PETROLEUM SOCIETY

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM PAPER 2007-040

Recovery Performance of Steam-Alternating-

Solvent (SAS) Process in Fractured Reservoirs
A. SUAT BAGCI. O.M.SAMUEL, E. MACKAY
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (58th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 12 – 14, 2007. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract
Steam-Alternating-Solvent (SAS) process is a new
promising recovery process for the production of heavy oils and
bitumen resources. The process is used the advantages of the
SAGD and VAPEX processes. This study presents a numerical
simulation study of SAS process in fractured reservoirs which
involves injecting steam and solvent alternately, and the basic
SAGD well configurations. This simulation study investigated
the effect of steam and alternately solvent injection into the
prototype reservoir model under various reservoir and
operating conditions on oil recovery. Dual and single porosity
and permeability systems for both SAS and SAGD processes
were also investigated. The injection schedule for alternating
steam and solvent injection by running various sensitivities on
fracture orientations, injection schedule, and pressure
differential between injector and producer wells was studied to
investigate the performance of SAS and SAGD processes in
heavy oil reservoirs. Oil production rate for SAS process was
higher than that of the SAGD process. The pumping schedules
for the SAS process showed that the high production was
achieved by injecting steam for a year and solvent for half the
time. Higher injector-producer well pressure differential
showed better productivity compared to a low pressure
differential between injector and producer wells.
Introduction
Heavy oil deposits have being continually developed using
a range of thermal and non thermal recovery processes. For this
type of oil with high viscosities, the location of the oil is known
within the reservoir and all that is needed is an efficient and
economic way to recover the oil.
To recover this heavy oil, it has to be made mobile by
increasing its temperature to reduce its viscosity and also by
injecting a solvent, a light hydrocarbon component to reduce the
interfacial tension of the oil and hence upgrade it to less viscous
oil. These viscosity reduction methods aided by horizontal well
technology enable high oil recovery from heavy oil fields.
Two processes used for the recovery of heavy oil are the:
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage SAGD and the vapour
extraction process VAPEX [1, 2]. The SAGD process uses a
dual well pair with an injector above and parallel to a producer.
Steam is injected into the reservoir via the injector and a rising
steam chamber that also spreads is formed and the steam heats
up the heavy oil. The heated oil and condensed steam both flow
under gravity to the producer below the injector. This process is
in wide use and has a high oil recovery rate though at the
expense of energy usage and hence, CO2 emissions.
The VAPEX process uses a similar well configuration to
that of the SAGD but has vaporized hydrocarbon injected into

1
the reservoir which forms a solvent chamber. At the solvent
chamber boundary, molecular diffusion of the solvent into the
oil takes place and this reduces the oil’s viscosity while
increasing its mobility [3]. The solvent chamber grows and at
the end of the solvent injection process, the reservoir is blown
down and some solvent recovered, more solvent can be
recovered if the oil is stripped of the injected solvent. The oil
production from the VAPEX process may be less than that from
the SAGD process but it uses less energy compared to the
SAGD process. The Steam Alternating Solvent, SAS process is
investigated in this paper and rather than co-inject steam and
solvent, each component is injected separately [4]. This process
tries to combine the advantages of both the SAGD and the SAS
processes. Oil recovery using the SAS process in a dual
(fractured) and single porosity system is compared to the SAGD
process as a base case under different operation conditions
Literature Survey
Canbolat et al. [5] conducted SAGD experiments with and
without CO2 in physical model. It was packed with crushed
limestone premixed with 12.4 ° API heavy oil. It was observed
that for small well separations as the amount of carbon dioxide
increased, the steam condensation temperature and the steam-oil
ratio decreased. The heavy oil became less mobile in the steam
chamber due to lower temperatures. Thus, the heating period
was prolonged and the cumulative oil recovery as well as the
recovery rate decreased. Little or no change in oil recovery and
oil recovery rate was observed for larger well separations
regardless of the fraction of CO2 in the injection gas. Similar
behavior was observed when n-butane was injected along with
steam instead of CO2.
Bagci [6] investigated the effect of horizontal and vertical
fractures and well configurations on the SAGD process in a 3-D
model using 12.4 ° and 18 °API gravity crude oils. A total of
eleven runs were conducted using 30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm
rectangular shaped box model. Temperature distributions, the
rise and growth of the initial steam chamber were observed by
using 25 thermocouples. Three different well configurations
were investigated – a horizontal injection and production well
pair, a vertical injection – vertical production well pair and a
vertical injection – horizontal production well pair with and
without fractures that provided a vertical path through the
horizontal producer for 12.4 °API gravity crude oil. The effect
of fracture orientation (vertical or horizontal) on steam-oil ratio
(SOR) and oil recovery was studied using horizontal well pair
scheme. The experimental results indicated that vertical
fractures improved SAGD. Maximum oil recovery was
observed during the horizontal injection – horizontal production
well scheme with a fractured model, because of the favorable
steam-chamber geometry. Runs showed that the location of the
fractures affects the performance of the process. During the
early stages of the runs, the fractured model gave significantly
higher SORs than those observed in the uniform permeability
reservoir. The fractures were successful in shortening the time
to generate near breakthrough condition between the two wells.
He also used the CMG–STARS thermal simulator was used to
simulate the data from the present SAGD experiments for
fractured reservoirs.
Barillas et al. [7] analyzed the sensibility of reservoir
heterogeneity on oil rate and on cumulative oil, and studied the
influence of vertical permeability on cumulative oil and gas-oil
ratio. Steam was also optimized for some reservoir parameters
such as: heterogeneity, permeability, viscosity and oil thickness.
The barriers between injector and producer wells affected the
2
oil recovery. The presence of barrier located closer to an
injector well increases oil recovery when the steam is
optimized. The steam requirement was largely influenced by the
barriers in the reservoir. Vertical permeability affected largely
oil recovery. When Kv/Kh was lower, cumulative oil production
and oil recovery increased. Parameters such as horizontal
reservoir permeability and oil viscosity showed little influence
on optimum steam rate.
Nasr and Ayodele [8] provided a summary of the hybrid
steam-solvent processes developed at Alberta Research Council,
which include ES-SAGD and thermal solvent hybrid and
provided some laboratory and field examples of these and other
steam-solvent hybrid processes developed in recent years.
Optimization studies of the ES-SAGD using optimization
softwares and field scale numerical simulation with CMG
STARS simulator show that solvent addition to SAGD can
yield lower cumulative energy-to-oil ratios than SAGD, solvent
can reduce the amount of injected steam and produce better oil
recovery and that solvent used in the ES-SAGD process can be
minimized. ES-SAGD laboratory experimental results in
Athabasca illustrate 17-30 % increase in oil production over that
from SAGD, for the same amount of steam injected. This
indicates an improvement in oil-steam ratio (OSR) by the same
magnitude. More importantly, the experimental results indicate
that the time required to produce the same amount of oil in ES-
SAGD could be half that of SAGD. Such accelerated oil
production results in significant increase in oil rates and
reduction (~50 %) in steam requirements.
Deng [3] simulated numerically a hybrid process with
propane and steam co-injected under different operation
strategies. The roles of propane in the hybrid process are
investigated. In this study, propane reduced the viscosity of the
bitumen dissolving into the bitumen along the boundary of the
gas chamber, thus improved the oil recovery. The numerical
simulation showed that part of the propane’s roles in the hybrid
processes was to maintain the reservoir pressure. However, too
much propane injection would do harm than good to the hybrid
processes because it impedes the heat transfer between the
steam and the oil zone.
Zaho [4] proposed and studied Steam Alternating Solvent
(SAS) process using numerical simulation. Field scale
simulations were conducted to assess the SAS process
performance using typical Cold Lake reservoir conditions.
These results suggested that in the field, the oil production rate
of a SAS process could be higher than that of a SAGD process.
The usually higher viscosity of the oil along the chamber
boundary in the SAS process was largely compensated by
higher relative oil phase permeability resulting from higher oil
phase saturation.
Sola and Rashidi [9] investigated an application of SAGD
to an Iranian heavy oil carbonate reservoir with low matrix
permeability. Field-scale 3-D and simulation models were
constructed by using commercial softwares and by thermal
simulators to investigate SAGD performance in this reservoir.
The model was further applied to a fractured system and effects
of fracture and matrix permeability, vertical well spacing
between producer and injector and length of the horizontal
section of the injection well on the performance of SAGD
process were studied. A 1500 ft of horizontal producer well was
selected since it was the one with the best horizontal
length/produced –oil ratio. The optimum distance between the
producer and injector wells is 200 ft in the case of studied
formation. Simulation results showed that SAGD is the best
thermal method for this heavy oil reservoir.
 Rostami et al. [2] studied the vapor extraction (VAPEX)
process in a multiple block, dual porosity fractured system. The
results showed that in low-permeability carbonate reservoirs,
the fracture network provides communications for solvent flow
through which the solvent can flow faster and form solvent
fingers at early stages, which can reach the blocks located at
further distances from injection well. It was found that solvent
breakthrough starts at the same time in both low-permeability
non-fractured system and fractured system. This is because the
solvent flows directly through drained areas towards producer
in both systems.
Azin et al. [1] evaluated the viability of the VAPEX process
for an Iranian heavy oil reservoir according to the reservoir
characteristics. The optimum solvent system to meet the
requirements of the VAPEX process was determined. A
mechanistic model was developed for the study of the VAPEX
process by considering the mass transfer and fluid flow
mechanisms characteristics of the VAPEX process. The model
was further applied to a fractured system and effects of solvent
injection rate, fracture and matrix permeability, matrix to
fracture permeability ratio, and initial viscosity of the reservoir
heavy oil on the performance of the VAPEX process were
studied.
SAGD and SAS Processes in Fractured
Reservoirs
Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is a recovery
process for producing heavy oils and bitumen resources. The
method ensures both a stable displacement of steam and
economical rates by using gravity as the driving force and a pair
of horizontal wells for injection/production. In this process, this
is achieved by drilling a pair of horizontal wells located at a
short distance one above the other. Steam is injected into the
upper well and hot fluids are produced from the lower well.
Figure 1 shows a vertical section through a rising steam
chamber. During the rise period, the oil production rate
increases steadily until the steam chamber reaches the top of the
reservoir. In SAS process, a solvent or a solvent mixture is co-
injected with steam, as opposed to the injection of only steam in
the SAGD process or only in the VAPEX process. Figure 2
illustrates the SAS process concept.
SAGD and SAS processes can be an attractive recovery
processes for many fractured reservoirs (Joshi)[10]. In fractured
systems, thermal conduction allows heat to sweep areas of the
reservoir, which has no contact with steam. In this case thermal
expansion is an important recovery mechanism. After steam
injection, viscosity reduction increases significantly as the heat
migrates to the unswept regions. When compared to
homogeneous systems without fractures, vaporization in
fractured systems takes a longer time. This is mainly due to the
fact that the injected steam flows at a high speed through the
fractures without heating the reservoir matrix (Hoffman and
Kovscek) [11].
Previous experience indicates that, in general, it is difficult
to produce oil from a vertically fractured reservoir using a
vertical well. In addition, many heavy oil reservoirs have very
low steam injectivity. Recent field activities indicate that steam
injection in fractured reservoirs may have economic potential.
Even though injected steam moves rapidly through fractures,
the heat front moves uniformly. These studies have shown that
the rate of oil recovery is enhanced. Results show that heat was
efficiently transferred from injected steam to the reservoir
matrix.
3
Model Description
The model used for this simulation study is a modified form
of the Dual Horizontal Well SAGD model with template
number stfrr003.dat is also a modified properties version of SPE
comparative Solution Project [3]. This model has been modified
to incorporate the model of steam alternating solvent and
compare the oil production with the initial gravity drainage
process using a pair of horizontal well and adding a solvent
component to the existing oil and water components. The
simulation study was done using the CMG`s STARS and
WinProp software.
The reservoir is made of a 75 x 500 x 30 ft grid system with
a horizontal well pair system each 500 ft long. This gives oil-in-
place of 5.8966E+05 bbls. Table 1 shows the other reservoir
and fluid parameters. The WinProp`s generated k-value data for
the PVT analysis is shown in Table 2. Other parameters are the
viscosity-temperature table, Table 3 and the relative
permeability curves for liquid-liquid saturation Figure 3 and
gas-liquid saturation Figure 4.
For the injector, the well is completed over the 500 ft length
of the grid block and operates at a bottomhole pressure of 250
psi as a constraint which is below the maximum pressure value
for the k-value table so that the propane solvent is in the vapour
state. 360.77 oF steam with 70% quality is injected assuming
30% is lost to piping and the bulk rock volume which includes
the overburden and underburden. The maximum water rate is
fixed at 5000 bbls/day and the well is located in block 1, 1, 2.
The producer is completed just like the injector and has a
bottomhole pressure of 154 psi and a maximum stock tank
liquid rate of 5000 bbls/day and also as a constraint, 0.05 bbls
of maximum steam producible per day. The well is located in
grid block 1, 1, 1 and both wells are assumed to have zero skin
and wellbore radius of 0.3 ft.
Sensitivity Studies
Sensitivities run for this project was designed to determine
the effect of the SAS and SAGD processes on oil production for
a dual porosity [12] and permeability system as well as a single
porosity and permeability system under different injection
schedule, fracture orientations and bottom hole pressure.
Fracture Orientation
Three fracture orientations were looked at for the dual
porosity model and oil production for fracture orientation in the
vertical, horizontal and combination of both planes 1.633 ft
apart were investigated. A single porosity model was also
investigated; the scenario was created to determine the effect of
no fractures for the best oil recovery based on pumping
schedule and low and high bottomhole pressure values.
Pumping Schedule for Dual and Single
Porosity System
The sensitivities conducted were done to investigate the
effect of fractures on different pumping schedule for the SAS
processes while the SAGD process involves only steam
injection, hence different schedules were not tried but different
fracture orientations were tried. For the dual porosity, high
pressure system, the PVT data range was increased and hence,
the injector well’s BHP was increased to 700 psi from 250 psi.
The best case scenario based on optimum oil production from
the SAS process was used to investigate the effect of higher
BHP for the injector well. The steam and solvent injection rate
for both cases were kept constant at 5000 bbls/day and the
operating bottom hole pressure for the producer was kept at 154
psi.
The effect of single porosity and permeability on oil
production for both the SAS and the SAGD processes with high
and low injector well pressures were investigated as well as the
effect of high injection pressure, 700psi pressure and high
permeability 2000 mD and low injection pressure 250 psi and
low permeability 50 mD
Results and Discussions
The various sensitivities produced different results for the
SAS process and some of the SAS results were compared to the
SAGD as a base case. The cumulative oil produced, and the
daily oil rate, water injection rate, cumulative water produced
and grid and block pressures were used to compare these
processes. It was observed from this simulation that fracture
orientations show no difference in oil production for the various
injection schedules. This may be expected since the model is
homogeneous because there is no layering or heterogeneities
included in the model. Figure 5 shows the fracture sensitivity
for the SAGD process involving all the fracture types with daily
oil production rate peaking at an average of 20 bbls/day with a
cumulative production of about 22000 bbls at the end of 1095
days. Figure 6 shows the daily oil production rate and the
cumulative oil produced for the SAS process for all the fracture
type. Oil production averaged about 25 bbls/day while the
cumulative oil is about 20, 000 bbls at the end of 1095 days.
For the dual porosity models, the SAS model with the
higher BHP for the injector well shows a higher level of
production for the pressure increment from 250 to 700 psi as
shown in Figure 7. Comparing the high BHP case for the SAS
and SAGD processes as shown in Figure 8, the SAGD process
produces more than the SAS. This may be due to solvent
condensing rather than remaining in the vapour phase.
However, these results show that pressure differential between
injector and producer has an effect on oil production according
to Darcy’s law. For the single porosity SAS model, the high
pressure case has a higher production than the low pressure
although, the permeability is low and for this case, the
cumulative oil production is far less than the high permeability,
2000 mD case. This means that for a thermal EOR process, if
the system is not fractured, it must possess a good amount of
permeability as shown in the results of Figure 9.
Similarly for the SAGD process, the high pressure case is
generally better than the low pressure case and the high
pressure, high permeability case gives the best of all results as
shown in Figure 10.
For all these scenarios, the effect of the pressure differential
between the injector and producer can be seen on oil
production. This is according to Darcy’s law because flow rate
is proportional to Pressure differential. This low pressure
differential affects injection rate and hence steam is not able to
flow and heat up the oil to reduce its viscosity rather, the steam
condenses to water and heat is lost particularly in the single
porosity model where there are no fractures to prevent pressure
build up and hence lack of fluid injection.
Pumping Schedule Analysis
The sensitivities for the pumping schedule are conducted on
a multiple scale. Firstly, a comparison was made for just the
4
vertical fracture type and all the pumping schedules. The
optimum production results from injecting steam for a year and
solvent for half a year. The oil saturation and corresponding
temperature profiles showing the temperature chamber for
different time steps are shown for the one year steam and six
months solvent schedule in Figure 11 to 14. This schedule has a
cumulative production of about 20 000 bbls at the end of the
1095 days.
The out put from the various pumping schedule of the SAS
process is compared to that of the SAGD process as shown in
Figure 15. The figure shows that the SAGD process has a
higher recovery than the SAS process. Initially for the steam
injection periods for the SAS and SAGD process, the oil
production is the same until the introduction of the solvent as
shown in Figure 16. The solvent can not maintain the
temperature in the reservoir like the steam does, this lowers the
oil production rate and hence, the cumulative oil because by this
time the solvent chamber has grown and as a result inhibits heat
transfer to the residual oil, where steam the red region is being
injected behind the solvent and as a result the temperature of the
steam can not directly heat up the oil.
Conclusions
1. The fracture orientation for individual processes show
no difference in production based on this simulation.
2. Fractures may be required in a reservoir to produce
heavy oil economically and if there are no fractures,
the reservoir should have a good permeability
3. There should be an adequate pressure differential
between the injector and producer well as observed
from the different scenario results as pressure
restriction affects production in accordance with
Darcy’s law.
4. The PVT analysis should be conducted for a wide
range of pressure and temperature value so that the
well conditions can fall within the phase envelope for
the reservoir based on the PVT properties.
5. The SAS process requires a means of maintaining the
reservoir temperature while it is injected to be able to
perform as much or more than the SAGD process.
6. Propane may require a commixture to allow it remain
in the vapour state.
7. An appropriate solvent injection rate may be required
to properly compare and evaluate the results for the
two processes.
8. Based on the output, the SAS process will be more
economical and environmentally friendly as a result
of solvent injection.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank CMG Ltd. for using of STARS
software.
REFERENCES
1. Azin, R., Kharrat, R., Ghotbi, C. And Vossoughi, S.
:”Applicability of VAPEX Process to Iranian Heavy
Oil Reservoirs”, SPE Paper 92720, presented at 14 th
SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference,
Bahrain, 12-15 March 2005.
2. Rostami, B., Azin, R. And Kharrat, R. :”Investigation
of the VAPEX Process in High-Pressure Fractured
Heavy Oil Reservoirs”, SPE Paper 97766, presented
at 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and
 Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-3
November 2005.
3. Deng, X. :”Recovery Performance and Economics of
Steam/Propane Hybrid Process”, SPE/PS-
CIM/CHOA Paper 97760, presented at 2005 SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-3 November
2005.
4. Zhao, L. :”Steam Alternating Solvent Process”, SPE
Paper 86957, presented at SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 16-
18 March 2004.
5. Canbolat, S., Akin, S. and Kovscek, A. R. :”A Study
of Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Performance in
the Presence of Noncondensable Gases”, SPE Paper
75130, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 13-17
April 2002.
6. Bagci, A.S. :”Experimental and Simulation Studies of
SAGD Process in Fractured Reservoirs”, SPE Paper
99920, presented at 2006 SPE?DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 22-
26 April 2006.
Table 1. Reservoir parameters.
Reservoir matrix porosity
Reservoir fracture porosity
Reservoir matrix permeability
Reservoir fracture permeability
Reservoir initial temperature
Reservoir reference pressure
Reservoir initial oil saturation
Reservoir initial water saturation
Reservoir initial gas saturation
Over/underburden thermal conductivity
Over/underburden heat capacity
Reservoir thickness
Rock compressibility
5
7. Barillas, J.L.M., Dutra Jr., T.V. and Mata, W.
:”Reservoir and Operational Parameters Influence in
SAGD Process”, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 54, (2006), 34-42.
8. Nasr, T.N. and Ayodela, O.R. :”New Hybrid Steam-
Solvent Processes for the Recovery of Heavy Oil and
Bitumen”, SPE Paper 101717, presented at 2006 Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5-8 November 2006.
9. Sola, B.S. and Rashidi, F. :”Application of the SAGD
to an Iranian Carbonate Heavy-Oil Reservoir”, SPE
Paper 100533, presented at the 2006 SPE Western
Regional/AAPG Pacific Section/GSA Cordilleran
Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 8-10
May 2006.
10. Joshi, S.D. :”A Laboratory Study of Thermal Oil
Recovery Using Horizontal Wells”, SPE Paper 14916,
presented at 1986 SPE/DOE 5 th Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, USA, 20-23
April 1986.
11. Hoffman, B.T. and Kovscek, A.R. ;”Light-Oil Steam
Drive in Fractured Low-Permeability Reservoirs”,
SPE Paper 83491, presented at SPE Western
Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Long
Beach, California, USA, 19-24 May, 2003.
12. Lee, B.Y.Q. and Tan, T.B.S. :”Applicability of
Multiple Porosity/Permeability Simulator in Fractured
Reservoir Simulation”, SPE Paper 16009,
0.28
0.02
50 md
2000 md
75 oF
150 psi
55 %
45 %
0%
24 BTU/ (ft-day-oF)
35 BTU/ (ft-day-oF)
30 ft
0.0005 / psi
 Table 2. Gas-liquid K-value for propane’s solubility in heavy oil.

Pressure psia
Temp
oF 5.0000 100.0000 150.0000 200.0000 250.0000 300.0000
70 3.6189 1.8688 1.8688 1.8688 1.8688 1.8688
110 5.5915 2.8725 1.99 1.5385 1.5385 1.5385
150 7.9799 4.1216 2.8314 2.198 1.8236 1.5579
190 10.724 5.5371 3.8076 2.9431 2.429 2.0936
230 13.705 7.075 4.8592 3.7518 3.0886 2.6483
270 16.949 8.653 5.9426 4.5829 3.7668 3.2237
310 20.159 10.364 7.0754 5.3872 4.4263 3.7841
350 23.432 11.926 8.1808 6.2676 5.1214 4.2852
390 26.602 13.519 9.1581 7.064 5.759 4.89
430 29.59 15.018 10.161 7.7328 6.2754 5.3783
470 32.327 16.39 11.078 8.422 6.8283 5.7656
510 34.757 17.607 11.89 9.0321 7.317 6.1735
550 36.836 18.647 12.584 9.5524 7.7335 6.5208

Table 3. Temperature-viscosity data.

T, deg F / Component Water Heavy oil Propane

70 0 286900 0.0008622
104.286 0 28547 0.002131
138.571 0 4531.9 0.0044421
172.857 0 1026.6 0.008118
207.143 0 305.97 0.013384
241.429 0 113.03 0.020328
275.714 0 49.495 0.028879
310 0 24.832 0.038802
344.286 0 13.906 0.049706
378.571 0 8.5157 0.061071
412.857 0 5.6117 0.072291
481.429 0 2.89 0.091843
515.714 0 2.2158 0.099153
550 0 1.7578 0.10437

6
 Steam flows to
interface and Heated oil
Oil
reservoir condense
to well
Steam
injection Production well
well oil and condensat
are drained continuously

Figure 1. Schematic representation of SAGD process.

Condensed
Vaporized Solvent
Solvent
Steam flows to
interface and Heated oil
Oil
reservoir condense
to well
Steam
injection Production well
well oil and condensat
are drained continuously

Figure 2. SAS Process Concept.

7
 Figure 3. Liquid-liquid relative permeability curve. Figure 4. Gas-liquid relative permeability curve.

Figure 5. Cumulative oil and daily oil production rate for the Figure 6. Cumulative oil and daily oil production rate for the
SAGD process SAS process.

8
 Figure 7. Cumulative and daily production rate for low and Figure 8. Cumulative and daily production rate for SAS
high pressure SAS process. and SAGD process.

Figure 9. Cumulative oil production for single porosity model Figure 10. Cumulative oil production based on pumping
for the SAS process. schedule for the SAS process.

9
 Figure 11. Oil saturation after 1 year steam injection. Figure 12. Temperature profile after 1 year steam injection.

Figure 13. Oil saturation after the last 6 months of solvent Figure 14. Temperature profile after the last 6 months of
injection. solvent injection.

10
Figure 15. Cumulative oil produced for the SAS process Figure 16. Daily oil production comparison for the SAS and
compared to the SAGD process. SAGD processes.

11