SPE 134002

Testing and History Matching ES-SAGD (Using Hexane)

Ayodele, Oluropo Rufus*; Nasr, Tawfik N.**; Ivory, John; Beaulieu, Gilles and Heck, Gord
Alberta Research Council, Canada***
*Now with Shell Exploration and Production Company, USA ** Now with ConocoPhillips Company, USA
***Now part of Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anaheim, California, USA, 27–29 May 2010.

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
For the first time, we present in public domain, experimental and history-matched results of 2D scaled laboratory testing of
ES-SAGD with hexane as the co-injected solvent. Experimental results of ES-SAGD (with hexane) were also compared with
the equivalent SAGD. The 2 experiments, which were conducted at the Alberta Research Council’s Thermal Gravity
laboratory, are 2-D high pressure/high temperature experiments and were conducted at 2100 kPag +/- 50 kPag. The
comparison of ES-SAGD and SAGD experiments shows that ES-SAGD using hexane performed better than an equivalent
SAGD experiment. The energy consumption per unit oil recovered for ES-SAGD was lower than that of SAGD (11.5% less).
The average oil recovery within the first 500 minutes (i.e. 11.3 years at field-scale) for the ES-SAGD process was also much
higher (~10.93% higher). The ES-SAGD result was history-matched with a commercial reservoir simulator (CMG STARS).
The history-matched ES-SAGD experiment gave satisfactory results in terms of oil production rates, cumulative oil
production, and temperature distributions. The results presented in the paper provide data that can be scaled to field and assist
in the design, optimization and parameter selection when ES-SAGD (with hexane or a pseudo-hexane solvents mixture) is
considered as a recovery technology. Multi-pattern simulations based on history-matched data of a single well pair (pattern)
show that multi-well pair (pattern) simulations can provide a suitable approximate analog for multi-pattern experiments,
which can be scaled and used for planning and optimizing a pilot or a small-scale commercial project.

INTRODUCTION
The use of Expanding Solvent-SAGD (ES-SAGD) as a recovery technology in bitumen and heavy oil reservoirs has been
shown to lead to accelerated oil recovery while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because it requires less steam
(lower SOR) than equivalent pure SAGD recovery technology. ES-SAGD technology is currently planned or being executed
in some field pilot projects. As ES-SAGD matures, there is need to provide additional understanding of the technology to
assist in design, selection of operational parameters and actual field execution of pilot or commercial scale projects. In the
original ES-SAGD patent [1-2], hexane (or a pseudo-hexane solvents mixture) was identified as one of the suitable solvents for
co-injecting with steam to accelerate recovery and improve energy efficiency. Also, several lab-scale and field-scale
numerical simulations have been published that provide additional understanding and optimization of the ES-SAGD either
with single-component or multi-component solvents [3-8]. A recent paper also focused on the design of injection wells for ES-
SAGD using hexane as the co-injected solvent [9]. There exist propriety experimental results or data on ES-SAGD with
hexane as the co-injected solvent, but to date there is no publicly available 2D scaled experimental data on ES-SAGD with
hexane as the co-injected solvent, hence the motivation for the work presented in this paper.
 
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this work are to:
1) Evaluate recovery performance for ES-SAGD (using hexane) in a high-pressure (~2100 kPag+/- 50 kPag)
experiment in a typical Athabasca reservoir by comparing it with an equivalent SAGD experiment.
2) Analyze results from the experiments (ES-SAGD and SAGD) for steam chamber growth, solvent phase behaviour
and energy efficiency.
3) History-match the ES-SAGD test.
2 SPE 134002

Through laboratory testing, insight can be gained that can provide further understanding of the operational parameters
controlling ES-SAGD and provide a basis for better design, optimization and selection of parameters for prediction of field-
scale performance of a pilot or a small-scale commercial project.

LABORATORY EQUIPMENT AND TESTING PROCEDURE

Description of Equipment
The 2-D high-pressure and high-temperature (HPHT) facility at the Alberta Research Council (ARC) was used for
conducting the two experimental tests. A brief description of the equipment is presented. Further details of the equipment can
be found in reference 3. The test cell (model) is made of thin stainless steel with dimension of 24 cm x 80 cm x 10 cm.
Thermocouples are located at several points within the model to measure temperature profiles during the experiments. The
injector and producer wells are spaced 5 cm vertically apart. The bottom well (the producer) is located at about 1 cm from the
bottom of the model. The two wells are both located at the middle of the model. The initial oil saturations for both tests are
given in Table 1. A summary of model and fluid properties is given in Table 1. Model parameters and steam operating
conditions were the same, or nearly identical, in both experiments.

During the tests, steam from a central supply was injected solely or co-injected with a solvent. A control valve controlled the
injection pressure. In the second test that involved co-injection of solvent, hexane was co- injected with a pump running at a
constant volumetric rate. Produced fluids, a mixture of water, oil and solvents were collected at high pressure in piston type
accumulator, from where they were passed through an intermediate condenser. Condensed fluids were collected in sample
bottles and analyzed for oil, water and solvent content. The volumes of produced gases were measured by a gas flow meter.
An on-line gas chromatograph (GC) was used to analyze produced gases. As injection and production continued, samples of
the gases were directed through the gas chromatograph at intervals of 10 minutes to determine gas compositions. In addition,
temperature, pressure and injection rates were measured and recorded in the computer by an automated data acquisition
system at intervals of one minute. Both experiments were scaled using the Pujol and Boberg [10] scaling approach with a
scaling factor of 109.

Testing Procedure
In the first test (high-pressure SAGD test), at start-up, steam at 2190C and 2100 kPag, was injected/circulated in both the
injector and producer to establish communication between the well pair, at a total average rate of 4.24 kg/hr, for about 10
minutes. After the space between the wells was heated up, injection of steam to the bottom well was discontinued and the
well converted to normal fixed pressure production mode. But steam injection to the upper well continued till the end of the
test at 910 minutes (20.57 years at field-scale) at an average injection rate of 2.03 kg/hr.

The start-up procedure for the second test (high- pressure ES-SAGD test) is the same as that of the high-pressure SAGD test.
Average steam injection rate of almost the same rate as that of the high-pressure SAGD test (4.15 kg/hr) was used in
establishing communication between the wells for a period of 10 minutes. Subsequently, a solvent (hexane) was co-injected
with steam till the end of the test at 910 minutes at concentration value of 0.155 on volume basis (0.0909 mass basis) and an
average solvent injection rate of 198.2 g/hr.

DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS

Results of the two sets of experiments are depicted in Figures 1 to 9 and comparisons with numerical simulation results are
shown in Figures 10 to 12. Experimental and numerical simulation results are discussed below.

Injection Rates and Pressure Profiles

Steam injection rates are shown in Figure 1 for comparison purposes. For both tests, injection rates of steam were
approximately the same throughout the period of the tests. This shows that the conditions under which both experiments were
conducted were approximately the same, thereby confirming that a basis exist for comparing the tests. In both tests,
experimental conditions of injection and overburden pressure were nearly the same within the margin of experimental
accuracy as shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. These again confirm that the tests are conducted under similar high-
pressure reservoir conditions.

Hexane Phase Behaviour

Figure 4 compares the quantity of hexane produced in the gaseous and liquid phase. Throughout the test, hexane is produced
mostly with oil in liquid phase. This shows that most of the injected hexane condensed while very little was produced in the
gaseous phase. This is a very important characteristic in ES-SAGD. Most of the co-injected solvent or solvent mixture is
expected to condense along with steam at, or close to, the steam-solvent chamber inter-phase in order to be able to produce
more oil than when only steam is injected in the case of SAGD. Figure 4 basically shows that most of the hexane was
condensed in experimental test 2 and further implies that this phase behaviour is one of the dominant mechanisms in ES-SAGD.
SPE 134002 3

Production
Production rates of oil are shown in Figure 5, while Figure 6 shows the production rates of water (condensed steam), which
were approximately the same for both tests. In Figures 5, the ES-SAGD test shows higher production rate at the earlier times
(<= 500 minutes) and lower production rates at later times (> 500 minutes). The higher production rates at early times
resulted into more oil recovery (See Figure 7) leaving behind less oil to be produced at later times. In general, the production
rates for both tests follow the same pattern of high production rates at early times and low production rate at later times.

Oil Recovery
Oil recoveries as a percentage of the original-oil-in-place (OOIP) for both tests are shown in Figure 7. The ES-SAGD test
outperformed SAGD through the period of the test. The ES-SAGD test’s recovery increases steadily much more than SAGD
test till the end of experimental runs. At about 500 minutes (11.3 years at field-scale), the oil recovery performance of ES-
SAGD was 82.5% and that for SAGD was 71.57% indicating an increase in recovery of 10.93% for ES-SAGD.

Temperature Profiles and Steam Chamber Growth

Figure 8 shows temperature distributions (temperature contour plots) within the model at 300 minutes. As shown in Figure 8,
the lateral spread of the steam-solvent chamber in the ES-SAGD test is more than that of the steam chamber of the SAGD
test. This lateral spread leads to a better oil recovery from ES-SAGD than SAGD. This is because the spread covers more oil
area in a shorter time. Also, the additional insulation provided by the injected solvent reduces the rate of heat loss to the side
of the model, trapping more solvent and making more heat and solvent available for oil viscosity reduction.

Energy Efficiency
As discussed early on under “Oil Recovery Analysis”, recovery as percentage of OOIP is higher in the ES-SAGD test than in
the SAGD test. Because a solvent is used in one of the tests, and hence different amounts of energy were used in the
experiments, recovery as percentage of the OOIP is not the only measure of the performance of the tests. Recovery as
percentage of OOIP does not provide enough information for process economics performance. As a result of this, energy
consumption per unit oil recovered (ECR) was used as the basis for further analysis and comparison. The results of this
comparison are shown in Figure 9.

To calculate the energy consumed per unit oil recovered, the amount of energy consumed (which is the energy input) was
divided by the total mass of oil produced in both tests. The model was insulated with an insulator. To compute the energy
input for the SAGD test, the specific heat capacity and the latent heat of vapourization of steam, which are 4.18 kJ/kg/oC and
1,862 kJ/kg (11), respectively were used. For the ES-SAGD test, the specific heat capacity and the latent heat of vapourization
of steam as well as the heat of combustion (assuming 70% conversion efficiency) of the hexane left behind in the model, at
standard condition (34,144 kJ/kg)(12), were used to calculate the energy input.

From Figure 9, it can be seen that the ECR is higher by approximately 11.5% in the SAGD experiment than in the ES-SAGD
experiment. This shows that the ES-SAGD test performed better than the SAGD test even when the solvent loss was taken
into account. In the field, the thermal conductivities of the top seal rock (cap rock) and bottom seal rock are almost the same
as that of the reservoir rock matrix. Hence, with ES-SAGD processes, the solvent provides additional insulation that reduces
heat loss. Such heat loss reduction is not available in SAGD in the field. See Figure 8 for temperature distribution and
advancement with time within the model. If such heat losses are accounted for in both tests, then energy consumption per unit
oil recovered would become even higher for SAGD and this would make the ES-SAGD process even more attractive as a
recovery process relative to SAGD.

History Matching of ES-SAGD Experiment

The reservoir simulator, STARSTM, was used to history match ES-SAGD experimental results. Input data into the simulation
run are shown in Tables 1 and 2. An 81 x 1 x 24 Cartesian grid system was used with 1 cm spacing along i and k directions
except at the first and last grid in the i direction where 0.5cm grid spacing was used (i.e. 1 x 0.5, 79 x 1, 1 x 0.5). Along j
direction, a single 10 cm grid block is used.

Three phases (oleic, vapour (gaseous) and aqueous) and three components (hexane, oil and water/steam) were used. For
phase changes, hexane can exist in either oleic or gaseous phase; water/steam can exist in either gaseous or aqueous phase;
and oil can exist only in oleic phase. The K-value constants (KV1, KV4 and KV5) used for the hexane component are shown
in Table 2. The values used to model dispersion effect (mechanical dispersivity values and molecular diffusion values) are
also shown in Table 2. The dispersivities values are based on values reported in the literature. The values of the molecular
diffusion coefficient were computed from Wilke-Chang correlation [13].

It should be noted that in the computation of molecular diffusion, molecular diffusion varies with temperature, T, covering
the initial reservoir temperature of 200C to injected steam temperature of 2200C. But in the actual STARS simulation, a single
value temperature was used in all the grid blocks. This is because at the time this research work was conducted, STARS
4 SPE 134002

allowed only an isothermal value of molecular diffusion coefficient. In the history match results that gave the best match of
experimental results, the computed value of molecular diffusion was based on 2200C in all the grid blocks. This is the
maximum possible value of molecular diffusion and it is shown in Table 2.

Oil production rate; cumulative oil production; and temperature distributions within the test cell at 200 minutes; from the ES-
SAGD experimental test are compared with STARS numerical simulation results in Figures 10, 11 and 12, respectively. The
experimental and numerical results do not exactly match one another but the results are close enough and may be accepted as
a reasonable history match. These results compare favourably for oil production rate and cumulative oil produced. For the
temperature distributions, the experimental results are very close to the numerical results at the steam-solvent chamber
interfaces and the upper part of the test model. Away from the interfaces, the lower part of the test model, the numerical
simulation temperature distributions are not as accurate or as close to the experimental results. This might be due to
numerical approximation, uncertainty in some simulation input parameters, or due to interpolation on the generated
temperature contour plot.

The uncertainties in numerical results include uncertainties in such parameters as k-value equation parameters, relative
permeability data and oil properties. The k-value constants used in the simulation are not based on laboratory measured PVT
(pressure-volume-temperature) data. The relative permeability values are also not unique values. It is believed that the use of
2 or more pseudo components for the oil might give better numerically predicted results. But in general these results compare
favourably within the limits of numerical accuracy.

MULTI-WELL PAIR SIMULATIONS

Conducting multi-pattern (2 or more well pairs) experiments in the laboratory can help to generalize single well pair (single
pattern) to ascertain the performance of a pilot or a small commercial project having approximately the same scaled reservoir
and fluid properties and operational constraints parameter as that of the laboratory experiments. Conducting multi-pair (MP)
experiments in the laboratory scale is quite expensive and takes a lot of time. In addition, testing different operating scenarios
and strategies would be very cumbersome. To over come these problems, once a single pair (SP) experiment has been history
matched, the history-matched data can be used to carry out MP simulation to act as analog for actual multi-pair laboratory
experiment. This approach, though an approximate solution, can be quite useful and provide extra performance prediction
data and insight into well pairs’ interaction that can be used for optimization of a pilot or a small commercial design.

To confirm that this approach is practicable, a multi-pair (3-well pairs) laboratory simulation was conducted and optimized
and the results compared with that of the history-matched single pair results. The input data for the multi-pair simulation are
the same as those of the single well pair except that 2 additional well pairs are included in the simulation model. The well
pairs are laterally spaced 40 cm apart to conform to the single pair laboratory spacing (i.e. distance from central well pair to
edge of test cell). The multi-pair model has a Cartesian grid of 81 x 1 x 24 in the i, j and k directions, respectively, with grid
sizes of 1 x 1 cm, 79 x 2 cm and 1 x 1 cm along i-direction; 1 x 10 cm along j-direction and 24 x 1 cm along k-direction.

Figure 13 shows the oil saturation distribution at 910 minutes for the multi-pair simulation. Figure 14 depicts the temperature
distribution at 340 minutes for the multi-pair simulation. Figure 13 confirms that almost all of the oil-in-place has been
produced (~ 90%) at 910 minutes for the MP simulation. Figure 14 shows when the steam chamber of each well pair
advances to touch each other.

The CSOR is one the major technical and economic indicator paremeters for steam-based recovery processes. The lower the
CSOR, the better the likehood of having an economic project. MP sensitvity studies were carried out on the steam injection
rate. The objective of this was to obtain approximately the same or better recovery for the MP simulation while maintaining a
CSOR that is generally less than that of SP simulation. The steam injection rates were varied and an optimum value of 10
cm3/min for each injection well was found to give approximately the same recovery as that of SP simulation at much more
reduced CSOR (average of about 1.0 versus 2.5 for SP simulation) . The simulation results for this optimzed MP is shown
along with the SP in Figure 15. In Figure 15, it can be seen that even though the oil recovery was comparable for the MP and
SP simulations, the MP CSOR was much lower for MP as compared to SP.

The above simulation optimization (example) simply shows that the use of an analog multi-pattern simulation can be used to
“quickly” carry out optimization studies that can improve the economics of a project under consideration. It should be noted
however that despite the fact that an approximate prediction of a pilot or a small commercial project can be obtained from
laboratory multi-pattern simulations analog, the geology and the ability to achieving a good degree of steam conformance in
3-D would eventually dictate what happen in the field in terms of oil recovery, energy efficiency and steam-oil ratio. The
analog would only provide a simple guide in the field implementation.
SPE 134002 5

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results and discussion presented in this report, the following conclusions can be made:
1) ES-SAGD experimental test showed better oil recovery volume, better oil recovery rate, and lower energy consumed
per unit oil recovered than SAGD experimental test. Average ES-SAGD incremental oil recovery over SAGD was
approximately 11 % within 500 minutes (~11.3 years at field-scale).
2) Using STARS to history match ES-SAGD experiment gave a satisfactory result in terms of oil production rates,
cumulative oil production and temperature distributions.
3) Extension of single pattern laboratory experiment to multi-pattern simulations can provide a quick approach to
optimizing operational parameters that can be used in the design of pilots or small commercial projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the AERI/ARC/Core/Industry Research (AACI) Program. The assistance of Hart Golbeck of ARC, during
the experimental runs, is highly appreciated. The useful discussions with many members of the Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
group at ARC are also highly acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1) Nasr, T.N.; Beaulieu, G.; Golbeck, H. and Heck, G. (2003). Novel expanding solvent-SAGD process “ES-SAGD”.
Technical Note. JCPT. January 2003. 42(1), 13-16.
2) Nasr, T.N. and Isaac, E.E. (2001). Process for enhancing hydrocarbon mobility using a steam additive. US Patent #
6,230,814, May 15, 2001.
3) Ayodele, O.R.; Nasr, T.N.; Beaulieu, G. and Heck, G. (2009). Laboratory experimental testing and development of
an efficient low-pressure ES-SAGD process. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (JCPT). September 2009.
48(9), 54-61.
4) Gates I. D. and Chakrabarty, N. (2008). Design of the steam and solvent injection strategy in expanding solvent
steam-assisted gravity drainage. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (JCPT). September 2008. 47(9), 12-20.
5) Govind, P. A; Das, S.; Srinivasan, S. and Wheeler, T.J. (2008). Expanding Solvent SAGD in Heavy Oil Reservoirs.
SPE paper 117571-MS prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/PS/CHOA International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium (ITOHO), 20-23 October 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
6) Ivory, J.; Zheng, R.; Nasr, T.; Deng, X.; Beaulieu, G. and Heck, G. (2008). Investigation of Low Pressure ES-
SAGD. SPE paper 117759-MS prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/PS/CHOA International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium (ITOHO), 20-23 October 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
7) Gates, I. D. (2006). Oil phase viscosity behaviour in expanding-solvent steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering. October 2007. 59(1-2), 123-134.
8) Nasr, T.N. and Ayodele, O.R. (2006). New hybrid steam-solvent processes for the recovery of heavy oil and
bitumen. SPE paper 101717 prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE 12th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference (ADIPEC), 5 - 8 November 2006, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
9) McCormack, M.E. (2009). Design of steam-hexane injection wells for gravity drainage systems. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology (JCPT). January 2009. 48(1), 22-28.
10) Pujol, L and Boberg, T.C. (1972). Scaling accuracy of laboratory steam flooding models. SPE Paper 4191 presented
at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 8-10 November 1972.
11) Ražnjević, K. (1976) Handbook of thermodynamics tables and charts. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New
York, New York, USA. 150-151.
12) Inbuilt H-Values in CMG’s ®WinProp Software (Version 2004.10).
13) Wilke C.R. and Chang, P. (1955). Correlation of diffusion coefficients in dilute solutions. AIChE J. 1, 264–270.
 
ACRONYSMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1. ECR – Energy consumed per oil recovered
2. ES-SAGD - Expanding-solvent steam-assisted gravity drainage
3. HP - High pressure
4. MP - Multi-pattern
5. OOIP - original-oil-in-place
6. Pref - Reference pressure
7. Pref - Atmospheric pressure
8. Pag - Gauge pressure
9. Pa - Absolute pressure
10. Pa - Pag + Pref = Pag + 101 kPa
11. SAGD - Steam-assisted gravity drainage
12. STARSTM - Steam, thermal, and advanced processes reservoir simulator. A product of CMG Ltd.
13. SP - Single pattern
14. STP - Standard temperature and pressure
15. Test 1 - High-pressure SAGD test
16. Test 2 - High-pressure ES-SAGD test
6 SPE 134002

Table 1. Summary of model and fluid properties

High Pressure SAGD High-Pressure ES-SAGD
(Test 1) [Hexane] (Test 2)
Dimension (rounded end) 80 x 24 x 10 cm 80 x 24 x 10 cm
Volume 18,596 cm3 18,602 cm3
Sand permeability 120 Darcy 120 Darcy
Sand type Ottawa sand Ottawa sand
Sand size 20-40 20-40
Sand mass 33.855 x 103 g 33.780 x 103 g
Pore volume 5632 cm3 6086 cm3
Porosity 31.6% 31.7%
Initial oil saturation 93.7% 96.9%
Initial oil mass 5536.1 g 5759.8 g
Mass of produced oil 4596.2 g 5122.6 g
Oil density 1.0007 g/cm3 1.0007 g/cm3
Oil type Athabasca Bitumen (UTF) Athabasca Bitumen (UTF)
Mass of injected solvent (hexane) Not applicable 2972.8 g
Solvent (hexane) injection rate Not applicable 198.2 g/hr
Concentration of solvent in the Not applicable 15.50 % (volume basis) and
injected mixture 9.09 % (mass basis)
Oil rec. as % of OOIP at 910 minutes 83.02% 88.94%
Oil rec. as % of OOIP at 630 minutes 77.44% 87.17%
Average steam pressure 2100 kPag 2100 kPag
Average steam injection temperature 2200C 2200C
Average steam injection rate 2.03 x 103 g/hr 1.96 x 103 g/hr
Mass of total steam injected 30.71 x 103 g 29.74 x 103 g
Run time 90 min.(20.57 yrs. at field-scale) 90 min.(20.57 yrs. at field-scale)
SPE 134002 7

Table 2. Some additional input data (rock properties and fluid properties) for numerical simulations
Relative Permeability and Capillary
pressure Porosity: 0.317 (homogenous)
Sw krw krow Pc Permeability: 120 Darcy (isotropic)
0.031 0.0000 1.0000 0 Rock/sand compressibility = 4.5 x 10-7 kPa
0.050 0.0001 0.9400 0 Rock/sand volumetric heat capacity = 2.35 J/cm-3-K
0.100 0.0003 0.8600 0 Rock/sand thermal conductivity = 2.5833 J/cm-min-K
0.200 0.0004 0.6500 0
0.250 0.0006 0.5500 0 Water thermal conductivity = 0.3715 J/cm-min-K
0.300 0.0013 0.4800 0 Oil thermal conductivity = 0.07986 J /cm-min-K
0.350 0.0024 0.4000 0 Gas (vapour) thermal conductivity = 0.000972 J/cm-min-K
0.400 0.0035 0.2900 0 Thermal conductivity mixing rule: SIMPLE
0.450 0.0060 0.2250 0 Hexane k-value coefficients: KV1 = 1.01E+6 , KV4 = -2697.55 , KV5 = 10
0.500 0.0090 0.1650 0
0.550 0.0140 0.1120 0 Oil critical pressure : 1142 kPa
0.600 0.0200 0.0680 0 Oil critical temperature: 624 K
0.650 0.0300 0.0330 0 Oil molecular weight: 595 g-mol
0.700 0.0500 0.0000 0 Oil density = 1.0007 g/cm3
1.000 1.0000 0.0000 0
Initial test cell temperature = 200C
Sl Krg Krog Pc Initial test cell pressure = 2090 kPa
0.031 1.000 0.0000 0 Injected steam temperature = 2200C
0.050 0.960 0.0001 0 Steam quality = 1.0
0.100 0.900 0.0003 0 Maximum Injector BHP = 2100 kPa
0.200 0.800 0.0008 0 Minimum Producer BHP = 2060 kPa
0.250 0.720 0.0100 0 Maximum steam injection rate = 33.33 cc/min at STP
0.300 0.670 0.0150 0 Maximum hexane injection rate = 5.01 cc/min at STP
0.350 0.590 0.0340 0
0.400 0.523 0.0560 0 Mechanical Dispersivity = 0.024 cm (For all components in all phases)
0.450 0.438 0.0880 0
0.500 0.368 0.1260 0 Molecular diffusion of hexane in oleic phase (i): 0.000250596 cm2/min (Wilke-Chang
0.550 0.308 0.1700 0 correlation)
0.600 0.255 0.2200 0 Molecular diffusion of hexane in oleic phase (j): 0.000250596 cm2/min (Wilke-Chang
0.650 0.197 0.2750 0 correlation)
0.700 0.153 0.3400 0 Molecular diffusion of hexane in oleic phase (k): 0.000250596 cm2/min (Wilke-Chang
0.750 0.113 0.4180 0 correlation)
0.800 0.078 0.5020 0
0.850 0.045 0.5960 0 (Order of 10E-2 greater than oleic. See Nghiem et al. (2001) SPE paper # 66361. Page 4,
0.900 0.010 0.7120 0 Parag. 3)
0.950 0.000 0.8420 0 Molecular diffusion of hexane in vapour (gaseous) phase (i): 0.0250596 cm2/min
1.000 0.000 1.0000 0 Molecular diffusion of hexane in vapour (gaseous) phase (j): 0.0250596 cm2/min
Molecular diffusion of hexane in vapour phase (gaseous) (k): 0.0250596 cm2/min
Viscosity-temperature data
T Oil Vis Hexane Vis
(deg C) (cP) (cP)
10 1692029.65 1.673
25 151774.13 1.486
40 22345.46 1.320
55 4795.29 1.173
70 1375.56 1.042
85 494.73 0.925
100 212.63 0.822
115 105.30 0.730
130 58.43 0.648
145 35.55 0.576
160 23.32 0.512
175 16.27 0.454
190 11.94 0.404
205 9.15 0.359
220 7.26 0.318
235 5.94 0.283
250 4.98 0.251
265 4.27 0.223
280 3.73 0.198
295 3.31 0.176
310 2.98 0.156
325 2.71 0.139
8 SPE 134002

Figure 1: Comparison of steam injection rates

Figure 2: Comparison of injection pressure profiles

SPE 134002 9

Figure 3: Comparison of overburden pressure profiles

Figure 4: Comparison of the quantities of hexane produced in gaseous and liquid phases
10 SPE 134002

Figure 5: Comparison of oil and solvent production rates

SPE 134002 11

Figure 6: Comparison of water production rates

Figure 7: Comparison of oil recoveries (% of OOIP)

12 SPE 134002

HP SAGD HP ES-SAGD (Hexane)

Figure 8: Comparison of temperature distribution at 300 minutes

Figure 9: Comparison of energy consumed per oil recovered (ECR)

SPE 134002 13

Figure 10: Comparison of oil production rates

14 SPE 134002

Figure 11: Comparison of cumulative oil produced

Experimental

Numerical

Figure 12: Comparison of temperature distributions at 200 minutes

SPE 134002 15

Figure 13: Oil saturation distribution at 910 minutes for the multi-pair simulation

Figure 14: Temperature distribution at 340 minutes for the multi-pair simulation

Figure 15: Comparison of CSOR and oil recovery for SP and optimized MP simulations