SE% 2!

3243

A Proposed Model and Mechanism For Anomalous Foamy Heavy Oil Behavior

E. L. Claridge, SPE, Consultant with TCA Reservoir

Engineering Services, Inc.
Michael Prats, SPE, Michael Prats & Associates, Inc.

ABSTRACT
A model of foamy heavy oil behavior
is proposed which implemented in a
reservoir simulator is found to be
capable of matching the principal
characteristics observed in primary
cold oil production, namely, a well
productivity several times the value
expected from the recombined oil vis-
cosity and the rock permeability to
oil phase, and a producing gas-oil
ratio close to the initial solution
gas-oil ratio. The low gas-oil ratio
results in slow pressure decline and
high ultimate primary oil recovery as
compared to non-foamy crude oils.
References and illustrations
at end of paper
Background
Smitlilappears to be the first
to have published on the subject of
the anomalous behavior of what have
come to be called foamy crude oils.
At the time of Smithcs publication,
the only reported foamy crude oil
behavior is that reported for the
LLoydminster area of western Canada.
Since then, other heavy oils in Cana-
da and elsewhere in the world have
been found to exhibit similar behav-
ior.
The apparent mobility of such
reservoir-crude oil systems is very
large. The cause for such high mo-
bility could be either a high rock
permeability, a low crude oil viscos-
ity, or both. Laboratory
--- reported
. ..
permeabilities are typically in the

9
2 A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil SPE 29243
Behavior

range of 1 to 10 darcies for the ductivity, without explaining the

unconsolidated or nearly uriconscli= lower viscosity. He does mention
dated sands where the anQmalous be- that abundant asphaltene content may
havior is observed. But these perme- act as dispersed nucleation sites!!
abilities are lower than what is for formation of microscopic gas
required to explain the production bubbles, but does not further specu-
performance. late about the physical state of the
Because oil production is accom- bubbles and the asphaltenes after
panied by large sand cuts in the nucleation has occurred, nor as to
Lloydminster area, Smithl considered the effect that effective coagulation
the possible effect of production- of asphaltenes around such tiny bub-
ercded ?~wo~Uholes1t2on the apparent bles might have on the viscosity of
reservoir permeability, but he con- the liquid in which the aspnaitenes
cluded that this is insufficient to were initially present as a colloidal
account for the behavior. Since dispersion. We have been unable tQ
then, the authorsof tb.ispaper have find any references since Smith that
become aware of other reservoirs, in speculate on the possibility that
both North and SQuth America, which this might be the cause for the high
exhibit large apparent nobilities and apparent mobility.
have prQduced essentially no sand. Severa14~5 authors have investi-
Although sand production may gated different aspects of crude oils
contribute to high production rates with small bubbles since Smith (but
in some reservoirs, it is not suffi- not at the microbubble level).
cient to explain all of the observed Maini et 14 appear to demon-
behavior (e.g., low gas-oil ratio). strate the formation of a stable gas
High in-situ nobilities interpreted foam in linear sandpack experiments
from pressure interference and pulse using Lloydminster crude oil or Lind-
tests in areas of reservoirs distant bergh crude oil, in which foam is
from production wells and still not produced at about the same rate as
far below initial pressures strongly the oil, except for the formation of
indicate that disturbances to uncon- slugs of gas at high gas saturations
solidated sands3 (e.g., dilatation or near the exit end of the pack at
fluidization) do not appear to be the large pressure drawdowns. They com-
root cause of the highlapparerk nlc- nent that much of the observed phe-
bilities. nomena can be explained by the forma-
Smithl postulates the oil flow tion of a stable gas foam, but do not
as consisting of a finely divided gas explain the high production rates
foam, and assumes that the viscosity observed in the field. They dQ not
of the flowing mixture is interme- discuss a stabilizing factQr for the
diate between that of the liquid and gas bubbles, except to attribute it
that of the gas. He shows in his to the high viscosity of the sur-
Figure 5 that the apparent viscosity rounding oil.
as derived from Horner analysis is of Kraus et a~~ again postulate the
the order of 100 to 500 c~ (mPa.s), formation of a finely dispersed gas
whereas the range of the live sin- foam in the oil, and show that all of
gle-phase crude oil viscosities as the observed phenomena can be simu-
measured directly is 1700 to 3500 Cp lated by computer with appropriate
(mPa.s). He simply uses this lower molar volumes and compressibilities,
viscosity to explain the higher pro- and with a delayed evolution of a

10
SPE 29243 Elmond L. Claridge and Michael Prats
free gas phase by means of a pseudo
bubble point pressure lower than the
value measured in a PVT cell, except
that the higher-than-calculated oil
production rates observed in the
field are not matched.
References 4 and 5 do not ad-
dress the observed hi h nobilities.
Ward and Levart2 conclude that
tiny bubbles may appear on the rough
surface of asphaltene molecules, and
be thermodynamically stable below a
certain size, at pressures below the
bubble point. This does not seem
likely to provide an explanation for
asphaltene coagulation in association
with bubbles larger than the asphal-
tenes thimsd-ve=. Yet, slucb.
ceaglula-
tion as a mechanism for removal of
asphaltenes from the bulk of the oil
phase and a consequent reduction in
the oil phase viscosity seems to us
to be necessary to explain higher
oil production rates.
Islam and Chakma7 present data
which seem to indicate that simply
-< n--k, hh 1 *= = f~Qw~ng
ha-v-ii-q mAe&uMdMH -u Ian
S~ICe~rn of a viscousoil will reduce
the apparent viscosity. They used
Dow-Corning oils of 10, 1000, and
5000 mPa.s viscosity and injected a
gas through a sintered metal cap of
known (small) pore openings into the
oil flowing through a metal capillary
tube. They state that they saw mi-
cro-bubbles using a microscope
through a transparent window of the
capillary tube and could determine
their size and velocity. The bubbles
were found to be moving 1.2 times
&..&Av8than the liquid vel~city. If
~as~e~
Poiseuilles Law is applied to the
flow of the viscous oil in the ab-
sence of the micro-bubbles, our cal-
culations indicate pressure drops
which agree with the 5.6 kPa shown in
their Fig. 1 at 10% of gas in the
flowing stream. The extent of vis-
cosity reduction shown in their Fig-
ures 1 through 3 is quite extreme
11
3
(approaching gas-phase pressure drop
at high gas volume fraction). The
refer to work by Hagedorn and Brownx
for pressure drop due to friction in
two-phase flow up vertical tubing in
which a similar viscosity blending
relationship was used. However, that
work was for turbulent flow with the
two phases present in large local
volumes ranging from large bubbles
for low gas rate, to concentric flow
with gas in the middle and liquid
around the perimeter of the tubing,
to mist flow for very high gas rates.
They used the mixture viscosity as an
empirical correction factor for cal-
culating a mixture Reynolds Number
and a friction factor for the turbu-
lent flow region. The application of
that work to the present subject
seems remote and inapplicable, unless
the flow in Islam and Chakmals exper-
iments did in fact revert to segre-
gated flow of the phases, with gas
slugs pushing liquid slugs. In that
case, it is evident that the pressure
drop would behave as observed. This
is not consistent with the statement
that the flow was of microbubllles
suspended in the continuous liquid
phase. In any event, greatly reduced
apparent viscosity of the order of
magnitude shown is greater than seems
to occur in flow of non-foamy crude
oils under primary depletion condi-
tions. It would lead to much higher
oil production rates for crude oil
below the bubble-point and past the
critical gas saturation than is actu-
ally observed or calculated from two-
phase flow with typical relative
permeabilities, regardless of crude
oil viscosity or asphaltene content.
We conclude that the simple presence
of microscopic gas bubbles, without a
compositional change in the liquid
oil phase leading to a change in that
phases viscosity, is not an adequate
explanation of the difference between
4 A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil
Behavior
l~foamy~
oil production behavior and
non-foamy1oil production behavior.
In attempting to simulate
!cfoamyt~
heavy oil production behav-
ior, Islam and Chakma used a critical
gas saturation of 40% (as shown in
their Fig. 14) in Approach 3, but the
mixture viscosity relationship with
micro-bubbles showing greatly reduced
viscosity in their Approach 1. The
iatter snows aimost straight iine oil
recovery versus timel up to 28 % of
OOIP at 20 years, while Approach 3
gave about 15% in the same time.
Approach 2, using conventional rela-
tive permeability curves gave a re-
covery of about 13% at 20 years.
Neither the single-phase-with-micro-
bubble-reduced-viscosity case (Ap-
proach 1) nor the extremely high
critical gas saturation of Approach 3
seem to us to be reasonable as ade-
quate representations of ~cfoamyoil
behavior.
Our paper extends Smithss views
that the low viscosity of foamy oils
is associated with the asphaltenes by
proposing a plausible model or mecha-
nism for the apparently low in situ
crude oil viscosity.
Proposed Foamy Heavy Oil Model
The model assumes that as tiny
gas bubbles form during slow pressure
decline below the bubble-point pres-
sure in the reservoir, asphaltene
molecules, which are normally dis-
-----
p=L==d i~l mmllA4a-1 4=
QUAAUJ.UaA LULIU
,.,4+A
W&baa
~==~~*
molecules as the dispersing agent and
which contribute strongly to the oil
viscosity, migrate together with the
resins to the bubble surfaces and
@n-
&wLa. = _att:*:=:=
catn--vlrr~d ~na+-{ncf.
--.,. ----- 7-
coating, when complete, prevents
further bubble growth and coales-
cence.
Since the bubbles are unable to
coalesce, they remain tiny enough to
SPE 29243
move with the oil throuqh Dore
throats with the oil phase v=loc~ty.
As more gas is released from solu-
tion, more tiny bubbles will appear
and will become similarly coated with
asphaltenes and resins.
The gradual removal of the asph-
altenes from colloidal suspension in
the oil phase causes a significant
reduct~on in the oil phase viscosity,
and Wi=
~- ..- -
i= ~he Ldu== Of ~h h@hY
well productivity which is obsened.
At any given pressure level
below the bubble point pressure, the
gas contained in the bubbles plus the
gas still dissolved in the oil amount
to the initial gas present in associ-
ation with the oil. Similarly, the
asphaltenes coagulated on the bubbles
plus the asphaltenes still in colloi-
dal dispersion amount to the initial
asphaltene content of the reservoir
oil. Hence, as this mixture of phas-
es moves with a common velocity to
oil wells, the producing gas-oil
ratio will remain essentially at the
initial solution gas-oil ratio.
Of course, this eminently desir-
able situation cannot survive a very
large or very swift pressure reduc-
tion: the asphaltic films will rup-
ture or will not have time to form or
re-form after rupture, and the gas
will coalesce and escape from the oil
as a separate phase. The large pres-
sure drop as oil is produced up tub-
ing will do this, and most of the gas
forms a separate phase in the gas-oil
enn=ws+nv u.at +ha
m=yu~u.u. .aa-
czlvFfaPn-
-------- ~~~e~e~i
it is observed that enough gas re-
mains dispersed in the produced oil
that the volume is about three times
that which results after over-night
~~j.~ Settlincf.of course; this is only a
small p~-rt of the gas which enters
the well with the oil, but it is
enough to make it clear that there is
difficulty in achieving complete bub-
ble coalescence, and that a much
12
SPE 29243 Elmond L. Claridge and Michael Prats
+nd~ance to coalescence may
strorJgerb.+..-.
have existed in the reservoir.
Indeedr such a hindrance must be
present to cause the producing gas-
oil ratio to be so low compared to
the situation with crude oils from
which gas bubbles form and grow in
size and coalesce to form a connected
gas phase which moves with a much
higher velocity than the oil phase to
wells. The high producing gas-oil
ratio in such cases results in rela-
tively rapid loss of reservoir energy
and a low ultimate oil recovery.
Hence, the proposed model ac-
counts for the observed behavior of
foamy crude oils. While experimental
evidence for all details of this
model have not yet been obtained, it
is clear that if the mechanism is
different from that proposed, such an
alternative mechanism must account
for the same simultaneous production
of all of the components (gas, aspha-
ltene components, and the rest of the
oil). At the same time, the resis-
tance to flow below the bubble-point
pressure must be considerably lower
than that of the oil above its bubble
point pressure, in order to account
for the high well productivity.
So far as we are aware, the only
way for the viscosity of the oil
phase to be reduced is for the as-
phaltenes to be removed from colloi-
dal suspension in the oil. However,
they may not simply be precipitated
and adhere to the rock, for then they
would not be present in the produced
oil to account for the viscosity
which is measured on recombined oil.
If they aggregate in some other fash-
ion than by adherence to gas bubbles,
it is not clear how they could con-
tribute to to making the gas phase
mobiiity so IGW as te be prQduced
only at the solution gas-oil ratio;
this must also be accounted for by
any alternative mechanism.
13
5
Until an alternative model of
the foamy heavy oii behavior i= pro-
posed which simultaneously accounts
for all of the observed phenomena, it
is reasonable to proceed to use the
model proposed here. The most sig-
nificant element of the model is that
it explains the apparent lowered ~
W viscosity of foamy crude oils.
Accordingly, we refer to it as an LVM
model (for Low Viscosity Model).
The requirements which the model
was constrained to meet are as fol-
low:
a) yield conventionally measured
crude oil viscosities for stock tank
oil and for gas-saturated oil at or
above the bubble point pressure.
b) yield in situ viscosities below
the bubble point which are substan-
tially lower than those above the
bubble point.
c) yield a low gas mobility so that
the simulated producing gas-oil ratio
will remain approximately at the
initial solution gas-oil ratio.
d) yield a simulated oil production
rate which is higher than calculated
from the above-bubble-pointviscosity
and which is maintained high for a
large cumulative production period.
e) yield ultimate cumulative oil
recoveries much higher than for con-
ventional crude oils.
f) be limited to asphaltic crude
oils, and
g) not rely in any way on changes in
the permeability of the reservoir.
It is known that the effective
blending viscosity of asphaltenes
colloidally dispersed by resins in an
asphalt-free oil is very great, so
6 A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil
Behavior
that, for example, for a dead crude
oil of 10,000 cp (mPa.s) viscosity
*L.
GLL=~i.$vr= ~~tu~=~~~ -r; cmnc++<7mLay he
v A-wu-A.~
about 1000 to 1500 cp (mPa.s), while
the viscosity of the asphaltene-free
live oil may be about 100 to 200 cp
,-
(mra.Sj .
Then a dilute suspension in
asphalt-free live oil of asphaltenes
completely coagulated around gas
micro-bubbles could have an effective
viscosity only mildly greater than
this - say, 200 to 400 cp (mPa.s).
For incomplete removal of the asphal-
tenes from the oil, the effective
viscosity would range between that
for the original live oil and that of
the completely de-asphalted live oil.
This is consistent with point b).
Such coagulation of asphaltenes
and their associated resins around
gas bubbles apparently does not occur
with all asphaltic crude oils.
such behavior does occur as postulat-
ed here, then there must be some
characteristics of the resin or as-
phaltene compounds which make them
surface-active with respect to a gas-
oil interface. Carnahan and Quin-
tero9~10 have presented data indicat-
ing that resins in the asphaltene/oil
system can be as strong surfactants
as the typical sodium petroleum sul-
fonates are in the light oil/brine
system. In their earlier study9,
they had estimated that resins have
an affinity for asphaltenes and for
alkanes such that their characteriz-
ing number similar to the HLB (Hydro-
philic/Lyophilic Balance) Number for
sodium sulfonates should be similar
in value. For the latter system, the
HLB Number for a typical sulfonate,
al--a-3a
iV=uuu*~ iS
k-+,.,---
==bw==l~
~ .~ a~,d1K *4.4,
~ ?.?+
wAbaA
the higher number corresponding to
higher mol weightsll. In their most
recent paper, they have derived an
AOB (Asphaltene/Oil Balance) Number
of 5 on a scale of zero to ten, thus
SPE 29243
halfway between and so equally at-
tracted to asphaltenes and to (ali-
nhati~)
&**----/
nil-
----
This does not directly explain
adherence of the resins to a gas-oil
interface. However, a similar behav-
4-- Av
Au&
<m -----t-a
&=puAG=u
*ha n-a knna#4n4a-
371 kALG UA- N=Aa=bA-&u
tion process of flotation12. In this
process, ores of zinc, lead, copper
etc. are ground to a fine powder,
then suspended in water to which a
small amount of oil and of a surfac-
tant such as sodium xanthate has been
added. The oil wets the exposed
surfaces of the valuable metal miner-
al in the presence of large amounts
of silicate minerals, and the surfac-
tant adheres to the oil surface. In
the vessel containing this ore slur-
ry, air is introduced through a spar-
ger as fine bubbles. The surfactant
sticks to the air bubbles as well as
If to the oil film on the valuable metal
ore surface. The froth which spiiis
over a weir from the top of the flo-
tation cell into another vessel is
enriched many fold in valuable metal
ore content.
This suggests that the key to
resin behavior with respect to adher-
ence to gas bubbles and to asphalten-
es may lie in the porphyrin-type
metal compounds present both in res-
ins and in the asphaltenes. When the
structure is such as to expose these
metals to the resin surfactant, and
the resins also can behave like the
sodium xanthan in adhering to a iiq-
uid-gas surface, then the mechanism
proposed may be effective. Obvious-
ly, further research on this subject
would be needed if the research re-
commended here shows that indeed the
+h vae;me and --=-------
*-*.*---- aenhal tenas--- a Ye
--- sticzkina
---------=
to gas bubbles in foamy heavy oil
reservoirs.
It is further necessary that the
resin and asphaltene content be high
enough to coat the amount of gas
14
SPE 29243 Elmond L. Claridge and Michael Prats
which comes out of solution as the
pressure falls below the bubble
point, then bubbles will grow in
size, wiii fiii some of the pores and
extend through pore throats to con-
tact and coalesce with other bubbles,
and form a connected gas phase which
will move independently of oil phase
to the production wells. It is
thought that this is what happens in
light oil reservoirs where the crude
oil contains only small proportions
of resins and asphaltenes, even if
they are of the right type to coat
some of the gas bubbles. In heavy
crude oils, the asphaltene and resin
content is much higher.
Some approximate calculations
indicate that for a three-layer film
of resins/asphaltenes/resins around
gas bubbles of 2 micron diameter, the
volume of resins required is about
1/2000 that of the gas and the asph-
altenes about 1/3000 the volume of
the gas. This is a very small re-
quirement, but it is likely that a
multi-layer film would be formed.
For a two micron (2000 Angstroms)
diameter bubble, the three-layer
surface film would be only about 20-
25 Angstroms thick, or about 1/1000
of the diameter of the bubble, while
a thirty layer film could be 1/100 of
the bubble diameter thick. In the
latter case, the film would be more
likely to be semi-rigid but more
stable (able to allow some stretching
without breaking). Such coated bub-
bles would have great difficulty in
coalescing, but at that size would
A:ee:-..l,., ~ ~,
klav-e710 uAJ.AAbuAby flewilg
the oil phase through pore throats.
As mentioned, this would enable a low
gas-oil ratio to be maintained, with
slow pressure decline and a high
ultimate primary oil recovery, in
accord with requirements c) and e).
The removal of asphaltic components
from the bulk oil phase would de-
crease its viscosity and lead to
7
higher production rates, in accor-
dance with requirements b) and d).
It is likely that the extreme
drop in pressure as the cm~de oil is
brought to the surface will result in
rupturing most of the films surround-
ing gas bubbles, except for the smal-
lest ones, where a thick film might
be able to spread enough to suffice
for a thirty-fold increase in volume
(about a three fold increase in diam-
eter, or a five-fold increase in
surface area). Thus, a small frac-
tion of the bubbles present in the
oil as it enters the well could be
present under surface conditions.
The iarge increase in volume vu~ld
make up for the loss in number, and
the produced oil could be very foamy,
as observed. During the coalescence
of the bubbles which have broken on
the way up the tubing, stirring of
the asphaltenes and resins with the
remainder of the oil would take
place, and so the asphaltenes and
resins wouid return to their nerml
state of colloidal dispersion in the
produced oil. The viscosity of the
produced oil, after settling out of
the remaining gas, would reflect the
high blending viscosity of the col-
loidal mixture. This would be in
accord with requirement a).
Computer simulations have been
performed which take into account all
of these requirements. These are
described below.
Computer Simulations
Table I summarizes the reservoir
wi
..--.. +h
and fluid properties used in the
simulations. The initial water satu-
ration was set at the irreducible
value and does not change signifi-
cantly during the runs. Four compo-
nents were used to describe the sys-
tem: natural gas, heavy oil, asphalt,
and water.
8 A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil
Behavior
The initial pressure is the
bubble-point pressure for the amount
of dissolved gas. As the pressure
falls, free gas is formed, and as-
phalt is transferred to the gas
phase; the removal from the liquid
oil phase results in a marked drop in
the oil phase viscosity. The asphalt
transferred to the gas phase imparts
a much higher viscosity to the gas
phase, so that under the conditions
used its flow rate is in proportion
to the flow rate of the oil phase and
the gas-oil ratio remains low. Be-
cause it moves slowly, most of the
gas evolved remains in the reservoir
rather than being rapidly produced.
For the data chosen as an exam-
ple (which do not represent any spe-
cific reservoir), the initial live
-..-:- Gil ..:wmne;+%r
re==rvv~~ vA=Qw=Ak~
*..
1s 7a9n
(mPa.s), while the live oil viscosity
if all of the asphalt were removed
would be 65 cp (mPa.s). Of course,
only a limited portion of the asphalt
is removed from the oil by adsorption
on the bubbles, but as the pressure
falls, gas is evolved from the oil
phase, and as this happens the vis-
Cositiy Gf t~~a~i~ Weuld w;== *--- +mward
----
that of dead oil, which in this case
is 10637 cp (mPa.s). The removal of
asphalt compensates for this rise and
maintains a moderate viscosity, about
one half to one third that which
would occur at any given pressure
without the asphalt adsorption.
The mobiiity increase of 2:i ta 3:1
allows a significantly higher oil
production rate to occur. Of course,
it does not happen all at once, nor
completely at any time, and the vis-
cosity reduction varies with position
{n
**. ~~~ ~=~~~l-ge~rnetry model used.
When the gas is separated from the
oil at the surface, the asphalt re-
mains with the heavy oil, and the
viscosity of this mixture (at stock
SPE 29243
tank conditions) is, as mentioned
above, 10,637 cp (mPa.s).
In order to distinguish the
behavior of this LVM model from one
with low gas mobility only (i.e., no
live oil viscosity reduction), a
second simulation was carried out in
which there was no transfer of as-
phalt to gas phase but the viscosity
of the gas phase was arbitrarilyin-
creased to reduce the produced fluid
gas-oil ratio about to the solution
gas-oil ratio. This is labelled the
LGM (Low Gas Mobility) model. Final-
ly, a run was made in which the gas
had its normal mobility and there was
no transfer of asphalt to the gas
phase; this run is labelled ~Normal.1~
Figure 1 shows the simulated oil
production rate for the first 40
q years fcm the three runs~ while Fig-
ure 2 shows the producing gas-oil
ratios (GORSS). Figure 3 shows the
cumulative oil recovery for the three
cases, and Figure 4 shows the pres-
sure decline curves.
It can be seen from Figure 1
that the highest production rates are
obtained in the case where asphalt
ad~~rption on the gas bubbles is
taken into account. A low gas mobil-
ity does not give as high an oil pro-
duction rate, though the rate does
not decline as rapidly as in the
l~Nomal~lcase. The oil rate for the
LVM case ranged from about 1.5 times
the rate for the LGM case at five
years tim , to 2 tin,es+h= Tr-Ycase
-------
at 20 years and beyond. For the gas
relative permeability curve used,
with an Sgc = 0.03, the oil rate in
csss stzyed at sifii~ar
the ::iiormal~~
levels to the other two cases only
until the critical gas saturation was
exceeded, and then fell rapidly to
zero at about 10 years time. At that
point, the oil production rate for
the Normal case was much impaired
16
SPE 29243 Elmond L. Claridge and Michael Prats
by the loss of most of the solution
gas.
The initial producing gas-oil
ratio is just the solution gas-oil
ratio for all three cases. With the
critical gas saturation of 0.03 which
was used, the ratio remained low in
the tNormalcase for about 10 years,
after whit-ntime the free gas exceeds
the critical saturation and begins to
be produced at ratios soon far ex-
ceeding the solution gas ratio. In
the two cases of hindered free gas
mobility, the producing gas-oil ratio
stays near to the solution gas-oil
ratio, as can be seen in Figure 2.
The low producing gas-oil ratio in
the LVM and LGM cases leads to a
greater retention of reservoir energy
for any given amount of oil produced,
and in itself this gives a major im-
provement in ultimate oil recovery.
Table 2 shows that the average
reservoir pressure at the end of 40
years is 369 psia for the asphalt
adsorption case (LVM), 316 psia for
the low gas mobility (LGM) case, and
90 psia for the ~Normalcase (this
was the specified minimum bottom-hole
pressure). The oil rates at this
time are 16.0 STB/D for the LVM case,
8.6 STB/D for the LGM case, and 0.0
STB/D for the ?Normal case. The
stock tank oil recoveries at 40
years, as a percentage of the origi-
nal oil in place (OOIP) are 20.16 for
the asphalt adsorption (LVM) case,
12.68 for the low gas mobility (LGM)
case, and 4.6 for the Normal case.
As mentioned, these cases were
designed to be iilustratfifeof the
principles involved and do not corre-
spond to any specific field case.
However, the input data can be varied
in a clear-cut way to match observed
behavior in any specific field. This
does not mean that the authors claim
that the proposed model of component
behavior is demonstrated by these
simulation results to be a correct
17
9
model. It is recommended that re-
search aimed at specifically deter-
mining whether the adsorption of
resins and asphaltenes to gas bubbles
does actually occur as the pressure
falls below the bubble-point pres-
sure, for foamy heavy oils showing
the anomalous production behavior
which has been described. It is not
difficult to design certain experi-
ments which could demonstrate this,
if it does occur. Until such re-
search is performed and possibly does
demonstrate that the adsorption model
described is correct, we claim only
that we have been able to reproduce
the observed anomalous field behavior
by appropriate computer simulation
methods.
We strongly recommend that ap-
propriate research work be performed
to determine the physical model or
mechanism(s) responsible for all of
the aspects of foamy heavy oil pro-
duction behavior which have been
observed and described. To date, no
other model than the one we have
described does so.
Conclusions ~ Recommendations
1. A physical model of foamy heavy
oil behavior based on stabilization
of gas microbubbles by asphaltene
adsorption and oil viscosity reduc-
tion by this removal of asphaltenes
from the oil phase has been formulat-
ed and implemented in computer simu-
lations, but it most certainly can be
improved on the basis of further
etl]dy,
---
2. If this model is correct, it rep-
resents a physical phenomenon not
previously recognized as occurring
naturally in oil reservoirs.
3. The fact that observed behavior
can be simulated by implementing the
model in a simulator does not in
10 A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil
Behavior
itself verify the assumptions of the
model.
4. Laboratory experiments should be
performed to determine whether the
proposed mechanism (or model) is
------ . W..=A-J
uu&LeGt
...--*--A-..1 .4 u=
J3Ap=LUUeIl v= aAluu.Lu
AA ~==
signed to determine what other possi-
ble mechanisms are actually responsi-
ble for the observed behavior if the
proposed model is found to be wrong.
5. If the asphalt adsorption to gas
bubbles proves to be correct for a
crude oil known to be foamy, then
further research is needed for deter-
mining what the characteristics are
of the resins and asphaltenes which
make it possible for this adsorption
to take place in some cases and not
in others.
Acknowledgements
Permission of TCA Reservoir
Engineering Services to use their
reservoir simulator Foam, and their
continued support and advice, are
gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Smith, G.E.: Fluid Flow and Sand
--s..aA:
-- irl
rrwuu~~lun n --- .- : --
EIfxi-v-y--cil msservo~cs
Under Solution-Gas Drive, SPE Produc-
tion Engineering (May 1988) 169-180.
2. Elkins, L.F., Morton, D., and
Blackwell, W.A.: Experimental Fire-
flood in a Very Viscous Oil - Uncon-
solidated Sand Reservoir, S.E. Pauls
Valley Field, Oklahoma, paper SPE
4086 presented at the 1972 SPE of
AIME Annual Fall Meeting, San Anto-
nio, Texas, Oct. 8-11.
3. Dusseault, M.: Cold Production
and Enhanced Oil Recovery, J. Can.
Petr. Tech. (Nov. 1993) 16-18.
18
SPE 29243
4. Maini, B.B., Sarma, H.K., and
George, A.E.: Significance of Foamy-
Oil Behavior in Primary Production of
Heavy Oils, paper No. CIM 92-77,
1992 Annual Technical Conference of
the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calga-
-r*.%-
71 n
~Y ? u Ull=
{J.U.
5. Kraus, W.P., McCaffrey, W.J., and
Boyd, G.W.: Pseudo-Bubble Point Model
for Foamy Oils,~lpaper No. CIM 93-45,
1993 Annual Technical Conference of
the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calga-
ry, May 9-12.
6. Ward, C.A. and Levart, Eugene:
Conditions for stability of bubble
nuclei in solid surfaces contacting a
liquid-gas solution, J. Appl.
Phys.56(2), 15 July 1984, pp. 491-
500.
7. Islam, M. R. and Chakma, A.: Role
of Asphaltenes in Recovering Heavy
Oil Through Micro-Bubble Generation,li
in As~haltene Particles in Fossil
Fuel EXD1oration. Recoverv, Refinina,
and Production Processes, Edited by
M. K. Sharma and T. F. Yen, Pienum
nwa..
ZAGOD,
Ne,W,
v.v.l-
&w&&
laaA
~==-? W ~~~=~~~=
8. Hagedorn, A. E. and Brown, K. E.:
Experimental Study of Pressure Gradi-
--A- uGGurrLny
en~s
n--..--:--uur~ny
n..-:--bwnc~nuuu=
m--L:-------
m---
Lwu-
Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical
Conduits, J. Pet. Tech. 17(4) April
1965, pp. 475-484.
9. Carnahan, N.F. and Quintero, L.:
HLB and CMC Influence in Asphal-
tenes, Maltene Resins, and Natural
Amphiphiles, paper 55B presented at
the Spring National Meeting of the
American Institute of Chemical Engi-
neers, Houston, March 29-April 1,
1993.
10. Carnahan, N.F. and Quintero, L.:
Characterization of Asphaltenes and
 11
SPE 29243 Elmond L. Claridge and Michael Prats

~~~~~,t!
ionic-CosurfactarltFlicellar
Resins, paper presented at the Sixth SPERE (Aug. 1988) 801-808.
UNITAR/UNDP International Conference
on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Hous-
ton, Texas, Feb. 12-17, 1995. 12. Wills, B.A.: Mineral Processing
Technoloavq 4th Ed., Pergamon Press,
11. Kremesec, V.J., Raterman, K.T. New York, 1988, Ch 12: Froth lOta-
and Taggart, D.L.: Laboratory Evalu- tion.
ation of a Crude-011-Sulfonate/Non-

TABLE 1 - SIMULATION INPUT DATA

RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES
0.333
porosity, Fraction
745
3uter Radius, feet (40 acres) 0.3
Nell radius, feet
.. _ _l__,_=- -3.6
S-kin,almens~on~e== 20
A==GL
DB.avvn;v +h{ckness feet
v&a. w..-- . ...-- ;
5000
tisolute permeability, md n In
W.&w
Initial water saturation, fraction 0.00
Initial gas saturation, fraction 0.03
Critical gas saturation, fraction 500
Initial pressure, psia 60
Reservoir temperature, F 47.33
Initial solution gas, scf/bbl 1320
Initial live oil viscosity, cp (mPaos) 305
Viscosity of asphalt-free heavy 011, CP (mpa.s) 10,637
Dead oil viscosity at 60 F, Cp (mpa.s)
Hydrocarbon Components:
Molecular weight: 600
Heavy Oil 18.85
Gas 1374
Asphalt
Initial Concentration, mol fraction: 0.70
Heavy Oil 0.20
Gas 0.10
Asphalt

II ~~T& z - --------OF SIMULATED RESULTS AFIER

HTMMARY 40 ye
EM LVM
II Normal
4.59 12.68 20.16
Oil produced, percent of OOIP 90 316 369
Average Pressure, psia 0.0 8.6 16.0
Oil rate, STB/D 3000 51.0 38.3
Producing gas-oil ratio, scf/STB ,

19
 COMPARISON OF OIL PRODUCTION RATES
sTBm
300@

0 VIORMALG*
LOM Case
A LVM case

o ~
o 10 M m ls 30 M
Le.Yam Figurcf

scFKIB
?
4N0

ml

Dam O NOBMAL Cue

o I&Mate
no A LVM Case
488
m
an

100
.
+?
a
n
2#

i. OOIP
10

M
o NonBIAI,
w

:
,;~
i s Is n s xl
Tim&#
29
Fii;
COMPARISONOF PRESSUREDECLINECURVES
?slA
SW

4n

c;
L ,,
O NORMAL(he
IGM Cue
ALVM ad

0 s It ls 29 n n % 4B
TiiFiG ~is Fig8re 4
20