PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2005-194

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Optimal Solvent and Well

Geometry for Production of Heavy
Oil by Cyclic Solvent Injection
J. QI, M. POLIKAR
University of Alberta

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys 6th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (56th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 7 9, 2005. 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
The Vapor Extraction (VAPEX) process has been proposed
as a viable alternative to steam-based heavy oil recovery
methods. In this process, a vaporized solvent is injected into a
horizontal well placed higher in the formation, and the diluted
heavy oil is produced by gravity drainage from a horizontal
production well situated below. One shortcoming of this
process is the slow diffusion of the solvent into the bulk of the
oil.
The mass transfer mechanism in the VAPEX process
involves molecular diffusion and convective dispersion within a
porous medium at a microscopic scale phenomena that are
not well understood. In this study, we are proposing an
alternative method to VAPEX. Instead of directly injecting the
vaporized solvent and producing oil, cyclic solvent soaking is
applied to a heavy oil reservoir in order to maximize the mixing
time between the solvent and the heavy oil.
In this paper, the most effective solvent mixture, which must
be in its gaseous phase and also close to its dew point pressure
under the prevailing reservoir conditions, is determined using a
1)
swelling test, built in the Winprop ( model. The solvent mixture
is then verified by comparing different solvent compositions
using thermodynamic simulations. The optimal soaking time for
a certain amount of injected solvent is also examined by
analyzing the effect of viscosity and the produced gas-oil ratio
(GOR) on the performance of the process. Consequently,
optimal values for the number of cycles of solvent injection, the
soak time and the amount of back production based on the
optimal soaking time, is determined.
The influence of well geometry on oil recovery is also
considered here. Properly positioning the horizontal injectors
and producers can enhance significantly the overall oil
production rate.
Introduction
Currently, the economic extraction of viscous heavy oil is a
major challenge in the petroleum industry. To deal with this
problem, Butler and Mokrys (2) have proposed the concept of
injecting light hydrocarbon solvent into the reservoir (VAPEX)
as an alternative to Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).
This approach is especially beneficial for thin pay zone
reservoirs where the heat losses to the over- and under-burden
have a negative impact on the economics of such processes. The
VAPEX process does not require water recycling and treatment,
yields much lower carbon dioxide emissions and can be
operated at reservoir temperature. The capital and operational

1
costs are estimated to be much less than those of a SAGD
project (3).
The concept of VAPEX is very similar to that of SAGD. In
VAPEX, a vapor chamber, rather than a steam chamber, is
formed around the horizontal injector, and the diluted oil flows
by gravity towards the producer. The principal mechanisms in
this process are quite complex. Toluene, as a solvent, has been
observed, in an experiment (4), to extract Athabasca and Suncor
coker feed bitumen from a Hele-Shaw cell. In those
experiments, the solvent-bitumen contact region is composed of
a frontal layer bounded by two different, sharp solvent
concentration layers. In the contact region, the vapor finger
displaces the frontal layer, and the solvent within the frontal
layer drains partially by dissolution and partially by diffusion,
into the oil.
Many simulations (5,6,7), based on the laboratory scale, have
been conducted to investigate asphaltenes precipitation and
solvent dispersion phenomena by using STARS (8). Most such
simulations used porous media having permeabilities of 6 Darcy
or greater. However, simulations using field scale values for
permeability have yet to be undertaken.
As is well known (9), the solvent has to be injected in its
gaseous phase, and it has to contain some liquid phase so that
the contact interface between the heavy oil and the solvent can
be enlarged, and so that the viscosity of the heavy oil can be
reduced effectively. This places very strict limits on permissible
reservoir operating conditions. Thus finding an effective light
hydrocarbon solvent mixture is crucial to the proper design of a
successful project.
Because conventional solvent injection is a slow process,
which involves molecular diffusion (10) and convective
dispersion (11) within the porous medium, we propose that
solvent soaking be applied, as an alternative, to promote more
effective dilution. Through compositional simulations the
optimal soaking time could be obtained based on the selected
injection rate and the predetermined solvent mixture.
A properly designed well geometry (12) is also very helpful
in maximizing the effectiveness of solvent soaking for the
recovery of heavy oil. Different well spacing configurations
have been tested with the aim of finding the best well locations.
This paper will first introduce the reservoir model used in
this simulation study and then describe the methodology applied
for determining solvent composition, optimal soaking time, and
well spacing. Results of the simulations will then be presented
and discussed.
Properties of Reservoir Fluids
Characteristics of the Oil
The reservoir fluid used for this study was obtained by
recombining stock tank oil (Lloydminster type) with methane.
The viscosity and density of the dead oil at saturation pressure
and room temperature were 12,895 cp and 984.2 kg/m3,
respectively. The API gravity of the oil was measured to be
12.27 API. It has been shown (7) that, injecting a solvent into a
moderately viscous oil is more effective in reducing viscosity
than with a more viscous heavy oil. Therefore, 15 sm3 of
methane per standard cubic meter of oil was added to the dead
oil prior to the PVT experiments. The resulting saturation
pressure for the mixture was measured to be 4068 kPa at 21oC,
and after flashing to standard conditions, a final GOR of 14.5
sm3/sm3 was obtained.
An extended analysis has been undertaken in order to
1)
characterize the C7+ fractions. Using the Winprop ( model, the
heavy end components of the reservoir fluid were split into
three pseudo-components using a two-stage exponential
2
distribution function. Seven pseudo-components, including the
light ends, were used to characterize the fluid composition in
the simulator (see Table 1). The initial reservoir fluid
composition is then compared with the produced oil in a later
section to demonstrate the alteration of composition during
solvent soaking.
Equation of State (EOS)
It is very important to tune the equation of state to be used
in the simulator with the experimental data so that the phase
behavior of the reservoir fluid and the solvent mixture under
consideration could be more accurately predicted.
The Peng-Robinson Equation of State (1) was tuned by
matching some of the following experimental PVT (13) data:
differential liberation, saturation pressure, density and viscosity
of the reservoir fluid at different pressures. A modified
Pederson state model (1) was chosen as the correlation to
compute the viscosity of the heavy oil. After tuning the EOS,
the calculated oil viscosity at saturation pressure was found to
be 2883 cp, which is very close to the experimentally
determined value of 2941 cp.
2-D Simulations
Reservoir Description
2D simulations were run using the compositional simulation
model GEM (14). A Cartesian grid block system was employed
to construct the reservoir model. (see Table 2). The reservoir
depth was 450 m with a reference pressure of 4076 kPa. A
homogeneous reservoir system with a porosity of 33% and a
horizontal permeability of 2 Darcy was employed. The vertical
permeability was 1 Darcy. The initial water and residual oil
saturations were 0.25, and the irreducible oil saturation at the
gas-liquid interface was 0.2. The Stone II model (14) was used to
generate the relative permeability curves.
Well Configuration
Two horizontal well pairs were used to produce the oil from
the reservoir. The horizontal distance between the two well
pairs was 80 m, and the vertical separation distance between the
horizontal injector and producer was 5 m for the base case
(Figure 1). This vertical distance arose from a drilling design
perspective, where 5 m is the minimum achievable distance for
drilling horizontal well pairs. Both of the injectors were located
at layer 12 and the producers were located at layer 17. The
overall horizontal well length was set equal to the dimension of
the j direction, which was 600 meters.
Solvent Injection Rate Determination
Generally, the solvent injection rate should be designed
based on the final results of an economic analysis, and in this
analysis the net cumulative solvent oil ratio (NCSOR) (15) is one
of the main economic evaluation criteria. Later on, the NCSOR
value is reported as a reference for evaluating the three
simulation cases. On the other hand, since solvent injection is
an extremely high-pressure process, in order to prevent the
reservoir from being fractured, the pressure distribution profile
throughout the reservoir during the whole process needs to be
monitored, which in turn limits the solvent injection rate.
Different solvent injection rates, ranging from 2000 to 4500
m3/day, were tested and compared in the simulation work. The
simulation results indicated that, within this range, the higher
the solvent injection rate, the more enhanced the cumulative oil
production rate. However, because of pressure constraints, an
injection rate of 4500 m3/day was found to be appropriate. At
this injection rate, the prevailing pressure during the whole
process was around 6000-7000 kPa, which is acceptable based
on a formation fracture pressure of 10,000 kPa.
Solvent Selection
The determination of the most effective solvent mixture is
extremely important for designing a successful solvent-based
heavy oil recovery process. The solvent mixture has to satisfy
the following critical principles under the reservoir conditions:
it must contain sufficient vapor phase to fill the cavity chest; it
must contain enough liquid phase to dissolve in the viscous oil
and dilute it, resulting in a saturation pressure of the solvent
mixture being close to the prevailing reservoir pressure; the
solvent dissolving into the heavy oil should have a low
viscosity, preferably below 100 cp, which is the maximum
viscosity constraint for producing the heavy oil to the surface.
The tool used in this paper for searching for the most
effective solvent mixture is the swelling test, built into the
Winprop (1) model. Different solvent mixtures, containing C1,
C2 and C3 at different mole fractions, were tried in order to find
out the best one. Finally, a solvent composition of 40% C1 and
60% C3 was selected by considering the operating pressure
range of 6000-7000 kPa when injecting at 4500 m3/day. (see
Figure 2). The figure shows the saturation pressure of the
solvent, and the reservoir fluid mixture is computed to be
around 6500 kPa at a 50% solvent concentration (mole
fraction). This satisfies the solvent criterion described above,
whereby the solvent mixture, while being in its gaseous phase,
was nearly a liquid.
Optimal Soaking Time
Based on the most effective solvent mixture and the
predetermined injection rate, 3-month, 6-month and 9-month
injection cycles were considered, followed by a soaking period
before production. For each injection cycle, the corresponding
optimal soaking time was determined as follows. The soaking
time can be neither too long nor too short. If this time is too
long, production is delayed; and if it is too short, the solvent
does not fully dissolved into the heavy oil.
The optimal soaking time for each injection cycle, at a fixed
injection rate of 4500 m3/day, was found by examining the
viscosity and GOR profiles for each injection period. Different
soaking times were selected for each of the three injection
periods. The optimal soaking time will result in the most
effective viscosity reduction and the lowest GOR. This
procedure will also be applied later to the cyclic solvent
injection simulations.
3-Month Injection Case
For the 3-month injection case, the viscosity reduction
profiles at one of the production wells are compared for no
soaking, 2-month, 3-month and 4-month soaking times in
Figure 3. In this figure, time zero indicates the start of injection.
The critical soaking time for a given injection cycle is defined
as the time when the viscosity of the oil is reduced to less than
100 cp during the production phase.
For the case where no soaking took place, the viscosity did
not reach the constraint of 100 cp until 8 months into the
production phase, and then increased as production proceeded.
It can be seen that, during the longer soaking times, lower
viscosities were obtained in the long term. Thus, the optimal
soaking time, for a 3-month solvent injection, was determined
to be the 3-month soaking time. This result can be ascertained
by analyzing the GOR profile in Figure 4. The GOR increases
quickly during the early stages of production, and declines after
3
reaching a peak value. The no soaking case gave the highest
peak GOR value, which means that more of the injected gas
was produced rather than dissolved in the oil, as compared with
the other three cases. The longer soaking times give the lowest
peak GOR values. The results for the 3-month and 4-months
soaking times were very close to each other. We therefore
selected the 3-month soaking time as the optimal choice.
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the viscosity reduction
of the heavy oil occurs instantaneously if the concentration of
the solvent is large enough at the production well. This
phenomenon has been observed in previous work (7). The
amount of solvent required for this depends on the time it takes
for it to be transported over the 5 m distance that separates the
injection from the production well.
6-Month Injection Case
Similarly, for the 6-month solvent injection case, Figure 5
shows the viscosity profile over time. It looks similar to the 3-
month injection case, with a disturbance (spike) in the middle
part of the figure. This may be caused by asphaltenes
precipitation, but needs to be investigated further. As more
solvent has been injected into the reservoir in this case, the time
at which the 100 cp level is achieved is about two months
earlier than in the 3-month injection case.
An 8-month soaking time resulted in a lower long-term
viscosity as compared with the 6-months soaking time. and a
similar long-term viscosity to the 10-month soaking time.. Also,
the GOR profile shown in Figure 6 indicates that an 8-month
soaking time is better than a 6-month soaking time and that it is
very close to a 10-month soaking time. Therefore, an 8-month
soaking time was determined as the optimal soaking time for
the 6-month solvent injection case.
The cumulative production rate can be used as another way
to determine the optimal soaking time. In Figure 7, the
cumulative oil production at the end of 10 years of operation
(injection-soak-production) is compared to illustrate how much
oil can be produced for different soaking times. As can be seen
in Figure 7, the longer the soaking period is, the higher the
cumulative oil production is.
The no soaking and 6-month soaking cases, which resulted
in the lowest cumulative amounts of production, had similar
amounts of cumulative productiont. The difference between the
6- and 8-month soaking times was around 450 m3, which was
greater than the difference between the 8- and 10- month
soaking cases. This is another confirmation that the 8-month
soaking time is the optimal soaking time for the 6-month
solvent injection case.
9-Month Injection Case
In the 6-month and 9-month solvent injection cases, as can
be seen in Figure 8, the viscosity profiles exhibit similar
behavior. The viscosity spike is more pronounced than in the
previous case where the soaking time was longer. It might have
been easier for the asphaltenes to precipitate, because this
phenomenon only occurs (7) when the solvent reaches, at
reservoir conditions, a high enough concentration. The 10-
month soaking time gave a better overall solvent performance in
this case. The GOR profile in Figure 9 supports the same
conclusion as the viscosity profile. In addition, by examining
the cumulative production profiles (Figure 10), it can be
inferred that the 10-month soaking time was the optimal
soaking time for the 9-month solvent injection case.
In conclusion, the optimal soaking times for the 3-, 6- and 9-
month solvent injection cases were found to be 3, 8 and 10
months, respectively.
Cycle Design The proportion of propane and methane left in the reservoir
during the cyclic injection process can be calculated by
The main principles of the cyclic steam injection strategy
(16) deducting the cumulative molar production from the cumulative
were applied to the cyclic solvent injection. Accordingly, the
molar injection. In Case 1, most of the injected methane was
injection, soak and production periods for each cycle have to be
produced at the end of the production period. Because the
designed properly in order to maximize the oil production. The
recombined oil contains a high GOR ratio (14.5 sm3
production time following each cycle can also be determined by
methane/sm3 oil), part of the produced methane came from the
analyzing the production decline curves.
original reservoir fluid. Because propane has a dew point
In order to study the effect of solvent soaking on heavy oil
pressure of around 850 kPa at room temperature and is in a
viscosity reduction and oil production enhancement, three
liquid form at reservoir conditions, most of the propane
cases: were run numerically. Case 1 had 3 cycles without any
dissolved in the heavy oil. About 38 % (Case 2) and 35% (Case
soaking time between the solvent injection and oil production
3) of the propane and 46% (Cases 2 and 3) of the methane were
phases, whereas Cases 2 and 3 had 3 and 4 cycles, respectively,
left behind in the reservoir. Therefore, these gases were either
with soaking between the solvent injection and the oil
dissolved in the reservoir fluid or remained as a gas phase in the
production phases. The three cases of solvent injection are
porous medium
presented in Table 3. Case 3 was designed to improve on the
At the end of the production period, a compositional
performance of Case 2.
analysis was conducted for Case 3 in order to determine the
various phases of the produced reservoir fluid (see Table 5).
During this process, most of the injected propane dissolved into
Simulations Results the reservoir fluid. Hence, the mole fraction of propane
increased significantly from 0.008% to 9.56%. In addition, he
mole fraction of both the intermediate and heavy end
Comparison of Three Cases components increased due to the liberation of methane.
The simulation results of the three cases, using GEM (11),
were compared, on the basis of equivalent production period Molecular Diffusion Effect
(10 years) and equivalent solvent injection rates, using monthly
production profiles, cumulative production profiles, and GOR The molecular diffusion effect was studied by using the
profiles. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of Sigmund correlation built into GEM (14). Due to the lack of
soaking time on solvent recovery performance. experimental data for the molecular diffusion coefficient for this
The monthly production profiles show (Figure 11) three particular solvent mixture, the Sigmund correlation was not
cycles for each case. The first cycle of Case 3 is not obvious accurate enough in predicting the effect of molecular diffusion
because the solvent injection rate is too small to affect the of propane into the oil phase. However, because molecular
reservoir oil. Comparing the three cases, one can see that the diffusion is such a slow process as compared with convective
smaller soak time cases produced sharply declining curves and gas dispersion at the field scale, its effect on oil production can
the oil production started earlier. The larger soak time cases be assumed to be negligible. Therefore, molecular diffusion was
showed oil production curves with a slower decline rate and taken to have very little effect on the production rate (see Figure
with the oil production beginning at a later time. 143).
By comparing the cumulative production profiles (Figure
12), one can see that Case 2 produces 1,523 m3 more oil and Sensitivity Analysis of Well Spacing
case 3 produces 3,141 m3 more oil than Case 1, in a 10-year
The vertical distance between the horizontal injector and the
production scenario. This confirmed that proper design of
horizontal producer was selected as a parameter to investigate
soaking time gives the best results and increases the cumulative
the effect of well spacing. Cases using spacings of 4, 5, 6 and 7
production significantly. However, the soaking time of the
m were run, and they are compared in Table 6. A well spacing
solvent delays oil production by an equivalent time. Therefore,
of 6 m gave the best result: it improved the total cumulative oil
an economic analysis should be performed for these three cases
recovery by nearly 3100 m3 over the worst case. A properly
to determine which one is the most cost effective.
selected well spacing allows the diluted oil to be drained
The GOR profile (Figure 13) looks similar to the daily
efficiently by gravity towards the production well. If the well
production profile. Once again, Case 1 has the sharpest curve
spacing is too small, the contact area between the solvent and
and the highest GOR value. Comparing the second cycle for the
the oil is reduced; On the other hand if the well spacing is too
three cases, Case 1 has a peak GOR value of around 190
large, the concentration of solvent, per unit area, distributed
sm3/sm3; and Cases 2 and 3 a value of around 150 m3/m3. In
along the length of the production well is insufficient. As a
Case 1, most of the injected gas was produced together with the
result, well spacing has a significant effect on the overall oil
oil because no soaking was considered. Soaking may
production performance.
significantly reduce the GOR value and sustain the production
The influence of the horizontal distance between the two
for a longer period of time. This demonstrates that soaking
horizontal well pairs was also examined in this study. A
helps the solvent to diffuse effectively though the oil, thus
horizontal distance of 40 m enhances the cumulative production
reducing its viscosity more efficiently.
by 735 m3 as compared to a horizontal distance of 80 m well
The net cumulative solvent-oil ratio (NCSOR) value was
distance. The horizontal distance had less impact on the
calculated for each case using the results obtained for the
performance of the production as compared with the vertical
volume of cumulative oil production, and for the volumes of
distance between the horizontal injector and producer.
cumulative gas injection and gas production. The NCSOR
This study only considered two horizontal well pairs for the
results are presented in Table 4.
size of reservoir considered. More well pairs and therefore a
Case 3 has the lowest NSCOR value of 0.118, and Cases 1
closer well spacing is required to efficiently develop this
and 2 have values of 0.126 and 0.130, respectively. This
reservoir. A 2-D simulation image for the cyclic solvent
indicated that a better designed solvent cyclic soaking strategy
injection of Case 3 is shown in Figure 15. It can be seen that, at
can save a certain amount of solvent and help make this solvent-
the end of the 10-year production period, the central zone of the
based heavy oil recovery process more attractive.
reservoir had not been affected by the solvent. Further studies
need to be conducted to find the minimum required horizontal
4
well spacing, and the number of horizontal well pairs to
effectively develop this reservoir with the proposed cyclic
solvent injection process.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on the results obtained
in this study.
1. Some basic experimental PVT data (CCE, DL) were
necessary to tune the EOS.
2. An effective solvent mixture could be obtained by using
the swelling test located in the Winprop model, and by
taking proper account of the predetermined prevailing
reservoir pressure.
3. It appears that an optimal soaking time exists for each
selected injection rate and for each solvent mixture;
however, an economic evaluation study should be
performed before this conclusion can be accepted with
confidence.
4. The NSCOR value for a properly selected series of soaking
cycles is the most attractive value for this parameter.
5. Molecular diffusion did not have any obvious effect on the
production profile.
6. The main mechanisms for the solventbased heavy oil
recovery process were the gas drive and the dilution effect
of the solvent.
7. The vertical distance between the horizontal injector and
the horizontal producer is an important parameter, which
influenced the overall solvent performance.
8. The influence, on oil production, of the horizontal distance
between the two well pairs is less evident than the vertical
distance between the horizontal injector and producer.
9. For economically developing a heavy oil reservoir by
cyclic solvent injection, the number of horizontal well
pairs and their spacing need to be determined so that the
solvent would sweep a large portion of the pay zone.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) of Canada. The authors would also like to
take this opportunity to thank Ted Frauenfeld from ARC, and
Andrei Zaostrovski and Bruce Kohse from CMG, for their
priceless advice; Jiasen Tan of Schlumberger for his valuable
help with the PVT data; and Hyundon Shin and Tarek Hamida
from the University of Alberta for their fruitful discussion.
NOMENCLATURE
CCE = Constant Component Expansion
DL = Differential Liberation
EOS = Equation of State
GOR = Gas-Oil Ratio
LPG = Liquefied Petroleum Gas
NCSOR = Net Cumulative Solvent-Oil Ratio
REFERENCES
1. COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LTD., Winprop
manuals, Calgary, Alberta, October, 2004.
5
2. MOKRYS, I.J. and BUTLER, R.M., In-Situ Upgrading
of Heavy Oils and Bitumen by Propane Deasphalting:
The VAPEX process, SPE 25452, presented at the
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, March 21-23, 1993.
3. ZHAO, L., Steam Alternating Solvent Process, SPE
86957, presented at the SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, March 16-18,
2004.
4. DAS, S.K. and BUTLER, R.M., Counter Current
Extraction of Heavy Oil and Bitumen, SPE 37094,
presented at 1996 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta,
November 18-20, 1996.
5. NGHIEM, L.X., KOHSE, B.F., FAROUQ ALI, S.M.
and DOAN, Q., Asphaltene Precipitation: Phase
Behavior Modelling and Compositional Simulation,
SPE 59432, presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific
Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset
Management, Yokohama, Japan, April 25-26, 2000.
6. NGHIEM, L.X., SAMMON P.H. and KOHSE, B.F.,
Modeling Asphaltene Precipitation and Dispersive
Mixing in the Vapex Process SPE 66361, presented at
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston Texas,
February 11-14, 2001.
7. DAUBA, C., QUETTIER, L., CHRISTENSEN, J., LE
GOFF, C. and CORDELIER, P., An Integrated
Experimental and Numerical Approach to Assess the
Performance of Solvent Injection into Heavy Oil, SPE
77459, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
September 29October 2, 2002.
8. COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LTD. STARS
manuals, Calgary, Alberta, October, 2004.
9. FRAUENFELD, T.J.W. and LILLICO D.A., Solvent-
assisted method for mobilizing viscous heavy oil ,
United States Patent No. 5899274, September 20, 1996.
10. ZHANG, Y., HYNDMAN, C.L. and MAINI, B.,
Measurement of Gas Diffusivity in Heavy Oils Paper
98-63, Alberta, Canada, presented at the 49th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society, Calgary,
Alberta, June 8-10, 1998.
11. FISHER, D.B., SINGHAL, A.K., GOLDMAN, J.,
JACKSON, C. and RANDALL, L., Insight from MRI
and Micro-Model Studies of Transportation of Solvent
into Heavy Oil during Vapex, SPE 79024, presented at
the 2002 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal
Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
November 4-7, 2002.
12. QI, J. and BUTLER, R.M., Selections of Well
Configurations in VAPEX Process, SPE 37145,
presented at the 1996 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta,
November 18-20, 1996.
13. FRAUENFELD, T.W.J., KISSEL, G. and ZHOU, S.,
PVT and Viscosity Measurement for Lloydminster-
Aberfeldy and Cold Lake Blended Oil Systems,
SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM/CHOA 79018, presented
at the 2002 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal
Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
November 4-7, 2002.
14. COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LTD., GEM
manuals, Calgary, Alberta, October, 2004.
15. BUTLER, R.M., MOKRYS I.J. and DAS, S.K., The
Solvent Requirements for Vapex Recovery, SPE
 30293, presented at the International Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, June 19-21, 1995.
16. ESCOBAR, E., VALKO, P., LEE, W.J. and
RODRIGUEZ, M.G., Optimization Methodology for
Cyclic Steam Injection with Horizontal Wells
6
SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM 65525, presented at the
2000 SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary,
Alberta, November 6-8, 2002.
Table 1. Recombined reservoir fluid composition of Table 4. NCSOR Comparison for the 3 Cases
Lloydminster oil sample
produced oil density, kg/m3 977
No. Component Composition MW SG
(mole fraction) density mole mixture
1 C1 23.30% 16.04 0.300 gas kg/m3 fraction density
methane 0.65 40% 1.4
2 C2 0.000% 30.07 0.356
propane 1.91 60%
3 C3 0.008% 44.10 0.507
4 IC4-NC6 0.330% 83.23 0.679 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
5 C7-C23 28.45% 208.4 0.845
gas consumption, m3 2.48E+06 2.70E+06 2.57E+06
6 C24-C32 15.05% 331.5 0.904
cum. oil production,
7 C33+ 32.86% 800.0 1.035
m3 28197 29720.2 31337.5
gas mass, ton 3468 3773 3603
Table 2. 2-D Simulation settings
oil mass, ton 27548 29037 30617
Grid type Cartesian NCSOR 0.126 0.130 0.118
Grid system 120*1*20
Grid dimension 1m*600m*20m
Porosity 33%
Table 5. Reservoir fluid composition before and after
Permeability i,j 2000 mD
production
Permeability k 1000 mD
Reservoir top depth 450 m No Component Origional oil Produced oil Change
Temperature 21 oC (mole fraction) (mole fraction)
Initial pressure at 450 m 4076 kPa 1 C1 23.30% 0.26% -23.0%
Initial oil saturation 0.75
2 C2 0.000% 0.00% 0.0%
Number of pseudo-Components 7
EOS PR -1979 3 C3 0.008% 9.56% 9.6%
Solvent composition 40%C1 + 60%C3 4 IC4-NC6 0.330% 0.24% -0.1%
Number of horizontal injectors 2 5 C7-C23 28.45% 33.5% 5.1%
Number of horizontal producers 2 6 C24-C32 15.05% 17.7% 2.7%
7 C33+ 32.86% 38.7% 5.8%
Table 3. Cases design
Case 1
Injection Soaking Production Table 6. Comparison of different vertical well spacings
Cycle No. time time time
1 3 0 3 4m 5m 6m 7m
2 6 0 12
Cumulative
3 9 0 18
4 6 0 63 production, m3 30142 31338 32375 29276
3
time in months Difference, m 866.4 2062 3099.9 0
Case 2
Injection Soaking Production
Cycle No. time time time
1 4 3 4
2 8 9 12
3 12 12 56
Case 3
Injection Soaking Production
Cycle No. time time time
1 3 3 3
2 6 8 12
3 9 10 18
4 6 8 34

7
 horizontal injectors

horizontal producers

Figure 1. 2-D Reservoir grid block system and well configurations

Lloydminster Oil
Swelling Calc.
8000 1.5

1.4
7000

Swelling Factor
Pressure (kPa)
Saturation

1.3
6000
1.2

5000
1.1
Psat S.F.
4000 1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Composition (mol fraction)

Figure 2. Swelling test for 40% C1-60% C3 solvent mixture

Viscosity at the production well vs. time

500
no soak
400 2 months
viscosity, cp

3 months
300 4 months

200

100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
time, days

Figure 3. Viscosity profile for 3 months of solvent injection

8
 GOR vs.time
100
no soak
2 months
80

3
GOR, m /m
3 months
4 months

3
60

40

20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
time, days

Figure 4. GOR profile for 3 months of solvent injection

Viscosity at the production well vs.time

300
no soak
250 6 months
viscosity, cp

200 8 months
10 months
150
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time, days

Figure 5. Viscosity profile for 6 months of solvent injection

GOR vs time

170 no soak
6 months
150
GOR, m3/m3

8 months
10 months
130

110

90

70
0 500 1000 1500 2000
time, days

Figure 6. GOR profile for 6 months of solvent injection

9
 Cumulative production vs.time
10000

production ,m 3
Cumulative oil
9000

8000
no soak
7000 6 months
8 months
10 months
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time, days

Figure 7. Cumulative production profile for 6 months of solvent injection

Viscosity at production well vs.time

100
no soak
80 6 months
viscosity, cp

10 months
60 12 months

40

20

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
time, days

Figure 8. Viscosity profile for 9 months of solvent injection

GOR vs.time

190 no soak
6 months
GOR, m3/m3

170 10 months
12 months
150
130

110
90
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000
time, days

Figure 9. GOR profile for 9 months of solvent injection

10
 Cumulative production vs.time

14000

production,m 3
Cumulative oil
12000

10000
no soak
6 months
8000
10 months
12 months
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time, days

Figure 10. Cumulative production profile for 9 months of solvent injection

production profile
70
60 no soak
production rate,

3 cycle
50
4 cycle
m3/day

40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
time, days

Figure 11. Production profile comparison for the 3 Cases

Cumulative production profile

35000
30000
production, m 3
Cumulative oil

25000
20000
15000
10000 no soak
3 cycle
5000 4 cycle
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
time, days

Figure 12. Cumulative production profile comparison for the 3 Cases

11
 GOR vs. time
200
no soak
180 3 cycle

GOR, m3/m3
4 cycle
160

140

120

100

80
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
time, days

Figure 13. GOR profile comparison for the 3 Cases

With and without diffusion coefficient

no difcor difcor
no difcor cum difcor cum
60 35000
50 30000

production, m 3
production rate,

cumulative oil
25000
40
m3/day

20000
30
15000
20
10000
10 5000
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
time, days

Figure 14. Comparison of production profiles with and without diffusion coefficient

Figure 15. Image of oil viscosity profile in 2-D simulation of Case 3

12