SPE-170013-MS

Bitumen Extraction by Expanding Solvent-Steam Assisted Gravity

Drainage (ES-SAGD) with Asphaltene Solvents and Non-Solvents
A. Mukhametshina, and B. Hascakir, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada held in Alberta, Canada, 10 –12 June 2014.

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
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is a proven enhanced oil recovery technique for oil sand
extraction. However, the environmental and economic challenges associated with steam generation limit
the application of this technology. To address these issues, we investigated the effectiveness of Expanding
Solvent SAGD (ES-SAGD) over base SAGD on a bitumen sample (8.8 °API). Experimental studies are
conducted with a two-dimensional physical model. Different strategies for solvent injection are tested
(co-injection and cyclic injection) to examine the deposition of polar fractions of the bitumen on porous
media or producing polar fractions with non-polar ones. To investigate the level of oil upgrading while
toluene is used as asphaltene soluble solvent, n-hexane was selected as asphaltene insoluble. Steam
chamber development is monitored with temperature profiles from 47 separate positions. Steam oil ratios,
solvent oil ratios, and the level of oil upgrading in terms of viscosity reduction and API gravity
improvement are evaluated together. Environmental footprints of SAGD with ES-SAGD are discussed in
terms of solvent toxicity, total produced greenhouse gases, and asphaltene precipitation with FTIR
analysis on postmortem samples. Furthermore, the energy intensity of the processes is assessed by
considering steam generation and solvent costs. This study reveals that co-injection of hydrocarbon
solvents with steam enhances the steam chamber development with higher oil production rate. Moreover,
ES-SAGD results in recovery of more upgraded oil and has less environment impact. We observe that the
selection of the solvent type and injection strategy are the most crucial parameters for the design of hybrid
SAGD process and solvent cost can be minimized by using the recycled solvent for continuous injection
of solvents. High energy consumption for steam generation during SAGD process can be reduced by
co-injection with steam proper solvent type at proper injection strategy. This experimental study reveals
that ES-SAGD process has environmental and economic benefits over base SAGD. However, some
solvents can cause undesirable effects due to the asphaltene destabilization and precipitation in production
or transportation lines. Results of this work can be used to better address solvent interaction with polar
components during SAGD.
Introduction
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an effective thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) method
for heavy oil and bitumen extractions. SAGD gains advantageous over other steam injection processes for
2 SPE-170013-MS

bitumen recovery due to its well configuration

which enables the formation of the steam chamber
(Figure 1). In SAGD, two horizontal wells are
drilled one above another at the base of the reser-
voir (Butler, 1991). The upper well is used for
steam injection and the lower – for the oil produc-
tion. Despite the fact that injection and production
wells are close to each other (~5 meters apart) and
located at the bottom part of the reservoir, because
steam chamber expands gradually above the injec-
Figure 1—Cross-sectional representation of SAGD process tion well and spans a large area of the reservoir,
(Adapted from Butler, 1991) sweep efficiency in SAGD process is higher than in
steam flooding especially for oil sand extraction
(Butler 1991). Additionally, the temperature inside
the steam chamber is constant and equal to the steam temperature. Therefore, in SAGD, the bitumen
remains hot as it flows towards the production well, unlike the conventional steam injection where oil is
cooling on its way to the production well. Therefore, SAGD is the most effective steam injection process
for bitumen extraction.
SAGD process was first proposed by Roger Butler and his colleagues in the late 1970s (Butler et al.,
1979). Then, various experimental and numerical studies have been performed on SAGD for over 30
years, to develop a better understanding on SAGD mechanism and to improve its performance (Chung and
Butler, 1988; Yang and Butler, 1992; Chan et al., 1997; Edmunds and Chhina, 2001; Collins, 2007; Chen
et al., 2007). Most of the pilots in Canada proved that it is an effective thermal EOR method for bitumen
extraction which also led the extension of pilots to Venezuela, USA, and Russia (Butler, 2001, Mendoza
et al., 1999, Grills et al., 2002, Ibatullin et al., 2007, and Yang, 2007). Therefore, SAGD is acknowledged
as an effective, reliable, and easily to apply technique with high oil recovery rates (up to 70%) (Huc, 2011
and Suggett et al., 2000).
Nevertheless, the environmental and economic constrains, which are mainly due to steam generation,
limit its application. All steam injection processes require fresh water source to generate steam and also
heat source to convert liquid water into vapor. The use of excessive amount fresh water resources,
handling/disposal/treatment of produced water, and excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the
combustion of significant amount of natural gas to generate steam obviously pose serious environmental
problems (Ray and Engelhardt, 1992 and McColl et al., 2008).
While the major operational cost of SAGD is due to steam generation which is accounted for more than
50% of the total operational cost, the cost associated to the produced water and gas managements, which
is necessary to reduce the environment impact of SAGD, are the undesired additional operational costs for
SAGD operators. (National Energy Board, 2000 and Deng, 2005).
To minimize the environmental footprints and the operational cost of SAGD, various SAGD modifi-
cations have been developed. Among those, SAGD with solvent co-injection is one of the most promising
techniques in which increase oil production is obtained due to the interactions of solvent with bitumen.
The bitumen viscosity reduction is accomplished both thermally and chemically, hence, the amount of
steam generation is reduced to produce the same amount of oil which can be obtained through SAGD
alone.
The first experimental study on solvent-steam coinjection was performed in 1990 (Nasr et al., 1991).
They injected naphtha with steam and obtained improved oil recovery when compare to SAGD experi-
ment. Later, different modifications of SAGD with solvent injection were also investigated (Nasr and
Isaacs, 2001 and Gupta et al., 2003).
SPE-170013-MS 3

One of the most pronounced SAGD with solvent co-injection method is Expanding Solvent-SAGD
(ES-SAGD). In ES-SAGD, solvents are selected according to the phase of the solvent at steam temper-
ature and pressure. At the steam chamber boundary, water and solvent should condense almost simulta-
neously (Nasr et al., 2003). Recent experimental and numerical studies on ES-SAGD demonstrate the
advantage of ES-SAGD process over SAGD with high oil recovery, low steam to oil ratio (SOR), high
energy efficiency, and low cost (Nasr and Ayodele, 2006; Ayodele et al., 2010; Li et al., 2011; Mohebati
et al., 2012; Ibatullin and Zolotukhin, 2009; Mohebati et al., 2009; Li and Mamora, 2010). However, the
solvent type may change the results of ES-SAGD. Thus, the solvent selection is the most critical parameter
which defines the success of ES-SAGD. Selection of solvent type depends on mainly two parameters;
vapor pressure of the solvent at the operating conditions and chemical interaction of bitumen with solvent.
Basically, normal alkanes are preferred for ES-SAGD. Since the vapor pressures for n-alkanes increase
with the carbon number of n-alkanes, paraffinic solvents with carbon number over 10 are not considered
for ES-SAGD (McCain, 1989).
The chemical interaction of bitumen with solvents may result in asphaltene precipitation. The
asphaltene fraction of crude oil is defined as insoluble in n-alkanes, but soluble in aromatics (Yen et al.,
1961 and Huc, 2011). Therefore, the use of n-alkanes as solvents for ES-SAGD process may cause
asphaltene precipitation within the reservoir.
Still, in-situ asphaltene precipitation can have several advantageous. Because asphaltenes are the
heaviest fraction of crude oils, they cause numerous problems at the downhole, in the transmission lines,
during transportation of petroleum and in the refinery during petroleum processing. Therefore, in-situ
asphaltene precipitation can be desired to increase the produce oil quality, to lessen the problems
associated to the asphaltene precipitation in production lines, and to reduce the cost of petroleum
processing and transportation. However, in-situ asphaltene precipitation may have adverse effects on the
oil flow within the reservoir by reducing the porosity and permeability of the reservoir.
With the use of aromatic solvents, such as xylene and toluene, in-situ asphaltene precipitation can be
avoided or delayed. And the asphaltene portion of the crude oil which travels through transmission lines
due to temperature and pressure changes in the lines may still precipitate in the pipes and/or surface
facilities (Speight, 1991 and Mohammadzadeh et al., 2010). The solvent selection for ES-SAGD is
important because in most of the cases, asphaltene precipitation is not desired (Das and Butler, 1994 and
Mansoori, 2010).
This study investigates the effectiveness of Expanding Solvent SAGD (ES-SAGD) over SAGD for a
Canadian bitumen from Peace River region. ES-SAGD performance was tested with two different
solvents. Solvents were selected by considering the solubility of solvents in asphaltenes and vapor
pressure of the solvents at experimental conditions.

Material and Methods

SAGD and ES-SAGD performances were examined on a Canadian bitumen from Peace River region.
The Peace River oil sand deposit is one of the major oil sand deposits in Canada. It is located in the
Northwestern part of Alberta and contains around 64.5 billion barrels of OOIP at a depth of 460 to 760
meters (Hein and Marsh, 2008 and Gooble and Good, 1994).
Characterization of Bitumen Sample
First, before the experiments, the bitumen samples were characterized in terms of viscosity and API
gravity changes with temperature. Brookfield HBDV-III U CP rheometer and Anton Paar DMA 4100
density meter were used to measure viscosity and density, respectively. The viscosity and gravity of
bitumen at room temperature was measured 54,152 cP and 8.8 oAPI, respectively. Figure 2 shows as a
function of temperature, the bitumen viscosity and gravity.
4 SPE-170013-MS

Figure 2—Viscosity (on the left) and Gravity (on the right) variation with temperature for original bitumen

Figure 3—Thermowell (blue lines) and thermocouple (red dots) locations

Sample Preparation & Experimental Procedure

In this study, one SAGD and three ES-SAGD experiments were conducted. The two-dimensional (2D)
cylindrical experimental set-up used in this study to conduct SAGD experiments is given with Figure 3.
Core holder for the SAGD setup consists of with two concentric stainless-steel cylinders. The inner
diameters of the outer and the inner cylinders are 14.8 cm and 8 cm, respectively. The height of the model
is 25.4 cm. Prepared oil sand samples were packed the annulus of these two cylinders. To simplify the
visualization of the steam chamber growth during the experiments, in other words, to understand the
SAGD mechanism better in lab-scale, two-dimensional flow was maintained with two concentric
stainless-steel cylinders.
All samples were prepared, packed, and after the experiment unpacked by applying the same
procedure. For all experiments, the experimental conditions were kept identical. The only varied
parameter among the experiments was the type of injected solvent.
For the sample preparation, the reservoir rock and fluid properties reported by Bayliss and Levinson
(1976) and Hamm and Ong (1995) for Peace River bitumen were used. 85 weight percent (wt%), 20-40
mesh size Ottawa sand was mixed with 15 wt% clay which contains 80-90 wt% kaolinite and 20-10 wt%
illite. This mixture corresponds to 32% porosity. Then, 16% of the pore volume was saturated with water
and 84% of the pore volume was saturated with bitumen.
After the prepared sample was packed to the annulus of the model, two perforated horizontal stainless
steel pipes were inserted to the packed sample from the bottom of the physical model, in 2 inches apart
(Figure 3). The upper pipe was used for steam injection and the lower pipe – for the fluid production.
Therefore, these two stainless steel pipes were served as injector and producer wells during the
experiments. Both wells were wrapped with a screen to avoid sand production.
SPE-170013-MS 5

Figure 4 —Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up

Then, the model was sealed properly and to visualize the steam chamber growth over time 45
thermocouples (J-type) were introduced to the sealed sample from the top of the model with 11
thermowells (Figure 3). There were 2 to 7 thermocouples in each thermowells which were located at
different positions. Figure 3 demonstrates the location of the thermowells with blue lines and thermo-
couples inside the thermowells with red dots on blue lines. Note that Figure 3 is a scaled diagram. Two
additional K-type thermocouples were placed to the production and injection wells to monitor the injected
steam and produced fluids temperatures.
Sealed 2D model, then, connected to the steam generator and production lines. The injection well
(injector in Figure 3) was connected to the steam generator outlet and the production well (producer in
Figure 3) – to the production system. The 47 thermocouples were connected to the data acquisition system
and temperature profiles were recorded every second. For produced fluids, a two-stage separator and a
condenser units were used (Figure 4). A back pressure was maintained by nitrogen injection in production
lines and fixed to 75 psig for all experiments. Figure 4 represents the schematic diagram of the
experimental set-up.
To reduce the heat losses, sealed 2D model was wrapped with cotton and blanket insulation materials
both made from fiber glass and the center of the concentric cylinders was filled with perlite.
Experiments started by heating the injector and producer during the first 10 minutes of the experiments
to establish the communication between these two wells. Then, steam injection was started with constant
water injection rate; 18 ml CWE/min. All experiments were conducted at 75 psig pressure and 165 oC
temperature. According to the phase diagram of water, at the experimental pressure and temperature,
100% steam quality was maintained for all experiments (Figure 5).
Produced water and oil were sampled every 20 to 30 minutes through two-stage separator and analyzed
later. Condensable gases were trapped in the condenser unit and collected after the experiments. The
non-condensable portion of the produced gases were vented.
Experiments were terminated when significant decline in oil production rate was observed. At the end
of each experiment, the spent rock from the 2D model was extracted for visual examination. The produced
bitumen viscosity and gravity values were measured.
In total, one SAGD and three ES-SAGD experiments were performed in two-dimensional setting.
Solvent injection rate was also kept constant at 2 ml/min for all three ES-SAGD experiments.
6 SPE-170013-MS

Solvent Selection
In this study, two solvents were used; n-hexane
and toluene. And two injection strategies were fol-
lowed; coinjection of solvents and cyclic injection
of solvents.
Solvents were selected by considering their sol-
ubility in asphaltenes and their phases at experi-
mental conditions (75 psig and 165 oC). The ex-
perimental pressure and temperature are highlight
with the red dot in Figure 5. Therefore, n-hexane
was in vapor phase and toluene was in liquid phase
Figure 5—Vapor pressure line for water, n-hexane, and toluene. [The at experimental conditions during steam injection
red dot on figure shows the experimental pressure (75 psig ⴝ 89.7 psia), (Figure 5).
and temperature (165 oC), for all experiments]
Solubility of solvents in oil fractions was also
(Adapted from CHERIC, 2013) taken into account. While toluene was selected
because it is known as asphaltene soluble solvent,
n-hexane was preferred since it is asphaltene non-solvent (Gray, 1994 and Cosultchi et al., 2003).
Solvent Injection Strategy
For all ES-SAGD experiments, either different solvent types were used or different injection strategies
were followed. Table 1 summarizes the solvent types and injection strategies for all experiments.
E1 is the SAGD experiment in which just steam without any solvent was injected. E2, E3, and E4 are
the ES-SAGD experiments. In all ES-SAGD experiments, steam and solvents were co-injected together
at constant total rate; 2 ml/min. In E2, n-hexane alone was added to the steam stream at 2 ml/min injection
rate. For E3, n-hexane and toluene mixture was prepared in a volume ratio 1 to 1, and this mixture
continuously was co-injected with steam. For E4, n-hexane or toluene cyclically co-injected with steam
and solvent types were changed every hour. E4 started with n-hexane for the first hour, then, n-hexane
injection was switched to toluene injection for the second hour. Because this experiment took 9 hours and
solvent injection started with n-hexane, for the five hours of the experiment, n-hexane and for the four
hours of the experiment, toluene were injected cyclically with steam.

Results and Discussion

Experimental studies were performed to investigate the potency of SAGD with continuous and cyclic
injection of hydrocarbon solvents. The performances of each experiments were evaluated with the
experimentally obtained temperature profiles, postmortem analyses, oil recoveries, the level of oil
upgrading, and the economic evaluation of each experiment.
Temperature profiles
Figure 6 presents the experimentally obtained temperature distributions for all experiments which were
constructed with the data acquired from 47 sensing points distributed within the packed sample (Figure
3). In Figure 6, “h” represents the height and “x” is a circumference of the physical model. Injection and
production points were located in the lower center part of the experimental model.
ES-SAGD experiments result in better temperature propagations than SAGD experiment. Fully growth
steam chamber was observed by the end of seven-hour of steam injection time for SAGD, however, for
all ES-SAGD experiments, steam chambers were fully developed after six-hour of steam injection with
solvents.
This enhancement in steam chamber growth also reflected to the oil production and due to effective
viscosity reduction, oil production was also increased (Figure 7). The bitumen interaction with solvent is
responsible from the viscosity reduction mainly (Nasr et al., 2003 and Gates, 2007).
SPE-170013-MS 7

Table 1—Conditions for all experiments

Total Solvent Volume
Injected, ml
Injection Strategy Solvent Injection Total Experiment
Experiment Solvent Type for Solvents rate, ml/min Time, hours n-hexane toluene Total

E1 - - - 12 0 0 0
E2 n-hexane Continuous 2 9 1080 0 1080
E3 n-hexane ⫹ toluene Continuous 1⫹1 9 540 540 1080
E4 n-hexane and toluene Cyclic 2 and 2 9 600 480 1080

Figure 6 —Temperature distribution for all experiments

8 SPE-170013-MS

Figure 7—Oil production performance

Among all ES-SAGD experiments, the fastest steam chamber growth was observed for E4 (ES-SAGD
with cyclic injection of toluene and n-hexane). Starting with the fifth hour, the temperature distributions
became identical for all ES-SAGD experiments and at the end of the six-hour steam injection time, the
steam chamber was completely formed in all three runs. Note that in E4, during the first, third, fifth,
seventh, and ninth -hours of the experiment, n-hexane was injected with steam continuously. And during
the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth -hours of the experiment, toluene was injected with steam. Even
though, the first hour of E2 and E4 represents n-hexane injection, temperature profiles showed variations
due to the pump failure happened in the first stage of E2. In E4, due to the leak in thermowell “A” (Figure
3), before the experiment start, thermowell was pulled out from the packed model and inserted back again.
This act created a fracture inside the packed sample, and steam was followed this easy pathway created
by thermowell during the experiment. The effect of this pathway can be seen in Figure 6 for E4 at “t ⫽
2 hours” image.
Oil Production Performance
Oil recovery rate and factor are summarized in Figure 7 for all experiments. Figure 7A represents oil
recovery rate in gram per hour and Figure 7B shows the recovery factor in weight percentage in time. Oil
recovery rate graphs for all experiments demonstrate a similar trend. Initially, a delay was observed in all
oil production curves, then, oil production increases in time till reaching to a maximum point which gives
clues about how steam chamber growth impacts oil production, after the maximum point was reached, oil
production decline started. However, the delay time, maximum oil production rate, and the production
decline start time differ in each experiment.
While for E1, the first oil sample was produced after 1.5 hours from the beginning of the experiment,
for all ES-SAGD, the first oil production was gathered half an hour in advance which means that in
ES-SAGD runs, hydrocarbon additives induced earlier oil production compared to the base SAGD run.
The base SAGD run (E1) was characterized by the lowest oil recovery (33 wt %) when compare to
ES-SAGD runs (E2, E3, and E4). ES-SAGD with n-hexane (E2) demonstrated better performance than
E1 and resulted in 37 wt% oil recovery in a shorter period. ES-SAGD with toluene-hexane co-injection
runs (E3 and E4) yielded the greatest performances among all experiments with 45 wt% oil recovery.
To develop a better understanding, the maximum oil recovery rates are compared to the production
decline start time with Figure 8 for all experiments.
SPE-170013-MS 9

Figure 8 —Maximum oil recovery rate and production decline start time

Addition of n-hexane (E2) slightly improved the efficiency of SAGD process (compare E1 with E2).
Hence, SAGD with n-hexane and toluene co-injection experiments showed considerable improvement in
oil production (compare E1 with E3 and E4). Because, n-hexane is an asphaltene non-solvent chemical,
in-situ asphaltene precipitation during E2 caused reduction in the oil production. Because toluene is an
asphaltene solvent chemical, during E3 and E4, asphaltene fractions of the bitumen were also produced
which enhanced the oil production in these two experiments (Mohammadzadeh et al., 2010 and Haghighat
and Maini, 2010).
It should be noted that E3 and E4 differed by the strategy of n-hexane and toluene co-injection. In E3,
toluene and n-hexane were mixed together before the experiment in 1:1 volume ratio and this mixture,
then, was continuously co-injected with steam at a concentration of 2 ml/min. In E4, there were separate
n-hexane and toluene containers; n-hexane and toluene were co-injected with steam alternately at a
concentration of 2 ml/min (1 hour-1 hour), starting with n-hexane (Table 1). However, as it can be
concluded from the Figure 7 and Figure 8, this different strategy in solvent co-injection did not have a
significant effect on oil production performance. The maximum oil recovery rates in Figure 8 were nearly
the same for E3 and E4. However, cyclic injection of n-hexane with toluene slightly reduced the time to
reach the maximum oil recovery rate; from 4.9 hours (E3) to 4.0 hours (E4). Moreover, in E4, less amount
of toluene (480 ml instead of 540 ml) and greater amount of n-hexane (600 ml instead of 540 ml) were
used (Table 1). Toluene is known as more toxic and less environmentally friendly hydrocarbon solvent
in comparison with n-hexane (Scheflan and Jacobs, 1953). The alternate co-injection of n-hexane and
toluene yields an earlier achievement of maximum oil recovery rate and causes less environmental impact
in contrast to continuous n-hexane and toluene co-injection. Note that the changes in production decline
start time and the amount of used solvents will be more significant for the field-scale application.
Postmortem Analyses
At the end of each experiment, visual inspection has been performed on unpacked samples (postmortem
sample). Figure 9 shows the pictures taken after each experiment on postmortems.
All postmortem samples were characterized by the dark colored and consolidated structures. Also, all
postmortem samples contained small lighter areas around the injection and production points. In E3 and
E4, these areas were slightly in larger scale than in E1 and E2. Because toluene has higher solubility
parameter than n-hexane (Smallwood, 2002), it reduces bitumen viscosity more efficiently and resulted in
more swept areas on postmortems (Figure 9). The degree of sand consolidation was different among the
runs. The most consolidated sample was found with E2 in which n-hexane alone was co-injected with
steam. In this experiment, n-hexane as an asphaltene non-solvent induced asphaltene precipitation
10 SPE-170013-MS

Figure 9 —Postmortem pictures

(Mohammadzadeh, 2012). Figure 10 shows small

part of the postmortem sample from E2 which is
highly consolidated due to asphaltene precipitation.
Luo et al. (2008) reported the similar consolidated
sand structure for VAPEX which was obtained after
the injection of butane and propane mixture.
The least consolidation was found in E4, in
Figure 10 —Consolidated oil sand sample extracted after E2 which toluene was injected with n-hexane cycli-
cally. In E3, the degree of sand consolidation was
found higher than in E4, but lower than in E1. In E3
and E4, unconsolidated zones represents the swept zones by toluene. As it was mentioned earlier, at
experimental pressure and temperature toluene was in liquid phase, while n-hexane– in vapor phase. As
a result, n-hexane distributed through the whole model, while toluene touched mainly the bottom part of
the physical model. Thus, postmortem analysis confirmed that co-injection with steam of n-hexane alone
causes in-situ asphaltene precipitation (Mohammadzadeh et al., 2010) and addition of toluene enhances
the efficiency of ES-SAGD process by dissolution of asphaltenes again.
Oil Upgrading
To investigate the degree of bitumen upgrading for SAGD and ES-SAGD experiments, viscosity and
gravity of the original bitumen and produced oil samples were compared. For the produced oil samples
originated from ES-SAGD experiments, measurements were conducted, after the solvents were removed
from the produced oil samples.
SPE-170013-MS 11

Figure 11—The viscosity and gravity of the original and produced oil at 23 oC

The viscosity and API gravity of produced oil samples and original bitumen at room temperature are
shown in Figure 11. The viscosity and API gravity of produced oil originated from E1 were measured
nearly equal to those of the original bitumen. This confirms that at steam temperature in-situ bitumen
visbreaking does not occur (Shu and Hartman, 1986 and Henderson and Weber, 1965).
The maximum level of oil upgrading was obtained with E3 and E4, in which n-hexane and toluene
were simultaneously and alternately co-injected with steam, respectively. In these experiments, oil
viscosity was found 15 times less than that of the original bitumen and API gravity was enhanced
from 8.8 oAPI (original bitumen) to 10.5 oAPI (in E3) and 10.1 oAPI (in E4). E2 demonstrated
reduction in oil viscosity by 1.5 times. API gravity was increased from 8.8 to 9.5 oAPI. While the
asphaltene content of the produced oil from E2 is anticipated minimum among all experiments, it is
obvious that asphaltene content of crude oil is not the only parameter which is responsible from high
viscosities.

Economic Evaluation
Oil production performance was discussed earlier. However, the economic efficiency of steam injection
processes is more sensitive to Steam to Oil Ratio (SOR) rather than to the oil recovery rate (Edmunds and
Chhina, 2001). SOR indicates how many barrels of hot water or steam in cold water equivalent will be
used to produce one barrel of oil (Butler, 1991). Lower values of SOR and energy consumption
correspond to higher economic efficiency of the process. In addition, for ES-SAGD experiments, solvent
cost also influences on the economic efficiency of the process.
Figure 12 compares the Water Oil Ratio (WOR) and energy consumption parameters for this
experimental study. Energy consumption was calculated on the basis of the heaters’ power used to
generate steam, total experimental time, and the cumulative oil recovery.
The lowest WOR and energy consumption (Figure 12) with the highest cumulative oil recovery (Figure
8) were obtained with E3 and E4. E2 showed intermediate values for WOR, energy consumption, and
cumulative oil recovery factor. These results prove the ability of hydrocarbon additives to improve energy
and economic efficiency of SAGD process. Moreover, it can be concluded, that addition of toluene to
n-alkanes enhances the performance of ES-SAGD process.
Furthermore, total solvent cost for each experiment was calculated. Because n-hexane for lab use is
more expensive than toluene, for the experiments in which higher amount of n-hexane was used, the
experimental cost was increased (Table 1). Therefore, E2 is more cost effective than E4 and the cheapest
experiment in terms of solvent cost was E3. When compare to E3 and E4, even though, E4 is less cost
12 SPE-170013-MS

Figure 12—Comparison of WOR and energy consumption for all experiments

effective than E3 due to the solvent cost (Table 1) because n-hexane has the less toxicity and environ-
mental impact than toluene, E4 is more environmentally responsible than E3.
For E2, E3, and E4, the cost of consumed solvents per barrel of produced oil were calculated as 112.3
USD/bbl, 98.7 USD/bbl, and USD/bbl, respectively (Grainger Industrial Supply; Alfa Aesar - A Johnson
Matthey Company). Taking into account that typically over 70% of solvent is recovered and re-injected
again (Orr, 2009), the minimum cost of the solvents can be recalculated by considering the reuse of 70%
of the solvents as follows for E2, E3, and E4; 33.7 USD/bbl, 29.6 USD/bbl, and 31.7 USD/bbl,
respectively. Performed solvent price estimation is fair for retail prices. However, for the field-scale
projects, solvents are purchased wholesale. So, the solvent prices for real ES-SAGD projects will be lower
if compared to ones calculated for this study.

Conclusion
Experimental studies were performed on an oil sand sample from Peace River region, Alberta,
Canada to investigate the effectiveness of different hydrocarbon additives to improve efficiency of
SAGD process and reduce its environmental impact. The following conclusions were made on the
basis of the experimental study:
Co-injection of hydrocarbon solvents with steam improves the performance of SAGD process in terms
of oil production, energy and water consumption, and oil upgrading. Experimental results indicates that
ES-SAGD process has environmental and economic advantageous over base SAGD.
Co-injection of n-hexane alone induced in-situ asphaltene precipitation that was observed from the
postmortem sample. However, asphaltene deposition did not cause deterioration in oil production rate.
Moreover, in comparison with base SAGD, slight improvement of oil recovery factor and reduction of
energy consumption were observed for the case in which n-hexane was used.
Conjunction of n-hexane and toluene demonstrated superiorly efficiency in comparison with co-injection of
n-hexane alone. It should be also mentioned, that continuous and cyclic co-injection of n-hexane and toluene
showed nearly the same performance in terms of oil production, WOR, and energy consumption. But cyclic
solvents co-injection process was determined as a less toxic and more environmentally friendly technique.
Some solvents can cause undesirable effects due to the asphaltene destabilization and precipitation in
production line or transportation facility. It confirms the importance of the proper selection of the solvent type,
solvent concentration, and solvent injection strategy for ES-SAGD process.
SPE-170013-MS 13

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the financial support and opportunity provided by Texas A&M University to conduct
experiments in Ramey Thermal Recovery Laboratory. We also acknowledge the member of Heavy Oil,
Oil shales, Oil sands, & Carbonate Analysis and Recovery Methods (HOCAM) Research Team at Texas
A&M University, Petroleum Engineering Department, for their helps.

Nomenclature
CWE Cold Water Equivalent
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ES-SAGD Expanding Solvent-SAGD
GHG Greenhouse Gas
SAGD Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
SOR Steam to Oil Ratio
VAPEX Vapor Extraction
WOR Water to Oil Ratio

References
Alfa Aesar - A Johnson Matthey Company. http://www.alfa.com/ (accessed June 3, 2013).
Ayodele, O.R., Nasr, T.N., Ivory, J., Beaulieu, G., Heck, G. 2010. “Testing and History Matching of
ES-SAGD (Using Hexane)”. SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA. SPE-134002-
MS.
Bayliss, P., Levinson, A.A. 1976. “Mineralogical Review of the Alberta Oil Sand Deposits (Lower
Cretaceous, Mannville Group)”, Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Vol. 24, No. 2.
Butler, R.M. 2001. “Some recent developments in SAGD”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Tech-
nology, Vol. 40, No. 1. PETSOC-01-01-DAS.
Butler, R.M. 1991. “Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen”. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Butler, R.M., McNab, G.S., Lo, H.Y. 1979. “Theoretical studies on the gravity drainage of heavy oil
during in-situ steam heating”. 29th Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.
Chan, M.Y.S., Fong, J., Leshchyshyn, T. 1997. “Effects of Well Placement and Critical Operating
Conditions on the Performance of Dual Well SAGD Pair in Heavy Oil Reservoirs”. 5th Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. SPE 39082.
Chen, Q., Gerritsen, M.G., Kovsek, A.R. 2007. “Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneities on the Steam-
Assisted Gravity Drainage Process”. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, USA. SPE 109873.
CHERIC. 2013. “Base Component Properties”, http://www.cheric.org/research/kdb/hcprop/
cmpsrch.php (accessed May 13, 2013).
Chung, K.H., Butler, R.M. 1988. “Geometrical Effect of Steam Injection on the Formation of
Emulsions in the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 27, No. 1. PETSOC 88-01-02.
Collins, P.M. 2007. “The False Lucre of Low-Pressure SAGD”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 46, No. 1.
Cosultchi, A., Bosch, P., Lara, V.H. 2003. “Small-angle X-ray scattering study of oil- and deposit-
asphaltene solutions”, Colloid and Polymer Science, Vol. 281, No. 4.
Das, S.K., Butler, R.M. 1994. “Effect of Asphaltene Deposition on the VAPEX Process: A Prelim-
inary Investigation Using a Hele-Shaw Cell”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 33, No.
6. PETSOC-94-06-06.
14 SPE-170013-MS

Deng, X. 2005. “Recovery Performance and Economics of Steam/Propane Hybrid Process”. Interna-
tional Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE/PC – CIM/CHOA
97760.
Edmunds, N., Chhina, H. 2001. “Economic Optimum Operating Pressure for SAGD Projects in
Alberta”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 40, No. 12. 01-12-DAS.
Gates, I.D. 2007. “Oil Phase Viscosity Behaviour in Expanding-Solvent Steam-Assisted Gravity
Drainage”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 59, No. 1-2.
Gooble, L., Good, W.K., 1994. “Shell/Alberta Department of Energy Peace River Horizontal Well
Demonstration Project – A Test of the Enhanced Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Process”. Annual
Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 94 –41.
Grainger Industrial Supply. http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/start.shtml (accessed March 8,
2013).
Gray, M.R. 1994 “Upgrading Petroleum Residues and Heavy Oils”. New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Grills, T.L., Vandal, B., Hallum, F., Trost, P. 2002. “Case History: Horizontal Well SAGD Technol-
ogy is Successfully Applied to Produce Oil at LAK Ranch in Newcastle Wyoming”. SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Confer-
ence, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 78964.
Gupta, S.C., Gittins, S.D., Picherack, P. 2003. “Insights into some key issue with solvent aided
process”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 43, No. 2. PETSOC-04-02-05-P.
Haghighat, P., Maini, B.B. 2010. “Role of Asphaltene Precipitation in VAPEX Process”, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 49, No. 3. SPE 134244-PA.
Hamm, R.A., Ong, T.S. 1995. “Enhanced Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage: A New Horizontal Well
Recovery Process for Peace River, Canada”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 34, No. 4.
PETSOC-95-04-03-P.
Hein, F.J., Marsh, R.A. 2008. “Regional Geologic Framework, Depositional Models and Resource
Estimates of the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada”. World Heavy Oil Congress, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Paper 2008-320.
Henderson, J.H., Weber, L. 1965. “Physical Upgrading of Heavy Crude Oils by the Application of
Heat”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 4, No. 10-12. 65-04-05.
Huc, A. 2011. “Heavy Crude Oils. From Geology to Upgrading: An Overview”. Editions Technip,
Paris.
Ibatullin, R.R., Amerkhanov, M.I., Ibragimov, N.G., Khisamov, R.S., Frolov, A.I. 2007. “Develop-
ment of Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage technology as an example of Ashalchinskoye heavy oil field
performance”, Oil Industry, Vol. 1, No. 7.
Ibatullin, T., Zolotukhin, A.B. 2009. “Optimization of Solvent-Based Enhancements of Steam As-
sisted Gravity Drainage”. 15th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Paris, France.
Li, W., Mamora, D.D. 2010. “Drainage Mechanism of Steam with Solvent Coinjection under Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Process”. CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhi-
bition, Beijing, China, 2010. SPE 130802.
Li, W., Mamora, D.D., Li, Y. 2011. “Light- and Heavy-Solvent Impacts on Solvent-Aided SAGD
process: A Low Pressure Experimental Study”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 50, No.
4.
Luo, P., Wang, X., Gu, Y., Zhang, H., Moghadam, S. 2008. “Asphaltene Precipitation and Its Effects
on the Vapour Extraction (VAPEX) Heavy Oil Recovery Process”. SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE/PS/CHOA 117527.
Mansoori, G.A. 2010. “Remediation of Asphaltene and Other Heavy Organic Deposits in Oil Wells
and in Pipelines”. J. Reservoir and Petroleum Engineering. UDC 52.47.23.
McCain, W.D., 1989 “The Properties of Petroleum Fluids” Second Addition, PennWellBooks, p. 17.
SPE-170013-MS 15

McColl, D., Mei, M., Millington, D., Kumar, Ch., Gill, G., Howard, P. 2008. “Green Bitumen: The
Role of Nuclear, Gasification, and CCS in Alberta’s Oil Sands. Part II – Oil Sands Cost and Production”.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mendoza, H.A., Finol, J.J., Butler, R.M. 1999. “SAGD, Pilot Test in Venezuela”. Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela. SPE 53687.
Mohammadzadeh, O. 2012. “Experimental Studies Focused on the Pore-Scale Aspects of Heavy Oil
and Bitumen Recovery Using the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and Solvent-Aided SAGD
(SA-SAGD) Recovery Processes”. Doctor of Philisophy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada.
Mohammadzadeh, O., Rezaei, N., Chatzis, I. 2010. “Pore-level Investigation of Heavy Oil and
Bitumen Recovery Using Solvent-Aided Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SA-SAGD) Process”, Energy
& Fuels, Vol. 26, No. 12.
Mohebati, M. H., Maini, B.B., Harding, T.G. 2009. “Numerical Evaluation of Adding Hydrocarbon
Additives to Steam in SAGD Process’”. Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. PETSOC-2009-101-P.
Mohebati, M. H., Maini, B.B., Harding, T.G. 2012. “Experimental Investigation of the Effect of
Hexane on SAGD Performance at Different Operating Pressures”. SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Calgary,
Alerta, Canada. SPE 158498.
Nasr, T.N., Ayodele, O.R. 2006. “New Hybrid Steam-Solvent Processes for the Recovery of Heavy
Oil and Bitumen”. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE. SPE
101717.
Nasr, T.N., Beaulieu, G., Golbeck, H., Heck, G. 2003. “Novel Expanding Solvent-SAGD Process
“ES-SAGD””, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 42, No. 1. PETSOC-03-01-TN-P.
Nasr, T.N., Kimber, K.D., Vendrinsky, D.A., Jha, K.N. 1991. “Process Enhancement in Horizontal
Wells Through the Use of Vertical Drainage Channels and Hydrocarbon Additives”. Western Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA. 21794-MS.
Nasr, T.N., Isaacs, E.E. 2001. “Process for Enhancing Hydrocarbon Mobility Using a Steam Addi-
tive”. USA Patent No. 6230814.
National Energy Board. 2000. “Canada’s Oil Sands: A Supply and Market Outlook to 2015”.
Orr, B. 2009. “ES-SAGD; Past, Present and Future”. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. SPE-129518-STU.
Ray, J.P., Engelhardt, F.R. 1992. “Produced Water: Technological/Environmental Issues and Solu-
tions”. Plenum Publishing Corp., New York.
Scheflan, L., Jacobs, M.B. 1953. “The Handbook of Solvents”. New York, USA, D. Vas Nostrand
Company, Inc.
Shu, W.R., Hartman, K.J. 1986. “Thermal Visbreaking of Heavy Oil during Steam Recovery
Processes”, SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 5. 12783-PA.
Smallwood, I.M. 2002. “Solvent Recovery Handbook”, 2nd edition, Boca Raton: Blackwell Science:
CRC Press.
Speight, J.G., 1991. “The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum”, Second Addtion, Marcel Dekker,
Inc. pp. 309 –356.
Suggett, J., Gittins, S., Youn, S. 2000. “Christina Lake Thermal Project”. SPE/CIM International
Conference on Horisontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 65520-MS.
Yang, G., Butler, R.M. 1992. “Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneities on Heavy Oil Recovery by
Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 31, No. 8. PET-
SOC-92-08-03.
Yang, L. 2007. “Field Test of SAGD as Follow-up Process to CSS in Liaohe Oilfield of China”,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 46, No. 4.
16 SPE-170013-MS

Yen, T.F., Erdman, J.G., Pollack, S.S. 1961. “Investigation of the Structure of Petroleum Asphaltenes
by X-Ray Diffraction”, Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 33, No. 11.
You, N., Yoon, S., Lee, C.W. 2012. “Steam Chamber Evolution during SAGD and ES-SAGD in Thin
Layer Oil Sand Reservoirs Using a 2-D Scaled Model”, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,
Vo