SPE-190084-MS

Extra Heavy Oil Production Using Dilution: Viscosity Measurement and

Modeling

H. Alboudwarej, Chevron ETC; J. Mohan, Chevron Corporation; F. Gozalpour, Chevron ETC; S. S. Jarvis, Chevron
Corporation-Retired

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Garden Grove, California, USA, 22-27 April 2018.

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

Abstract
A viable method to produce a deep extra heavy oil reservoir with an in-situ viscosity in excess of 1000 cp is
viscosity reduction with dilution, and where steam flooding may be an unlikely option. The objective of this
study is to determine viscosity reduction of an extra heavy oil sample as a function of pressure, temperature
and composition, where composition refers to addition of different amounts of diluents. Results of this study
and modeling of the mixture viscosity can be used to guide future operational decision making to develop
large heavy oil resources, where steam flood is not economical.
An extensive experimental test matrix was carried out in this study. A high-pressure capillary tube
viscometer was used for viscosity measurements, which is the preferred measurement method for extra
heavy oil systems. Potential compatibility issues such as wax and asphaltene formation due to changes in
composition and/or temperature were considered during the design and execution of experimental work. In
excess of 90 viscosity data points were measured for mixtures of an extra heavy oil sample and two diluents
(a diesel sample and a light crude oil sample). The system pressure varied up to 4000 psia, the temperature
varied in the range of 80-200 °F, and amount of diluents changed up to 40% by volume. Data QC protocols
were implemented and quality of measured viscosities were assessed. Some measurements were repeated
to ensure high quality of generated viscosity data.
Three to four orders of magnitude of viscosity reduction were observed with changes in pressure,
temperature and composition. On average and for studied fluid systems, every 50 °F change, or 20% increase
by volume in diluent concentration, reduced the mixture viscosity by almost an order of magnitude. The
impact was less significant at higher temperatures and concentration of diluents. Viscosity data were used to
develop specific mixture viscosity correlations for the systems of interest, representing measured viscosities
with an average absolute deviation (AAD) of less than 3%. Furthermore, a large number of viscosity mixing
rules were evaluated to represent measured viscosity data in this study. Some mixing rules predicted the
viscosity data with 15-20 % deviation and an average standard deviation of 14%. A new mixing rule
(Modified Ratcliff & Khan) was developed with an AAD of 11% and a standard deviation of 5% (at least
50% improvement in the performance).
2 SPE-190084-MS

Currently, universal viscosity mixing rules are not available, particularly for extra heavy oil and diluent
mixtures. The novelty of this study is to provide a high-quality database of heavy oil and diluent viscosity
data, together with the development of a new general mixing rule applicable to the type of oils and diluents
investigated in this study.

Introduction
One of the main difficulties associated with production of heavy oils from subterranean formations, is high
viscosities. Reducing fluid viscosities by dilution with less viscous solvents has been successfully applied
for heavy oil transportation in pipelines (Moreau, 1965). Although less common, same concept has also been
used for heavy oil production by diluting heavy oil in a wellbore to reduce both density and viscosity of the
heavy oil, so that less energy is required to lift the oil to the surface (Jeffries-Harris and Coppel, 1969). An
accurate measure of heavy oil mixture viscosities as a function of composition (dilution ratio) is therefore
a required information for basic engineering calculations for such processes. Experimental programs are
designed and carried out to map out such mixture viscosity behavior of reservoir heavy oil and diluent
systems. However, viscosity mixing rules are still widely used to estimate mixture viscosities as a function
of dilution ratio in the early stages of the feasibility studies, when experimental data are not available. It
is also a common practice to develop new mixing rules or optimize existing mixing rules to accurately
represent available experimental data. Such optimized models may be used to predict mixture viscosities at
other conditions of pressure, temperature, and composition.
The focus of this study is to highlight the followings:

• The design and execution of an experimental program to ensure high quality viscosity data for
mixtures of heavy oil and diluents as a function of pressure, temperature and composition.
• Methodologies to evaluate quality of experimental data and common practices for such QC work.

• Develop case specific viscosity models to represent such experimental data

• Evaluate existing viscosity mixing rules for such heavy oil systems, and develop (a) new model(s)
that will be more generally applicable.

Experimental Section
The focus of this study was to use an oil sample from a subterranean formation recovered through a
formation tester on drill pipe sampling campaign together with two diluent candidates to prepare heavy
oil and diluent mixtures at various mixing ratios (compositions) and evaluate the impact of dilution,
pressure and temperature on the viscosity of mixtures. In the following sub-section materials, experimental
methodologies used during the course of this study are described.

Fluid Samples
Two extra heavy live oil samples were available from a subterranean formation. Samples contained free
water and the lab analysis showed that they were filtrate of water-based mud. Once the free water was
removed, the two samples were analyzed for their composition through performing a single stage flash
(zero-flash). Some average properties are summarized in Table 1.
SPE-190084-MS 3

Table 1—Fluid properties of live extra heavy oil samples

Sample 2.08 was used to prepare flashed liquid (stabilized at stock tank pressure and an average
temperature of 145 °F) for mixture (with dilution) viscosity study. Properties of flashed liquid (zero-flash)
are provided in Table 2:

Table 2—Average fluid properties of flashed liquid (zero flash)

Two diluent samples were used for this study, namely a light stock tank oil sample (Light STO), and a
diesel. Average fluid properties for the diesel sample used in this study are provided in Table 3.

Table 3—Average fluid properties of Diesel

The second diluent was a light stock tank oil (Light STO) sample. Light STO sample was a surface flashed
liquid sample and was collected as part of a well testing operation. The sample was received in an 11 liter can.
The can contents were homogenized at 140 °F temperature and ambient pressure and agitated before aliquots
were transferred to sample mixing cylinders and used for mixture sample preparation. A homogenization
temperature of 140 °F was used to ensure all potential precipitated wax components were re-dissolved back
into the oil sample. Fluid properties other than viscosity were not measured for this particular sample and
deemed similar to flashed liquid (zero flashed) sample from a live reservoir fluid sample collected during
the sample operation. Properties of flashed liquid (zero-flashed) sample are provided in Table 4:

Table 4—Average fluid properties of Light STO sample

4 SPE-190084-MS

Experimental Methodology
Best practices and guidelines (Zhao et. al., 2016) were used to carry out the experimental program. A high
pressure high temperature capillary tube viscometer was used in the course of this study. Main components
of the experimental setup were:

• A thermal chamber that accommodates mixing vessels (cylinders) and capillary tube

• Two pistoned vessels (cylinders) each with working volumes of about 100 cm3. Process side of the
vessels are connected through a capillary tube that is used to measure viscosity.
• Pressure and temperature measurement devices are available in parts of the set up to communicate
pressure and temperature at specified points to the data logging instruments.
• Depending on the viscosity range of the mixture one of the following two capillary tubes were
used during tests:

◦ 1’ long with a 0.06"ID (viscosity range 70 to 45,000 cp)

◦ 2’ long with a 0.02"ID (viscosity range 0.87 to280 cp

• A dual barrel Quizix pump was used to push hydraulic fluid (water) back and forth from the two
vessels. Overall system volume was calibrated in such a way that volumes were read from the
pump side during the test.
Fluid mixing was achieved by reciprocal movement of fluid between the two vessels until the pressure
drop across the capillary tube did not show changes with time. In some cases, equilibration was achieved
after 24 hours of mixing process. To ensure volume mixing was the same for all mixtures prepared in these
studies, all mixing compositions were generated at a constant condition of 145 °F and 500 psia, prior to
changing mixture pressure and temperature to the target conditions. Testing matrix included:
1. Mixture compositions of 10, 20 and 40 % by volume, in addition to the viscosity of extra heavy oil
(HO) STO and diluents (Diesel and Light STO).
2. Temperature range of 80 °F to 200 °F
3. Pressure range of 250 psia to 4000 psia.

Analysis and Results

Heavy Oil STO Viscosity
Two batches of stock tank oil from an extra heavy live reservoir fluid were prepared for this study. The first
batch was used to prepare HO STO + Diesel mixtures, while the second batch was used to prepare mixture
of HO STO + Light STO. Both batches were prepared by flashing enough volume from a sample cylinder
containing sample 2.08 (see table 1). Flashing was performed inside a pressure vessel equilibrated at 145
°F and pressure reduced to ambient pressure. During stabilization, sample was left to equilibrate at the flash
conditions for several days to ensure removal of all dissolved gas in the liquid phase. Viscosity of flashed
liquid was measured as a function of pressure and temperature. Since viscosity of heavy oil samples are
sensitive to the content of light components in the sample, it is important to compare viscosity of different
stock tank oil batches that was used during these studies, to ensure similar base line viscosity is established.
Figure 1 shows a viscosity comparison between two batches of HO STO samples at the same sets of pressure
and temperature. Comparison suggests that two batches are basically the same within the measurement error
(± 5-10%). Note that viscosity values vary over a large range of viscosity due to the range of temperature
at which viscosities were measured (80-200 °F).
SPE-190084-MS 5

Figure 1—Viscosity Comparison for Two Batches of HO STO samples

Light STO viscosity

Light STO samples used for mixture viscosity measurements are flashed liquid surface samples collected
during a well testing operation. A comprehensive PVT study was performed on a representative live oil
sample from the same formation through which viscosity of STO flashed from live oil was also measured. It
was desired to compare viscosity of flashed liquid from live oil sample versus the viscosity of STO surface
sample that was collected during well testing. Note that the two samples were exposed to two different flash
processes as follows:
1. Light STO from live oil sample was flashed to a temperature of 197 °F and ambient pressure.
2. Light STO collected as a surface sample (at wellsite) and it was later stabilized at 140 °F and ambient
pressure.
Figure 2 shows the viscosity comparison between the two Light stock tank oil samples flashed at different
conditions. Data suggest that flashed Light STO from live oil sample has a slightly higher viscosity (mostly
in the range of 5-10% difference) compared to that of the flashed sample collected at the surface. This
difference is expected, as the sample flashed at higher temperature of 197 °F contains less of the lighter
components in comparison to the STO, leading to a slightly heavier, more viscous sample. Therefore, the
surface flashed liquid sample used for the mixture studies deemed representative of Light STO.
6 SPE-190084-MS

Figure 2—Viscosity Comparison for Light STO samples

Diesel Viscosity
Diesel sample used for this study was collected from a diesel supply available at the wellsite. Regarding
the viscosity of the diesel, no reference is available and the viscosity of this particular diesel sample was
measured as part of the overall scope of this work. Measured viscosities reported for the particular sample
were within the expected range of viscosities for similar diesel samples. Note that diesel sample viscosities
were measured using the same experimental set up and procedures.

HO STO + Diesel Mixture Viscosities

Figure 3 shows measured viscosity data for HO STO+Diesel mixture as a function of temperature at 250 and
4000 psia. Note that data sets are also measured at 1500 psia as a function of temperature and composition.
Data suggest that for the system studied, heavy oil dilution by 20% volume of diesel, on average will reduce
the viscosity by 1 to 2 orders of magnitudes depending on test temperature.
SPE-190084-MS 7

Figure 3—Viscosity of HO STO+Diesel mixtures at 250 psia (other data points are given for comparison)

HO STO + Light STO Mixture Viscosities

Figure 4 shows measured viscosity data for HO STO+Light STO mixture as a function of temperature at
250 and 4000 psia. Note that data sets are also measured at 1500 psia as a function of temperature and
compositions. Data suggest that for the system studied, heavy oil dilution by 20% volume of diesel, on
average will reduce the viscosity by 1 order of magnitude depending on test temperature.

Figure 4—Viscosity of HO STO+Light STO mixtures at 250 psia (other data points are given for comparison)

Data QC and Mathematical Model Development

In this section, the general data QC process, as well as mathematical model development process is
explained. Note that data QC and mathematical model development is an inter-related process.
8 SPE-190084-MS

Data QC
The main activity with regard to data QC is focused on viscosity trend versus pressure and temperature.
Mathematical models were generated for STO, diesel, and individual mixtures by modeling measured
viscosities as a function of pressure and temperature. Subsequently combining the pressure and the
temperature effects, the mathematical model for each specific mixture composition was generated.
Two general data trends were used to QC measured viscosity data. Regarding the pressure, viscosity
(expressed as logarithm of viscosity) as a function of pressure, generally follows a near linear trend over a
moderate range of pressure. This trend is used to both QC and adjust the viscosity data measured at pressure
which was slightly different from the pressure at other temperatures. Figure 5 shows a typical example of
measured viscosity data in this study where a linear variation of logarithm of viscosity [ln(μ)] against the
pressure can easily be observed. In majority of cases in this study, such a linear relation between viscosity
and pressure over a range of 4000 psi had a correlation factor of 0.98 or better.

Figure 5—A typical plot of viscosity versus pressure for data QC and data smoothing/extrapolation

Bergman & Sutton (2009) showed that ln[ln(μ+1)] varies linearly with ln[T(°F)+310]. Based on this
observation, viscosity data were QCed and it was also used for smoothing/extrapolation of viscosity data
to determine viscosity at required pressures. Figure 6 shows a typical plot of the viscosity function ln[ln(μ
+1)] versus the temperature function ln[T(°F)+310]. This approach is expected to be applicable over a wide
range of temperature. For viscosity data measured in this study, a correlation factor of 0.99 or better was
observed suggesting the high quality of the generated viscosity data.
SPE-190084-MS 9

Figure 6—A typical plot of a viscosity function versus a temperature function for data QC and data smoothing/extrapolation

Mathematical Model Development

To correlate viscosity of HO STO, diluents and their mixtures at different pressures and temperatures, the
following approach was used:
1. At each temperature using the measured viscosity data, a plot of ln(μ) vs. pressure was generated.
This plot was used to generate viscosity data at nominal pressure values.
2. At each nominal pressure, a plot of ln[ln(μ+1)] vs. ln[T(°F)+310] was generated. The slope and
intercept of the resulted line were determined.
3. The above process was repeated for a number of nominal pressure points between a pressure of 4000
and 14.7 psia.
4. Polynomials (6th order in this study) were fitted to slope and intercept values (determined in step 3)
against pressure.
The final form of equation for each system i.e. HO STO, Diesel, Light STO, and their various mixtures
were represented by the following equation:

In which both a(p) and b(p) are represented by polynomials of order 6 in pressure of the following forms:

And

where a1-a7 and b1-b7 are constants. Appendix A shows all a and b equations for different systems evaluated
in this study.
The comparisons between the developed viscosity models and the corresponding measured viscosities for
the two diluents are shown in Figures 7 and 8. On average, models can represent measured viscosity values
for HO STO and Diesel system with an average absolute deviation of less than 3. Note that for HO STO,
10 SPE-190084-MS

the lowest temperature of viscosity measurement was 110°F, whereas for mixtures with 10% by volume
Diesel and Light STO the lowest temperature of viscosity measurement was 80 and 100°F, respectively.
This difference in the temperature is causing some of the measured viscosities of HO STO with 10% by
volume diluent mixtures to be higher than the original HO STO. Developed viscosity models as a function
of temperature and pressure may be used to generate a viscosity plane, which visually assists identifying
a range of viscosity for field operation.

Figure 7—Accuracy of viscosity models versus measured viscosity values for HO STO+Diesel system
SPE-190084-MS 11

Figure 8—Accuracy of viscosity models versus measured viscosity values for HO STO+Light STO system

Viscosity Mixing Rules for HO STO + Diluent Fluid Systems

Viscosity models developed in the previous section could be only valid for the specific fluids and their
mixtures with certain diluents studied in this work. These specific viscosity models (generated so far) should
not be used for other systems and/or at any other composition. A more general viscosity mixing rule is
required to not only accurately (within measurement error) model viscosity of heavy oil+diluent mixtures,
but also predicts viscosity of HO STO with diluents over a wide range of composition, temperature and
pressure. A number of existing mixing rules were evaluated for current HO STO + diluent database. A new
mixing rule was also developed to represent current database within the expected error of measurement.

Evaluation of Mixing Rules for Heavy Oil + Diluent Systems

The performances of a large number of existing mixing rules were evaluated for the heavy oil and diluent
mixture viscosities in this study. Centeno et. al. (2011) compiled a list of most common mixing rules with
their corresponding formulations. Three mixing rules i.e. "Power Law", "Ratcliff & Khan" (Ratcliff and
Khan, 1971) and "Walther" (Walther, 1931) have adjustable mixing parameters that need to be optimized
based on a set of experimental data. Table 5 represents these three particular mixing parameters optimized
based on the current database.
12 SPE-190084-MS

Table 5—Values for Mixing Parameters for "Power Law", "Ratcliff & Khan", and "Walther" mixing rules

The performance of all mixing rules including the ones with optimized mixing parameters (Table 5) is
shown in Figure 9. Note that the mixing rules shown in the graph with a darker blue bar represent the mixing
rules with adjustable mixing parameters (Parameters of Shu's mixing rule could be re-optimized). Mixing
rules with no adjustable mixing parameters are generally low performers except for Chirinos (Chirinos,
1983) mixing rule that has an average absolute deviation (AAD) of about 16±11%. This is considered an
acceptable performance for a mixing rule with no adjustable mixing parameter. Other mixing rules, which
are based on using a blending index, also perform well. Refutas (Maples, 2000) and Chevron2 models are
representing the mixture viscosity data with an AAD of 15±11% and 20±20%, respectively.

Figure 9—Performance of Mixing Rule for Heavy Oil + Diluent Mixture Viscosities

Development and Evaluation of Improved Mixing Rules for Heavy Oil + Diluent Systems
Both Refutas and Chirinos mixing rules could represent the current viscosity database with an acceptable
AAD%. However, both mixing rules still have high standard deviations of the same order of magnitude
as the AAD itself. It is desired to develop a mixing rule with potentially lower AAD% and an acceptable
standard deviation. In addition to the three mixing rules identified in the previous section with adjustable
mixing parameters, Shu mixing rule (1984) has also potential for improvement. The following methodology
was used to develop a more accurate mixing rule:
1. Four mixing rules of "Power Law", "Ratcliff & Khan", "Walther", and "Shu" were used.
2. For each mixing rule, the adjustable mixing parameter was optimized for every single mixture
viscosity data point in the database by exactly matching the measured viscosity.
a. This approach will generate a database of optimized adjustable mixing parameters.
3. Optimized adjustable mixing parameter database was correlated against fluid properties by
minimizing the different between predicted and measured mixture viscosities.
SPE-190084-MS 13

A number of correlations were evaluated to develop most accurate models. The final form of correlation
is provided in Appendix B.
Figure 10 shows the performance of all evaluated mixing rule for HO STO and diluent mixture viscosity
including four improved equations described previously. Again, note that darker blue bar in the graph
represent mixing rules with adjustable mixing parameters. Data suggest that modified/optimized "Ratcliff &
Khan" mixing rule can predict the viscosity values of the current database with an AAD% of about 11±5%
which is within acceptable ranges of error and standard deviation. Prediction capability of Walther mixing
rule did not improve considering the use of a more elaborate description for its adjustable mixing parameter.
Both Power Law and Shu mixing rules improved by 30-40%, however their overall AAD% is still about
20%.

Figure 10—Performance of Mixing Rule for Heavy Oil + Diluent Mixture Viscosities (Some models are modified/color coded)

Summary and Conclusions

1. In excess of 90 viscosity data points were measured for a HO STO and its mixtures with two different
diluents (diesel & Light STO) as a function of composition, temperature and pressure.
2. The quality of measured viscosities data was generally acceptable with minor data quality highlighted
during data QC.
3. Viscosity reduction ranging from 1 to 4 orders of magnitude was observed depending on variation of
temperature and dilution ratio.
4. Generated viscosity data were used to develop models with %AAE<1.5 for HO STO + Light STO
system and %AAE<3 for HO STO + Diesel system.
5. A large number of viscosity mixing rules (16 models) were evaluated against the measured viscosity
data.
6. Some mixing rules (Refutas, Chirinos, & Chevron2) were capable of predicting the measured
viscosities with an AAD of 15-20% and an average standard deviation of 14%.
7. A new mixing rule (modified Ratcliff & Khan) was developed with an %AAD of 11% and a standard
deviation of 5% (at least 50% improvement in the performance).

Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge Chevron Corporation for permission to publish this paper.
14 SPE-190084-MS

Nomenclature
a : Constants
API : Oil Gravity
b : Constant
c : Constant
C : Constant
d : Constant
HO : Heavy Oil
n : Constant
p : Pressure
S : A Representation of Shrinkage Factor
STO : Stock Tank Oil
T : Temperature
α : Constant
β : Constant
Δ : Difference
μ : Viscosity
ν : Volume Fraction
ρ : Density
δ : Constant
O (subscript) : Oil
S (subscript) : Solvent

References
Arrhenius, S.A., 1887, Uber die Dissociation der in Wasser gelosten Stoffe, Phys Chem, 1, pp. 631–648.
Baird, C.T., 1989, Guide to Petroleum Product Blending, HPI consultants, Flagstaff, AZ, Chapter 8.
Barrufet, M., Setiadarma, A., 2003, Reliable heavy oil–solvent viscosity mixing rules for viscosities up to 450 K, oil–
solvent viscosity ratios up to 4 [1] 105, and any solvent proportion, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 213, pp. 65–79.
Bergman, D., and Sutton, R., 2009, A Consistent and Accurate Dead-Oil Viscosity Method, SPE Reservoir Evaluation
and & Engineering, December, pp. 815–840, SPE# 110194.
Bingham, E.C., 1914, The viscosity of binary mixtures. J Phys Chem., 18, pp. 157–65.
Chirinos, M.L., Gouzalez, J., and Layrisse, I., 1983, Rheological Properties of Crude Oils from The Orinoco Oil Belt and
the Mixtures with Diluents; Revista Tecnica Intevep, 3(2), pp. 103–115.
Cragoe, C.S., 1933, Changes in the viscosity of liquids with temperature, pressure and composition. Proc World Pet Cong
Lond, 2, pp. 529–541.
Centeno, G., Sánchez-Reyna, G., Ancheyta, J., Muñoz, J.A.D., Cardona, N., 2011, Testing various mixing rules for
calculation of viscosity of petroleum blends, Fuel, 90, pp. 3561–3570.
Jeffries-Harris, M.J. and Coppel, C.P., 1969, Solvent Stimulation in Low Gravity Oil Reservoirs, JPT, 21(02), pp. 167–175.
Kendall, J., and Monroe, K., 1917, The viscosity of liquids II. The viscosity-composition curve for ideal liquid mixtures.
Am Chem J., 9, pp.1787–1802.
Lederer, E.L., 1933, Viscosity of mixtures with and without diluents, Proc World Pet Cong Lond, 2, pp. 526–528.
Maples, R.E., 2000, Petroleum Refinery Process Economics, 2nd Edition, Pennwell Books, ISBN 0-87814-779-9
Maxwell, J.B., 1950, Data Book on Hydrocarbons, Ninth Printing, D. Van Nostrand Comnpanry, Inc, Princton, NJ.
McAllister, R.A., 1960, The viscosity of liquid mixtures, AIChE J., 6, pp. 427–431.
Miadonye, A., Latour, N., Puttagunta, V.R., 2000, A correlation for viscosity and solvent mass fraction of bitumen-diluent
mixtures, Pet. Sci. Tech., 18, pp. 1–14.
Moreau, B.L., 1965, The Pipeline Transportation of Heavy Oils, JCPT, 4(4), pp. 252–256.
Parakash, S., 2003, Refining Processes Handbook, Elsevier Publishing, 327–328.
Ratcliff G.A., and Khan M.A., 1971, Prediction of the viscosities of liquid mixtures by a group solution model. Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 49, pp. 125–129.
Reid R.C., Prausnitz J.M., Sherwood T.K., 1977, The properties of gases and liquids, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
SPE-190084-MS 15

Shu, W.R., 1984, A viscosity correlation for mixtures of heavy oil, bitumen, and petroleum fractions, SPE J., June, pp.
277–282.
Wallace, D. and Henry, D., 1987, A Correlation for Correcting the Viscosity of Solvent-Extracted Bitumen to a Solvent-
Free Basis; AOSTRA Journal of Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 239–248.
Walther, C., 1931, The evaluation of viscosity data. Erdöl Teer, 7, pp. 382.
Zhao, H., Memon, A., Gao, J., Taylor SD, Sieben, D., Ratulowski, J., Alboudwarej, H., Pappas, J., Creek, J., 2016, Heavy
Oil Viscosity Measurements: Best Practices and Guidelines, Energy Fuels, 30 (7), pp. 5277–5290.
16 SPE-190084-MS

Appendix A
Tables A1 and A2 represent a(p) and b(p) parameters for viscosity models representing HO STO + Diesel
and HO STO + Light STO systems respectively.

Table A1—a(p) and b(p) models for systems of HO STO and Diesel
SPE-190084-MS 17

Table A2—a(p) and b(p) models for systems of HO STO and Light STO
18 SPE-190084-MS

Appendix B

Power Law Mixing Rule

The following equation was developed to represent "n" parameter in power law mixing rule as a function
of fluid properties:

Where:
 ρo is oil density
 ρs is solvent/diluent density

Ratcliff & Khan (R&K) Mixing Rule

The following equation was developed to represent "aAB" parameter in Ratcliff & Khan mixing rule as a
function of fluid properties:

Where:
 ρs = is solvent/diluent density
 Δρ is density difference between the oil and diluent at the specific temperature and pressure.
 α = 1.5
 β = 285.3
 δ = 1.625
 a = −215.3
 b = 14.662
and S is a shrinkage factor that is represented as:

Where:
 νs is the diluent volume fraction
 ΔAPI is the difference in the API density of oil and diluent.

Walther Mixing Rule

The following equation was developed to represent "C" parameter in Walther mixing rule as a function of
fluid properties:

Where
 a = 1.9
 b = 0.000000009
and S is previously defined (see Ratcliff & Khan model above)

Shu Mixing Rule

The following equation was developed to represent "C" parameter in Walther mixing rule as a function of
fluid properties:
SPE-190084-MS 19

Where:
 ρo is oil density
 ρs is solvent/diluent density
 Δρ is density difference between the oil and diluent at the specific temperature and pressure.
 μo is oil viscosity
 μs is solvent/diluent viscosity
 a = 17.97607312
 b = 0.528642336
 c = 12.85230052
 d = 2.047603027
The form of Shu mixing parameter equation is similar to the original one proposed by Shu, however, the
constants in the equation were optimized based on the mixture viscosity data in this study.