REE181756 DOI: 10.
2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 149
Experimental Analysis of Optimal
Thermodynamic Conditions for
Heavy-Oil/Bitumen Recovery
Considering Effective Solvent Retrieval
Laura Moreno-Arciniegas and Tayfun Babadagli, University of Alberta
Summary
Light-hydrocarbon solvent injection is an effective process to
improve heavy-oil/bitumen recovery from oil sands. In this pro-
cess, oil production is achieved by gravity drive, which is enhanced
through the dilution of oil by injected solvent. However, solvent re-
trieval is one of the major economic concerns in defining the viabil-
ity of this technique. In this research, a sandpack experimental
study was conducted, and the solvent retrieval was determined on
the basis of thermodynamic conditions and fluid characterization.
Two heavy-oil samples (8.6 API and 10.28 API) from different
fields in Alberta, Canada, and four light-hydrocarbon solvents (pro-
pane, n-hexane, n-decane, and distillate hydrocarbon) were used in
this experimental scheme. Results showed that solvent retrieval
increases when light-hydrocarbon solvents (propane and distillate
hydrocarbon) are used compared with solvent with high molecular
weight (n-hexane and n-decane). Temperature and pressure highly
influenced the solvent retrieval. The percentage of solvent retrieval
increased when the hydrocarbon solvent was closer to the vapor
phase (dewpoint). However, oil recovery showed significant reduc-
tion when propane and n-hexane were injected because of high as-
phaltene deposition on the sandpack. The maximum solvent
retrieval was calculated to be nearly 98% at 120 C and 698.47 kPa
when propane-and-distillate hydrocarbon was used as solvent. For-
mation damage, on the other hand, may increase when propane is
used as solvent because of the high asphaltene deposition.
Introduction
Oil recovery from large deposits of heavy oil and bitumen resour-
ces is quite challenging because of the high viscosity and low
mobility. Conventional primary, secondary, and chemically
enhanced tertiary methods have been inefficient to recover depos-
its with higher viscosity and with complex reservoir properties
(Butler and Mokrys 1991). There are generally two types of tech-
niques to increase oil mobility by viscosity reduction: first,
increase reservoir temperature by injecting hot fluids such as
steam or by in-situ combustion; second, increase the oil mobility
by diluting the crude oil with a light-hydrocarbon solvent. Solvent
techniques such as SAP (solvent-aided process) and Vapex (vapor
extraction) have been studied at the laboratory scale, with limited
pilot trials at the field scale (Das and Butler 1994; Edmunds et al.
2009). These processes showed an important increment in oil re-
covery compared with steam injection alone and additional sup-
port of solvent to the reduction of viscosity (Butler and Mokrys
1991; Butler and Jiang 2000; Edmunds et al. 2009). In any SAPs,
however, solvent retrieval or extraction is a complex process
because of reservoir characteristics, operational conditions, and
oil composition, which can have an influence on the final solvent
retrieval (Das 2005; Civan 2007; Edmunds et al. 2009).
Butler and Mokrys (1991) implemented heated water and pro-
pane injection into a packet cell. They concluded that water injec-
tion alone did not show significant oil recovery (21–24%)
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 9 May 2015. Revised manuscript received for
review 25 April 2016. Paper (SPE 181756) peer approved 4 May 2016.
February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ID: jaganm Time: 16:31 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045
Total Pages: 12
compared with coinjection with propane. The results revealed that
the oil recovery was 97 and 86% at the operational conditions of
36–47 C and 1034.21–1378.95 kPa, respectively; solvent begins
the vapor phase. However, experiments performed as a liquid
phase closer to the dewpoint showed lower oil recovery (84%)
(Butler and Mokrys 1991). They also concluded that liquid pro-
pane in the solvent chamber is undesirable in terms of solvent re-
trieval and oil recovery. They also estimated that the propane
retrieval when the experiment was conducted at the vapor phase
was 99% whereas the remaining propane was dissolved in the oil.
Later, Haghighat and Maini (2008) studied the effect of the pro-
pane solubility in oil recovery at different pressure conditions
(750, 814, and 850 kPa). They found that oil-production rate
declined (from 1.2312 cm3/h to 1.0737 cm3/h) because of the low
solubility of the propane to dilute the oil, and formation damage
caused by asphaltene deposition (Haghighat and Maini 2008).
More recently, Pathak et al. (2012) conducted hot solvent-injection
experiments with propane and butane as solvents at the operational
conditions of 70 to 112 C and 1030 to 1470 kPa. They concluded
that operational condition higher than the saturation point
decreases the oil recovery (from 72.1 to 45% in the butane case
and from 83.8 to 53.3% in the propane case) caused by the small
amount of solvent present in the liquid phase (Pathak et al. 2012).
Solvent retrieval is affected by operational conditions and
crude-oil type. Edmunds et al. (2009) conducted an SC-SAGD
(solvent-cyclic SAGD) “genome modeling” with propane and
pentane as solvents. They observed that solvent-retention percent-
age mass is higher with propane (3.9%) than with pentane
(1.00%), and the oil recovery is approximately 79.3% of oil in
place (OIP). Their study did not include an efficient solvent-scav-
enging step, and consequently, the final propane retention could
be reduced by at least half. Peterson et al. (2010) used an opti-
mized genome SC-SAGD model with alkanes (propane and pen-
tane) in a reservoir with basal water. They concluded that the
solvent-retention mass after 7 years is lower with propane (reten-
tion mass of 0.4%) than with pentane (retention mass of 2.5%),
with an approximately 74% of OIP (Peterson et al. 2010).
Recently, Leyva-Gomez and Babadagli (2014) investigated the
temperature effect on solvent retrieval with heptane in core
dynamic experiments. They concluded that when the temperature
increased from 70 to 100 C at 34.5 kPa, the cumulative solvent
retrieval went from 70 to 99% at 100 C, and oil recovery went
from 45% of OIP to 50% (Leyva-Gomez and Babadagli 2014).
As seen through this literature review, the solvent-injection
process is a complex process because of the high number of pa-
rameters involved (pressure, temperature, solvent type, flow rates,
and reservoir properties). These parameters should be optimally
determined to maximize recovery of oil and retrieval of solvent. In
this paper, an experimental methodology that is based on solvent
type, oil type, and thermodynamic conditions (pressure and tem-
perature) was implemented to determine these optimal conditions.
Experimental Methodology
This study focused on solvent-retrieval (solvent recovery) analy-
sis during solvent injection at variable temperature and pressure
149
 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 150 Total Pages: 12

Oil Properties Heavy Oil–Field A Heavy Oil–Field B

S (Saturates, wt%) 14.24 19.45
A (Aromatics, wt%) 38.6 45.6
R (Resins, wt%) 32.66 25.34
A (Asphaltene, wt%) 11.5 9.6
API Gravity at 15°C 8.67 10.28
3
Density at 25°C (g/cm ) 1.003 0.9919
Viscosity at 25°C (cp) 87,651 20,918

Table 1—Heavy-oil properties.

conditions. Two heavy-oil samples from the Alberta, Canada, oil-
sand fields were selected as representative oil phase (Table 1 and
Fig. 1). Propane, n-hexane, n-decane, and a distillate hydrocarbon
(Appendix A, Table A-1) were used as solvents. Solvent injection
was performed with a constant flow-rate syringe pump at a con-
stant rate of 12 cm3/h. Variable temperatures between 25 and
120 C and pressures between 689.47 and 2068.43 kPa were
tested. During these tests, the solvent-injection temperature was
kept at the same value as in the sandpack. Images of sandpacks
were obtained through high-quality photography to review the sat-
uration distribution of oil at the end of experiments, which lasted
approximately 6 (Field B) to 8 hours (Field A). Moreover, the ini-
tial and final oil compositions as well as formation damage caused
by asphaltene deposition were studied for each experiment.
Materials
Heavy-Oil Sample. The properties of two heavy-oil samples
named Field A and Field B are presented in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
The saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes (SARA) analysis
was conducted with the ASTM 2007D, ASTM D2549 and IP 143
standards. In addition, the boiling-point distribution was con-
ducted with the ASTM D7169. The oil properties showed heavy
crude-oil characteristics for Field A compared with the oil Field
B. However, both crude-oil samples had significant amounts of
heavy-end oil components.
Solvent Type. Solvent type critically affects the recovery of
heavy oil (Moreno and Babadagli 2014b). For economic viability,
the retrieval of solvent is also crucial and should be considered in
the selection of proper solvent type when given operational condi-
tions are selected (Table 2 and Table 3). Therefore, a wide range
of solvents is considered in this study. The solvent types and their
densities at 25 C are given in Table 2. The purities of the alkanes
were 99.5 wt% (propane), 99.9 wt% (n-hexane), and 99.6 wt% (n-
decane). The distillate hydrocarbon (Appendix A, Table A-1)
used for heavy-oil upgrading to transport was provided by a com-
pany in Alberta.
Equipment. Solvent retrieval and oil-recovery experiments were
performed with a sandpack system combined with a solvent-sepa-
ration system (Fig. 2). The sandpack system consists of a core
holder containing homogenized porous medium (glass beads)
with dimensions of a 13.5-cm length and a 5-cm diameter. The
glass-bead particle sizes were in the range of 595–841 mm (Fig.
2), and the porosity was calculated to be 38–40%. This yielded a
permeability of approximately 210–220 darcies. The core holder
had one injection and one production point. The solvent injection
was performed with a syringe pump at a constant flow rate. The
pressure and temperature were monitored with a data-acquisition
system, and the backpressure was controlled by a backpressure
valve. At the production point, a separation system was used. This
system included an asphaltene-precipitation filter, cold-down re-
frigeration system at 78.5 C (dry ice), and a vacuum-distillation
apparatus (Compositional Rotary-Evaporator and vacuum pump).
After each solvent-injection experiment, the remaining oil and
asphaltene deposition in the sandpack was determined by cleaning
with n-heptane and toluene with a Soxhlet-extraction apparatus.
Experimental Procedure
The experimental procedure starts with the sandpack preparation.
The sandpack was prepared in a vertical-position stainless-steel
screen (15 mesh) with an internal diameter of 5 cm and a height
of 13.5 cm. After the screen was ready, the oil sample (40 g) was
mixed with the glass beads (160 g) for 10 minutes at 40 C to ho-
mogenize the mixture. Next, the mixture [glass beads and oil
(200) g] was filled into the stainless-steel screen in a vertical posi-
tion. Then, the sandpack physical model was placed into the core
holder. The injection and production ends were closed, and the
data-acquisition system was installed. The temperature and pres-
sure were set to the reservoir experimental conditions. After the

80 Oil Sample A Oil Sample B

Distillate Mass Percentage (wt%)

Components Compositions (wt%)

70 Heavy Oil - Field A
C10 0 0.599
60 Heavy Oil - Field B C11 0.83 0.732
C20 13.48 20.014
50 C25 7.21 10.495
C30 6.48 9.271
40
C35 5.03 7.038
30 C40 4.21 5.684
C50 5.76 8.062
20 C60 4.18 5.693
C70 2.87 3.887
10
C80 1.82 2.596
0 C90 1.01 1.477
0 200 400 600 800 C120 7.22 0.686
C120+ 39.9 23.766
Temperature (°C) Total mass (wt%) 100 100

Fig. 1—Carbon-number distribution and boiling-point distribution of crude oil and vacuum residues (ASTM D7169).

150 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:31 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 151 Total Pages: 12

Oven T

Control-Room
Computer

Injection
Delta P

Vacuum-Distillation
Production System [Oil and Solvent
Separation]
Backpressure Dry Ice
[Oil and Solvent C3
Mixture]
Asphaltene in Solvent Distillation by
120 cm3
Solution Solvent-Composition Type
5 cm3
Flow Filtration

Nitrogen Solvent Vacuum

Control

[Oil and Solvent Mixture]

Fig. 2—Experimental developed setup: solvent injection, sandpack, and separation system.

3 Solvent-Injection Experimental Results

Solvent Density (g/cm )
Propane 0.00183
n-Hexane 0.655
n-Decane 0.730
Distillate Hydrocarbon 0.721
Table 2—Solvent-type density at 25º C at 101.359 kPa.
operational conditions were stable, the solvent injection was
started at 12 cm3/h [pore volume (PV) of 0–0.96 cm3/cm3] and
continued for 6 to 8 hours. The backpressure valve was set at the
reservoir pressure. Oil, asphaltene, and solvent separation system
were ready to process fluids during the experiment. The composi-
tional rotary-evaporator was set, depending on the type of fluid to
be distillated; the system was controlled by solvent composition
to prevent additional components from evaporating from the
crude oil.
After the experiments, a visual qualitative inspection of glass
beads was conducted immediately to prevent or reduce the solvent
evaporation or sandpack-compactness changes. However, for the
propane case, solvent evaporation was present because the vapor
phase was present at room conditions. In this case, the sample
compactness was taken into consideration to visualize the solvent
retrieval. In addition, a visualization of the final propane and dis-
tillate hydrocarbon sandpack samples was performed with a scan-
ning-electron-microscopy (S-3000N-SEM) dual beam system
(NB5000-FIB/SEM).
Two heavy-oil samples (Table 1 and Fig. 1) and four types of light
hydrocarbon solvents were used during these experiments, as men-
tioned earlier. The three types of the solvent are pure alkanes (pro-
pane, n-hexane, and n-decane), and the other solvent is a mixture
of alkanes and aromatic components (distillate hydrocarbon). The
graph given in Appendix A and Table A-1 show the compositional
structure of this solvent. To determine the oil recovery and sol-
vent-retrieval percentage at different operating conditions, an ex-
perimental design of 12 experiments was conducted. The
operational temperatures were from 25 to 120 C and pressures
from 689.47 ton 2068.43 kPa. These pressure and temperature
ranges were determined on the basis of the operational conditions
at the particular fields. Field A solvent injection was injected 2
hours longer than Field B because the former has higher crude-oil
molecular components than Field B (Table 1 and Fig. 1).
Solvent Retrieval. The solvent-retrieval (solvent recovery)
measurements were performed at different operational conditions
and heavy-oil samples. The mixture of produced fluids was cooled
down from 4 to 78.5 C to condense all the produced gas to
avoid solvent evaporation, especially when the experiments were
conducted at elevated temperatures. The propane-retrieval calcu-
lation through laboratory testing was challenging because of gas
phase at atmospheric conditions. For the propane case, the pro-
duced fluid was cooled down with dry ice at 78.5 C.
Figs. 3 and 4 show an increment of solvent retrieval when
temperature increases from 25 C to 120 C at 689.47–2068.43

3
Solvent-Type Density (g/cm ) by Operational Conditions
Propane n-Hexane n-Decane Distillate Hydrocarbon
689.47 kPa 2068.43 kPa 689.47 kPa 2068.43 kPa 689.47 kPa 2068.43 kPa 689.47 kPa 2068.43kPa
25°C 0.016 0.496 0.658 0.659 0.728 0.729 0.713 0.715
50°C 0.014 0.446 0.632 0.634 0.706 0.708 0.688 0.690
120°C 0.011 0.036 0.560 0.564 0.652 0.654 0.623 0.626
(–)78.5°C at 0.5814
101.3529 kPa

Table 3—Density by solvent type at each experimental operational condition, calculated with Aspen Hysys (2015) 8.8 software.

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 151

ID: jaganm Time: 16:31 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 152 Total Pages: 12

100 100
95 95
90 90
% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
Field A_Propane at 689.47 kPa Field B_Propane at 689.47 kPa
60 60
55 Field A_Propane at 2068.43 kPa Field B_Propane at 2068.43 kPa
55
50 50
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

100 100
95 95

% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

90
% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

90
85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
Field A_n-Hexane at 689.47 kPa Field B_n-Hexane at 689.47 kPa
60 60
Field A_n-Hexane at 2068.43 kPa 55 Field B_n-Hexane at 2068.43 kPa
55
50 50
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

100 100
95 95
% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)
% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

90 90
85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65 Field B_n-Decane at 689.47 kPa
60 Field A_n-Decane at 689.47 kPa 60
Field B_n-Decane at 2068.43 kPa
55 Field A_n-Decane at 2068.43 kPa 55
50 50
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

100 100
95 95
90 90
% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

% Solvent Retrieval (g/g)

85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65 Field B_Distillate Hydrocarbon at 689.47 kPa
Field A_Distillate Hydrocarbon at 689.47 kPa
60 60
Field B_Distillate Hydrocarbon at 2068.43 kPa
55 Field A_Distillate Hydrocarbon at 2068.43 kPa 55
50 50
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

Fig. 3—Field A and Field B: solvent-retrieval mass (g/g) percentage.

kPa. In the propane case, the solvent-retrieval increment was 4.3 explain the solvent-retrieval increment when the temperature is
wt% at 689.476 kPa and 17 wt% at 2068.43 kPa for both samples. elevated.
As shown in Table 3, the density of the propane decreases when In terms of pressure, the propane case showed that the solvent
the experimental temperature increases from 0.016 g/cm3 at 25 C retrieval was decreased at higher pressures. This may be an effect
to 0.011 g/cm3 at 120 C and at 689.47 kPa, and from 0.496 g/cm3 of the higher density values (Table 3) at 25 C and 50 C at
at 25 C to 0.036 g/cm3 at 120 C and at 2068.43 kPa. These results 2068.43 kPa, which decreases the solvent-free pathway caused by

152 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 153 Total Pages: 12

4200 4200
Field A Oil Recovery Dewpoint, Propane Field B Oil Recovery Dewpoint, Propane
3900 3900
Field A Solvent Retrieval Field B Solvent Retrieval
3600 3600

t
in
po
3300 3300

ew
in
po

D
Liquid Phase

ew
3000 Liquid Phase 3000

D
69.01%
2700 79.69% 2700 63.97%
Pressure (Kpa)

Pressure (Kpa)
93.75% 81.14%
2400 87.5% 2400 94.79%
90.62%
2100 82.15% 85.89%
2100
77.08%
1800 1800 78.12%
1500 Vapor Phase Vapor Phase
1500
1200 1200
900 900
600 75.15% 73.97% 65.19% 74.43% 61.27%
600 82.16%
91.6% 93.75% 95.83% 93.75%
300 300 92.70% 97.91%
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

4200 4200
Dewpoint-PT-n-Hexane Dewpoint-PT-n-Hexane
3900 Field A Oil Recovery 3900 Field B Oil Recovery
3600 Field A Solvent Retrieval 3600 Field B Solvent Retrieval
3300 3300
Liquid Phase Liquid Phase
3000 3000
2700 2700
Pressure (Kpa)

Pressure (Kpa)
87.32%
2400 91.92%

t
2400

in
64.58%

po
89.24% 90.58%

ew
2100 2100 81.25%
80.20%

D
90.04% 82.29%
t
in

1800 1800
po

85.90%
75.00%
ew

1500 1500 66.67%

D

89.26%
1200 1200 89.56%
89.08% 83.33% Vapor Phase 88.23%
900 900 85.41%
79.16% 76.09%
600 600 Vapor Phase
81.8% 85.30%
300 71.87% 300
75.0%
0 0
20 50 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350 20 50 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

4200 4200
3900 Dewpoint-PT-n-Decane Dewpoint-PT-n-Decane Field B Oil Recovery
3900
Field B Solvent Retrieval
3600 Field A Oil Recovery 3600
3300 Field A Solvent Retrieval 3300
3000 3000
2700
Pressure (Kpa)

Pressure (Kpa)

2700
85.81% 85.79%
2400 2400
62.5% 66.66%
2100 90.62% 93.43% 2100 90.75% 90.56%
t
in

t
in
po

po
1800 75.94% 76.04% 70.83% 77.05%
ew

1800

ew
D

D
1500 1500 Liquid Phase
Liquid Phase 85.79%
1200 92.76% 1200
90.38% 71.87%
900 78.12% 900
69.79%
600 600 90.56%
84.82% 88.54% Vapor Phase
300 Vapor Phase 300 82.29%
67.7% 75.00%
0 0
20 50 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350 20 50 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

4000 Dewpoint Boiling point 4000 Dewpoint Boiling point

Critical point
Critical point Field B Oil Recovery
3500 Field A Oil Recovery 3500
Field B Solvent Retrieval
Field A Solvent Retrieval
3000 3000

95.93%
Pressure (Kpa)

Pressure (Kpa)

95.74%
2500 95.87% 2500 95.83%
95.83% 88.54%
82.29% 90.63%
2000 2000
92.51% 93.91%
77.08% 81.25%
1500 1500
94.41%
95.51%
95.38% 94.92% 1000 97.91%
1000 91.66%
93.75%
88.54%
500 Distillate
500 92.69%
91.01% Distillate
85.79% 85.41%
0
0
20 50 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350 20 50 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 350

Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

Fig. 4—Phase envelope, oil recovery wt%, and solvent-retrieval wt% for Field A and Field B with propane, n-hexane, n-decane
(pure components), and distillate hydrocarbon (mixture hydrocarbons).

the propane-phase changes from vapor to liquid. In addition, obtained compared with propane cases. In the n-hexane case of
crude oil and solvent solubility may decrease because of higher Oil Field A, the solvent retrieval increased 12 wt% from 25 to
asphaltene flocculation at lower temperatures (Hilderbrand and 120 C at 689.47 kPa and 16 wt% at 2068.43 kPa. For Oil Field B,
Scott 1964; Hirschberg et al. 1984; Andersen and Speight 1999). the solvent retrieval increased 10 wt% when temperature was
In the cases of n-hexane, n-decane, and distillate solvents, sol- increased from 25 to 120 C at 689.47 kPa and 16 wt% at 2068.43
vent-retrieval results showed that lower solvent retrieval is kPa. In the n-decane case, in Oil Field A, the solvent retrieval

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 153

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17
90
Distillate Mass Percentage (wt%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200
Oil Recovery after Propane Injection
Oil Recovery after n-Decane Injection
Heavy Oil - Field A
100
Distillate Mass Percentage (wt%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200
Oil Recovery after Propane Injection
Oil Recovery after n-Decane Injection
Heavy Oil - Field B
Fig. 5—Higher-temperature simulated distillation (ASTM D7169) from the oil recovery at 508C and 2068.43 kPa.
increased 10 wt% from 25 to 120 C at 689.47 kPa and 14 wt% at
2068.43 kPa; in Oil Field B , the solvent retrieval increased 12
wt% from 25 to 120 C at 689.47 kPa and 11 wt% at 2068.43 kPa.
Overall, the n-hexane and n-decane results show that tempera-
ture increments increase the solvent retrieval, but pressure incre-
ments have less effect on the final solvent retrieval compared with
the propane case. This effect can be explained by less-density
changes present on the n-hexane and n-decane compared to the
propane case (Table 3). In addition, as the degree of conversion in
a thermal process increases, the solubility power of the medium
toward the heavy and polar molecules decreases because of the
formation of saturated products (Speight 1999).
In the distillate hydrocarbon case, in Oil Field A, the solvent
retrieval increases 3 wt% from 25 to 120 C at 689.47 kPa and
13.63 wt% at 2068.43 kPa; in Oil Field B , the solvent retrieval
increases 12.5 wt% from 25 to 120 C at 689.47 kPa and 14% at
2068.43 kPa. The higher increment of the solvent retrieval from
Oil Field A and Oil Field B can be attributed to the oil composi-
tions of the samples and particular solvent composition of the dis-
tillate solvent (Appendix A), which contains aromatics and n-
alkanes components, which increase the solubility of the oil sam-
ple. The aromatic components in the solvent also reduce the as-
phaltene deposition on the sandpack sample.
In terms of the four solvent types, propane and distillate hydro-
carbon show higher solvent retrieval at lower pressure and higher
temperature values. The reason why distillate hydrocarbon shows
higher solvent retrieval compared with n-hexane and n-decane is
caused by the high-solubility influence of the toluene, p-xylene,
and benzene on the distillate components.
Influence of the Oil Composition on Solvent Retrieval.
Solvent retrieval was affected by oil composition, which shows
higher solvent retrieval when the crude oil was deasphalted with
light-hydrocarbon components. Consequently, crude-oil quality
and mobility improved because of sample upgrading for the
154
ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045
Stage: Page: 154 Total Pages: 12
300 400 500 600 700 800
Temperature (°C)
Oil Recovery after n-Hexane Injection
Oil Recovery after Distillate Hydrocarbon Injection
300 400 500 600 700 800
Temperature (°C)
Oil Recovery after n-Hexane Injection
Oil Recovery after Distillate Hydrocarbon Injection
lighter oil. In Figs. 3 and 4, a higher solvent retrieval took place
when the crude oil (Field B) has lower viscosity caused by the in-
crement of the diffusion coefficient at lower viscosity and to the
higher solubility in the mixture because lower asphaltenes were
presented in the solution. Table 1 and Fig. 1 show that Oil Com-
position A has lower distillate mass percentage (60 wt% at
730 C), lower API gravity (8.67 API), higher oil viscosity
(8,761cp at 25 C), and higher asphaltene (11.5 wt%) and resin
(32.66 wt%) compositions compared with Oil Composition B,
which has distillate mass percentage of 76 wt% at 710 C, gravity
of 10.28 API, viscosity of 20,918 cp and, asphaltene and resins
percentages of 9.6 wt% and 25.34 wt%, respectively.
Figs. 3 and 4 display that Field Sample A has lower solvent-re-
trieval values compared to the Field B. The previous analysis
explains the difference between the oil composition and the im-
portance of viscosity in the oil mobility caused by molecular dif-
fusion and gravity drainage, which are the two physicochemical
mechanisms that take place during this process (Butler and
Mokrys 1989; Butler and Jiang 2000; Das 2005). In the Vapex
process, solvent dilutes the oil, and then the upgraded oil drains
down to production well by gravity. Das and Butler (1994) sug-
gested that the use of vaporized solvent yields a higher driving
force in gravity drainage caused by a higher density change
between heavy oil bitumen and solvent vapor, and also guarantees
that the remaining amount of solvent in the extracted reservoir
will be less than with liquid solvents.
Oil composition also influences the final oil recovery, and oil
recovery can also influence the solvent retrieval caused by oil
trapping in the porous medium. Crude-oil upgrading with a
lighter-hydrocarbon solvent increases the oil-viscosity reduction
caused by the asphaltene precipitation and oil dilution. In Fig. 5,
the simulated distillation of the four fluid types after solvent injec-
tions shows that oil deasphalted with propane showed higher
distillation mass percentage (77 wt%, Field A) compared with
n-decane (70 wt%, Field A). In addition, the upgrading oil with
February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17
Oil Recovery–SARA–After Solvent Injection (ASTM D2007, IP-143, and D2549) at 50°C and 2068.43 kPa
SARA (wt%) Propane
Saturates 50.19
Aromatics 29.47
Resin 13.34
Asphaltene 7 8.5
Total 100
Oil Recovery–Viscosity–After Solvent Injection at 50°C and 2068.43 kPa
Field A -Viscosity (cp at 25°C) 2,598
Field B -Viscosity (cp at 25°C) 1,399
Table 4—Oil Field A quality after deasphalting process (Moreno and Babadagli 2014a, b).
propane showed lower asphaltene mass percentage and viscosity
reduction compared with the other solvents (Table 4). However,
asphaltene can be deposited in the porous medium. Earlier studies
concluded that there are two main critical zones where asphaltene
can significantly reduce the oil recovery: near the injection and
production wells (Papadimitriou et al. 2007; James et al. 2007;
Moghadam et al. 2007; Haghighat and Maini 2008; Moreno and
Babadagli 2015) (Fig. 6). Moreno and Babadagli (2015) investi-
gated, under the FIB/SEM, the surface roughness of the glass
beads after organic deposition. They concluded that the roughness/
thickness upper limits for the injection, middle, and production
points are 4.167, 0.898, and 0.167 mm for the propane case and
0.554, 0.367, and 0.103 mm for the distillate hydrocarbon case.
Fig. 4 shows the effect of these four solvents on heavy-oil Re-
covery A and B. They concluded that, for the propane case of
Field A at lower temperature (25–50 C), oil recovery reaches
82.15%. The recovery is 69.01% at a higher temperature (120 C).
This is because the solubility of propane decreases at elevated
temperatures (Hilderband and Scott 1964; Moreno and Babadagli
2014a, b, 2015). Similarly, Pathak et al. (2012) showed that the
recovery decreases when temperature is much higher than the sat-
uration temperature of the solvent. They attributed this to smaller
amount of solvent present in the liquid (oil) (Pathak et al. 2012).
Fig. 4 shows the oil-recovery percentage at different pressure
and temperature with four types of light-hydrocarbon solvents.
The higher recovery values (95%) were obtained with distillate
hydrocarbon as solvent compared with propane, n-hexane, and n-
decane. However, n-hexane and n-decane showed significant oil
recovery at elevated temperatures. Propane also showed signifi-
cant oil recovery but at lower temperatures; however, the forma-
tion damage would be higher with propane than with the other
solvents because of more-severe asphaltene deposition (Moreno
and Babadagli 2014a, b; 2015).
In comparing solvent retrieval and oil recovery for all the
cases, the ideal condition to inject solvent can be suggested as
50 C and 2068.43 kPa for the propane and distillate cases and
120 C and 2068.43 kPa for n-hexane and n-decane cases (Figs. 3
and 4). On the other hand, in considering the other factors affect-
ing the selection process such as formation damage caused by as-
phaltene precipitation and operation cost, low temperature and
pressure case (50 C and 689.41 kPa) can be an initial considera-
tion for a specific project while starting an optimization work.
Solvent Retrieval and Formation Damage. Solvent retrieval is
extremely important for the economic viability of any solvent-
injection process. Solvent selection, however, may not only
depend on solvent retrieval but also on the formation damage (as-
phaltene deposition). By definition, asphaltenes are a solubility
class that precipitated from petroleum by addition of paraffinic
hydrocarbon (Speight 1999). Asphaltene composition is complex;
the asphaltene precipitation depends on contact time, solvent
February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045
Stage: Page: 155 Total Pages: 12
n-Hexane n-Decane Distillate Hydrocarbon
34.25 34.98 37.12
40.72 40.1 36.19
16.53 15.72 15.69
9.2 11
100 100 100
7,005 7,862 Not measured
1,428 1,505 3,174
type, solvent-injection ratio, and operational conditions (Speight
1999). Asphaltene deposition may increase when light-hydrocar-
bon solvents with lower density and molecular weight are used
(Speight 1999; Salama and Kantzas 2005; Moreno and Babadagli
2014a, b). Moreno and Babadagli (2014a, b; 2015) confirmed that
higher formation damage occurs with propane and n-hexane com-
pared with distillate hydrocarbon and n-decane. They also added
that the organic deposition by solvent injection (propane) is one
of the main variables to decrease oil production.
In the preceding section, the results showed that solvent re-
trieval will be higher in case of propane than with n-hexane or n-
decane. Moreover, propane is an excellent upgrader solvent
because the viscosity reduction caused by asphaltene precipitation
is considerably high. Thus, the increment in the oil production is
significant. But, asphaltene deposition is a big problem with pro-
pane (Figs. 6 and 7). Consequently, oil production starts to
decrease gradually (Moreno and Babadagli 2014a, b). Formation
damage with propane may not be observed in the beginning stage,
but asphaltene precipitation depends on the contact time. Conse-
quently, remaining solvent may increase the possibility of precipi-
tation and deposition of asphaltenes in the reservoir.
On the other hand, n-decane and distillate hydrocarbon showed
significant oil recovery. However, only distillate hydrocarbon
increased the oil recovery and solvent retrieval. In previous stud-
ies, Moreno and Babadagli (2014a, b; 2015) concluded that distil-
late hydrocarbon increased the solubility of the asphaltenes in the
produced fluid. Consequently, most of the asphaltenes are in the
production fluid, and the amount of asphaltenes left in the core
(sandpack) is less than 1%. Thus, formation damage is not signifi-
cant when distillate hydrocarbon is used as solvent (Moreno and
Babadagli 2014a, b).
Quantitative Physical Visualization After Solvent Injection.
The physical visualization of the four solvents was performed after
each experiment (Fig. 8). This information provided insight into
the dryness or humidity of the sandpack at different temperature
and pressure conditions. The experimental calculations given in
Figs. 1 through 4 can be cross checked with this visual data. Paper
towels were used to review the solvent and live-oil adsorption. A
light-brown color on the paper towel was considered to indicate a
considerable presence of solvent and maltenes.
In addition, an uncompacted glass-bead sample was observed
to have high humidity. This type of sample contained a con-
siderable amount of remaining solvent, particularly n-hexane
and n-decane, at low experimental temperatures and low pres-
sures. However, a compacted glass-bead pack was mostly dry,
especially for propane and distillate hydrocarbon solvents at
higher experimental temperatures and lower pressures. This
indicates that the solvent retention was lower. In other words, sol-
vent in vapor phase or closer to the dewpoint showed lower sol-
vent retention.
155
 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 156 Total Pages: 12

40
Field A_Deasphalted with Propane
Field A_Deasphalted with n-Hexane
35 Field A_Deasphalted with n-Decane
Field A_Deasphalted with Distillate Hydrocarbon

Cumulative Oil Recovery (cm3/h)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pore Volume Injected (cm3/cm3)

Fig. 6—Organic deposition studied for the sandpack Field A after injecting propane and distillate hydrocarbon as solvents at 508C
and 2068.43 kPa.The pictures were conducted in the SEM dual beam system (S-300N-SEM, NB5000-FIB/SEM) and focused-ion
beam (FIB).

Conclusions
This study evaluated the solvent-retrieval effect when oil compo-
sition, solvent types, and operational conditions were altered. On
the basis of the studies, the present investigation suggests using
distillate hydrocarbon at lower pressure and high temperatures for
crude-oil reservoirs with high-viscosity and high-asphaltene per-
centages. The observations confirm the following conclusions:
• Propane and distillation hydrocarbon show significant solvent-
retrieval percentage of up to nearly 98% at 50–120 C at
689.47–2068.43 kPa, compared with n-hexane and n-decane,
which only achieved 80–85% at the highest temperatures.
• Solvent retrieval was observed to increase when temperature
was increased from 25 to 120 C at 689.47–2068.43 kPa. This
could be attributed to the viscosity and density reduction when
the temperature increases. In addition, on the basis of composi-
tional (and phase) changes when temperature increases, oil mo-
bility might change and mass transfer could occur caused by
this change in composition.
• Solvent-retrieval pressure was observed to be critical. This is
especially true for the propane cases; the solvent retrieval was
affected by the solvent phase’s changes; higher pressure change
showed lower solvent extraction caused by the phase changes
from vapor to liquid. In the cases of n-hexane, n-decane, and dis-
tillate hydrocarbon at the higher experimental temperatures and
pressure change, the vapor phase was never reached; hence, the
density changes were minimal compared with the propane cases.
• Solvent type also affects the solvent-retrieval percentage. The
experimental results showed that when a light-hydrocarbon sol-
vent (propane) was injected, the solvent-retrieval percentage
increased more than in the n-hexane and n-decane cases. How-
ever, in the distillate-hydrocarbon case, the solvent retrieval
was observed to be comparable to that of the propane case
because of the strong effect of the distillate-hydrocarbon com-
position (aromatics and n-alkanes). In this case, the distillate-
hydrocarbon solubility will always be higher than in the pro-
pane case.
• Formation damage has always been a concern when a light-
hydrocarbon solvent is injected. This study and our previous
studies have shown that propane increases the risk to have
higher asphaltene deposition in the injection, middle, and pro-
duction points compared with the other three solvents. How-
ever, this research concluded that a mixture of hydrocarbons
may reduce the risk of asphaltene deposition into the reservoir
by keeping asphaltene in the solution.

Organic
deposition after
propane injection Injection point Middle point Production point

Asphaltene precipitated
from the SARA (Table 4)

Organic deposition
after distillate
hydrocarbon
injection Injection point Middle point Production point

Fig. 7—Cumulative oil recovery by solvent PV injected at 508C and 2068.43 kPa.

156 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 157 Total Pages: 12

Field A – Propane Field A – n-Hexane Field A – n-Decane Field A – Distillate Hydrocarbon

25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa 50°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa 25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa 25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa

Humidity

Dry

25°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa 50°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa 25°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa 25°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa

Humidity
Dry

Field B – Propane Field B – n-Hexane Field B – n-Decane Field B – Distillate Hydrocarbon

25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa 25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa 25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa 25°C – 689.47 kPa 120°C – 689.47 kPa

Dry

25°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa 25°C – 2068.43 kPa 20°C – 2068.43 kPa 25°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa 25°C – 2068.43 kPa 120°C – 2068.43 kPa

Dry

Humidity

Fig. 8—Sandpack Field A and Field B at 25–1208C and 689.47–2068.43 kPa.

Acknowledgments Butler, R. and Mokrys, I. J. 1989. Solvent Analog Model of Steam-

This research was conducted under the second author’s NSERC
Industrial Research Chair in Unconventional Oil Recovery (indus-
trial partners are CNRL, Suncor, Touchstone Exploration, Sherritt
Oil, Pemex, Husky Energy, and Apex Engineering) and an
NSERC Discovery Grant (No: RES0011227).
References
Aspen Hysys. 2015. Assay management software, version 8.8. http://
www.aspentech.com/products/v8-release/.
Andersen, S. I. and Speight, J. G. 1999. Thermodynamic Models for As-
phaltene Solubility and Precipitation. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering 22: 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(98)
00057-6.
Assisted Gravity Drainage. AOSTRA J. Res. 5: 17–32.
Butler, R. and Mokrys, I. 1991. A New Process (VAPEX) for Recovering
Heavy Oils Using Hot Water and Hydrocarbon Vapour. J Can Pet
Technol 30 (1): 97–106. PETSOC-91-01-09. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
91-01-09.
Butler, R. and Jiang, Q. 2000. Improved Recovery of Heavy Oil by Vapex
With Widely Spaced Horizontal Injectors and Producers. J Can Pet
Technol 39 (1): 48–56. PETSOC-00-01-04. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
00-01-04.
Civan, F. 2007. Formation Damage by Organic Deposition. In Reservoir
Formation Damage, second edition, 468–521. Oxford: Gulf Professio-
nal Publishing.
Das, S. and Butler, R. 1994. Effect of Asphaltene Deposition on the Vapex
Process: A Preliminary Investigation Using a Hele-Shaw Cell. J Can

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 157

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 158 Total Pages: 12

Pet Technol 33 (6): 1–45. PETSOC-94-06-06. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/94-06-06.
Das, S. 2005. Diffusion and Dispersion in the Simulation of Vapex Pro-
cess. Presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA, Calgary, 1–3 November.
SPE-97924-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97924-MS.
Edmunds, N., Moini, B., and Peterson, J. 2009. Advanced Solvent-Addi-
tive processes Via Genetic Optimization. Presented at the Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 16–18 June. PETSOC-
2009-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2009-115.
Haghighat, P. and Maini, B. 2008. Role of Asphaltene Precipitation in
Vapex Process. Presented at the Canadian International Petroleum
Conference/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference,
Calgary, 17–19 June. PETSOC-2008-087. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
2008-087.
Hilderbrand, J. H. and Scott, R. L. 1964. The Solubility of Nonelectrolytes.
Dover: New York.
Hirschberg, A., DeJong, L. N. J., Schipper, B. A. et al. 1984. Influence of
Temperature and Pressure on Asphaltene Flocculation. SPE J. 24 (3):
283–293. SPE-11202-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/11202-PA.
James, L., Rezaei, N., and Chatzis, I. 2007. VAPEX, Warm VAPEX, and
Hybrid VAPEX—The State of Enhanced Oil Recovery for In Situ
Heavy Oils in Canada. Presented at the Canadian International Petro-
leum Conference, Calgary, 12–14 June. PETSOC-2007-200. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/2007-200.
Leyva-Gomez, H. and Babadagli, T. 2014. Optimal Application Condi-
tions of Steam-Solvent Injection for Heavy Oil/Bitumen Recovery
From Fractured Reservoirs: An Experimental Approach. Presented at
the SPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Mangaf,
Kuwait, 8–10 December. SPE-172901-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
neering 93 (4): 664–677. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
cjce.v93.4/issuetoc.
Papadimitriou, N., Romanos, G., Charalambopoulou, G. et al. 2007. Ex-
perimental Investigation of Asphaltene Deposition Mechanism During
Oil Flow in Core Samples. J. Petr. Sci. and Eng. 57: 281–293. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.10.007.
Pathak, V., Babadagli, T., and Edmunds, N. R. 2012. Mechanics of Heavy Oil
and Bitumen Recovery by Hot Solvent Injection. SPE Res Eval & Eng 15
(2): 182–194. SPE-144546-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144546-PA.
Peterson, J., Riva, D., Edmunds, N. et al. 2010. The Application of Sol-
vent-Additive SAGD Processes in Reservoirs With Associated Basal
Water. Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and Inter-
national Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19–21 October. SPE-
137833-MS. http://dx.doi.org.10.2118/137833-MS.
Salama, D. and Kantzas, A. 2005. Experimental Observation of Miscible Dis-
placement of Heavy Oils With Hydrocarbon Solvents. Presented at the SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary,
1–3 November. SPE-97854-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97854-MS.
Speight, J. G. 1999. The Chemical and Physical Structure of Petroleum:
Effects on Recovery Operations. J. Pet. Sci. and Eng. 22: 13–15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(98)00051-5.
Appendix A
Distillate-hydrocarbon composition analysis (Figs. A-1 and A-2).
2.5
y = 0.0099x + 0.0032
Relative Molar Response

172901-MS. 2 R ² = 0.999
Moghadam, S., Nobakht, M., and Gu, Y. 2007. Permeability Effects in a
Vapor Extraction (VAPEX) Heavy Oil Recovery Process. Presented at
1.5
the Petroleum Society 8th Canadian Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
12–14 June. CIPC 2007-095.
Moreno, L. and Babadagli, T. 2014a. Asphaltene Precipitation, Floccula- 1
tion and Deposition During Solvent Injection at Elevated Tempera-
tures for Heavy Oil Recovery. Fuel 124 (202). http://dx.doi.org/ 0.5
10.1016/j.fuel.2014.02.003.
Moreno, L. and Babadagli, T. 2014b. Quantitative and Visual Characteri-
zation of Asphaltenic Components of Heavy-Oil After Solvent Interac- 0
tion at Different Temperatures and Pressures. Fluid Phase Equilibria 0 50 100 150 200 250
366 (74). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2014.01.006. Molecular Weight
Moreno, L. and Babadagli, T. 2015. Multilayer Organic Deposition on the
Rock Surface With Different Wettabilities During Solvent Injection Fig. A-1—Composition ASTM D3710 quantitative-calibration
for Heavy-Oil Recovery. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engi- mix.

100
Distillate Hydrocarbon Solvent
90
Distillate- Volume Percentage (% vol)

80

70
Cut-Point Report ASTM D7096 -10
60 Cn TBP (°C) % Vol
C5 36 20.53
50 C6 69 14.18
C7 98 16.18
C8 126 14.51
40 C9 151 9.71
C10 174 7.66
30 C11 196 8.25
C12 216 5.68
C13 235 2.72
20 C13+ > 235 0.57

10

0
–10 40 90 140 190 240
Temperature (°C)

Fig. A-2—Distillate-volume percentage of a distillate hydrocarbon with ASTM D7096-10.

158 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 159 Total Pages: 12

30,000,000

n-Pentanei-Pentane
28,000,000
26,000,000
24,000,000

n-Hexane
22,000,000

2-dimethylpentane
20,000,000

24-dimethylpentane
18,000,000

µV

Propane i-Butane n-Butane

16,000,000
14,000,000

n-Heptane
12,000,000

n-Octane
Toluene

n-propylbenzene
10,000,000

p-Xylene

n-butylbenzene
8,000,000

n-Decane

n-pentadecane
n-tetradecane
n-dodecane
6,000,000

STH 1.00

n-tridecane
FB ON
4,000,000
2,000,000
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Index Name Time (minutes) Area (µV.Min) Quantity (%)

1 Propane 0.9 148.9 0
2 i-Butane 0.97 27352.7 0.24
3 n-Butane 1.03 170397.1 1.49
4 i-Pentane 1.26 857039.2 7.52
5 n-Pentane 1.39 932757.9 8.28
10 2-methylpentane 1.88 537681.2 4.89
12 n-Hexane 2.17 590454.3 5.44
13 24-dimethylpentane 2.41 320599.1 2.85
20 n-Heptane 3.21 350841.8 3.12
26 Toluene 3.82 271307.6 2.01
33 n-Octane 4.32 250516.6 2.22
41 p-Xylene 4.95 218105.5 1.62
52 n-Propylbenzene 5.91 89154.8 0.7
58 n-Decane 6.42 165541.8 1.45
64 n-Butylbenzene 6.94 110830.7 0.88
84 n-Dodecane 8.33 32686.7 0.29
95 n-Tridecane 9.18 18749.6 0.17
106 n-Tetradecane 9.93 3759.4 0.03
111 n-Pentadecane 10.65 1747.3 0.02

Table A-1—Quantitative-response factor for the distillate-hydrocarbon solvent with ASTM D7096–10.

Appendix B—Material Balance % solvent retrieval


1. Crude oil: ¼ ½produced volume  qoperational condition =

% oil recovery ¼ ½injected oil ðgÞ –  produced oil ðgÞ= ½injected volume  qoperational condition   100

½injected oilðgÞ  100      ðB-1Þ                    ðB-3Þ

*Produced oil without solvent. Solvent left in the oil sample

was distillated. where q ¼ density, produced volume ¼ cm3, injected
2. Residual oil (maltenes and asphaltenes): volume ¼ cm3.

% Sor ¼ ½residual oil into the sandpak ðgÞ=

½injected oil ðgÞ  100          ðB-2Þ Laura Moreno-Arciniegas is a steam-assisted-gravity-drainage
facilities engineer with Cenovus Energy in Calgary, Canada.
The residual oil saturation (Sor) was obtained after cleaning Previously, she worked for Ecopetrol Colombia as a reservoir
the sandpack in a Soxhlet extraction system with pure tolu- engineer and process engineer, and for the University of
Alberta. Arciniegas’ current main area of interest is enhanced
ene to dissolve the residual oil (maltenes and asphaltenes). oil recovery that is based on thermal methods for the improve-
The sample obtained in the flask, which is the mixture of ment of unconventional oil recovery. She holds a BSc degree
toluene and residual oil, was distillated with the rotary- in chemical engineering from the Industrial University of
evaporator equipment. The residual oil was calculated on Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and an MSc degree
the basis of the final amount left in the flask. in petroleum engineering with specialization in reservoir engi-
3. Solvent retrieval by density correction (Table 2): neering from the University of Alberta, Canada.

February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 159

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045

 REE181756 DOI: 10.2118/181756-PA Date: 7-February-17 Stage: Page: 160 Total Pages: 12

Tayfun Babadagli is a professor in the Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department, School of Mining and Petroleum En-
gineering, at the University of Alberta, where he holds an
NSERC-Industrial Research Chair in Unconventional Oil Recov-
ery. Babadagli previously served on the faculty at Istanbul
Technical University, Turkey, and Sultan Qaboos University,
Oman. His areas of interest include modeling fluid and
heat flow in heterogeneous and fractured reservoirs, reservoir
characterization through stochastic and fractal methods,
optimization of oil/heavy-oil recovery by conventional/uncon-
ventional enhanced-oil-recovery methods, and CO2 seques-
tration. Babadagli holds BS and MS degrees from Istanbul
Technical University and MS and PhD degrees from the Univer-
sity of Southern California, all in petroleum engineering. He
was an executive editor for SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engi-
neering (Formation Evaluation part) between 2010 and 2013
and an associate editor of ASME J. of Energy Resources Tech-
nology between 2011 and 2014. Babadagli received SPE’s A
Peer Apart Award in 2013, was elected an SPE Distinguished
Member in 2013, and was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer in
2013–2014. He is currently a member of the JPT Editorial
Committee.

160 February 2017 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 16:32 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/160045/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#160045