation constants kC3H8, n1 and n2 can be determined
from experimental results (e.g., by history matching laboratory experiments or field tests). Similar equations are used for CH4 and
CO2.

Gas Exsolution

Nonequilibrium gas exsolution is represented as follows for CH4,

C3H8 and CO2 by:

Nonequilibrium gas dissolution in oil is represented by:

CH4LCH4G,............................................................................(11)

CH4G+CH4L2CH4L,..............................................................(7)

C3H8LC3H8G,.........................................................................(12)

C3H8G+C3H8L2C3H8L,.........................................................(8)

CO2LCO2G..............................................................................(13)

CO2G+CO2L2CO2L,..............................................................(9)

During gas exsolution, foamy oil behaviour can be part of the

nonequilibrium process. However, the allowance for foamy oil behaviour was not part of the model when the simulations described
in this paper were performed. The allowance has since been included in the model and will be described in a future paper.

1.0
Model height is the distance in cm from
narrow (bottom) end of test bed

Post-Run Saturation

0.9
0.8

So
Sg
Sw

So

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

Sg

0.3

Solvent and oil are mixed in a reservoir as a result of the combined

effect of the following mechanisms: convection, diffusion, dispersion and dissolution.
In diffusion, the flow of a component toward regions of lower
concentration in a fluid phase is represented by Ficks First Law:

J ijk = ( S j Dmij ) C ij / k , .......................................................(14)

0.2
Sw

0.1
0.0
0

25

50

75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Model Height, cm

Fig. 10: Fluid saturations in test bed at end of experiment.

26

Solvent/Oil Mixing Process

where J ijk is the flux of component i in Phase J in the k direction

(gmoles/m2/d), f is the porosity, Sj is the saturation of Phase J, Dmij
is the molecular diffusion coefficient of component i in Phase J
(m2/d) and dCij /dk is the concentration gradient of component i in
Phase J in the k direction (gmoles/m3/m).
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

300

TABLE 5COMPONENT PSEUDO-VISCOSITY

Viscosity (mPas)

Water

0.9

Oil

39,320

CH4L

14.8

C3 H8 L

20.0

CO2L

15.0

In a porous media, allowance is made for the increased flow

length caused by the tortuous flow path through the pore spaces.
Thus, the apparent diffusion coefficient (D) used for porous media
is lower than the molecular diffusion coefficient and:

Cumulative Oil, cm 3

Liquid

Experiment
Simulation

200

100

Dm

< 50 ...................................(16)

Transverse Dispersion Correlation

ud p

KT
1
where
=
+ 0.0157
Dm F
Dm

ud p
Dm

30

40

50

Fig. 11: History match of primary oil production.

Cumulative Gas, std cm3

6 000

Experiment
Simulation

5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time, days
Fig. 12: History match of primary gas production.

3.0

<10 4 , ...........................(17)

Pcow and Pcgo , kPa

KL
1
=
+ 0.5
where
Dm F
Dm

ud p

20

2.5

Longitudinal Dispersion Correlation

ud p

10

Time, days

D = Dm ,...................................................................................(15)
where t is the tortuosity.
Individual streamlines flow in a tortuous route through porous
media. A fluid particle can transfer (disperse) from one streamline to another by diffusion or through turbulent eddies that disrupt
the streamlines. Mechanical dispersion in porous media arises from
complex flow paths, which create mechanical mixing that is independent of molecular diffusion. This is caused by velocity gradients, heterogeneous flow paths and mechanical mixing.
Both longitudinal (in direction of flow) and lateral (orthogonal
to flow) mixing are controlled by diffusion at low velocities and
by convection at high velocities. Velocity variations parallel
to the mean flow direction are greater than those perpendicular
to the main flow. Thus, longitudinal dispersion is greater than
transverse dispersion. At high velocities, Blackwell(17) observed
that longitudinal dispersion was approximately 24 times that of
lateral dispersion.
Neuman(18) examined over 130 longitudinal dispersivity values
obtained from worldwide laboratory and field tracer studies in porous and fractured media. The dispersivity values ranged from less
than 1 mm to greater than 1 km for studies ranging from less than
10 cm to greater than 100 km.
For laminar flow conditions in typical unconsolidated, random
packs, some dispersion correlations are as follows [Perkins and
Johnston(19)]:

1.5
1.0

Pcgo

0.5
0.0

where Dm is the molecular diffusion coefficient, dp is the particle

diameter, u is the local fluid velocity, s is the inhomogeneity factor
and F is the formation factor=1/(tj) also used for quantifying
electrical conductivity through porous media.

Pcow

2.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sw and Slt
Fig. 13: Capillary pressures during history match.

Viscosity Reduction

The STARS default logarithmic mixing rule was used to determine

the oil-phase viscosity:

TABLE 6COMPONENT K VALUES AT INITIAL AND

FINAL PRESSURES

ln ( live oil ) = (X i ln( i )) , .....................................................(18)

K values

K at 0.6 MPaa

where mi is the pseudoviscosity of component i.

The pseudoviscosities used for the liquid components at 20C
are provided in Table 5.
September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

K at 3 MPaa

CH4

21.3

4.5

C3 H8

2.1

0.6

CO2

6.7

1.6

27

2000

Cumulative Gas, std cm3

800 000

Cumulative Oil, cm

1500

1000

500

600 000

400 000

200 000

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

100

200

Time, days
Fig. 14: Experimental and history matched oil production.

500

600

500 000

Cumulative CO2, std cm

200 000

C3 H 8 L

100 000

CO 2 Experiment

C3 H 8 Experiment

Cumulative C3H8, std cm

400

Fig. 15: Experimental and history matched gas production.

300 000

C3 H 8Simulation
C3 H 8 G

400 000

CO 2 Simulation

300 000

CO 2 L

200 000
100 000

CO 2 G
0

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

100

200

History Match

An excellent match was obtained for both primary oil and gas production (Figs. 11 and 12).
The post-run pressure and saturations in the test model obtained
from the primary history match were used as the initial conditions
for simulating the solvent cycles. Capillary pressure was considered
(Fig. 13). The relative permeabilities used in history matching of
the experiments were provided previously [Ivory et al.(20)] and allowed for the effect of gas exsolution in reducing gas-phase relative permeability. K values at 0.6 and 3 MPa are shown in Table 6.
The diffusion coefficient for each component in the gas phase
was 0.04 m2/d (4.63103 cm2/s) and 4.32105 m2/d (5106
cm2/s) in the oil phase. Mechanical dispersion was not considered.
The overall match of oil production was reasonable (Fig. 14).
However, oil production was higher in Cycles 2 and 3 in the simulation and in Cycles 4 and 5 in the experiment. This difference in
behaviour may be partly caused by ambient temperature changes
during the experiment, which was especially prevalent in Cycle 4
(Fig. 6).
Predicted and experimental cumulative gas production was similar (Fig. 15). The simulation resulted in lower C3H8 production
(Fig. 16) and higher CH4 and CO2 production (Fig. 17) than the
experimental values. Improvements to the history match can be
made by tuning K values and dissolution and exsolution rate constants. In addition, allowance for changes in oil properties over the
546 days it was exposed to solvent can be made.
The viscosity of the oil phase had little variation along the model
at the start of an injection period, but varied at the end of Injection
Period 1 (Figs. 18 and 19) because of the dissolved solvent concentration gradient. The viscosity decreased during a production
period as solvent came out of solution.
At the end of the first solvent injection period, negligible gas
saturation was obtained at the top of the test bed (model height 140

400

500

600

Fig. 17: Experimental and history matched CO2 production.

100 000

Start of Injection Period 1

10 000

Oil Viscosity, cP

Fig. 16: Experimental and history matched C3H8 production.

300

Time, days

Time, days

28

300

Time, days

1 000

End of Injection Period 1

End of Cycle 6

100
10
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Model Height, cm

Fig. 18: Oil viscosity in test bed during history match.

cm 300 cm) in the simulation (Fig. 20). This resulted from oil
swelling caused by solvent dissolution, which essentially e liminated
void areas and impeded solvent penetration. This implies that the
production period should extend long enough to create low-oil saturation near the well and increase subsequent solvent injectivity.
At the end of the last production period, predicted gas saturation
values were approximately 0.25 throughout the sandpack.
At the end of the first injection period, the composition of the oil
phase varied throughout the test bed (Fig. 21). At the bottom of the
test bed, most of the oil phase on a molar basis was dissolved solvent (0.95 dissolved solvent mole fraction in oil phase). At the top
of the test bed, the dissolved gas mole fraction in the oil phase was
0.4. Thus, the oil phase at the bottom of the test bed had swollen
and restricted solvent flow to the top. Because of its high concenJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

End of Production Period 6 (593 days)

End of Production Period 1 (87 days)

30,000
27,000
24,000
21,000
18,000
15,000
12,000
9,000
6,000
3,000
0

End of Injection Period 1 (62 days)

Start of Injection Period 1 (0 days)

mPa.s

mPa.s
12,000
10,800
9,600
8,400
7,200
6,000
4,800
3,600
2,400
1,200
0

End of Production Period 6 (593 days)

End of Production Period 1 (87 days)

End of Injection Period 1 (62 days)

Start of Injection Period 1 (0 days)

Fig. 19: Oil-phase viscosity during history match simulation.

0.35
0.31
0.20
0.25
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.00

Fig. 20: Gas saturation during history match simulation (contours).

tration in the gas phase, more CO2 was dissolved in the oil than
CH4 or C3H8, even at the bottom of the model.
During Cycle 1, the C3H8 and CO2 mole fractions in the oil
phase were much lower at the top of the model than at the bottom,
but there was little variation in oil phase composition along the test
bed at the end of Cycle 6 and most of the oil phase at that time was
dissolved solvent (Figs. 2124). In addition to solvent dissolution, the dead oil mole fractions are low as a result of its high-molecular weight in comparison to the solvent components.

The deviation with time of the C3H8 concentration in the oil

phase from its equilibrium value at gridblocks in the middle and
top of the model is shown in Figs. 25 and 26. At the midpoint,
the C3H8 concentration was less than the equilibrium value for the
first cycle before increasing to the equilibrium value in the second
cycle. Concentration was greater than the equilibrium value for the
last four cycles (Fig. 25). This was caused by the complex interaction between the CH4, C3H8 and CO2 having different equilibrium
solubility values and dissolving in and exsolving from the oil at
different rates. The C3H8 concentration in the top gridblock gradually moved toward its equilibrium value as C3H8 penetrated to the
top of the model (Fig. 26).

Parametric Investigations

Simulation runs were performed to determine the effect of a number

of parameters on the first CSI cycle. These parameters included:
Gridblock size.
K values/dissolution rate constants.
Oil-phase diffusion coefficients.
Gas-phase diffusion coefficients.
Molar densities of oil-phase components.
Oil-phase relative permeability.
Gas-phase relative permeability.
Maximum allowed injection rate.
Capillary pressures (Pcow and Pcgo).
Allowance for CO2 dissolution in water.
The parametric study showed that the quantity of gas injected in
an injection period was relatively sensitive to nonequilibrium rate
constants, gas-phase diffusion coefficients, molar densities in the
1.0
0.9

0.9

Mole Fraction in Oil

x oil

0.8
@ End of Soak 1

Composition of Oil Phase

1.0

0.7
0.6

x CO2

0.5
0.4

x C3H8

0.3
0.2
0.1

Test 8

x CH4

0.8
0.7

x CO2

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

x C3H8

0.2
x oil

0.1

x CH4

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Model Height, cm

Fig. 21: Oil composition in test bed at end of Cycle 1 injection

period of history match.

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

50

100

150

200

250

30 0

Model Height, cm

Fig. 22: Oil composition in test bed at end of Cycle 6 of history

match.

29

End of Production Period 6 (593 days)

End of Production Period 1 (87 days)

End of Injection Period 1 (62 days)

Start of Injection Period 1 (0 days)

End of Production Period 6 (593 days)

End of Production Period 1 (87 days)

End of Injection Period 1 (62 days)

Start of Injection Period 1 (0 days)

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

0.70
0.63
0.56
0.49
0.42
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.14
0.07
0.00

Fig. 23: Propane mole fraction in oil phase during history

match simulation.

Fig. 24: CO2 mole fraction in oil phase during history match
simulation (contours).

oil phase, solvent solubility in oil, gas-phase relative permeability

and capillary pressures.

gas and the quicker it dissolves, the lower the rise in bottomhole
pressure during an injection period. In contrast, the injection of a
low solubility or slowly dissolving gas will cause a relatively rapid
rise in injection pressure.
The rate constants will depend on gridblock size as greater nonequilibrium behaviour occurs in larger gridblocks (i.e., it takes
longer to reach equilibrium in a large block). Diffusion, dispersion,
PVT and nonequilibrium behaviour are all interrelated and this
makes the modelling of field behaviour more complex.

The radial grid used in most of the simulations was 30011. In

order to determine the effect of using larger gridblocks, a simulation
was run for a radial grid of 511 where the five blocks in the I
direction were 1 cm, 9 cm, 90 cm, 100 cm and 100 cm, respectively.
The inner block was kept at 1 cm so that the same well index could
be used for both. In both simulations an initial (preCSI) pressure of
500 kPa was used and the initial oil, gas and water saturations were
0.84, 0.04 and 0.12, respectively. The initial dead oil and CH4 mole
fractions in the live oil were 0.96 and 0.04. Less gas (29%) was injected for the case with larger gridblocks. This was because of a
rapid increase in small bottom-block gas saturation when solvent
was injected, which results in a shift in the gas-phase relative permeability. This effect is more pervasive in the small-block case.

Effect of K Values/Dissolution Rate Constant

C3H8 Mole Fraction in Oil at 150, 1, 1

Reducing the component K value increases solvent solubility and,

consequently, more gas can be dissolved. Reducing the K values
of CH4, C3H8 and CO2 by 48% increased the solvent injected by a
factor of 10.
Dissolution rate constants are obtained by matching experimental or field data. In the field, the bottomhole pressure is
matched for specified injection rates. The more soluble the injected
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

x C3H8

0.2

x C3H8eqm

0.1
0.0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Time, days

Fig. 25: C3H8 mole fraction at midpoint of model during

history match.

30

300

Effect of Diffusion Coefficient

The cumulative gas injected in the first injection period was essentially the same whether the oil-phase diffusion coefficient was 0.0
m2/d, 0.0000432 m2/d or 0.000864 m2/d.
The effect of increasing the gas-phase diffusion coefficient for
injection periods was complicated by the CO2 mole fraction in the
gas at the top of the model becoming greater than its mole fraction
at the bottom. Because C3H8 is more soluble, it is preferentially
dissolved near the injection well (bottom of the test bed) and more
of the CO2 moves to the top. Thus, diffusion causes C3H8 to move
upward, CO2 to move downward and the overall effect on solvent
injection is difficult to predict especially because the concentration
gradients of the different components change significantly during a
solvent cycle. Of four diffusion coefficients considered (0.0, 0.01,
0.04 and 0.1 m2/d), 0.01 m2/d resulted in the greatest quantity of
solvent injected during the first injection period (Fig. 27).
C3H8 Mole Fraction in Oil at 300, 1, 1

Effect of Grid Size

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

x C3H8eqm

0.2
0.1

x C3H8

0.0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time, days

Fig. 26: C3H8 mole fraction at top of model during history match.

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

800 000

0.01 m 2/d

CH 4 C 3H 8 CO 2

Molar Densities: 18750, 11539, 18795 moles/m3

Molar Densities: 21563, 13270, 21614
Molar Densities: 20000, 20000, 20000
Molar Densities: 25000, 25000, 25000
Molar Densities: 30000, 30000, 30000
Molar Densities: 40000, 40000, 40000

120 000
100 000

Cumulative Gas, std cm

Cumulative Gas, std cm

140 000

0.04 m2/d

0.1 m /d

80 000

0.0 m2/d

60 000

DISP_GAS=0.0 m2/d
DISP_GAS=0.01 m2/d
DISP_GAS=0.04 m2/d
DISP_GAS=0.1 m2/d

40 000
20 000

600 000

400 000

200 000

0
0

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Time, days

Time, days

Fig. 27: Effect of gas phase diffusion coefficients on solvent

injection in Cycle 1.

Fig. 28: Effect of oil-phase component molar densities on

solvent injection in Cycle 1.

Effect of Oil-Phase Molar Densities

phase) and CO2G (CO2 in the gas phase) and the following two
mass transfer reactions were used:

Concentration and temperature dependent molar densities for dead

oil and solvent components should be determined from experimental measurements. The values selected had a significant impact
on volume of solvent injected (Fig. 28). A higher-molar density
for dissolved solvent reduced oil-phase volume and allowed greater
gas space for additional injected solvent. The molar densities used
in all the simulations, with the exception of some of those used
to obtain Fig. 28, were 18,750 moles/m3 (CH4), 11,539 moles/m3
(C3H8) and 18,795 moles/m3 (CO2). These values were based on
the densities for pure CH4, C3H8 and CO2 liquids at atmospheric
pressure as obtained from the GPSA Engineering DataBook(21).

Effect of Capillary Pressure

Capillary pressure had a significant impact on solvent injected,

oil produced and gas produced in solvent cycles. Increasing the
capillary pressure by a factor of 10 increased the gas injection by
7%, gas production by 11% (Fig. 29) and oil production by 9%
(Fig.30). Increasing the capillary pressures by a factor of 100 increased the gas injection by 26%, gas production by 29% and oil
production by 59%.

Effect of Maximum Allowed Injection Rate

Reducing the maximum allowed injection rate, which is specified

in the model, from 20 std L/d to 10 std L/d resulted in only 4%
lower gas injection. This was because the injection rate was limited
because of the confined volume and the oil swelling that occurred
during injection periods.

Effect of CO2 Dissolution in Water

To evaluate the effect of CO2 nonequilibrium dissolution and exsolution from the water phase, components CO2W (CO2 in the water

CO2G+CO2W2 CO2W, ..........................................................(19)

CO2WCO2G............................................................................(20)
Published solubility data [Chang et al.(22)] for CO2 in water were
used to determine K values at 20C over the pressure range of interest (0.5 to 3.5 MPa).
Allowing for CO2 solubility in water had a minor impact by
increasing solvent injection by 2.7%, oil production by 0.7% and
decreasing gas production by 0.7%. At high-water saturations,
CO2 solubility may have a more significant effect and it would
then be important to use the additional component (CO2W) and
rate equations.

Conclusions

The cyclic solvent process shows potential (50% recovery in six

cycles) as a post-cold production process.
The primary production foamy oil model used resulted in an excellent history match.
The CSI model captures the main mechanisms involved in CSI.
More data on PVT and nonequilibrium behaviour is required for
tuning the CSI simulation model.
At a laboratory scale, the quantity of gas injected is relatively
insensitive to the oil-phase diffusion coefficients and the oil-phase
relative permeability, but is sensitive to dissolution rates, gas dispersion coefficients, molar densities in the oil phase, K values, relative permeability to gas and capillary pressures.
Increasing the block size reduces the predicted solvent
injection.
500

200 000

10 * Pc HM

Cumulative Oil, cm

Cumulative Gas, std cm

100 * Pc HM

Pc HM
No capillary pressure

150 000

Experiment
100 000

PcHM = history match

capillary pressure

50 000

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Time, days

Fig. 29: Effect of capillary pressures on solvent injection in Cycle 1.

September 2010, Volume 49, No. 9

400

100 * Pc HM

300

10 * Pc HM
Pc HM
Experiment

200

No capillary
pressure

100

20

40

60

80

100

Time, days

Fig. 30: Effect of capillary pressures on oil production in Cycle 1.

31

Oil swelling may have a significant impact on cyclic solvent processes when initial oil saturations are high because it impedes solvent injection.
As a result of its higher solubility in oil and its initial production
in the oil phase, the C3H8 concentration of the produced gas was
initially higher than that of CO2. As production began to originate
from higher in the model, the CO2 concentration became significantly greater than the C3H8 concentration.
There was a delay in CH4 production during each production period of a solvent cycle as a result of CH4 being displaced upward in
the test bed by injected solvent.

Acknowledgements

The assistance of Dennis Coombe of CMG, Ron Sawatzky and

Mafiz Uddin is appreciated.

Nomenclature

bc = connected bubble component in the gas phase

bd = dispersed bubble component in the oil phase
CH4L = dissolved methane in oil phase
CH4G = gaseous methane
C3H8L = dissolved propane in oil phase
C3H8G = gaseous propane
CO2L = dissolved carbon dioxide in oil phase
CO2G = gaseous carbon dioxide
CO2W = dissolved carbon dioxide in water phase
CDOR = (calendar day oil rate) total oil production/total
number of days, m3/d

gd = dissolved gas component in the oil phase
GOR
= volume of dissolved gas per unit volume of oil, std
m3/m3
kh = absolute permeability in horizontal direction, darcy
k
= gas relative permeability at Swc+Sorg
rgro
k
= oil relative permeability at irreducible water
rocw
saturation
krow = oil-phase relative permeability in the presence of
water
krw = water-phase relative permeability
k
= water relative permeability at residual oil saturation
rwc
kv = absolute permeability in vertical direction, darcy
Ki = yi /xi
OOIP
= original oil in place, m3
P
= pressure, kPa
PV
= pore volume, cm3
S = critical gas saturation
gr
S = residual oil saturation for oil-gas system
org
S
= residual oil saturation for oil-water system
orw
SW = water saturation
S = irreducible water saturation
wr
visi = viscosity of component I in oil phase, mPa.s
visoil = oil-phase viscosity, mPa.s
xi = mole fraction of component i in oil phase
yi = mole fraction of component i in gas phase

f = porosity

References
1. Bratli, R.K. and Risnes, R. 1981. Stability and Failure of Sand Arches.
SPE J. 21 (2): 236238. SPE-8427-PA. doi: 10.2118/8427-PA.
2. Bratli, R.K., Dusseault, M.B., Santarelli, F.J., and Tronvoll, J. 1998.
Sand Management Protocol Increases Production Rates, Reduces
Completion Costs. Presented at the 12th Biennial Business and Technology Conference, Trinidad and Tobago, 10-13 March.
3. Chang, J. 2000. System Dynamics Approaches for Sand Production
Simulation and Prediction (A Semi-Analytical Implementation). MS
thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
4. Dusseault, M.B. and Santarelli, F.J. 1989. A Conceptual Model for
Massive Solid Production in Poorly-Consolidated Sandstone. Proc.,
International Symposium on Rock at Great Depth, Pau, France, 2831
August, 789797.

32

5. Dusseault, M.B., Geilikman, M.B., and Spanos, T.J.T. 1998. Mechanisms of Massive Sand Production in Heavy Oils. Proc., 7th Unitar
Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Beijing, 2730 October,
119.
6. Dusseault, M.B. and El-Sayed, A. 1999. CHOP-Cold Heavy Oil Production. Paper 086 presented at the 10th European Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 1820 August.
7. Geilikman, M.B. and Dusseault, M.B. 1997. Dynamics of Wormholes
and Enhancement of Fluid Production. Paper presented at the 48th
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society in Calgary, Calgary, 811 June.
8. Geilikman, M.B. and Dusseault, M.B. 1999. Sand Production Caused
by Foamy Oil Flow. Transport in Porous Media 35 (2): 259272. doi:
10.1023/A:1006532804609.
9. Risnes, R., Bratli, R.K., and Horsrud, P. 1982. Sand Arching- A Case
Study. Proc., European Petroleum Conference, London, 2528 October, EUR 310, 313318.
10. Sawatzky, R.P., Lillico, D.A., Vilcsak, G., and Tremblay, B. 1996.
Initiation of Sand Production in the Cold Production Process. Paper
presented at the Petroleum Society of CIM Annual Technical Meeting,
Calgary, 1012 June.
11. Sawatzky, R.P., Lillico, D.A., Tremblay, B.R., and Coates, R.M. 2002.
Tracking Cold Production Footprints. Paper CIPC 2002-086 presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
1113 June. doi: 10.2118/2002-08.
12. Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Forshner, K. 1998. Modelling of
Sand Production from Wells on Primary Recovery. J Can Pet Technol
37 (3): 4150. JCPT Paper No. 98-03-03. doi: 10.2118/98-03-03.
13. Tremblay, B., Sedgwick, G., and Vu, D. 1999. A Review of Cold
Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Paper presented at the 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Brighton, UK, 1820
August.
14. Tremblay, B. 2003. Modelling of Sand Transport Through Wormholes.
Paper CIPC 2003-101 presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 1012 June.
15. Tremblay, B. 2009. Cold Flow: A Multi-Well Cold Production
(CHOPS) Model. J Can Pet Technol 48 (2): 2228. JCPT Paper No.
09-02-22. doi: 10.2118/09-02-22.
16. Uddin, M. 2005. Numerical Studies of Gas Exsolution in a Live
Heavy-Oil Reservoir. Paper SPE 97739 presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/
CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium,
Calgary, 13 November. doi: 10.2118/97739-MS.
17. Blackwell, R.J. 1962. Laboratory Studies of Microscopic Dispersion
Phenomena. SPE J. 2 (1), 18; Trans., AIME, 225. SPE-1483-G. doi:
10.2118/1483-G.
18. Neuman, S.P. 1990. Universal Scaling of Hydraulic Conductivities
and Dispersivities in Geologic Media. Water Resources Research 26
(8): 17491758. doi: 10.1029/WR026i008p01749.
19. Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C. 1963. A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media. SPE J. 3 (1): 7084; Trans., AIME, 228.
SPE-480-PA. doi: 10.2118/480-PA.
20. Ivory, J., Chang, J., Coates, R., and Forshner, K. 2009. Investigation of
Cyclic Solvent Injection Process for Heavy Oil Recovery. Paper CIPC
2009-161 presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 1618 June. doi: 10.2118/2009-161.
21. GPSA Engineering Data Book, Vol. 2, eleventh edition, 23-222-3.
1998. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Gas Processors Suppliers Association.
22. Chang, Y., Coats, B.K., and Nolen, J.S. 1998. A Compositional Model
for CO2 Floods Including CO2 Solubility in Water. SPE Res Eval &
Eng 1 (2): 155160. SPE-35164-PA. doi: 10.2118/35164-PA.

This paper (2009-161) was accepted for presentation at the 10th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference (the 60th Annual Technical Meeting of
the Petroleum Society), Calgary, 16-18 June, 2009, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 27 March 2009. Revised
paper received for review 29 June 2010. Paper peer approved 7 July 2010
as SPE Paper 140662.

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Authors Biographies
John Ivory is a senior research engineer at
AITF (formerly Alberta Research Council)
in the areas of enhanced oil recovery (primarily solvent, steam, steam-solvent and insitu combustion processes) and gas
separation/purification using membranes,
adsorption or absorption technologies since
1981. He is currently leader of AITFs reservoir simulation group. He has extensive expertise in both designing experiments and
performing numerical simulations related to enhanced heavy oil
and bitumen recovery processes. Ivory holds a Ph.D. degree in
chemical engineering from the University of Alberta.

Roy Coates is a senior research engineer

with the heavy oil and oil sands research department of AITF. He has been extensively
involved in researching heavy oil and bitumen recovery processes for over 30 years,
including in-situ combustion, steam assisted
gravity drainage and cold production. Recently he has been a member of the team investigating solvent-based and in-situ
combustion heavy oil recovery processes
and has been the program manager for the AERI/ARC Carbonate
Research Program. He holds a degree in chemical engineering from
the University of Alberta and is a member of APPEGA.

Jeannine Chang is a research scientist at

AITF in Edmonton, Alberta. She is currently focusing on reservoir simulation of
EOR technologies, including the cyclic injection processes (solvent, steam and steamsolvent), VAPEX, SAGD and primary
production. She has expertise in petroleum
geomechanics and hydrogeology and has
been an environmental consultant focusing
on environmental assessments and petroleum contaminant remediation. Chang holds an M.Sc. degree in
earth sciences from the University of Waterloo.

Ken Forshner is a senior research technologist at AITF in the areas of enhanced oil recovery (primarily solvent, steam and in-situ
combustion processes) and development of
x-ray scanning. He is currently a lead technologist in AITFs reservoir engineering
group. He has extensive expertise in both
designing and fabricating experiments related to enhanced heavy oil and bitumen recovery processes.

Society of Petroleum Engineers

save 10% at
Lands End.
Lands End offers outfitting ideas that fit the way
you work. And smart incentives or awards that last
long after the event ends. Well add your Society of
Petroleum Engineers logo to the items you want. Or
send you undecorated apparel.The choice is yours.
Youll always save 10 % on product & logo fees. Plus
theres no minimum to buy.

Shop online: ces.landsend.com/SPE

or call: 800.419.1097

*Online orders available in the US only. International orders

may be completed by phone (608-935-8397), fax (608-9375491), or email (nationalsales2@landsend.com).

LandsEnd_HH.indd 1
September
2010, Volume 49, No. 9

10/13/09 3:09:20 PM

33