CANADIAN HEAVY
OIL ASSOCIATION
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
PS2005-371
Heavy-Oil Fluid Testing With Conventional and Novel Techniques
N. Goodarzi, J. Bryan, A. Mai, and A. Kantzas, U. of Calgary/Tomographic Imaging and Porous Media Laboratory
Copyright 2005, SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA Program Committee
following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Petroleum SocietyCanadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum, or the Canadian
Heavy Oil Association and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the SPE or PS-CIM/CHOA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this paper, we propose the combined utilization of x-ray
tomography and magnetic resonance techniques for
quantification of heavy oil fluid properties. The design of
these systems is presented along with preliminary results
combined with conventional measurements. The objective is
to understand the PVT behavior of a viscous heavy oil from a
reservoir that has undergone primary production. Methane is
dissolved into the oil at ambient temperature and elevated
pressure. The pressure is later slowly depleted and the oil
PVT properties are recorded. Specifically, this paper details
measurements of oil density, formation value factor, and
solution gas-oil-ratio as a function of pressure. The
incremental benefit of the proposed nucleonic techniques is
that they provide more detailed information about that oil,
compared to conventional PVT measurements. This improves
our understanding of the foamy oil response.
Introduction
Understanding fluid behavior of heavy oils is important for
reservoir simulation and production response predictions. In
heavy oil reservoirs, the oil viscosity and density are
commonly reported, but there is little experimental data in the
literature reporting how oil properties change with pressure.
This information would be especially useful for production
companies seeking to understand and improve their primary
(cold production) response.
It is already widely known that foamy oil behavior is a
major cause for increased production in cold heavy oil
reservoirs along with sand production. Therefore it would be
valuable to first study the bulk fluid properties of live heavy
oil prior to sand pack depletion experiments. If the response of
these properties to incremental pressure reduction can be
established, this can be compared with fluid expansion during
pressure depletion in a sand pack.
Computer Assisted Tomography (CT) scanning is useful
in studying high-pressure PVT relationships. Images of a
pressure vessel filled with live oil can be taken as the volume
of the vessel is expanded and used to calculate bulk densities
and free gas saturation. Also, CT images allow us to visually
see how the gas comes out of solution and where it is located
in the vessel. For example, CT scanning can be used to
provide an indication of whether or not small bubbles nucleate
within the oil and then slowly coalesce into a gas cap, or if
free gas forms straight away.
CT scanning provides much more information than
conventional PVT cells. Uncertainties about where gas is
forming in the oil, its effect on oil properties and transient
behavior cannot be solved in conventional PVT cells.
However, from CT images the formation of micro bubbles
could be inferred based on the density of the oil with the
dissolved gas. If the oil density decreases as the pressure
drops, then it is likely that gas has come out of solution but
remains within the oil, hence the resulting mixture is less
dense than the original live oil. However, if oil density
increases as the gas evolves then the oil does not contain small
gas bubbles, and gas has separated from the oil.
Also, the free gas saturation growth with time, and
comparison of images at equilibrium vs. immediately after the
expansion of the vessel, will provide mass transfer information
about gas bubble growth, supersaturation and gravity
separation.
When characterizing heavy oil and bitumen fluid
properties, oil viscosity is one of the most important pieces of
information that has to be obtained. The high viscosities of
heavy oil and bitumen present a significant obstacle to the
technical and economic success of a given EOR option. As a
result, in-situ oil viscosity measurement techniques would be
of considerable benefit to the industry.
In heavy oil reservoirs that are undergoing primary
production, this problem is further complicated by the
presence of the gas leaving solution with the oil. Above the
bubble point the gas is fully dissolved into the oil, thus the live
oil exists as a single-phase fluid. Once the pressure drops
below the bubble point and gas begins to leave solution,
however, oil viscosity behavior is no longer well understood.
In addition to our CT analysis, this work also presents the use
of low field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) as a tool for
2 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
making in-situ viscosity estimates of live and foamy oil.
NMR spectra change significantly as pressure drops and gas
leaves solution, and these changes can be correlated to
physical changes in the oil viscosity.
The novelty of the NMR and CT work is that
measurements are non-intrusive and have the potential to
provide a wealth of information about heavy oil and bitumen
PVT properties that cannot be easily determined in
conventional measurements. In this manner, the use of these
tomographic imaging tools allows for an improved
understanding of how heavy oil properties change with
pressure, which is useful for interpreting and modeling foamy
oil response in the reservoir.
X-ray Computed Tomography Theory. X-rays are produced
from a source in a narrow fan, pass through the scanned object
and are received by detectors. As the x-rays pass through the
object being scanned they attenuate and the detector measures
the photons that are not absorbed. The source and the detector
rotate around the object being scanned providing a cross-
sectional image of the object 1,2.
The CT image itself is comprised of normalized values
of the linear attenuation coefficient for each volume element
called CT numbers. Measured CT numbers may be negative or
positive. In order to interpret them, they are normalized to
water, which has a value of zero, and air, which has a value of
-1000. CT images are 512 by 512 pixels and the resolution is
dependent on the slice thickness and the scanned field size.
There are many papers that discuss CT scanning fundamentals
and equations used to develop the images1-7.
A correlation was developed to relate CT numbers to
densities by using the CT numbers of various oils, water and
solvents with known densities. This relationship is system
dependant; it is also reliant upon the vessel in which the
sample is scanned as well as the scanner voltage and current
settings.
bulk = 0.967 CTnumber 1019.14 ....................... (1)
where, bulk is the bulk density (kg/m) and CTnumber is the
normalized CT number.
Using the CT images of the live oil mixture at a cross-
sectional slice, the free gas fraction can be found. The image is
first cropped to only contain the fluid mixture, and then the
free gas saturation is calculated by dividing the number of
pixels containing free gas by the total number of image pixel
that contains gas and oil. The remaining portion of the image
is the oil phase, along with dissolved or dispersed gas. The
density of this portion can be obtained from its CT numbers
using Eq. 1, thus oil density can be monitored as gas comes
out of solution.
The remaining volume of solution gas at any pressure is
calculated by subtracting the free gas saturation, obtained from
the scanned images, from the original volume of dissolved gas
in the oil. This volume of solution gas is divided by the dead
oil volume to obtain the solution gas oil ratio.
The single-phase oil formation volume factor is
calculated as the oil volume occupied in the image, divided by
the initial dead oil volume. All of these properties can be
calculated as a function of pressure, to understand the oil PVT
response.
NMR Theory. Low field NMR monitors the response of
hydrogen protons in the presence of an external magnetic
field. Protons are found in hydrocarbons and water, thus
NMR signals come only from these fluids, and not from the
surrounding rock or, in the case of PVT experiments, core
holder (so long as these do not contain paramagnetic
elements). In an NMR experiment, the protons are initially
aligned in the direction of the external magnetic field lines.
Additional energy is then supplied to the protons in the form
of radio-frequency (RF) pulses, causing them to tip onto a
perpendicular plane. The protons exchange energy with other
protons and with the surface of the medium surrounding the
liquids, and as they give off energy they return to their
equilibrium alignment. Inversion software converts the
measured decay data into a spectrum of amplitudes and their
associated relaxation time constants, and all NMR analysis is
performed on these spectra.
Mechanisms by which NMR relaxation occurs have been
well documented in the literature 8, 9. In the case of bulk
liquids not constricted by rock pores, relaxation occurs
through a process known as bulk relaxation. In the case of
oil, which contains many components, the geometric mean
relaxation time (T2gm) of the oil is used to represent its average
relaxation time. It has been experimentally determined8, 10 that
as fluid viscosity increases, bulk relaxation rate increases as
well, and T2gm decreases. In this manner, bulk fluids with
short T2gm values correlate with higher fluid viscosity.
NMR and liquid viscosity. The mechanism by which
NMR can be related to fluid viscosity can be explained
through Eyrings Theory of Liquid Viscosity11. This theory
states that liquid molecules are in a cage-like structure, and
that the free space between the molecules is not large enough
for the molecules to move freely by one another. For any one
molecule to move, other surrounding molecules must first give
way and move into vacant lattice sites or holes, thus creating
a space for the molecule to enter. Highly viscous fluids
consist of molecules that cannot move easily by one another,
meaning that higher shear stresses must be applied to the
liquids in order to initiate flow.
NMR bulk relaxation occurs as protons transfer energy
to neighbouring protons, and in doing so return to the
equilibrium direction. If liquid molecules cannot easily flow
by one another, energy from the NMR experiment can be
transferred very quickly between protons, and relaxation
occurs quickly. Additionally, high viscosity fluids contain
less measurable signal per unit mass of fluid12. A parameter
was therefore defined13, 14 called the relative hydrogen index,
RHI. This is simply the normalized oil amplitude per unit
mass, referenced to the amplitude per unit mass of water at the
same temperature. Based upon a mechanistic understanding
of how both of these NMR parameters relate to oil viscosity,
an NMR viscosity model was developed for making NMR
viscosity predictions13, 14. Previous work has shown that with
tuning for a specific oil, viscosity predictions can be made
fairly accurately as a function of temperature14.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
NMR and foamy oil viscosity. At pressures above the
bubble point, gas is fully dissolved into the oil. In this manner,
live oil behaves as a single-phase fluid, and its viscosity can
be measured using a capillary viscometer. Once gas leaves
solution, however, oil and gas now flow as a two-phase,
highly compressible mixture, meaning that the viscosity
predicted using a capillary viscometer is no longer accurate.
Thus, a new method for inferring foamy oil viscosity is
required.
Theoretical explanations of the effect of this dispersed
gas are contradictory. Normal emulsion theory15 states that
the dispersed gas bubbles act as barriers to flow in the liquid,
thus the foamy oil viscosity should be higher than that of the
dead heavy oil. Alternatively, theories have been put forth in
the literature explaining the high production rates associated
with cold production as the effect of the dispersed gas bubbles
somehow leading to reduced viscosity. Wall et al.16 found that
gas mobility decreases with increasing oil viscosity. Smith17
was the first to develop an apparent in situ oil viscosity
equation for 2-phase foamy oil. Later Islam and Chakma18
calculated a mixture viscosity to account for micro bubbles in
the oil using the volume fraction of oil and the single-phase
viscosities of the gas and oil. Poon and Kisman19 indicated
that foamy oil exhibits non-Newtonian flow, and shear
thickening effects account for the low viscosity far from the
well bore where the shear rates are low. They proposed an
apparent viscosity equation. Claridge and Prats20 believed that
the asphaltenes adhered to the surface of the gas within the oil
stabilizing the micro bubbles with in the oil. Shen and
Batycky21 developed an apparent viscosity correlation with
lubrication effects.
It can be inferred that foamy oil has improved effective
mobility, compared to dead heavy oil. However, the
complications associated with measuring foamy oil properties
make it difficult to discern which physical property is
responsible for these improved rates and recovery factors.
Albartamani et al.22 performed a study on the applicability of
available viscometers in measuring foamy oil viscosity. He
found the difficulty in foamy oil viscosity measurements was
in determining the volume fraction of the dispersed phase.
However, CT scanning allows this to be easily determined.
Our work, which employs novel techniques of in-situ
fluid property measurement, aims to answer some of these
questions. The value of using NMR as a tool for measuring
oil viscosity is that this technique does not require the oil to be
flowing in order to obtain a measure of its viscosity, meaning
that this technique is valid for both dead and live oil analysis.
In this manner, NMR can be used to determine the viscosity of
this compressible, two-phase, foamy oil. This, along with the
other measurements of oil properties we obtain using CT
analysis, allow for improved understanding of live and foamy
oil properties.
Experimental Setup and Procedure
Two pressure vessels were designed out of TECAPEAK
PVX, a high performance plastic that can withstand high-
pressure applications. This material is x-ray transparent and
also does not interfere with the magnet in the NMR.
The pressure vessel designed for CT scanning was
designed as a piston cylinder with a 4.45 cm inner diameter.
3
The end caps and the piston were made out of aluminum. The
vessel was pressurized with water on one side of the piston to
a value greater than the bubblepoint, and then a known volume
of live oil was transferred to the piston. The waterside of the
piston cylinder was connected to a pressure transducer and a
Jefri pump, and then the piston cylinder was placed on the
scanning bed. In the experiments, a known volume of water
was withdrawn daily, using the precision Jefri pump. The
system was scanned before and after the water volume was
removed.
Jefri Pump water live oil CT
Scanner
Pressure
Transducer
move to scan
Figure 1. Experimental apparatus for CT scanning expansion
experiment.
Unfortunately, the same vessel could not be used for the NMR
because the borehole of the magnet is only 4.45 cms, so a
smaller 3.81 cm outer diameter vessel was used instead. The
pressure vessel used in the NMR experiment is filled with live
oil and connected to an external piston cylinder with live oil
one side and water on the other. A pressure transducer is
connected to the pressure vessel before the piston cylinder.
The waterside is connected to a precision ISCO pump and
recorded volumes are withdrawn daily. NMR measurements
are taken before and after the water is withdrawn.
live
oil
NMR
Pressure
Transducer
water
ISCO Pump
Figure 2. Experimental apparatus for NMR expansion experiment.
The oil measured in this study is a produced crude oil from a
field that has undergone primary production. This oil is
recombined with methane using a magnetic drive-mixing
vessel. The same oil has been used for both the CT scanning
and NMR expansion vessels. The GOR of the oil was also
determined before the oil was transferred to the expansion
vessels.
This work uses a third generation general electric CT/i
scanner; meaning the source and the detectors rotate together
around the object. The technique used for the imaging is 120
kV and 80 mA. The resolution of measurement or the volume
4 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803

of each pixel for this case is 0.049 cm x 0.049 cm x 0.1 cm.

The NMR is a low field relaxometer supplied by the Ecotek
Corporation, and operates at a frequency of around 1.2 MHz.
NMR measurements were taken at an echo spacing of 0.3 ms,
5000 echoes, a repolarization time of 10 sec., and 30 trains.

Results and Discussion

CT Scanning Experiment. Table 1 shows the dead oil
properties of the oil prior to recombine the oil with methane.
This oil was obtained from a heavy oil field in Alberta.

Table 1: Properties of the dead oil.

GOR @ 20C 13.06 Figure 4. Axial (cross-sectional view) scans of live oil as gas
comes out of solution.
dead oil (kg/m) @ 20C 981.5
dead oil (mPas) @ 20C 16210 Figure 5 is a pressure-volume relationship that shows the
bubble point curve for both the CT scanning and NMR
As expected, when the pressure declined below the expansion experiments. As mentioned before the same live oil
bubblepoint, the slope of the pressure-volume graph changes is used for both experiments and the bubble point pressure was
and free gas can be seen in the CT images. Figure 3 shows found to be 4275 kPa for both experiments. The discrepancy
scout scans of the expansion vessel (a) before the bubble point between the two curves is due to different rates of depletion
at time zero, (b) just after the bubble point, (c) before the gas used after the bubble point was obtained.
becomes continuous and (d) when gas becomes continuous.
The bubbles are generated at the top of the cylinder, at the 8000
tube wall. 7000 CT Data
6000 NMR Data
Pressure (kPa)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Volume Redrawn (ml)
Figure 5. Pressure as a function of volume withdrawn.
Figure 3. Scout (top view) scans of live oil as gas comes out of
solution. The density of the oil and dissolved gas is averaged; since this
is the density of bulk fluids, the standard deviation for the oil
Figure 4 shows axial scanned images taken at a single cross- portion is low. The average density is plotted as a function of
section at different times during the experiment. The images pressure in Figure 6.
are: (a) before the bubble point at time zero, (b) just after the
gas becomes continuous, (c) the free gas grows with 978
expansion of the vessel and (d) at end of experiment at high 977 Before
depletion rate not at equilibrium. After
976
Density (kg/m)

In all of the images taken, micro bubbles were never

evident in the oil phase, since the standard deviation within the 975
oil phase portion remained consistently low at an average 974
value of 7.2. If bubbles of gas were formed within the oil then 973
the standard deviation of the oil phase would be expected to 972
increase. Therefore, despite the fact that the CT images in 971
Figure 4 are not entirely uniform, they remained so throughout
970
the experiment. Only at the end of the experiment when the
pressure was depleted rapidly were gas bubbles visibly 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
immersed in the oil phase. Otherwise, the gas appeared as Pressure (kPa)
either free gas and the oil appeared to be fairly homogenous.
Figure 6. Density of the oil and dissolved gas as pressure drops.

Figure 6 shows that as pressure declines above the bubble

SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803 5

point the density of the mixture decreases. This is caused by
the expansion of the live oil before the gas comes out of
solution. There is an inflection point at a pressure of 4275 kPa
in which the density begins to increase with decreasing
pressure. This implies that free gas is being generated and the
resulting density of the oil with the remaining gas in solution
increases towards that of dead oil.
The expansion vessel was CT scanned immediately
before and after the pressure was dropped. The goal was to see
where the gas was coming out of solution, but unfortunately
this was not visible. The images taken directly after the
pressure was dropped show the density was slightly lower than
the density of the images taken 24 hours later. This indicates
that the oil was liberating gas, reducing the density, but the gas
still remains within the oil. Gas was liberated within the oil,
just not as free gas.
The oil formation volume factor, BO, and the two-phase
oil formation volume factor, BT, are shown as a function of
pressure in Figures 7 and 8.
The two-phase formation volume factor shows the same
behavior: below the bubble point the two-phase formation
volume factor increases as the free gas is produced. Figures 7
and 8 both illustrate the unique nature of foamy oil PVT. In
conventional oil, where gas easily leaves solution with the oil,
BO decreases significantly as pressure drops below the bubble
point27. In Figure 7, however, the single phase FVF changes
much more slowly with pressure. After the initial abrupt drop
at the bubble point, BO barely decreases even when the
pressure has dropped by an additional 1000 kPa below the
bubble point. Figure 8, which plots BT with pressure, does not
show this trend as distinctly because below the bubble point
BT is masked by the free gas. However, when comparing this
plot again to that expected in a conventional oil reservoir, it
can be seen that the gas does not leave solution as easily in
this heavy oil.
The solution gas-oil-ratio, RS, is plotted in Figure 9 with
pressure. Above the bubble point, the CT images show that the
gas in solution remains constant, while the gas in solution
steadily declines below the bubble point.

1.06
14
Oil Formation Volume Factor

1.05

1.04 12

1.03
Rs (cm/cm)

10

1.02
8
1.01
6
1.00
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 4
Pre ssure (kPa) 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pre ssure (kPa)
Figure 7. Oil formation volume factor with declining pressure.
Figure 9. Solution gas oil ratio as a function pressure.
As pressure decreases above the bubble point the single-phase
oil formation volume factor increases. This indicates that the The shape of the curve in Figure 9 is also indicative of the
oil volume is expanding, but the gas remains dissolved. Below unique nature of foamy oil. At the bubble point there is
the bubble point there is initially a sharp decline in the oil initially a drop in RS, but as pressure continues to drop, the gas
formation volume factor as the oil becomes less compressible does not leave solution as quickly as it would in conventional
and the free gas is formed. oil.
These measurements, obtained through CT scanning,
1.25 indicate that the oil phase imaged in the cross-sectional slices
contains a significant amount of entrained gas, which was not
Two Phase Oil Formation

1.20 able to form its own phase separate from the oil. These results
are not in themselves totally unexpected, although it should be
Volume Factor

1.15 noted that there is very little data regarding actual heavy oil
PVT studies in the literature. Rather, what is unique about the
1.10
results presented in this paper is that they have been measured
in-situ and in 3D, along the entire length of the piston
1.05
cylinder. This data was all gathered during the same CT
experiment, and the numbers presented are averaged over the
1.00
entire length of the cylinder. This should therefore be more
2000 4000 6000 8000
statistically valid than measurements obtained only at the
Pre ssure (kPa) window of a PVT cell. Additionally, CT imaging has yielded
information that cannot be readily obtained in conventional
Figure 8. Two phase oil formation volume factor as pressure
decreases for gas coming out of solution.
PVT studies. For example, below the bubble point, dispersed
free gas is present throughout the oil, not just in the upper
6 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
regions of the cylinder. This is seen in the fact that the oil
phase CT numbers (and hence density) are fairly constant
throughout the oil phase in any given slice
NMR Experiment. For the heavy oil sample tested in this
study, measurements of dead oil viscosity were first made
using a Brookfield cone and plate viscometer, and live oil
viscosity above the bubble point using a capillary viscometer.
These measurements were performed at the measurement
temperature (23C). Several repeat measurements of dead oil
viscosity were also made at 30C in order to test the
homogeneity of this oil. It was observed that different oil
samples measured at 30C had slightly different measured
viscosity and NMR values, meaning that this oil is not totally
homogeneous.
For dead oils, viscosity has been observed to vary
inversely with the oil T2gm8, 9. However, for higher viscosity
oils the relationship between viscosity and T2gm is less clear.
In order to accurately predict higher viscosities, a different
form for the NMR viscosity model has been shown to be23 ,24:
= ........................................................... (2)
(RHI ) T2gm
where is the oil viscosity, RHI is the oil relative hydrogen
index and T2gm is the oil geometric mean relaxation time. The
parameters and are empirical constants. The general
values and are 1150 and 4.55, respectively. Using these
general values can allow for order of magnitude viscosity
predictions over a wide range of oil viscosity values13, 23. In
order to improve the viscosity predictions for a single
reservoir, these values have to be tuned for the oil under
investigation.
In the development of this viscosity model, it was
observed that oil samples measured at different temperatures
behave the same way as independent oil samples of different
viscosity, all measured at the same temperature23. This
observation can be explained through Eyrings theory of liquid
viscosity11. At low temperatures, the molecules of high
viscosity heavy oil are complex and interwoven, meaning that
it is not easy for molecules to separate and generate holes
into which other molecules can move, which is the
prerequisite to flow. At elevated temperatures, the molecules
now have much more energy and are moving more, meaning
that the spaces between molecules are larger and flow occurs
with less required shear input.
The assumption made in using this same form of the oil
viscosity model to predict live oil viscosity is that the effect of
dissolved gas on the oil viscosity is the same as that of
temperature (i.e. oil containing solution gas at elevated
pressures behaves similarly to less viscous oil at ambient
pressures). Once more, this assumption can be validated using
Eyrings theory of liquid viscosity. When gas is dissolved into
the oil, the gas effectively causes the oil molecules to separate
further from one another, giving the same effect as increased
temperature. This was proven previously through the CT
analysis of BO. In this manner, oils containing dissolved
methane behave similarly on a molecular level to lower
viscosity oils at ambient pressures, and the dead oil NMR
viscosity model can also be used to predict live oil viscosity.
For the oil sample measured in this study, measurements
of live and dead oil viscosity were performed in order to tune
the NMR viscosity model. The values of and were found
to be 13632 and 1.46, respectively, which are very different
from the general values, and illustrate the importance of
tuning in order to improve the viscosity estimates.
There are two parameters that must be determined in
order to predict viscosity using the NMR model: the oil RHI
and its T2gm. The geometric mean oil relaxation time can be
determined from the peak locations in the NMR spectra, and
T2gm values are plotted against pressure in Figure 10.
3
2.5
2
T2gm (ms)
1.5
1
0.5
0
6000 4000 2000 0
Pressure (kPa)
Figure 10. Oil T2gm changes with pressure.
Since oil viscosity is known to be inversely related in
some fashion to the oil T2gm, the results of Figure 10 are
extremely important, because they provide an indication of the
oil viscosity behavior with pressure both above and below the
bubble point. At pressures above the bubble point, the oil T2gm
values are relatively constant, indicating that live oil viscosity
is not a function of pressure. This observation has also been
experimentally determined using capillary viscometry.
At the bubble point pressure, there is a drop in the oil
T2gm as gas begins to leave solution and the oil becomes more
viscous. The very important observation that can be made
from Figure 10, however, is that the T2gm values do not
decrease significantly, even as the pressure drops by several
thousand kPa below the bubble point pressure. The oil
relaxation times below the bubble point are certainly lower
than the live oil values, indicating that the oil is more viscous
once some gas has left solution, however the T2gm values do
not begin to approach those of the dead oil until pressures
went well below the bubble point.
In order to convert the NMR findings into actual
viscosity values using the tuned expression for Eq. 2, both
NMR parameters of RHI and T2gm must be determined at each
experimental pressure. The T2gm values were measured and are
shown in Figure 10, but the RHI values are more problematic.
RHI is the oil amplitude per unit mass, referenced to that of
water. In the foamy oil NMR experiment, fluid was slowly
withdrawn from the system in order to reduce the pressure.
As a result, the mass of oil present is not known at any given
pressure, and RHI cannot be determined directly. This
problem has been solved by observing that RHI and T2gm are
not independent, but rather they are related to one another
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803 7

through the oil viscosity. This means that RHI can be
predicted for a single oil at different temperatures, based on
the oil T2gm. This has previously been demonstrated in our
work determining in-situ oil viscosity14, 24 and in-situ fluid
saturation25, 26. Figure 11 shows the relationship between T2gm
and RHI for this particular oil. This plot was obtained by
measuring the NMR spectra of a known mass of this oil at
different temperatures. The relationship is non-linear, which
has also been observed in previous work. Based on the
measured oil T2gm, therefore, the oil RHI can also be inferred,
and viscosity estimated using Eq. 2. As was also noted in
previous work25, this means that in-situ viscosity calculated
using Equation 2 is in reality a non-linear function of the oil
relaxation time, and the RHI term exists to tune the non-
linearity for different oils.
0.95
0.90
0.85
Oil RHI
constant at the measured live oil value, while below the bubble
point (dark diamonds) viscosity increases.
A trend line has been fitted through the data below the
bubble point in order to illustrate the nature of foamy oil
viscosity changes with pressure. The surprising result of
Figure 12 is that at pressures well below the bubble point, the
NMR viscosity is not significantly higher than the live oil
value. At pressures approaching ambient pressure, when most
of the gas has finally left solution (according to Figure 10), the
oil viscosity then increases much more rapidly towards the
dead oil value.
The surprising result shown in Figure 12 indicates a
foamy oil viscosity response that cannot be measured with
conventional laboratory apparatuses. Repeat measurements
should be run, both with this oil and with other heavy oils
from reservoirs that can undergo primary production, in order
to verify the results shown in this figure. However, at this
point, the data seems to indicate that during the foamy oil
period of primary production in heavy oil reservoirs, the slow
gas liberation from the oil keeps the oil viscosity close to that
of its live oil value. This means that the improved response
seen in many of these heavy oil reservoirs can at least in part

0.80
be due to the oil viscosity staying low until the reservoir
0.75 pressure has declined well below the bubble point. This, along
0.70 y = -0.016x 2 + 0.143x + 0.6475 with the poor gas mobility observed in the CT experiments, is
R2 = 0.83 consistent with the improved rates and recoveries seen during
0.65
primary production of heavy oil.
0.60 One last set of data that was extracted from these
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 experiments is the comparison of NMR spectra properties,
Oil T2gm (ms) immediately before and after a volume depletion step. Figure
13 shows the T2gm vs. pressure response for the data collected
Figure 11. Oil RHI T2gm relationship based on dead oil. right before (Pbef) and right after (Paft) a volume depletion.
At this point, both NMR parameters are known at the
experimental pressures, and oil viscosity can be calculated
3
using the tuned form of Eq. 2. The NMR viscosity estimations
are plotted against pressure in Figure 12. 2.8
T2gm (ms)

2.6
12000

10000 2.4 Pbef

Paft
2.2
Viscosity (cP)

8000

6000 2
4000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000
Pressure (kPa)
2000
Figure 13. NMR response of measurements taken before and after
0 pressure depletion steps.
8000 6000 4000 2000 0
Pressure (kPa) Figure 13 shows that although the data measured before
and after the volume depletions appear to follow similar-
Figure 12. NMR viscosity variations with pressure. shaped trends, the data taken immediately after the pressure
depletion is skewed such that the change in NMR response is
It is important to note that the actual viscosity values may not not seen until lower pressures. Data taken before a depletion
be perfectly accurate, since the NMR viscosity model was step are equilibrium data, meaning that the system has
tuned using only two points (dead oil and live oil above the remained at constant volume for many hours. Conversely, the
bubble point). However, Figure 12 demonstrates that above data taken immediately after a volume depletion are not at
the bubble point (the white squares) the viscosity is essentially equilibrium. The delayed pressure response seen in this data
8 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803
is indicative of the so-called supersaturation effect
associated with many fast laboratory experiments. In short
core floods, therefore, one would expect the oil viscosity
behavior to follow the trend of the Paft data, while in longer
core floods or at the field scale, the Pbef data would be more
appropriate.
As with the CT data, the results presented in this paper
are a preamble to actual foamy oil sandpack depletion
experiments. These measurements should also be possible if
the foamy oil is in sand, meaning that the live and foamy oil
viscosity response can also potentially be determined during
an actual depletion study.
Conclusions
This basic study of liberating gas from live oil and measuring
the fluid PVT properties with pressure proves that CT
scanning and NMR are valuable non-invasive tools for
acquiring bulk fluid properties. The novelty of CT scanning is
that it allows you to acquire visual data that can also be
quantified into meaningful properties such as density, oil
formation volume factor and the solution gas oil ratio. This
data is obtained along the total length of the piston cylinder,
and measurements are made in three dimensions through the
use of the CT cross sections. These CT measurements have
been used to show definitively the differences between
conventional and foamy oil PVT.
Using the NMR in conjunction to CT scanner goes a step
further by also providing live oil and foamy oil viscosity
information. This data cannot be generated accurately using
flowing viscosity apparatuses, due to the highly compressible
gases present in foamy oil. NMR is able, however, to provide
estimates of the oil viscosity both above and below the bubble
point. The results of this experiment indicate that even at
pressures well below the bubble point, the foamy oil viscosity
is not significantly less than that of the live oil, meaning that
the high rates and recoveries associated with foamy oil flow
are at least in part due to a reduced oil viscosity.
The results presented in this work demonstrate that
improved measurement techniques, improve our
understanding of the foamy oil mechanism.
Acknowledgements
We thank Rob Scorey and the other staff of the University of
Calgary Engineering Machine Shop for constructing the
pressure vessels in such a short period of time. Also, special
thanks to Michael Benedek, at Tomographic Imaging and
Porous Media Laboratories, for his help. We also
acknowledge the Canadian Research Chair in Energy and
Imaging (Dr. Kantzas) and affiliates (Shell/Albian Sands,
Nexen, Devon, PetroCanada, Canadian Natural, ET Energy),
COURSE and the Province of Alberta Graduate Scholarship
for funding.
Nomenclature
BO = single phase (oil) formation volume factor
BT = two phase (oil and gas) formation volume factor
CTnumber = the normalized CT number
RHI = oil relative hydrogen index (normalized amplitude per
unit mass)
RS = the gas-oil-ratio of the gas in solution with the oil
(cm/cm)
T2gm = oil geometric mean relaxation time (ms).
= empirical coefficient in the NMR viscosity expression
= empirical exponent in the NMR viscosity expression
= the oil viscosity (mPas)
bulk = bulk density (kg/m)
References
1. Withjack, E.M.: Computed Tomography for Rock-Property
Determination and Fluid-Flow Visualization, paper SPE 16951
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
2. Kantzas, A.: Investigation of Physical Properties of Porous
Rocks and Fluid Flow Phenomena in Porous Media Using
Computer Assisted Tomography InSitu 14, No.1 (1990) 77.
3. Wellington, S.L and Vinegar, H.J.: X-ray Computerized
Tomography JPT (August 1987) 885.
4. Honarpour, M.M., Cromwell, V. Hatton, D. and Satchell, R.:
Reservoir Rock Descriptions Using Computed Tomography
(CT), paper SPE 14272 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
5. Bansal, A. and Islam, M.R.: State-of-the-art Review of
Nondestructive Testing With Computer-Assisted Tomography,
paper SPE 22127 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anchorage, May 29-31.
6. Kantzas, A 1997.: Stress Strain Characterization of Sand Packs
Under Uniform Loads as Determined from Computer Assisted
Tomography, JCPT ((June 1997) 36.
7. Withjack, E.M. and Devier, C.: The Role of X-ray Computed
Tomography in Core Analysis, paper SPE 83467 presented at
the 2003 SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint
Meeting, Long Beach, May 19-24.
8. Straley, C., Rossini, D, Vinegar, H., Tutunjian, P. and Morriss,
C.: Core Analysis by Low Field NMR, The Log Analyst
(March April 1997) 38, 2.
9. Coates, G., Xiao, L. and Prammer, M.: NMR Logging Principles
and Applications, Halliburton Energy Services, 1999.
10. Kleinberg, R. and Vinegar, H.: NMR Properties of Reservoir
Fluids, The Log Analyst (November December, 1996) 37, 6.
11. Bird, R., Stewart, W. and Lightfoot, E.: Transport Phenomena
Second Edition, John-Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA (2002).
12. Mirotchnik, K., Allsopp, K., Kantzas, A., Curwen, D. and
Badry, R.: Low Field NMR-Tool for Bitumen Sands
Characterization: A New Approach, SPE Reservoir Eval. &
Eng., (April 2001) 4, 2.
13. Bryan, J., Mirotchnik, K. and Kantzas, A.: Viscosity
Determination of Heavy Oil and Bitumen Using NMR
Relaxometry, J. Can. Pet. Tech., (2003) 42, 7.
14. Bryan, J., Kantzas, A. and Bellehumeur, B.: Oil Viscosity
Predictions From Low Field NMR Measurements, SPE 89070,
SPE Res. Eval. & Engg., (2005) 8 , 1.
15. Pal, R., Yan, Y. and Masliyah, J.: Rheology of Emulsions,
Emulsions Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum
Industry, L. Schramm, ed., American Chemical Society, 1992.
16. Wall, C.G. and Khurana, A.K.: The Effects of Rate of Pressure
Decline and Liquid Viscosity on Low-Pressure Gas Saturations
in Porous Media, J Inst. Petro. Tech (Nov. 1972) 58.
17. Smith, G.E.: Fluid Flow and Sand Production in Heavy Oil
Reservoirs Under Solution Gas Drive,: SPEPE (May 1988)
169.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97803 9

18. Islam, M.R. and Chakma, A.: Mechanics of Bubble Flow in

Heavy Oil Reservoirs, SPE 20070 presented at the 1990
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, April 4-6.
19. Poon, D. and Kisman, K.: Non Newtonian Effects on the
Primary Production of Heavy Oil Reservoirs, presented at the
1991 CIM/AOSTRA Technical Conference, Banff, April 21-24.
20. Claridge, E.L. and Prats, M.: A Proposed Model and
Mechanism for Anomalous Heavy Oil Behavior, SPE 29243
presented at the 1995 International Heavy Oil Symposium
Calgary 19-21.
21. Shen, C. and Batycky, J.: Some observations of mobility
enhancement of heavy oils flowing through sand pack under
solution gas drive, presented at the 1996 Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, June 10-12.
22. Albartamani , N.S. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: Investigation of
Foamy Oil Phenomena in Heavy Oil Reservoirs SPE 54084
presented at the 1999 SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, March 17-19.
23. Bryan, A., Moon, D. and Kantzas, A.: In-Situ Viscosity of Oil
Sands Using Low Field NMR, J. Can, Pet. Tech., 2005.
24. Bryan, J., Hum, F., Kantzas, A., MacPherson, R. and
Hancsicsak, T.: In-situ Viscosity Using Low Field NMR: A
Field Case Study, presented at the 2005 International
Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Toronto, Canada,
August 21 25.
25. Kantzas, A., Bryan, J.L, Mai., A.T. and Hum, F.M.,:
Applications of Low Field NMR Techniques in the
Characterization of Oil Sands Mining, Extraction and Upgrading
Processes, Technical Note, Can. J. Chem. Engg, (Feb. 2005)
83, 1.
26. Bryan, J., Mai, A., Hum, F. and Kantzas, A.: Advances in Oil
and Water Saturation Measurements Using Low Field NMR,
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97802, presented at the 2005 International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary,
Canada, Nov 1 3.
27. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.: Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering, second edition, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1991) 34.