SPE-195802-MS

Solvent Screening Study for a Post CHOPS Cyclic Solvent Injection Pilot

Mark Anderson and Amin Badamchizadeh, Devon Canada; Apostolos Kantzas and Jon Bryan, Perm Inc.

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 Sep - 2 October 2019.

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
In preparation for a field pilot of cyclic solvent injection (CSI) on two depleted cold heavy oil production
with sand (CHOPS) wells, a series of oilsands coreflood experiments were conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of various commercially available solvents and make a solvent recommendation for the pilot.
Oil recovery and solvent recovery were the key performance indicators used to compare CSI effectiveness of
each solvent blend. The operating pressure for each test was kept relatively constant for each solvent blend
tested. Tested solvents included blends of methane/propane, carbon dioxide/propane, methane/ethane, 100%
ethane, and nitrogen. Sensitivities for depletion rate and blowdown pressure are also presented. Overall the
100% ethane test performed the best with the highest oil recovery and solvent recovery in the fewest cycles.
Due to the lack of commercial ethane supply and the industry experience with methane/propane in Husky
Edam’s CSI pilot, a methane/propane blend was recommended for the field pilot in Manatokan East near
Bonnyville Alberta Canada.

Introduction
In central Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada there are tens of thousands of operating and suspended
CHOPS wells that will recover less than 10% of the oil in place. While economic to exploit with primary
production, these wells leave behind billions of barrels of oil that could be captured with enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) technology. The majority of CHOPS wells are vertical or slant wells perforated in thin
(<5m) oilsands zones. Primary production generates a heavy oil foam as the pressure is reduced below the
bubble point and becomes super-saturated with methane bubbles that can’t immediately coalesce due to
the high oil viscosity. The heavy oil foam expansion slurrifies the unconsolidated sandstone and enhances
production greater than ten times a Darcy flow expectation. Progressive cavity pumps (PCP) are used to
pump the produced oil, water, gas, and sand to surface. This slurrification and production of the sand
matrix creates areas of increased porosity and permeability, which are generally accepted to be dendritic
high permeability conduits called wormholes (Figure 1). Wormholes often connect between CHOPS wells
causing interwell pressure communication.
2 SPE-195802-MS

Figure 1—Dendritic or branching wormhole network developing from a vertical CHOPS well. (Crabtree, 2015)

A post-CHOPS reservoir is complicated to exploit with EOR due to the presence of wormholes, which
create a dual permeability system. Any injected material will disperse through the wormhole network,
which is mostly swept of oil, and won’t interact significantly with the residual oil in the lower permeability
reservoir matrix. Most CHOPS wells are also produced down to atmospheric pressure, leaving the reservoir
with no pressure drive or solution-gas drive. Typical Canadian CHOPS reservoir properties are provided
in Table 1.

Table 1—Typical Canadian CHOPS Reservoir Properties

SPE-195802-MS 3

One EOR technology considered for post-CHOPS recovery is cyclic solvent injection (CSI). During CSI
a miscible solvent is injected into the reservoir to reduce the heavy oil viscosity, recharge the reservoir
pressure, and recreate foamy oil drive. The solvent is left to soak into the reservoir for a period of time and
then the wells are produced back to recovery incremental oil and the injected solvent. This "huff-and-puff"
process is repeated cyclically until uneconomic to continue.
The injected solvent may be a blend of multiple solvents. Ideally at least one component of the injected
solvent blend is a gas in order to transport solvent deep into the reservoir to affect a large volume and build
reservoir pressure. The peak pressure during the injection phase aims to approach or cross the dewpoint
of the injected solvent to take advantage of fast miscible liquid mixing, rather than slower gas-liquid
absorption. CSI relies on the ability to build pressure, which requires reservoir containment. If multiple wells
are in pressure communication, they must be cycled together or shut in. Otherwise the reservoir pressure
won’t increase, very little solvent will dissolve into the oil, and solvent losses may be significant. The choice
of solvent or solvent blending ratio must be suited for the target reservoir to ensure an effective pressure
can be achieved. The diagram in Figure 2 illustrates the phase behavior for the solvents tested in the lab
(Badamchizadeh, 2013) (Air-Liquide, n.d.).

Figure 2—Phase diagram for the tested solvent blends. The vertical dashed line
indicates a typical CHOPS reservoir temperature of 17°C. Within the phase envelope for
blends, the lighter solvent gas is carrying a fraction of the heavier solvent as a liquid.

In order to recommend an optimal solvent blend for a post-CHOPS CSI pilot, a series of corefloods were
conducted with different solvents under conditions representative of the target reservoir. The results of those
tests are included in this paper below.
4 SPE-195802-MS

Coreflood Preparation
Produced oil and sand from a CHOPS well in the target formation was provided to create synthetic cores
for testing. The sand was cleaned via Dean Stark extraction with heated toluene to remove all residual oil
and water. It is recognized that the produced sand may not be a perfect representation of the reservoir sand,
but the particle size distribution (Figure 3) was a reasonable match to offsetting core data and adequate for
comparative solvent performance analysis.

Figure 3—CHOPS Produced sand laser particle size analysis. Grain size bins <50um and >500um
are truncated for graphing purposes but are included in the cumulative probability function.

The produced CHOPS oil contained water and clay fines, which were removed through distillation and
filtration in a purpose-built apparatus. Light hydrocarbons boiled off during distillation were captured,
condensed, and recombined with the cleaned oil to ensure accurate representation of the in-situ oil. The water
used in the coreflood study was de-ionized water containing 2% by weight NaCl, creating a 20,000 ppm
brine similar to the target formation water total dissolved solids content. Fluid properties are summarized in
Table 2. During the second year of testing a new batch of oil was cleaned and had slightly higher viscosity.
The oil viscosity at test conditions is shown in Figure 4 for each CSI test case.

Table 2—Fluid Properties for corefloods

SPE-195802-MS 5

Figure 4—Oil Viscosity at testing conditions: 25°C for all tests except the low temp C1/C3 at 20°C. *For convenience
solvents are abbreviated as N2, C1, C2, C3, and CO2 for nitrogen, methane, ethane, propane, and carbon dioxide.

Synthetic cores were created for each CSI test using the following steps:
1. "Wet-pack" dry sand into an acetone filled Teflon shrink sleeve around a stainless steel rod placed
axially through the center of the core to create an artificial wormhole. Agitate the sleeve while
packing. Compress the sand pack axially once the sleeve is filled.
2. Mount the sleeve into an aluminum core holder and apply overburden stress of 3,450 kPag.
3. Dry the core by flowing nitrogen gas through the core for 2 days to remove acetone.
4. Measure the dry porosity and permeability with air injection. Evacuate the core with a vacuum.
5. Flood the core with 2% NaCl brine to saturate the core and measure brine permeability.
6. Heat the core to 60°C and flood with dead oil to saturate it with oil. Continue flooding until the
produced water cut was <5%.
7. Cool the core to 25°C and measure the oil permeability.
8. Depressurize the core and remove the stainless steel rod to expose the artificial wormhole.
9. Repressurize the core to 2,500 kPag with oil injection and then run a computerized tomography
(CT) x-ray scan of the core to measure core density.
The core dimensions are illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5—Synthetic Core Dimensions. When flooding, fluids are injected on the Injection end and
produced on the Production end. During CSI the Production end is used for both injection and production.

Coarse silica sand was sandwiched between two layers of 75um screen and affixed to the production end
of the core to prevent sand production during the corefloods. While these tests are intended to mimic CHOPS
production, allowing sand production and potential overburden collapse during the tests could erratically
affect the results. To ensure more consistent results between tests, sand production was prevented.
6 SPE-195802-MS

The core properties for each test varied somewhat due to differences in sand quality and packing. The
average core properties are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3—Average Core Properties

Coreflooding Procedure
The CSI coreflood for each solvent was applied to a freshly created synthetic core using the steps laid out
below. Injection and production volumes, temperatures, pressures, and fluid composition were measured
throughout the tests.
1. Primary Production: Flood the core from the injection side with methane or nitrogen at a differential
pressure of 2,750 kPa and collect produced fluids until there is methane breakthrough. Stop methane
injection and set the production (wormhole) end pressure to 1,000 kPag. This step was required to
create voidage in the core to allow for solvent injection; the original dead oil had no solution gas to
drive primary production and an initial attempt to inject solvent was poor.
2. Injection Phase: Inject solvent (blend) from the production end up to the target pressure (see Table
4 and Figure 6).
3. Soak Period: Continue to trickle injection for 5 to 7 days of solvent soaking to maintain the target
pressure as solvent dissolves in the oil.
4. Production Phase: Set the production pressure per Figure 6 and produce back oil, water, and solvent
from the production end.
5. Cyclic Solvent Injection: Repeat the injection, soak, and production phases for a total of 3 to 6 cycles.
6. Solvent Flooding: Some of the tests were repressurized to 2,500 kPag and injected solvent from the
injection side to flood the core towards the production end for two pore volumes (PV) of solvent.
7. Blowdown: Depressurize the core gradually to 0 kPag after flooding and then take a CT scan of the
core to measure the change in density.
8. Core Samples: Cut the core into several pieces and take 8 samples for Dean-Stark oil and water
saturations. 3 samples were taken, centrifuged, and run through gas chromatography to measure any
change in oil quality.
SPE-195802-MS 7

Table 4—Cyclic Solvent Injection Cycle Descriptions Solvents are abbreviated as N2,
C1, C2, C3, and CO2 for nitrogen, methane, ethane, propane, and carbon dioxide.

Figure 6—Cyclic Solvent Injection Pressure Range.

The depletion rate during each production cycle was kept constant at 45 kPa/hour except for one C1/C2
test that was doubled to 90 kPa/hour ("36/64 C1/C2 Fast Depletion"). All of the tests used dead oil except
for one C1/C2 test where live oil was saturated with methane to a gas-oil-ratio of 7.25 m3/m3. The core
temperature was held at 25°C except for a single C1/C3 Low Temperature test at 20°C.
The core testing apparatus is illustrated in Figure 7, which includes the necessary vessels, piping, valves,
pumps, measurement, and sampling points to execute the core floods.
8 SPE-195802-MS

Figure 7—Core Testing Apparatus

The tests laid out in Table 4 were conducted over two years from 2014 to 2015 and not in the order
presented here. The tests have been rearranged for this report to provide a more coherent testing progression
as follows:

• The N2 CSI test establishes a baseline with an almost insoluble gas to evaluate the impact of
pressure cycling.
• The C1/C3 tests explored the solvent used at Husky Edam Pilot and a slightly richer blend at 60/40
C1/C3 that should be more effective in lower pressure or higher viscosity reservoirs.
• The 20°C low temperature C1/C3 test was a simple way to test the impact of higher oil viscosity
without changing the oil. This temperature reduction almost doubled the oil viscosity.
• The C2 chaser after the low temperature C1/C3 cycles tested the effect on oil and solvent recovery
by adding a new solvent.
• The C2 tests explored a largely overlooked solvent for CSI. Ethane should behave similarly to the
C1/C3 blends that effectively create a "pseudo-ethane".
• The C2 pressure sensitivity tests evaluated the effect of reduced reservoir pressure and deeper
blowdown pressure per cycle.
SPE-195802-MS 9

• The C1/C2 blends achieve the same partial pressure of C2 as the low pressure C2 test (1600 kPa)
and evaluates the impact of absolute pressure vs. partial solvent pressure.
• One faster depletion test was run as a sensitivity to measure the impact of doubling the depletion
rate.
• The live oil C1/C2 test was meant to evaluate the impact of a more realistic primary production
phase and the effectiveness of CSI after high primary production.
• The CO2/C3 blend was tested to evaluate another common solvent blend seen in previous industry
lab tests and at Husky’s Mervin CSI field pilot (Husky-Oil, 2011).

Coreflood Results
The primary production and gas flooding phase used to create the initial voidage in the core varied in
performance between tests as illustrated in Figure 8. This is believed to be caused by differences in
permeability and oil saturation due to variations in sandpacking and core consolidation. This inconsistency
in primary production may impact the effectiveness of subsequent CSI cycles and make it difficult to
compare results. As one might expect, the live oil case had the strongest primary oil recovery due to foamy
oil drive absent in the dead oil cases.

Figure 8—Oil Production during primary production.

Figure 9—Cumulative Solvent Injected by cycle

10 SPE-195802-MS

Figure 10—Cumulative Solvent Recovery = Cum. Produced solvent / Cum. Injected solvent Final Depletion
values for the test cases that were flooded after CSI are not shown due to variations in solvent breakthrough.

Figure 11—Cumulative CSI Oil Recovery Factor = CSI Cumulative Produced Oil /
Original Oil In the Core. Primary production and flooding oil recovery has been removed
to isolate the effectiveness of CSI. See Figure 8 for the primary oil recovery values.

Figure 12—Final Overall Recovery Factor = Primary + CSI + Final Depletion

SPE-195802-MS 11

The following figures illustrate the cumulative injected solvent, cumulative solvent recovery, and the
cumulative produced oil recovery factor with and without primary recovery for every cycle. For simplicity
and easy comparison, the components in solvent blends are combined into a total mass of solvent injected.
Any missing cycles on the graphs were not run for that test case.
Computer Tomography (CT) scans of the cores were taken before and after all of the tests. Figure 13
shows the pre-soaking and post-soaking CT scans for the 70/30 C1/C3 baseline coreflood and Figure 14 is
for the fast depletion 36/64 C1/C2 coreflood.

Figure 13—CT Scan of the 70/30 C1/C3 case. The hotter colours indicate higher density and the
cooler colours lower density. The slices are approximately 1cm apart along the core and are
arranged left to right and top to bottom. The production end (wormhole) is towards the bottom.
12 SPE-195802-MS

Figure 14—CT Scan of the 36/64 C1/C2 Fast Depletion Test. The
slices are at higher resolution than Figure 13 at one scan per 0.5cm.

Observations
As mentioned, there were some inconsistencies in the primary recovery phase of the tests likely associated
with the differences in sandpacking and fluid saturation. The testing program also evolved over the 2 year
program, where the initial flooding gas switched from C1 to N2, the post-CSI solvent flood was removed,
and the operating pressure range changed slightly in the second year of testing. Overall the results should
still be comparable across the tests, but these differences may have affected the results somewhat.
SPE-195802-MS 13

Solubility
When reviewing the injected solvent mass and solvent recovery there are some marked differences in
performance. Both N2 and the C1/C3 blends had low solvent injectivity, but almost all the N2 was recovered
during production while only half of the C1/C3 was recovered after multiple cycles (most of which was C1,
not C3). The C2 and C1/C2 blend saw high solvent recovery (>80%) after just a few cycles, but injectivity
with the C1/C2 blend was only moderate compared to the 100% C2 solvent. The CO2/C3 blend saw high
injectivity and moderate solvent recovery. A few of the tests saw initial solvent recovery factors greater than
100% due to residual methane from the primary methane flood used to create voidage; this was changed
to a nitrogen flood in the second year to avoid this source of error. Generally, the solvents that approached
dewpoint more closely (Figure 2) saw higher solvent mass dissolved.

Solvent Recovery
The C2 cycles applied after the low temperature (high viscosity) C1/C3 cycles saw high injectivity and
improved the final solvent recovery, particularly of the C3 that was lost in the earlier cycles. This can be an
effective strategy to purge the reservoir of heavier solvents left behind, as the lighter gas reduces the partial
pressure of the heavier solvent and helps vapourize it. The lower depletion pressures applied to some of
the tests also improved the solvent recovery factor significantly. Whether reducing the absolute pressure or
partial pressure of the system, this will vapourize more of the residual solvent and improve solvent recovery.
C3 was the heaviest solvent that was tested and was the slowest to be produced back, with the lowest
solvent recovery cycle by cycle. It takes multiple cycles of C3 to saturate the core before it starts to be
produced back in later cycles or after a low blowdown pressure. Oil has a stronger affinity to absorb heavier
solvents and it takes more time, lower pressure, or higher temperatures to vapourize and recover them from
oil compared to lighter, more volatile solvents.
N2 had the highest solvent recovery of those tested. The C2 and C1/C2 blends also had high solvent
recovery factors.

Oil Recovery
Oil recovery was the lowest for N2 and the C1/C2 Live Oil test. N2 is almost insoluble in oil and would
contribute negligible foamy oil drive or viscosity reduction compared to the other solvents. The N2 oil
recovery can be considered a baseline for the impact of pressure cycling with no solvent effects. The live oil
case saw very high oil recovery during primary production, which reduced the oil available for production
during CSI and likely reduced the performance of CSI. The C1/C3 oil recovery was moderate and slightly
worse than the CO2/C3 oil recovery, while the C1/C2 blends were in the middle. The faster depletion rate
test enhanced recovery, likely due to stronger foamy oil drive. The pure C2 cases had the highest CSI oil
recovery factor of all the solvents tested and in the fewest cycles.

Oil Viscosity
One higher viscosity test was run by operating a C1/C3 CSI coreflood at a slightly lower temperature,
almost doubling the oil viscosity. The oil recovery was almost identical to the lower viscosity C1/C3 test
and the solvent recovery was slightly better. For the viscosity range of 25,000 to 50,000 cP the change in
CSI performance due to viscosity appears to be negligible.

Depletion Rate
The depletion rate applied during CSI tests can significantly affect the results. There is no accepted standard
for depletion rate across the industry. Doubling the depletion rate of the C1/C2 CSI test improved the
effectiveness of CSI and recovered more oil in these tests. This can be attributed to stronger foamy oil drive,
where more oil bubbles are created and can displace/mobilize oil in the core before coalescing and breaking
down. More testing is required to establish a minimum and maximum depletion rate, where foaming does
14 SPE-195802-MS

not occur (equilibrium) or foaming is too rapid and breaks down before moving oil. Each solvent and heavy
oil combination will respond differently to depletion rate, which requires targeted lab testing for a field pilot.

Enriched Solvent
The 60/40 C1/C3 coreflood evaluated the effect of enriching the solvent blend. At the test pressure of 2,500
kPa, 60/40 C1/C3 was more effective at oil recovery than 70/30 C1/C3. The richer solvent blend moved the
operating conditions closer to the solvent dewpoint and increased solvent injectivity, allowing the solvent to
do more when cycled back. This test shows the importance of tuning the solvent phase envelope to suit the
reservoir conditions, as well as the flexibility a two-part solvent offers to adjust concentrations and phase
behavior on the fly.
Along a similar vein, reducing the peak pressure of the 100% C2 CSI test had a negative effect on
performance and reduced oil recovery. This pressure reduction moved CSI operations further from the C2
dewpoint and reduced solvent injectivity and effectiveness.

Live Oil Test

The live oil test was a good representation of a post-CHOPS reservoir and may indicate that CSI performance
in post-CHOPS will be worse than these lab tests. After strong primary production there is less oil available
in the swept area of the reservoir to be produced via CSI, thus less upside for CSI to capture. Based on the
CT scans of the live on test, the core was significantly depleted throughout the core.

Final Depletion (Blowdown)

Any of the tests that used C3 saw strong final oil recovery over a long and low pressure blowdown period at
final depletion. This can be attributed to the heavier solvent staying in the oil the longest and required more
time and lower pressure to cause it to vapourize and be recovered. This may contribute to long duration, low
rate oil production in a field pilot, whereas a lighter more volatile solvent would blow down more rapidly.

Oil Upgrading
While not presented here, the oil quality was measured before and after each CSI test and some degradation
of the residual oil in the core after CSI was noted, where the concentration of light hydrocarbons (<C20)
was reduced. This would imply the produced oil quality was lighter and slightly upgraded from the in-situ
oil. The C1/C3 and CO2/C3 tests had the greatest impact on the residual oil quality.

CT Scans
Only a sample of the CT scans were presented in this paper (Figure 13, Figure 14). All of the corefloods
exhibited reduced density around the wormhole (fluid production), where the wormhole diameter expanded
after CSI. The CSI tests with C1/C3 tests saw fluid extraction almost exclusively around the wormhole,
which grew 3 to 4x wider. Very little oil was extracted past the end of wormhole with C1/C3. The C2 and C1/
C2 tests saw more widespread reduction in density, particularly in the region past the end of the wormhole.
The wormhole still expanded with C2 and C1/C2, but not nearly as much as with C1/C3. The CO2/C3 case
saw a combination, where the wormhole expanded substantially for 1/3 of the core and the area past the
wormhole was also depleted. This seems to indicate that the heavier solvent (C3) is being stripped out and
saturates the area near the wormhole, while the lighter gaseous solvents penetrate further into the core and
mobilize the oil there. The live oil test was significantly depleted across the core after primary production
and only saw minor wormhole expansion from CSI. These observations were corroborated with Dean-Stark
oil saturation analysis of physical samples.

CSI Effectiveness
Evaluating which solvent is the most effective for a CSI project is a tricky subject because the answer
ultimately becomes an economic problem, which will change depending on the reservoir, company, and
SPE-195802-MS 15

commodity pricing of the day. In order to compare these lab tests two graphs are presented, Figure 15 and
Figure 16, which illustrate CSI solvent effectiveness by cross-plotting solvent recovery and residual solvent
vs. oil recovery factor. The best solvent should be in the top right of Figure 15 and top left of Figure 16.
Each solvent blend is discussed below in order from best to worst.
1. 100% C2 CSI ranks the best, exhibiting the highest oil recovery and very high solvent recovery
in the fewest cycles. Applying rapid depletion and low depletion pressure will further enhance C2
CSI performance. A lot of C2 was dissolved and then produced back during cycles, which can be
thought of as the solvent doing a lot of work. Other blends saw low solvent injection or low solvent
recovery, reducing the effective "working volume" of solvent.
2. The CO2/C3 blend had moderate solvent recovery and good oil recovery, but a lot of solvent was
required for cycling and was trapped in the core. A method of recovering the solvent or a cheap
supply of CO2 will be required to support a CO2/C3 CSI project. This could be beneficial from
a CO2 sequestration standpoint.
3. The C1/C3 blends had moderate solvent recovery and moderate oil recovery. One advantage of the
C1/C3 blends was the small amount of solvent required to operate the CSI process and still recover
moderate amounts of oil. The C1/C3 tests used 2 to 5x less solvent than the other solvent blends
while still attaining half the oil recovery.
4. Blending C1 and C2 had good solvent recovery and moderate oil recovery and can be viewed as
a test of methane "poisoning" for C2. In a 100% C2 CSI project, methane will evolve from the
in-situ oil GOR and will make CSI less effective (poison it), supporting a de-ethanizing or purge
process to remove the methane as it builds up in the process. It’s not recommended to blend C1
and C2 for CSI unless the reservoir is very low pressure.
5. As expected, the N2 CSI test was the poorest performing solvent. Generally, nitrogen would not
be considered a solvent and this test quantified a baseline for pressure cycling.

Figure 15—Solvent Effectiveness – Solvent Recovery vs. Oil Recovery per cycle
16 SPE-195802-MS

Figure 16—Solvent Effectiveness – Residual solvent in the core vs. oil recovery per cycle

Table 5 summarizes the solvent performance and highlights each parameter as good, moderate, and poor.

Table 5—Solvent Effectiveness Comparison. Red, yellow, green shading for poor, moderate, good.

Recommendations
The original intent of this testing program was to recommend a solvent blend to execute on a field pilot in
the Bonnyville area. Due to time constraints, a methane and propane blend was recommended for the post-
CHOPS field pilot in advance of the coreflood results. This was based on the commercial availability of
methane and propane and the past results at the Edam CSI project in Saskatchewan that also used methane
and propane. This was considered the lowest risk option and fit the project schedule. It is recognized that
ethane CSI should perform better than methane and propane CSI based on the lab testing, but there were
SPE-195802-MS 17

economic and logistical hurdles in obtaining commercial quantities of ethane for a pilot. CO2 CSI also
warrants further investigation, as this testing indicated good oil recovery.

References
Air-Liquide. (n.d.). Ethane. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from Gas Encyclopedia Air Liquide: https://
encyclopedia.airliquide.com/ethane
Badamchizadeh, A. (2013, February). Use of CO2 in Vapex. Calgary: University of Calgary.
Crabtree, M. (2015, January 20). CHOPS: BUT NOT FOR YOUR BBQ. Retrieved from Saskatchewan Research Council:
https://www.src.sk.ca/blog/chops-not-your-bbq
Husky-Oil. (2011, November 30). Husky Oil's Mervin Cold Solvent EOR Pilot. Retrieved from Government
of Saskatchewan Publications: http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/310/94573-Husky%20Mervin%20Solvent
%20Flood.pdf