CSUG/SPE 136665

Viscoisty of Foamy Oils

A.B. Alshmakhy, SPE, Weatherford Laboratories; B.B. Maini, SPE, University of Calgary

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19–21 October 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CSUG/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

Foamy oil viscosity is a controversial topic among researchers as to what happens to the apparent oil viscosity when the dispersed
gas bubbles start migrating with the oil. For conventional oils, below the true bubble point pressure, the oil viscosity increases as
the gas freely evolves from the oil. For foamy oils, it has been suggested that the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersion
remains relatively constant, or perhaps declines slightly between the true bubble point and a characteristic lower pressure, called
pseudo bubble point, which is the pressure at which the gas starts separating from the oil. Below this pressure, the viscosity
increases, reaching the dead oil value at atmospheric pressure. However, it is a well known fact in dispersion rheology that the
viscosity of dispersion is higher than the viscosity of the continuous phase. Therefore, the concept of foamy oil viscosity being
lower than the oil viscosity is counterintuitive. The major difference here is the extreme viscosity of the base liquid phase for foamy
oil and how this interacts with the gas phase in a porous medium. The reported results appear to be very oil specific in this area,
and are also a very strong function of how rapidly pressure is depleted in a given system. It is also likely that the apparent
viscosity for flow of foamy oil in porous media is not the true dispersion viscosity due to the size of dispersed bubbles being
comparable to the pore sizes.
This study aims to investigate this issue by measuring the foamy oil viscosity under varied conditions. The effect of several
parameters, such as shear/flow rate, and gas volume fraction and type of viscometer employed, on foamy oil viscosity was
experimentally evaluated. Three different viscosity measurement techniques, including Cambridge viscometer, capillary tube as
well as a slim tube packed with sand, were used to measure the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersions. The results show that
the type of measuring device used has a significant effect. The results obtained with Cambridge falling needle viscometer correlate
better with the observed behavior in the slim tube than the capillary viscometer results. Also, unlike live oils, the apparent
viscosity of foamy oils was flow rate dependent. Overall, the viscosity of foamy oil was found to be similar to live oil viscosity for a
large range of gas volume fraction.

Introduction

Heavy oil rheological studies are important for understanding oil production and transport. In general, the flow properties of heavy
oils are still not fully characterized. Often, when oil is produced, water and gas are also produced leading to a much more complex
fluid mixture. Among the rheological issues that have not been well studied, the foamy oil rheology is a prime example. This
research aims to systematically examine the foamy oil flow properties.

In reservoirs, a thermodynamic equilibrium is usually established between the lightest components (i.e. methane, ethane…)
dissolved in oil and the liquid phase. The amount of dissolved gas in live oil is proportional to the partial pressure and can be
described by Henry’s Law:
p = Hi y
2 CSUG/SPE 136665

Where Hi is Henry’s constant for the solute gas i in the solvent liquid, y is the mole fraction of the gas phase, and p is the partial
pressure of gas (Heidemann et al., 2005). Henry’s constant is a function of temperature and it must be obtained from experimental
data.

Depressurization occurs when oil is extracted from a reservoir to wellhead. Equilibrium governed by Henry’s law no longer holds
and the live oil still containing the original amount of dissolved gas becomes supersaturated at the reduced pressure. It then
attempts to get rid of the excess dissolved gas. This leads to bubble nucleation and growth, changing the fluid composition and
flow properties. In light oils, bubbles coalesce quickly resulting in segregated flow (Taitel, 1986; Henriot et al., 2002) while in
heavy oils bubbles tend to remain dispersed in the viscous liquid giving the produced oil the appearance of “chocolate mousse.”
which is largely referred to as foamy oil (Smith, 1986; Maini et al., 1993). This foamy oil phenomenon is believed to be linked to
higher production rates and/or higher oil recoveries than expected from conventional reservoir theories (Smith, 1986; Huerta et al.,
1996). In Canada, such production rates are also linked to sand production while in Venezuela, foamy oil flow appears to be the
dominant factor with much lower sand production rates, if any (Mirabal et al., 1996). Also, foamy oil behavior has been
successfully controlled by altering pumping scenarios to achieve higher recoveries in Albania (Weatherhill et al., 2005).

In an attempt to understand what links foamy oil behavior to higher production rates, several theories have been postulated. One of
them considers that the formation of non-aqueous foams retards the formation of a continuous gas phase and thus dramatically
increases the apparent trapped gas saturation (Maini et al., 1993). This provides a natural pressure maintenance mechanism and
leads to higher recoveries of original oil in place. The bubble formation can also be seen as a natural “gas lift” process that
enhances fluid rise in the well. Other theories suggest that live oil viscosity is lower in the presence of dispersed bubbles which
enhances fluid mobility in well and reservoir. For instance, a theory suggests that asphaltenes move from the live oil to the surface
of bubbles which was partially confirmed later on asphaltene-toluene/air interface (Bauget and Lenormand, 2001). This reduction
in the asphaltene content in live oil reduces the live oil viscosity (Claridge and Prats, 1995). However, different experimental
studies suggest either an increase or a decrease in the apparent oil viscosity in the presence of bubbles (Bora, 1998; Fisher et al.,
1999; Goodarzi et al, 2005; Islam and Chakma, 1990; Albartamani, 2000). Thus, the effect of dispersed bubbles on heavy oil flow
properties in porous media is still debated. Based on the perceived importance of the phenomenon, a detailed and comprehensive
understanding of the governing parameters is needed to develop improved commercial applications. Both experimental and
analytical studies are required to resolve this issue.

Experiment
As mentioned earlier, the foamy oil viscosity determined from laboratory experiments and resulting correlations are controversial.
Also, a comprehensive study of foamy oil rheology that addresses the role of various foamy oil characteristics has not been
reported. In this work, we addressed this gap in current knowledge by examining the effect of different parameters, including dead
oil viscosity, live oil viscosity, solution gas oil ratio, free gas volume fraction in the foam and average size of gas bubbles on
foamy oil viscosity. Therefore, a series of experiments was performed with different techniques using a crude oil at different
conditions.

The heavy oil had viscosity of 2700 cp, density of 0.9297 g/cc at 30 oC (Measured by Anton-Paar) and composition listed in Table
1. The oil was clean and had a basic sediment and water (BSW) of 1%. The live oil made by recombining the crude oil with
methane at 500 psi and room temperature of 21.5 oC had a gas oil ratio of 9.7 m3/m3.

Table 1: Composition of dead-oil.

Boiling Point Component Chemical Mole Mass Calculated Properties

(F) Name Symbol Fraction Fraction

-320.4 Nitrogen N2 0.0000 0.0000 Total Sample

-109.3 Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0000 0.0000
-76.6 Hydrogen Sulphide H2S 0.0000 0.0000 Molecular Weight 393.04
-259.1 Methane C1 0.0000 0.0000
-128.0 Ethane C2 0.0000 0.0000
-44.0 Propane C3 0.0000 0.0000 C6+ Fraction
10.9 i-Butane i-C4 0.0000 0.0000
30.9 n-Butane n-C4 0.0000 0.0000 Molecular Weight 393.30
CSUG/SPE 136665 3

82.0 i-Pentane i-C5 0.0007 0.0001 Mole Fraction 0.9992

97.0 n-Pentane n-C5 0.0001 0.0000 Density (g/cc) 0.9315
97 - 156 Hexanes C6 0.0030 0.0007
156 - 208.9 Heptanes C7 0.0063 0.0016 C7+ Fraction
208.9 -
258.1 Octanes C8 0.0153 0.0045
258.1 -
303.1 Nonanes C9 0.0201 0.0066 Molecular Weight 394.32
303.1 - 345 Decanes C10 0.0231 0.0084 Mole Fraction 0.9959
345 - 385 Undecanes C11 0.0290 0.0108 Density (g/cc) 0.9318
385 - 419 Dodecanes C12 0.0348 0.0142
419 - 455 Tridecanes C13 0.0474 0.0211 C12+ Fraction
455 - 486 Tetradecanes C14 0.0453 0.0219
486 - 519.1 Pentadecanes C15 0.0423 0.0222 Molecular Weight 431.18
519.1 - 550 Hexadecanes C16 0.0343 0.0194 Mole Fraction 0.8758
550 - 557 Heptadecanes C17 0.0336 0.0203 Density (g/cc) 0.9392
557 - 603 Octadecanes C18 0.0366 0.0234
603 - 626 Nonadecanes C19 0.0362 0.0242 C30+ Fraction
626 - 651.9 Eicosanes C20 0.0318 0.0222
651.9 - 675 Heneicosanes C21 0.0297 0.0220 Molecular Weight 722.73
675 - 696.9 Docosanes C22 0.0283 0.0220 Mole Fraction 0.3178
696.9 - 716 Tricosanes C23 0.0253 0.0205 Density (g/cc) 0.9985
716 - 736 Tetracosanes C24 0.0242 0.0204
736 - 755.1 Pentacosanes C25 0.0234 0.0206
755.1 - 774 Hexacosanes C26 0.0217 0.0198
774.1 - 792 Heptacosanes C27 0.0209 0.0199
792.1 -
809.1 Octacosanes C28 0.0197 0.0195
809.1 - 826 Nonacosanes C29 0.0224 0.0229
Above 826 Tricontanes Plus C30+ 0.3178 0.5843

NAPHTHENES

120.0 Cyclopentane C5H10 0.0003 0.0001

162.0 Methylcyclopentane C6H12 0.0018 0.0004
178.0 Cyclohexane C6H12 0.0050 0.0011
214.0 Methylcyclohexane C7H14 0.0080 0.0020

AROMATICS
176.0 Benzene C6H6 0.0003 0.0001
231.1 Toluene C7H8 0.0032 0.0007
Ethylbenzene & p,m-
277 - 282 Xylene C8H10 0.0022 0.0006
291.9 o-Xylene C8H10 0.0019 0.0005
1, 2, 4-
336.0 Trimethylbenzene C9H12 0.0039 0.0012
Total 1.0000 1.0000

The experimental program included viscosity measurements using three different techniques including electromagnetic
viscometer, capillary tubes and slim tubes. The viscosity measurements are used to develop a better understanding of foamy oil
rheology.
4 CSUG/SPE 136665

Experimental Set-Up
To address the potential effect of measuring device on foamy oil viscosity, three different viscometers, including a capillary
tube, a sand-packed slim tube and a Cambridge Electromagnetic viscometer, were used. A schematic diagram of the later is shown
in Figure 1. The capillary tube set-up, including a small visual cell, is shown in Figure 2. The basic principle of the
electromagnetic viscometer is that the travel time of a falling object (piston) is proportional to the fluid viscosity, the more viscous
the fluid, the slower the motion. The piston motion is triggered by activation and deactivation of the upper and lower coils. The
total two-way travel time is an accurate measure of the fluid’s absolute viscosity (centipoises) to within a ±1% specification
(www-users.rwth-aachen.de, 2009). The Capillary tube and the sand-packed slim tube allowed for a continuous viscosity
measurement utilizing Poiseuille’s law and Darcy’s law respectively.

The live oil was prepared in a gas mixer where oil and gas were recombined. The oil was maintained under a constant pressure
of the gas (methane) and sheared. The gas dissolves in oil until the system reaches the equilibrium given by Henry’ law. Mixing
was very important during the process, the better the mixing, the faster the system’s approach to thermodynamic equilibrium.
Using a helix rotor, in the gas mixer, this process was several days long. The live oil was considered saturated when the pressure in
the mixer stabilized. The amount of dissolved gas in oil was measured using a separator and remained constant once the
equilibrium had been reached at the target pressure and temperature.

Figure 1: Schematic of the electromagnetic viscometer (inline) (www-users.rwth-aachen.de, 2009)

CSUG/SPE 136665 5

EMV
Pump

Slim Tube

Blind Vessel
Viscosity Tubes

BPR BPR
Visual Cell

Transfer Vessel

 
Pump

Figure 2: Schematic of the viscometer set-up

Experimental Procedure
As mentioned earlier, the apparent viscosity was measured using three different viscometers: Cambridge electromagnetic
viscometer (EMV), slim tube and capillary viscometers. The viscosity was measured at different flow rates (e.g. low at 2 cc/hr and
high at 10 cc/hr). Besides flow rate, other parameters were also varied.

Viscosity Measurement with EMV

A schematic of the experimental set-up proposed for viscosity measurement with the Cambridge viscometer is shown in Figure
2. The live oil was stored in the transfer vessel. The single-phase status was maintained by setting the upstream BPR at the
saturation pressure plus 5%. Dead oil was initially stored in the transfer vessel and used for adjusting the pressure in the
viscometer and also to discharge the air initially occupying the system. To allow visual monitoring of flowing oil, a windowed cell
was placed just after the viscometer. The pressure in the viscometer was controlled by a back pressure regulator (BPR)
downstream of the viscometer. The test fluid (dead oil, live oil or foamy oil) flows from the transfer vessel into the viscometer
driven by the injection of hydraulic fluid from a positive displacement pump. The pressure in the oil vessels and the BPRs’ is read
by accurate pressure gauges. All experiments were conducted at room temperature of 21.5 oC. The temperature in the EMV
viscometer was maintained by a cooling bath.
6 CSUG/SPE 136665

Measurement of Dead Oil Viscosity

After the system had been flushed with sufficient amount of dead oil to expel air/gas from the apparatus, dead oil viscosity
measurements were initiated. If required, the dead oil vessel was refilled. The viscosity was measured continuously at different
pressures set at the downstream BPR.

Measurement of Live Oil Viscosity

Live oil viscosity measurement was carried out at different saturation pressures ranging from 500 psi to near atmospheric
pressure. To perform viscosity measurements, the live oil sample was allowed to equilibrate in the vessel for approximately 12-24
hours at room temperature (21 ± 0.7 oC) and the pressure at which the experiment was to be performed. The desired pressure at
which the viscosity measurement was performed was obtained by setting the pressure in the downstream BPR. The pressure in the
live oil vessel was then momentarily increased by using the upstream pump (at different flow rates) until a sufficient amount of
sample was transferred from the live oil vessel to the viscometer. Viscosity measurements were taken for sufficiently long period
of time (e.g. 2-3 hours) to confirm that there was no evolution of a gas phase and that the readings taken at different times were all
consistent. The pressure in the live oil vessel was vented to the next lower saturation pressure and the system was allowed to
equilibrate for several hours at the reduced pressure. The experiment was then repeated at the new pressure.

Measurement of Foamy Oil Viscosity

One of the main objectives of this work was to compare the viscosity of foamy oil with those of live oil and dead oil to
determine whether there is anything anomalous in the viscosity behavior that could play a significant role in the production
behavior of foamy oils. The live oil vessel was maintained above the saturation pressure of the oil and gas mixture by setting the
upstream BPR at the required pressure (+ 5%). The downstream BPR was set at the desired pressure and oil from the live oil vessel
was made to flow through the viscometer. The reduction in pressure in going from the live oil vessel to the viscometer induced
release of solution gas and generated a foamy dispersion. The pressure was reduced in steps, at different flow rates, until
atmospheric pressure was reached. The viscosity of foamy dispersion flowing through the viscometer was monitored continuously
during the flow.

Capillary Viscometer

A schematic diagram of the capillary viscometer set-up is shown in Figure 2. The capillary viscometer set-up consists of high-
pressure capillary tube having about 5 m length and 0.3175 cm outer diameter, a 1300 cc transfer vessel at the upstream and a
1000 cc blind vessel at the downstream, positive displacement pumps, and a visual cell. Pressure drop along the capillary tube was
measured using a differential pressure transducer (Rosemount).

Measurement of viscosity with the capillary viscometer requires simultaneous measurement of pressure drop and flow rate
through the capillary under steady-state flow conditions. The pressure drop can be monitored continuously with the differential
pressure transducer. However, the measurement of flow rate is more difficult due to transient evolution of dissolved gas during the
flow. It is relatively easy to set the flow rate of live oil upstream of the capillary tube but it leaves large uncertainty in the flow rate
of foam passing through the capillary.

In this work we attempted to solve this problem by setting the flow rate at both ends of the tube using constant injection rate at
the upstream end and a constant withdrawal rate at the downstream end with help of a constant rate pump that withdraws water
from the downstream blind vessel.

Calibration

The capillary viscometer constant was determined using an oil of known viscosity. The tube constant, k, is derived from
Poiseuille’s equation describing laminar flow in tubes which is given by:

μ = Δp/Q (πr4 /8L) = k * Δp/Q

CSUG/SPE 136665 7

Where μ is the fluid viscosity, Δp is the pressure drop across the capillary tube of length, L, and radius, r, and Q is the
volumetric flow rate. Several flow rates were used to produce a reliable k value.

Having determined the instrument constant, k, the viscometer was ready for foamy oil viscosity measurements.

Viscosity Measurement with Capillary Viscometer

Before a viscosity measurement the capillary tube and the lines connecting it to the transfer vessel were filled with dead oil.
Live oil was then injected at constant rate to displace the dead oil and the live oil viscosity was measured by making the live oil
flow through the capillary tube at different flow rates and measuring the resulting pressure drop across the tube. The pressure at
the downstream end was maintained higher than the saturation pressure using a BPR to ensure single phase flow.

For measuring the foamy oil viscosity, the flow at the downstream end was diverted to the water containing blind vessel from
which water was withdrawn at constant rate. The downstream end flow rate was increased while keeping the upstream flow rate
constant, thus forcing a known expansion of the fluid through the capillary tube. Steady-state pressure drop was measured under
this condition. Subsequently the downstream flow rate was increased to impose greater expansion through the tube. The foamy oil
viscosity was calculated using the downstream flow rates. This procedure was repeated with the EMV viscometer.

Viscosity Measurement with Slim Tube Viscometer

Similar to the capillary tube viscometer, a slim tube packed with sand was utilized in these tests. A 19 mm outer diameter tube
of 30 cm length was packed with silica sand (100-140 mesh). It was used to compare the viscosity measured in the capillary tube
with effective viscosity in porous media.

Results and Discussion

Figure 3 shows the pressure drop across the capillary tube as a function of gas volume fraction in foamy oil. The upstream flow
rate of live oil was kept constant at 2 ml/hr. Figure 3 indicates an increase in pressure drop as gas volume fraction was increased.
The foam viscosity calculated using the downstream flow rate is presented in Figure 4. It shows that the apparent foam viscosity
decreased with increasing fraction of gas phase in the dispersion (foam quality). Unfortunately, it was not possible to visually
examine the size of dispersed bubbles in the downstream window cell due to the opaque nature of the heavy oil.

Figure 3: Pressure drop for crude oil

8 CSUG/SPE 136665

Figure 4: Foamy Oil Viscosity

 

EMV was used for dead oil viscosity measurements over a wide range of pressure and constant temperature. The crude oil
viscosity was measured at room temperature of 21.5 oC and pressures from 500 psig to 0 psig using pressure increments of 50 psi.
Experimental results are presented in Figure 5; showing the effect of pressure on viscosity. There is a moderate increase in
viscosity with pressure. At 21.5 oC the viscosity varied less than 10% when pressure was decreased from 500 psi to atmospheric
pressure. Live oil viscosity at 500 psi was also measured at different flow rates. As shown in Figure 6, the live oil viscosity was
independent of flow rates up to 10 cc/hr. Capillary and slimtube viscometer showed similar results.

o
Figure 5: Crude Dead Oil Viscosity at 21.5 C
CSUG/SPE 136665 9

o
Figure 6: Live Oil Viscosity at 21.5 C

Some of the viscosity data, including live oil and foamy oil viscosities, measured with the EMV at different flow rates are
presented in Figure 7. In general, the viscosity was found to be essentially independent of flow rate with some minor shear
thinning effects at higher flow rates. Low flow rates simulate very close behavior to equilibrium condition resulting in viscosities
similar to those measured for live oil at static condition. Also, under lower flow rates, there is enough time for the gas phase to be
separated from oil leaving behind only the solution gas allowed by thermodynamic equilibrium. At higher rates, however, there
may not be enough time for the gas phase to separate from the oil. This results in apparent mild non-Newtonian effect.

Measurements by early investigators have shown foam to behave as a non-Newtonian fluid at high gas volume fractions of 70 to
96% (Marsden and Khan, 1966). However, such foams have effective viscosity much higher than the continuous phase viscosity.
In the current measurements, the apparent viscosity of foamy oil is very close to the continuous phase (live oil at test pressure)
viscosity. It strongly suggests that the flow-through electromagnetic viscometer is allowing gas to fully separate from the oil,
especially at small flow rates. Therefore, these measurements may not be representative of the dispersion viscosity.
10 CSUG/SPE 136665

Figure 7: Effect of flow rate and gas phase on foamy oil viscosity

Figure 8: Foamy oil viscosity

Figure 8 shows the viscosity results using the controlled expansion approach. The results indicate a stable foamy oil viscosity for
low gas volume fractions. This foamy oil viscosity was very close to live oil viscosity at the initial saturation pressure of 500psi.
This is in agreement with Bora et al who concluded that viscosity of gas-oil dispersion is close to live oil viscosity (Bora et al,
1998). As the gas comes out of solution due to expansion, the liquid phase viscosity should increase and theoretically the
dispersion viscosity should be higher than the liquid phase viscosity. Yet, the viscosity measured by the EMV shows no increase
until higher expansions. It strongly suggests that there may be a delay in the release of gas and the viscometer sees only
supersaturated oil. Higher supersaturation needed to initiate bubbly flow may be responsible for the stable viscosities observed at
low expansions. However, at higher gas volume fractions, foamy oil viscosity increases. Comparison of viscosity trends for both
CSUG/SPE 136665 11

EMV and capillary viscometers show that the viscosity values of the later are always below EMV values. Similar observations
with capillary and rotational viscometers were reported by Huerta et al. (1996).

Slim tube tests showed generally similar results to EMV experiments as illustrated in Figure 9. This test showed essentially a
constant viscosity of about 1700 cp at low gas volume fractions, then an indication, only one point was recorded, of viscosity rise
at higher expansions. At very high expansions, stable differential pressures were not possible to achieve.

The viscosity measured by the slim tube reflects the effects of two-phase flow in porous media. The liquid phase mobility
decreases as gas is released while the gas mobility increases. The total mobility appears to remain nearly constant at lower
expansion rates. These observations are similar to Huerta et al. (1996).

The unstable pressures observed at higher expansions may be explained by the mechanisms of coalescence and expansion of
smaller bubbles leading to larger bubbles and ultimately to free gas and re-establishment of dispersed flow by release of new
bubbles or breakup of existing large bubbles. The unsteady pressure readings were also observed in depletion tests conducted by
Alshmakhy and Maini (2009). Better agreement of Cambridge viscometer was also observed by Albartamani with the observed
behavior in a PVT cell (Albartamni, 2000).

In summary, EMV and slim tube viscometers led to similar viscosity behavior at low foam qualities (less than 40%). The behavior
showed stable viscosity of about 1700 cp up to a maximum foam quality of about 40%. Above this point, stable differential
pressures were not possible to record in the slim tube while an increasing viscosity trend was observed in the EMV.

Figure 9: Foamy oil viscosity

Conclusions

From the results obtained from these experiments the following conclusions could be drawn:

1. The type of measuring device used has a significant effect on foamy oil viscosity measurements.

2. With live oil samples, viscosity was independent of flow rate (i.e. shear rate) with all of the three viscometers.
12 CSUG/SPE 136665

3. Viscosity of foamy oil, using Cambridge EMV and slim tube, was found to be similar to live oil viscosity for a large

range of gas volume fractions.

4. The capillary viscometer results were different from the other two viscometers.

5. Measurements with the capillary tube viscometer show a decreasing viscosity trend as foam quality increases.

6. Slim tube appears to be the best option for measuring the apparent viscosity for reservoir engineering applications.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge research funding provided by NSERC and Weatherford Laboratories. The contribution of Paul
Stanislav in setting up the equipment is also acknowledged.

Nomenclature

BPR = Back-Pressure Regulator

cc = cm3
scc = Standard cm3

References

Albartamani, N. S. (2000) “Experimental Studies on "Foamy Oil" Phenomena,” PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Bauget, F., Langevin, D., and Lenormand, R. (2001) “Dynamic Surface Properties of Asphaltenes and Resins at the Oil–Air Interface,” Journal
of Colloid and Interface Science, 239[2], 501-508.

Bora, R. (1998) “Cold Production of Heavy Oils: an Experimental Investigation of Foamy Oil Flow in Porous Media,” PhD thesis, University of
Calgary, AB, Canada.

Claridge, E. L. and Prats, M. (1995) “A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Foamy Heavy Oil Behaviour,” SPE 29243 presented at
the International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 19-21.

Fisher, D. G., Espidel, J., Huerta, M., Randall L. and Goldman J. (1999) “Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Tool for the Study of Foamy
Oil Behaviour for an Extra-Heavy Crude Oil,” Transport in Porous Media, 35 189-204.

Goodarzi, N. N.,; Bryan, J., Mai A. and Kantzas, A. (2005) “Heavy-Oil Fluid Testing with Conventional and Novel Techniques,” SPE 97803
presented at the International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB, Canad, November 1-3.

Heidemann, R. A., Ayodeji A. J. and Mohtadi F. (2005): An Introduction to the Properties of FLUIDS and SOLIDS, The University of Calgary
Press, Calgary.

Huerta, M., Otero, C., Rico, A., Jimenez, I, de Mirabal, M. and Rojas, G. (1996) “Understanding Foamy Oil Mechanisms For Heavy Oil
Reservoirs During Primary Production,” SPE 36749 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference Denver, Colorado, USA, October
6-9.

http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/Eike.Welk/visco/Viscometer/online-and-inline-viscometers.html, May 5, 2009.

Islam, M. R. and Chakma, A. (1990) “Mechanics of Bubble Flow in Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” SPE 20070 presented at 60th Annual Regional
Meeting, Ventura, California, April 4-6.

Maini, B. B., Sarma H. K. and George A. E. (1993) “Significance of Foamy Oil Behaviour in Primary Production of Heavy Oils,” Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 32, No. 9, p. 50-54, November.
CSUG/SPE 136665 13

Mirabal, M. De, Gordillo, R., Rodriguez, H. and Huerta, M. (1996) “Impact of Foamy Oil Mechanism on the Hamaca Oil Reserves, Orinoco
Belt, Venezuela,” SPE 36140 presented at the 4th Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, April 23-26.

Marsden, S.S. and Khan, S.A.:"The Flow of Foam Through Short Porous Media and Apparent Viscosity Measurements," Society of Petroleum
Engineering Journal, March 1966, pp. 17-25.

Smith, G. E. (1986) “Fluid Flow and Sand Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs under Solution-Gas Drive,” SPE 15094 presented at 56th
California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Oakland, California, USA, April 2-4.

Taitel, Y. (1986) “Stability of Severe Slugging,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 12(2): 203-217.

Henriot, V., Duret E., Heintze E. and Courbot A. (2002) “Multiphase Production Control: Application to Slug Flow,” Oil & Gas Science and
Technology, 57(1), 87-98.

Weatherhill, B. D., Seto, A. C., Gupta, S. K. and Cobo, L. (2005) “Cold Heavy Oil Production at Patos,-Marinza, Albania,” presented at SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB, Canada.