SPE 138934

A New Inflow Model for Extra-Heavy Crude Oils: Case Study Chichimene
Field, Colombia
F. Guarin Arenas and C.A. Garcia, Ecopetrol; C.A. Diaz Prada and E. Cotes Leon, Corporacion NATFRAC; and
N. Santos, Universidad Industrial de Santander
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Lima, Peru, 13 Dec 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

Chichimene field is a heavy oil field located in the little deformed sector known as the "foreland 'basin plains of Colombia.
This field is located in Castilla La Nueva in the Meta Department in the east part of the country. Chichimene field was
discovered by Chevron in 1969 with the drilling of Chichimene-1 well (CH-1), but it only started production in 1.985. Since
2.000 Ecopetrol S.A has been in charge for field operation.
Chichimene field produces a medium crude oil (approximately 20 API) from cretaceous structures named K1 and K2, In
2.001 an extra heavy crude oil (range between 7 9 API) from a terciary (T2) formation named San Fernando started
production with the CH-18 Well. Despite of the high density presented, the T2 crude oil is mobile at reservoir conditions due
to an abnormally elevated reservoir temperature
The interest formation corresponds to an elongated northwest direction tertiary anticline layer, the crude oil discovered in this
structure is extra-heavy produced by severe biodegradation and evaporative fractionation processes, the depositional model is
associated to a distal marine Cretaceous rock. Nowadays the San Fernando formation produces about 14,000 BOPD using
electric submersible pumps (ESP) as artificial lift method.
This paper reviewed the conditions of the reservoir (petrophysical model, PVT properties, Oil, water and gas production
behavior), the physical property of the produced fluids and fluid characteristics of foamy oil properties, to establish an
appropriate mathematical expression for modeling the performance of these extra-heavy oil wells.

Introduction

The target proposed by ECOPETROL S.A for extra heavy crude production in the San Fernando (T2) formation is quite
ambitious; therefore the production development plan was defined to contribute with 100,000 barrels per day to the overalls
company production at the end of 2.011. To scale up this production levels, it is expected to complete 40 kbopd from T2
due to the incorporation of 50 new wells tin 2.010. The development plan will be completed in 2.011 with the drilling of 84
new wells. At the end of this drilling campaign it is expected to complete a total of 145 new wells including 11 wells drilled
in 2.009. The development plan contemplates a distribution of wells in the field as follows (Figure 1):
The formation of interest (San Fernando) is located at an average depth of 7900 feet, making it one of the deepest extra-heavy
oil reservoirs in the world. To develop this field petrophysical and fluid models have been made to understand the behavior
of the reservoir. Production data show a behavior of this crude oil with the characteristic of foamy oil as several authors have
reported in areas in Canada and Venezuela
2 SPE 138934

Fig. 1 Planned Chichimene Field T2 formation development wells Distribution

The depositional model for the formation T2 Chichimene field, and the was developed petrophysical study of the reservoir
was developed by ECOPETROL (N Tyler et al. Tyler, 2010). The Chichimene field has abundant core information, hence to
develop the study the existing cores from Chichimene T2 (San Fernando) formation were evaluated. Where used Cores for
wells CHSW3, CH22, CH25, CH27, CH28 and CH29. See Figure 2.

Fig. 2. Chichimene wells with core information.

The depositional and petrophysical analysis in the field showed that there are four types of rocks, which impact the formation
flow capacity. These rock types are associated according to the permeability of the reservoir as follows:

RT_1: K>2 Darcies
RT_2: 200<K<2000 Milidarcies
RT_3: 100<K<200 Milidarcies
RT_4: 5<K<100 Milidarcies

Relativity permeability curves were done in laboratory in order to establish the porous media flow permeability for liquid
phase. Figure 3, Shows relative permeability curve for CH- 22 well.

In addition to the petrophysical model, in this study foamy Oil theory was incorporated for the analysis of the fluid, along
with correlations for calculation of PVT properties developed for heavy and extra heavy crude Oils. Foamy Oil theory has
been studied by several authors for some years to now. A study conducted by Sahni et al , found that in PVT tests analysis
developed constant volume depletion for heavy and extra heavy crude, the mechanism of gas in solution in heavy crude Oils
is a no equilibrium process. That means that the gas release during production stages is neither complete, nor instantaneous
as is the case of normal black oil reservoirs. This trapped gas behavior in the oil, impacts the rheological properties of the oil
and the volumetric properties of Bo and Rs. These results were confirmed later by Benion et Al in 2001 and in 2005 Kantza
et Al.

SPE 138934 3
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
K
r

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
WaterSaturation(Fraction)
RelativePermeabilitiesCH22
Krw Kro
BasePermeability =4.629mD

Fig 3. Relati ve permeability curve for CH- 22 well.

This specific behavior of gas in the foamy oil crude type, promotes an increase in the productivity of these reservoirs,
compared with common type solution gas reservoirs. Kamp et al conducted a work to check the effect of trapped gas in the
viscosity and density variables governing equations of fluid flow in porous media.

Methodology Used

The methodology used is as follow:

1. PVT data quality control
2. Evaluation of PVT Modeling equations.
3. Fitting of PVT information.
4. IPR models evaluation with production data.
5. Outflow validation

PVT Evaluation

According to the characteristic of the fluid one of the most important challenges that have guided this work has been on the
hydraulic fluid properties characterization. Various calculation models were used in order to obtain the best fit of the data
obtained from performed PVT analysis. Two fluids studies have been developed in this field, the first study was done in
2.006 and corresponds to a surface fluids sample in the CH-18 well. Subsequently a new sample from bottom well fluid was
analyzed for the CH-26 well in 2.009. Results of the analysis made to both samples of crude oil are shown in the Figure 4.


PVT data quality control

Based on the PVT obtained for crude oil from San Fernando (T2) formation, results shown that gas solubility and viscosity of
oil obtained from the two PVT tests are quite similar and have not significant variation, however the behavior of formation
volume factor and oil density are higher in the sample taken from surface (well CH-18) that the sample obtained bottom hole
(well CH-28). In order to be rigorous in the fluid analysis, the PVT obtained from the bottom hole sample was taken to
validate the fluid correlations. This sample was considered more representative of the original fluids conditions of T2
formation.

4 SPE 138934
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
O
i
l
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
(
c
p
)
Reservoir Pressure (Psia)
PVT Data : San Fernando Crude Oil Viscosity
PVT CH18
PVT CH28
0,950
0,955
0,960
0,965
0,970
0,975
0,980
0,985
0,990
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
O
i
l
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
g
r
/
c
c
)
Reservoir Pressure (Psia)
PVT Data : San Fernando Crude Oil Density
PVT CH18
PVT CH28
1,02
1,03
1,04
1,05
1,06
1,07
1,08
1,09
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
F
V
F
(
r
e
s
B
B
L
/
S
T
B
)
Reservoir Pressure (Psia)
PVT Data : Formation Volumetric Factor San Fernando Crude Oil
PVT CH18
PVT CH28
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
R
s

(
S
C
F
/
S
T
B
)
Reservoir Pressure (Psia)
PVT Data : Gas Solubility San Fernando Crude Oil
PVT CH18
PVT CH28

Fig 4. PVT data Wells CH-18 and CH- 26

PVT modeling equations

In this study we used several models for characterization of fluid properties (PVT), these models included conventional
correlations to calculate properties of black oil, also correlations developed in order to calculate the properties of heavy and
extra heavy crude were used (De Ghetto et al , 1995). Finally a model to characterize Foamy Oil PVT was evaluated
(Romero et al, 2001). Figure 5 show the results of PVT modeling with different correlations.

622,68,3
414,47,3
64,25,7
15,8,3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
R
s
a
t
1
8
6

F
,
P
C
/
B
L
Pressure,psi
GasSolubility(Rs)P<Pb
Measured Standing
Vzquez Glaso
TOTAL Kartoatmodjo
AGIP TOTALADJ
1515, 1,042
1315, 1, 044
915, 1,048
622, 1, 052
414, 1,042
64, 1, 026
15, 1,020
1,01
1,02
1,03
1,04
1,05
1,06
1,07
1,08
1,09
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
F
V
F
a
t
1
8
6

F
,
B
l
/
S
T
B
Pressure,psi
OilFormationVolumetricFactor(FVF)Bbls/STB
Measured Standing
Vzquez Glaso
TOTAL Kartoatmodjo
3314, 469
3000, 460
2500, 444
2000, 424
1500, 408 1000, 394
700, 385
622, 380
500, 454
300, 587
100, 728
15, 795
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
a
t
1
8
6

F
,
c
p
Pressure,psi
DynamicOilViscosity
Medido Beal
Vzquez Kartoatmodjo
Chew Beggs
Kartoatmodjo AGIP
FoamyVisc

Fig 5. PVT properties calculated with different correlations
SPE 138934 5

The results of the evaluation of the different models showed that in the case of extra-heavy crude from the San Fernando
Formation (T2) Chichimene field, the correlation proposed by TOTAL, was the one that best fits variables as Formation
Volumetric Factor (o), Solution Gas (Rs), Bubble Pressure (Pb) with the real data obtained for the fluid analysis of CH-26
Well. In the case of Viscosity, Chew and Conelly correlation gave the best results.

Foamy Oil PVT modeling Equations

Several authors have been working on modeling of Foamy crude Oils. In this work review of several models was done, in
order to establish the most appropriate model to work with the San Fernando crude Oil. The work done by Romero (Romero
et al, 2001), based on a methodology to determine the extra-Fluid thermodynamic characterization of the Orinoco belt, was
selected.

The equations applied to modeling the foamy oil behavior were defined according to the pseudo-bubble pressure theory,
which require adjust of the (K-values) to determine the equilibrium between gas and oil phases in order to represent the
stability of solution gas. K values at different pressure were calculated from CH-26 PVT data. Gas chromatography and
simulated distillation information were load in a computacional model developed in the software ASPEN HYSYS
TM
. Peng
Robinson Equation of state (EOS) was used to obtain equilibria conditions. The obtained phase envelope of the live crude oil
can be seen in Figure 6.


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
400 200 0 200 400 600 800
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)
Temperature(F)
PhaseBehaviorLiveSanFernando Crude Oil
BubblePoint
DewPoint

Fig 6. Phase Envelope San Fernando Crude Oil.

IPR prediction models

Different analytical, empirical and semi-analytical models have been proposed to determine the behavior of inflow (IPR) in
wells where gas and oil flowing together, In the case of two-phase flow where the flowing pressure is below the bubble point
pressure it is recommended to use quasi-analytical or empirical models. Of these models the most widely known is the
Vogel IPR model (Vogel et al, 1968). Vogel's model for multiphase flow has a parabolic shape, compared with Darcy single-
phase flow model that presents a linear behavior. In the Vogel model the IPR curve can be generated, taking the maximum
flow rate (Qo max), the average reservoir pressure (reservoir or static) and a pair of bottom hole pressure and flow rate at
this condition.

Fetkovich, (Fetkovich, 1973) based on Vogels work derived an equation that relates the flow to a quadratic function of
pressure, based on the pseudosteady state theory, and assuming the existence of a linear relationship to model the mobility of
oil in the reservoir. Later Klins (Klins, 1.993) presented an equation based on the Vogels work, in this equation there is a
new parameter that most be calculated based on the flowing pressure and the buble pressure. Recently Choi (Choi Suk et al,
2008) presented a comparison study of different analytical models developed by different authors for the determination of the
IPR in vertical and horizontal. The following table shows the different models that have been developed for different flow
conditions, geometry and / or disposition of the well. Table 1.

6 SPE 138934

Table 1. Comparison of analytical models for calculation of IP / IPR (Choi Suk et al, 2008)

Recent works have been developed for heavy oil applications. The authors Gasbarri et Al (Gasbarri et al, 2.009) developed a
modification to the adjustment term in the Vogel model, applied to the heavy crude Oils in the Orinoco Belt. On the other
hand Kumar (Kumar & Mahadevan, 2.008) performed a theoretical study of the IPR in which they involve the influence
foamy crude oil heavy crude in the development of an analytical productivity index model (IPR) for heavy crude oils based
on Darcy's law.

For the development of this work Darcy, Vogel, Klins and Gasbarri models were selected to evaluate the performance of the
inflow of extra heavy oil wells applied to fit a model of IPR in the case of San Fernando(T2). crude Oil. All the methods
used in this study were based in the form of the Vogel method. Vogel method is based on dimensionless equation that relates
the well flow capacity as function of a V parameter with the bottom hole flowing pressure and the reservoir static pressure.
The parameters for Vogel model are V =0.8 and n =2.

The equation form is as follows:



Where :
Q
o
=Actual Oil or Liquid flow
Q
omax
=Maximun flow at P
wf
=0, also denominated AOF.
P
wf
=Bottom Hole flowing pressure
P
R
=Reservoir Static Pressure
V and n are parameters for each model

Vertical Flow Correlation

In order to validate the most appropriated model to predict the behavior of San fernando Extra Heavy crude Oil (T2), with
real production data, a computational model that predicts inflow and tubing outflow performance was developed in
commercial software. According with a production log test (PLT) run in CH-15 well, the Oil, gas and produced water data
acquired from CH-15 well, as well as, the information recorded from the ESP artificial system, Pump Intake Pressure (PIP),
Tubing Head Pressure (THP), Production Rate (Ql), Well Static Pressure (Pws), were used to adjust a computational model
in the Nodal Analysis Software PIPESIM
TM
.

Discussion of Results

In order to validate results obtained with different IPR models used in this work, one set of production data from wells of San
Fernado formation were available, also production log test (PLT) run in November of 2.009 to the CH-16 well. Figure 7
presents the results of calculating IPR for wells in different field locations with the selected models.

Results shown what is expected in a Extra heavy crude oil, related with a linear behavior in the zone where bottom flowing
pressure (Pwf) is above the bubble pressure, under bubble pressure; models shown diverse performance. Gasbarri model
presents good fit when water content is high, in cases where the water content is low, there is a particular behavior in the
SPE 138934 7
model because the curve concavity trends upward, this trend does not seems physically feasible based in the fact that the
crude oil at this conditions must be in a two phase zone. Based on the relative gas and crude oil permeabily, the expected
effect causes a reduction in the liquid production opposite that the Gasbarri model calculates. Table 2. Shows production
data from some T2 (San Fernando) Wells.

0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
B
o
o
t
o
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)
QL(BPD)
InflowPerformanceWellCH18
PwfCalc
Gasbarri
Vogel
Klins&Clark
Darcy
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
B
o
o
t
o
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)
QL(BPD)
InflowPerformanceWellCH22
PwfCalc
Gasbarri
Vogel
Klins&Clark
Darcy
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
B
o
o
t
o
m
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
s
i
a
)
QL(BPD)
InflowPerformanceWellCH2
PwfCalc
Gasbarri
Vogel
Klins&Clark
Darcy
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
B
o
o
t
o
m
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
s
i
a
)
QL(BPD)
InflowPerformanceWellCH5
PwfCalc
Gasbarri
Vogel
Klins&Clark
Darcy

Fig 7. Inflow performance with selected models

Well API
Reservoir
Pressure (psia)
Qo (BPD) Qw (BPD) Ql (BPD) BSW Pwf (psia)
734 22 756 3% 2.131
693 22 715 3% 2.128
802 35 837 4% 2.233
802 35 837 4% 2.233
978 62 1.040 6% 2.060
1.526 594 2.120 28% 472
376 1.928 2.304 84% 1.039
356 1.714 2.070 83% 1.031
386 1.619 2.005 81% 997
335 1.621 1.956 83% 1.018
254 2.289 2.543 90% 495
584 506 1.091 46% 1.945
584 507 1.091 46% 1.749
383 734 1.117 66% 1.687
458 1.534 1.992 77% 493
840 73 913 8% 1.937
769 23 792 3% 1.837
736 15 751 2% 1.936
1.522 269 1.790 15% 485
3242 8,6 CH-2
Wells Tests Production Data
CH-18 9 3430
7,8 3080 CH-22
3200 8 CH-5

Table 2. Wells test production data.
8 SPE 138934

In the next table, the maximum fluids production at open flow (AOF) defined when the bottom hole flow pressure (Pwf) is
equal to zero, was calculated. The results were as follows:

Darcy Vogel Klins & Clark Gasbarri
CH-2 2.501 2.416 2.175 2.622
CH-5 3.061 2.956 2.657 2.904
CH-18 2.304 2.231 2.022 2.256
CH-22 2.143 2.067 1.848 2.251
Calculated AOF (BFPD)
Well

Table 3. AOF Calculated for different IPR Models.

Using multivariable optimization and linear regression techniques models, the IPR models used in this study were adjusted to
tune the production data, using least square model, results are shown in the next table.

Gasbarri
Gasbarri Mod
IPR Model
Least Squares
Model
22.168
292
Vogel
Vogel Mod
Klins & Clark
Klins & Clark Mod
1.879
1.701
5.428
1.806

Table 4. Models Error comparison with Least squares model .


According with the error calculation method, Gasbarri original model presented the highest deviation respect to the real data,
and Vogel model was the model that shown the less error respect the original production data, nevertheless when a
multivariable optimization technique is used to tune the V parameter in each model, the results obtained from this tunning
shown that the Gasbarri method can be better ajusted than other IPR methods. In table 4 Gasbarri modificated model
presented a dramatical drop in comparison with Vogel and Klins and Clark modificated methods. In Figure 8, a crossplot
between calculated and real production data with the different models is shown.


0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
Q
L
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
(
B
P
D
)
QLReal(BPD)
QLPredictedvsQLRealCrossplot
Gasbarri GasbarriMOD
VogelNormal VogelMod
Klins&Clark Klins&Clarkmod

Figure 8. Production data comparison with different models

To incorporate into a predictive IPR behavior model of wells in the field Chichimene, a relationship between petrophysical
properties of the formation and physical fluid properties and petrophysical was proposed.

Based on the Gasbarri model a new term related with relative permeability (K
ro
), physical properties of the fluid (o, o) and
the net pay of the production zones in the well was incorporated.
SPE 138934 9

Gasbarri Original model is established as follows:



V factor is defined:


And the terms are:






Where:

WC =Water Fraction
API =API gravity
P
wf
=Bottom hole flowing pressure
P
B
=Bubble Pressure
PR =Reservoir Static Pressure
Qo max =Maximum flowrate at AOF.


The proposed new model based on the Gasbarri model, for extraheavy crude oils in the Chichimene Field, San Fernando
Formation, incorporates the term Kh* [K
ro
/(
o

o
)] in the V factor calculation , where

K =Base permeability (md)
H =Net pay in the well. (fts)
Kro =Oil relativy permeability (md)
o = Viscosity (cp)
o =Formation volumetric factor

Therefores the new V factor is:



And the terms are:









The proposed model was tested compared with other models and it gaves better match with the production data. In Figure 9
there is a comparison between original and modified models respect to the proposed T2 model. There is a issue that must be
consider relating to the term, because it was specifically obtained for the fluid and petrophysical properties of the San
Fernando (T2) Formation, so for applications in other fields it must be recalculated in order to avoid miscalculations.


10 SPE 138934
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Gasbarri Gasbarri
Mod
Vogel VogelMod Klins&
Clark
Klins&
ClarkMod
T2Model
L
e
a
s
t

S
q
u
a
r
e
s

M
o
d
e
l

Figure 9. Models comparison with least squares method.

Validation of the model competence to predict the behavior of San fernando Extra Heavy crude Oil (T2) production, with real
data, was developed a computational model in commercial software in order to predict inflow and tubing outflow
performance. Information from fluids production, and the information recorded from the ESP artificial system, (Pump
Intake Pressure (PIP), Tubing Head Pressure (THP), Production Rate (Ql), Well Static Pressure (Pws)), that information was
introduced into a model in the Nodal Analysis Software PIPESIM
TM
. Table 5 shows information feed in the PPESIM
model.

Reservoir
Formation T2
Pws(psia) 3012
Temperature(F) 172
IP(BPD/psi) 0.93
ArtificialLiftSystem
PMP(ft) 7794
Intake(ft) 4494,76
PumpManufacturer Centrilift
Model P23
Hz 60
Stages 164
FluidModel
API 9,8
Viscosity@150F(cp) 4000
Viscosity@180F(cp) 1100
BFPD(Bbl) 908
BOPD(Bbl) 893
BWPD(Bbl) 15
GasKPC 505
WaterS.G 0,9756
GasS.G 0,765
Cutwater 2,00%
GOR(SCF/STB) 565,0
MeasuredData
THP(psia) 52
PIP(psia) 1116
WHT(F) 100
Table 5. Information for PIPESIM modeling of CH-16 Well

SPE 138934 11
Finally, a Productivity Index (PI) map for the T2 formation was obtained with this new Model , Figure 10 presents the PI
map.


Figure 10. Productivityt Index map obtained with the T2 model.


Conclusions

A new model was defined to be applied in the San Fernando Formation (T2) Chichimene oil field, based on the
model proposed by Gasbarri. The results of the mathematical validation of the model with production data,
presented an error less than that obtained with the original model proposed by Gasbarri.

PVT data and petrophysical properties were incorporated to the model developed in this study in order to obtain a
particular model for the San Fernando (T2) Formation

Several PVT correlations were used in order to simulate the fluid proerties, in the particular case of San Fernando
Crude Oil, the results of the evaluation of the different models showed that in the case of extra-heavy crude from the
San Fernando Formation (T2) Chichimene field, the correlation proposed by TOTAL, was the one that best fits
variables as Formation Volumetric Factor (o), Solution Gas (Rs), Bubble Pressure (Pb) with the real data obtained
for the fluid analysis of CH-26 Well. In the case of Viscosity, Chew and Conelly correlation gave the best results.


References

1. BEGGS H. D., Production Optimization using NODAL Analysis. OGCI Publications.
2. BENION, B et AL. Predicting Foamy Oil Recovery. SPE 68860, Califormia, 2001
3. CHOI SUK et Al, A comprehensive study on analitycal PI / IPR Correlations, SPE 116580, Denver 2008.
4. KAMP, A. M. et Al. Modeling Foamy Oil in Porous Media. International J ournal of Multiphase flow, 2002.
5. KANTZAS, A et AL. Novel Techniques for Measuring Heavy Oil fluid properties. SPE 97803, Alberta, 2005
6. R. KUMAR et Al., Well performance relationships in heavy foamy oil Reservoirs SPE 117447. Calgary Alberta,
2008.
7. ROMERO D et AL. Thermodynamic Characterization of a PVT of Foamy Oil, SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium, SPE 69724 Margarita Island, Venezuela March, 2001,
8. S. GASBARRI et AL , Inflow predictions for heavy crude Oils, SPE 122292, Cartagena, LACPEC 2009.
9. SAHNI, A ET AL. Experiments and analysis of Heavy Oil Solution Gas Drive. SPE 71498, New Orleans, 2001.