Solvent-Type and -Ratio Impacts on
Solvent-Aided SAGD Process
Weiqiang Li and Daulat D. Mamora, SPE, Texas A&M University, and Yamin Li, Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Summary
Coinjecting solvent with steam under a steam-assisted-gravity-
drainage (SAGD) process to reduce the required steam for pro-
duction has gained importance in recent years. An extensive 2D
simulation study to better understand the drainage mechanism of
steam-with-solvent coinjection in the SAGD process shows that the
condensation time difference of solvent and steam results in differ-
ent films of gas solvent, liquid solvent, and water along the fluid
interface. There is an optimal solvent-type and concentration-ratio
range for a particular reservoir and operating condition. Coinject-
ing the solvent at low concentration ratios can take advantage of
the solvent dilution effect without losing too much heat effect
from steam. In addition, this study indicates coinjection of suitable
solvent mixtures may lead to better performance than injection of
pure solvent in the field.
Introduction
The Athabasca oil sands contain bitumen that is too viscous to flow
into a wellbore. Many production techniques have been developed
to recover the Canadian heavy oil since the early 1980s. As dis-
cussed in Gates (2007), Mehrotra and Svrcek (1986) (Fig. 1) indi-
cated that the viscosity of Athabasca bitumen decreases dramati-
cally with increasing temperature; solvent can further reduce the
heated-oil viscosity at a constant temperature (Shu 1984) (Fig. 2).
Horizontal-well application can improve reservoir contact with
reduced distance for oil flow. The use of steam and then solvent, or
both, has been combined with horizontal drilling to take advantage
of gravity forces to deliver higher rates and recovery.
Previous Works
Gravity-Drainage Processes. SAGD is a promising bitumen-
recovery method applied in Canadian reservoirs, and was intro-
duced 30 years ago (Butler 1997). Two horizontal wells, an injector
above a producer, are drilled in the lower part of a formation. Both
wells and the formation between the two wells are first heated
by circulating steam between the wells. When communication is
established between the two wells, steam injection is continued in
the upper well, creating a steam chamber that rises above the
injector in the reservoir. Meanwhile, bitumen and condensate are
drained by gravity along the sides of the steam chamber to the
lower horizontal well. In this process, large volumes of water are
required for steam generation, and the natural-gas consumption for
steam generation ranges between 200 and 500 ton/m3 of bitumen
(Thomas 2008).
Butler and Mokrys (1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1998) described a
new recovery process, the vapor extraction (VAPEX) method,
which is basically an analog of the SAGD process to take the
advantage of a solvent. In the VAPEX process, solvents in vapor
form are used instead of high-temperature steam and the oil viscos-
ity is lowered by in-situ dilution instead of heating. This process is
slower than viscosity reduction through the application of heat, as
in SAGD. An advantage is that oil is upgraded in situ and leaves
behind the heavier hydrocarbons in the reservoir.
Copyright 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 130802) was accepted for presentation at the SPE International Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 810 June 2010 and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 1 July 2010. Revised manuscript
received for review 25 December 2010. Paper peer approved 23 February 2011.
320
Expanding-solvent SAGD (ES-SAGD) (Nasr et al. 2003, 2005,
2006) and steam alternating solvent (SAS) (Zhao et al. 2004a,
2004b) are two improved technologies that coinject or alternatingly
inject a hydrocarbon additive in a gravity-dominated process, simi-
lar to the SAGD process. In the ES-SAGD process, the solvent is
injected with steam in a vapor phase. Condensed solvent around
the interface of the steam chamber dilutes the oil and, in conjunc-
tion with heat, reduces its viscosity. The maximum oil-drain-
age rate under ES-SAGD occurred when the steam temperature
matched the hydrocarbon vaporization temperature (the difference
between injected-steam temperature and hydrocarbon-vaporiza-
tion temperature is zero). Depending on the type of solvent and
the long-term operating pressure, more than 90% of the injected
solvent is produced with the bitumen and approximately 75% of
the solvent retained may be recovered during the blowdown phase
(ConocoPhillips 2009). The SAS process is intended to combine
the advantages of the SAGD and VAPEX processes to minimize the
energy input per unit of oil recovered. On the basis of preliminary
estimation, the energy input per unit of oil recovered using the SAS
process is 18% less than that using the SAGD process.
SAGD, VAPEX, ES-SAGD, and SAS methods are similar in
principle (Fig. 3). They all use a horizontal injection well with an
underlying production well. The fluid injected creates a chamber
in which bitumen is transformed into less-viscous oil, and then
gravity drags it to the bottom well. The differences among these
methods lie in the type of fluid injected and the byproduct fluids.
SAGD consists of steam injection, which heats the oil; VAPEX
injects solvent that reacts with the bitumen and dissolves in it to
reduce the oil viscosity; ES-SAGD and SAS use both. The pro-
duced fluids in each process include the condensed injection fluid
and the lower-viscosity oil.
Coinjecting Solvent as Steam Additive. Farouq Ali and Abad
(1976) investigated the bitumen recovery from oil sands using
solvent in conjunction with steam. It is found that bitumen recovery
is determined by the type of solvent, volume used, and solvent
placement.
Redford and McKay (1980) investigated a combination of
hydrocarbon additives with low-pressure steam that could be used
to recover bitumen from the oil sands and what adverse effects
might occur. A range of hydrocarbons from methane through
ethane, propane, butane, pentane, natural gasoline, naphtha, to
synthetic crude oil were investigated. From their results, the use
of higher-molecular-weight hydrocarbon blends leads to improved
recovery, provided enough light ends are present to provide drive
energy. This higher recovery, however, is offset by increased losses
of hydrocarbon additive to the formation.
Redford (1982) extended the work of Redford and McKay
(1980) to the study of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ethane, the com-
bination of CO2 and hydrocarbons, and a study of the recovery
mechanisms taking place. By using CO2 or ethane with steam,
bitumen recovery can be substantially improved from Alberta-oil
sands deposits. A further improvement can be achieved if both
naphtha and CO2 or both naphtha and ethane are used with the
steam. Naphtha has been demonstrated to improve recovery mainly
by reducing bitumen viscosity and thereby improving recovery in
the water-swept portions of the reservoir and making more efficient
use of the drive energy provided by the CO2 or ethane.
Shu and Hartman (1988) conducted a series of simulation studies
to investigate the effect of solvent type and concentration. They
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 1.E+07

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04
Viscosity, cp

1.E+03

1.E+02 0.1 MPa

5 MPa

1.E+01 10 MPa

1.E+00

1.E01
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature, C

Fig. 1Viscosity of Athabasca oil is reduced significantly with increase in temperature regardless of pressure between 0.1 and
10 MPa (Mehrotra and Svrcek 1986).

categorized the solvents into light, medium, and heavy solvents
according to their respective volatility (high, medium, and low)
under reservoir conditions during thermal recovery. Light solvents
generally include CO2, ethane, propane, and other gases, while heavy
solvents generally include hydrocarbon liquids in the C16-to-C20
range. Naphtha will be considered a medium solvent. Light solvents
give earlier recovery and greater recovery efficiency in terms of less
solvent loss. Medium solvents give the most improvement of total
oil production at somewhat higher solvent loss. Heavy solvents do
not improve recovery.
Deng (2005) modeled a typical Athabasca SAGD pattern under
pure steam injection and steam/propane injection. Results showed
that oil recovery was accelerated by using propane as an additive,
irrespective of the amount of propane used. Ultimate oil recovery

1.E+07

1.E+06

1.E+05
10C
101C
1.E+04
150C
Viscosity, cp

200C
1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00

1.E01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Solvent volume fraction

Fig. 2Adding more solvent (C6) to the heated Athabasca oil can reduce the viscosity of the mixture of oil and solvent (C6)
further at constant temperature (Shu 1984).

June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 321


Fig. 32D cross section of gravity-drainage processes with horizontal-well application.
was, however, dependent on the amount of propane injected. Lower
recoveries were obtained when higher concentrations of propane
were injected.
The main purpose of a solvent-aided process (SAP) (Gupta
et al. 2002, 2005) is to add small amounts of light-hydrocarbon
solvent (such as propane, butane, or pentane) into the steam phase
in a conventional SAGD pattern to use the combined effects of
solvent dilution and thermal heating. Unlike in the ES-SAGD
process, much lighter solvents are used and matching the conden-
sation/evaporation characteristics of solvent with steam is not a
concern in an SAP process. Initial SAP-pilot results have been very
encouraging, generating confidence in the feasibility of the pro-
cess. The production in the SAP well pair increased substantially,
and the steam/oil ratio (SOR) came down substantially.
Govind et al. (2008) suggest that the important factors that
control the performance of the ES-SAGD process are the solvent
type, concentration, operating pressure, and the injection strategy.
From their conclusion, higher solvent concentrations are preferable
because solvent accelerates production. However, since solvent is
expensive, maximum solvent concentration applied will be a func-
tion of solvent costs, solvent retention, and losses.
Imperial Oil of Canada has investigated the use of liquid addi-
tives (C5+) in cyclic-steam-stimulation (CSS) processes, which
they termed LASER, for liquid addition to steam for enhancing
recovery. With the encouraging results (Leaute 2002) from the
physical experiments, a pilot test (Leaute and Carey 2005) was
proposed and initiated in August 2002 in Cold Lake. Improved
bitumen recovery was observed in the pilot with the addition of
diluent. Additionally, diluent recovery was very high (approxi-
mately 80% from the first cycle of operations), and a large fraction
of the produced diluent was recovered from the venting facilities,
improving the economics of the project.
100 m
30 m
5m
1.5 m
(a)
Fig. 4Well pattern used for simulation study: (a) whole well pattern and (b) simulated half-well pattern.
322
Injection Production
SAGD Steam Water+Oil
VAPEX
Solvent
Solvent
(Condensate)
(Gas)
+Oil
ES-SAGD
and SAS Both Both
In a solvent-aided SAGD process, solvent/solvent mixture is
coinjected with steam under SAGD well pattern. The price for
one unit of solvent/steam is more expensive than steam alone. It is
very important to investigate the impact of solvent type and con-
centration on SAGD production performance. We have performed
a comprehensive simulation study using a 2D reservoir model with
typical Athabasca rock and fluid properties. The detailed analysis
and discussions of the drainage mechanism in this study can be
used to optimize the solvent-coinjection design in the field to real-
ize higher production with lower energy required.
Reservoir Model
Assuming no pressure drop and flow resistance along the hori-
zontal wellbore, a 2D study is reasonable for studying the phase
behavior inside the steam chamber. The 2D prototype well pattern
selected for this simulation study is for an Athabasca reservoir with
a horizontal-section length of 500 m. The reservoir thickness is 30
m, and one whole-well-pattern width is 100 m. The producer is 1.5
m from the bottom of the reservoir, and the space between injector
and producer is 5 m. The well pattern is symmetrical, so only half
the well pattern is used for this study (Fig. 4).
We used the STARS simulator developed by the Computer
Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd. for this simulation study. The 2D
grid system includes 31 blocks along the horizontal direction with
widths of 0.5, 0.7, and 1.2 m for the first three columns and all oth-
ers of 1.7 m. The smaller grid widths of the first 3 columns permit
better resolution at the wellbore vicinity. The model is divided into
30 blocks in the vertical direction, each 1 m high.
The initial Athabasca reservoir conditions; properties of rock,
water, and oil; and relative permeability data can be found in Law
et al. (2000). The only difference is that the horizontal perme-
ability is 6 darcies and the vertical permeability is 3 darcies in
(b)
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 1,000
Pressure, psia
100
0 100 200
Temperature, F
Fig. 595%-quality steam at 202C and 1650 kPa is injected; on the basis of the differences in boiling points between steam
and solvents, C3, C5, C6, C7, C12, and the solvent mixture of 80% C6 and 20% C7 are chosen to investigate the effect of solvent type
on oil recovery.
this study. We injected 95%-quality 202C steam at 1650 kPa at
the injector. The maximum water-injection rate at surface is 500
m3/d, and the subcool used in steam-trap control is 20C. The
pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) properties of solvents are the
default values built into the CMG library. The K-value correlation
coefficients can be found from Table 2 of CMG 2009 Users Guide
(CMG 2009). The produced-oil volume is altered by the surface
separation condition. In this study, the production of solvent and
original oil is discussed separately, with no solvent contained in
the produced oil.
Solvent-Type Study
Comparison of Production Performance. We chose C3, C5, C6,
C7, and C12 because of the boiling-point difference between these
hydrocarbons and steam at the injection condition (Fig. 5). C5, C6,
and C7 are medium solvents with similar boiling points as steam
and C3 is a light solvent with very low boiling point, while C12 is
the heavy solvent with a much higher boiling point than steam.
Because a solvent mixture of 80 mol% C6 and 20 mol% C7 has
almost the same boiling point as steam at the injection condition,
this solvent mixture is also included in the simulation study. The
sensitivity study of the solvent type is based on simulation of
5 mol% solvent in the injected fluid.
SOR is a suitable parameter to evaluate the performance of a
pure-steam-injection process. When a solvent is coinjected with
steam, cumulative energy required for cumulative oil volume
recovered (CEOR) is a better parameter to compare the production
performance considering different injection fluid. In a solvent-
coinjection process, the injected energy includes the heat from both
solvent and steam; in a pure-steam-injection process, the energy
injected to the undersurface includes only the heat from steam.
The curves of oil-recovery factor, CEOR, oil-production rate, and
the fraction of solvent produced with oil for different solvents are
plotted in Fig. 6.
Comparison of Oil-Recovery Factors (Fig. 6a). Oil-recovery
factor increases with increasing carbon number of the solvent.
C12 gives the highest recovery factor, which is more than 96% oil
initially in place (OIIP). Recovery factor for coinjection of steam
and a mixture of C7 and C6 is similar to that for the coinjection of
C6. Two reasons can be used to explain this observation. First, the
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
300 400 500 600 700
From PVTi of Eclipse 2008
fraction of C6 is 80%, which is much higher than the value of C7
(20%); second, the difference between the vaporization points of
C6 and C7 is very small. Recovery factor with steam coinjection
with C3 is lower than that under the pure-steam-injection case.
Comparison of CEORs (Fig. 6b). During the early stage,
steam coinjection with C3 gives the lowest CEOR and then CEOR
starts to increase once the volume of vapor phase inside the steam
chamber is too large to reduce the injectivity of steam. During
steam-chamber expansion, CEOR for steam coinjection with other
solvents decreases in the following order: pure steam, C5, C6,
mixture of C6 and C7, C7, and C12. The ultimate CEOR values of
steam coinjection with the C7 and C12 cases are lower than steam
coinjection with other solvents, and steam coinjection with C12
gives the lowest CEOR.
Comparison of Oil-Production Rates (Fig. 6c). At early
stages, the oil production rate under steam coinjection with sol-
vent decreases with the solvent type in the following order: C12,
C7, mixture of C7 and C6, C6, C5, pure steam, and C3. The reason
for the fluctuations of the C12 curve at the end of production is that
C12 remains mainly in the liquid phase or is more ready to con-
dense. The viscosity of the condensate at the near-wellbore region
is reduced to a significant lower value than in other cases. Once
the steam subcool is triggered, the producer is opened and the
gravity force drains out the condensate much more efficiently than
in other cases. Once enough condensate is drained out, the tem-
perature near the producer increases again and the subcool control
will shut the producer when the temperature between injector and
producer is higher than 20C. The reason for the higher production
rate of C3 during the later stages is that its earlier production rate
is too low and most of the oil has not been produced.
Comparison of the Fractions of Solvent Produced With Oil
(Fig. 6d). The fractions of medium heavy solvents produced with
oil, including the C3, C5, C6, C7, and mixture of C6 and C7, are
approximately 92 to 95% of the amount injected. C12 is produced
more in the earlier period, and approximately 18% of injected
C12 is retained in the steam chamber because it is more ready to
condense from vapor phase than liquid phase.
Because of the lower vaporization point of C6 in comparison to
C7, the curve for the C6 case is just slightly higher than the curve of
the C7 case. The curve for solvent mixture is similar to the curve of
323
 1.00

0.80
Recovery Factor

0.60

0.40
Steam
C3_0.05
C5_0.05
0.20 C6_0.05
C6+C7_0.05
C7_0.05
C12_0.05
0.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time, days
(a)

5E+09

4E+09
CEOR, J/m3

Steam
3E+09 C3_0.05
C5_0.05
C6_0.05
C6+C7_0.05
C7_0.05
C12_0.05
2E+09
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time, days
(b)

Fig. 6Production-performance comparison between different simulations with different solvent types: (a) oil-recovery factor;
(b) CEOR; (c) oil-production rate; and (d) recovery factor of the injected solvent.

324 June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 300
Steam
C3_0.05
C5_0.05
C6_0.05
C6+C7_0.05
C7_0.05
Oil Rate SC - Daily (m3/day)

200 C12_0.05

100

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time, days
(c)

1.00

1.00
Fraction of solvent produced with oil

1.00

C3_0.05

C5_0.05

1.00 C6_0.05

C6+C7_0.05

C7_0.05

C12_0.1t5

1.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time, days
(d)

Fig. 6 (continued)Production-performance comparison between different simulations with different solvent types: (a) oil-
recovery factor; (b) CEOR; (c) oil-production rate; and (d) recovery factor of the injected solvent.

June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 325

At 1,551 days Pure steam +5 mol% C3 +5 mol% C6
So
Oil
flow
Water
flow
Solvent mole frac in
gas phase
Solvent mole frac in
oil phase
Fig. 7Property-distribution profiles at 1,551 days under different simulations with different solvent types: Different solvents
create different films of water, gas solvent, and liquid solvent, which mainly are attributed to the boiling-point discrepancy
between steam and solvents.
C6, which can be explained by the similar vaporizations and different
ratio of components in the mixture. Because the boiling points of
the medium heavy solvents are similar to that of the injected steam,
more than 90% of injected solvents are produced with oil. The pro-
duced solvents can be easily revaporized from the produced fluid
and then reinjected to the reservoir. A blowdown process also can
recycle most of the retained medium solvents from the reservoir.
The recycling of C12 from the produced fluid by reheating
or from the depleted reservoir through the blowdown phase is
expected to be much more difficult because of its much higher
boiling point in comparison with other solvents.
During the early stages, the gas phase of C3 occupies a larger
volume and so is produced more than the other solvents. With
more steam and C3 injected into the reservoir, C3 flows upward
and accumulates at the top zone, and less can be produced. Once
the steam chamber matures, the fraction of C3 produced with oil
depends mainly on its initial concentration ratio.
Behavior of Steam and Solvent Inside the Vapor Chamber. The
property-distribution profiles at 1,551 days are shown in Fig. 7.
The following should be noted.
1. The color scale shown here is used only to represent how
the color range changes from high values to low values. No actual
quantitative values are assigned because of the different resolution
of different properties.
2. Color scales of the same property under different cases are
the same for convenient comparison.
3. Only the pure steam, C3, C6, C7, and C12 cases are com-
pared.
4. The cutoff value for total oil and water flow is 5 m3/d.
5. The color scale for the C12 solvent fraction in the gas phase is
in the range of 0 to 0.05 instead of 0 to 1 for better resolution.
6. The color scale for viscosity is a log scale to have better
resolution for the values in the low ranges.
326
+5 mol% C7 +5 mol% C12
From the Profiles of Oil Saturation, Temperature, and Viscos-
ity (Fig. 7). Obviously, given that the same cutoff value is chosen
for the same property, the vapor-chamber volumes under different
simulation cases are different for different cases. Not all the
solvent-coinjection schemes can improve vapor-chamber propaga-
tion. Compared with the pure-steam-injection case, coinjection of
C3 reduced the propagation of vapor chamber while coinjection of
other solvents accelerates the vapor-chamber propagation.
From the Profiles of Oil and Water Flow (Fig. 7). If the
injected solvent mixes with the oil along the fluid interface
efficiently without losing heat effect from steam, it is expected
that the dilution effect from solvent will accelerate the vapor-
chamber propagation. However, the thermodynamic differences
of solvent and steam lead to different travel fronts of steam and
solvent. Relative condensation-time difference results in different
thickness of water and oil films along the fluid interface. The oil-
flow profiles indicate how efficiently the gravity force can drain
the condensate along the fluid interface, which could be affected
by the water-film thickness. The water film built along the fluid
interface would dilute the solvent condensate and so reduce the
dilution effect of solvent. The thicker the water film, the more
significant the water-film dilution effect.
The boiling point of C3 is very low, and so most C3 stays in
the gas phase, which reduces the steam partial pressure signifi-
cantly. The temperature inside the steam chamber is decreased to
a much lower value, and so steam condenses much earlier to build
a very thick water film. Although the steam condition under steam
coinjection with C12 is similar to that for pure steam because of
its low partial pressure effect, the water-film thickness under steam
coinjection with C12 is thinner than that with pure-steam injection
because of the accelerated flow of condensate at the near-wellbore
region. It is observed the oil-flow rate at the near-wellbore region
is higher under C7 coinjection than under C6 coinjection. C7 con-
denses earlier than C6 because C7 has a higher boiling point than
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 1.00

0.80

Recovery Factor

0.60

0.40 Steam
C7_0.01
C7_0.03
C7_0.05
0.20
C7_0.07
C7_0.09
C7_0.12
0.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time, days
(a)

5.00E+09

4.00E+09
CEOR, J/m3

3.00E+09 Steam
C7_0.01
C7_0.03
C7_0.05
C7_0.07
C7_0.09
C7_0.12
2.00E+09
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Time, days
(b)

Fig. 8With increasing mole ratio of C7, the oil-recovery factor increases (a); the lowest CEOR value is given by the 7 mol%
C7 coinjection (b).

June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 327

that of steam and is more ready to condense. The dilution effect
of the water film is less for C7 than for C6.
From the Profiles of Solvent Mole Fraction in Gas Phase and
in Oil Phase (Fig. 7). The solubility of vapor solvent depends on
its K-value. The more solvent condenses efficiently from vapor
to liquid, the higher the viscosity-reduction effect is from solvent.
The solubility of C3 is small because of its rather low boiling
point. The low density of the C3 gas phase allows it to flow up
and accumulate to build one very thick gas film along the steam-
chamber boundary. The gas-solvent film along the steam-chamber
boundary would impede heat transfer from the steam chamber to
the adjacent reservoir. Because of similar properties between C6
and C7, the gas-film thicknesses under C6 and C7 under coinjection
cases are similar and the difference is very small because the grid
is not fine enough. C7 builds a thicker liquid solvent film than C6
at the near-wellbore region because of its higher boiling point.
The C12 solvent fraction in the gas phase is much lower than
that of the other solvents and so a much thinner gas film is built
for the C12 case than for the other cases. Because C12 is unsatu-
rated in the injection stream, a small fraction of C12 is vaporized
into the gas phase. At the top of the reservoir, the temperature
is lowered by the heat loss through the overburden, and the gas
phase C12 condenses to an oil phase to flush a greater fraction of
residual oil at that zone.
A successful subcool control can build a condensate liquid
leg between the injector and producer. The liquid leg works as a
flow resistor to impede liquid C12 to flow directly from injector
to producer. The density of liquid C12 is lower than that of the
condensate, so C12 mainly accumulates on the top of the liquid leg.
When the subcool is triggered, the condensate at the bottom of the
liquid leg is produced first. Liquid C12 accelerates the near-well-
bore flow and reduces the residual-oil saturation in the wellbore
vicinity significantly. Theoretically, liquid solvent can flush out
all residual oil. Steam coinjection with C12 will be uneconomical
for high solvent concentration, which may leave an uneconomical
2.00E+6
Steam
C7_0.01
C7_0.03
C7_0.05
C7_0.07
1.50E+6
C7_0.09
C7_0.12
Oil Viscosity, cp
1.00E+6
5.00E+5
0.00E+0
0 10 20
Horizontal distance from wellbore at the producer, m
Fig. 9Viscosity distribution at 1,003 days for different simulations with different C7 ratios: C7 coinjection reduces the viscosity
of the heated oil to a substantially lower value compared with the pure-steam-injection case; the lowest viscosity value along
the fluid interface is the 3 mol% C7 case at 1,003 days, which indicates that there is an optimal concentration ratio to take
advantage of both steam and solvent.
328
fraction of solvent in the pores and a great amount of C12 would
be produced directly from injector to producer.
Solvent-Concentration Study
The simulation study of solvent concentration focuses on the sol-
vent suitable for the ES-SAGD process. We used 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and
12 mol% C7 to investigate the effect of solvent concentration on oil
recovery. The oil-recovery factor, CEOR, viscosity, oil-mole-frac-
tion profiles along the horizontal direction at the producer, and the
temperature profiles along the vertical direction at the producer at
1,003 days are plotted in Figs. 8 through 10.
Recovery factor and CEOR are used as the main parameters
to determine the optimal solvent concentrations for the simulated
condition. As C7 concentration increases, the recovery factor
increases (Fig. 8a). The ultimate recovery factors are in a small
range from 87 to 92 %, which may be because of the lower residual
oil saturation inside the vapor chamber for a higher concentration.
From Fig. 8b, C7 in the range of 1 to 9% has a lower CEOR than
pure-steam injection. 12% C7 is with a higher CEOR value than
pure-steam injection. The ultimate CEORs of 7% and 9% C7 con-
centration are similar and lower than other concentrations. From
the comparison between Figs. 8a and 8b, the optimal concentration
ratio of C7 is approximately 7 to 9% for the entire 10-year produc-
tion period at the simulated condition.
The drainage efficiency of the condensate depends on the vis-
cosity reduction along the entire fluid interface. From Fig. 9, the
3%-C7 case has the lowest oil viscosity along the horizontal direc-
tion at the producer at 1,003 days, which indicates that there is
an optimal concentration ratio to reach the lowest viscosity along
the fluid interface. Similar to the discussions in Gates (2007),
with increasing concentration of C7, a greater fraction of C7 in
the oil phase mixes with oil along the fluid interface (Fig. 10a),
but the partial pressure of steam decreases, the steam temperature
decreases (Fig. 10b) inside the steam chamber, and so the heat
effect from steam is reduced. So, the solvent effect is too small if
30 40 50
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 1.00

Steam
C7_0.01
C7_0.03
0.80 C7_0.05
C7_0.07
C7_0.09
Oil Mole Fraction (C7H16)

C7_0.12
0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal distance from wellbore at the producer, m
(a)

30
Vertical distance from wellbore at the producer, m

20

10
Steam
C7_0.01
C7_0.03
C7_0.05
C7_0.07
C7_0.09
C7_0.12
0
150 170 190 210
Temperature, C
(b)

Fig. 10With increasing ratio of C7, the oil mole fraction of C7 along the fluid interface increases (a), but the temperature inside
the steam chamber is lower (b) because of the reduced steam partial pressure.

the solvent concentration is too low, or the heat effect of steam will
be significantly lost if the solvent concentration is too high.
Further Discussions
To design a successful solvent-aided SAGD process for a real
reservoir, it is necessary to consider more field conditions and
practical limitations.
It is usual to inject a solvent mixture instead of pure solvent
in the field. The light volatile components in the solvent mixture
may decrease the production performance, as C3 discussed in this
study. The accumulation of volatile components inside the vapor
chamber has several negative impacts on production performance
by altering the condensing dynamitic by partial-pressure effect,
reducing the heat transfer from the vapor chamber to the sur-

June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 329

rounding oil, impeding the heavier hydrocarbon entering into the
reservoir, and blocking the contact between the heavier hydrocar-
bon and bitumen.
The ratio of solvent in the injection fluid is much lower than
steam and the partial pressure of solvent is much lower than that of
steam inside the vapor chamber; so, the heavy components of the
solvent mixture also can be vaporized at their respective low par-
tial pressures. The relatively earlier condensation time of heavier
solvents can reduce the negative dilution effects from the water-
condensate film and the decreased heat transfer effect from the
gas film. In addition, the heavy components would accelerate the
condensation dynamics along the fluid interface (i.e., the solvent
mixture is more ready to condense from gas phase to liquid phase)
and remove the volatile components from the vapor chamber by
the production of solvent condensate. More detailed discussion
from experimental work can be found in Li et al. (2011a).
The heavy solvents are more suitable to improve near-wellbore
flow. The reservoir in this study is quite thin and homogeneous.
In a heterogeneous thick real reservoir, heavy solvents should
be injected with other light/medium light solvents to ensure bet-
ter sweep efficiency. Solvents with lower molar weight can take
advantage of their lower density and lower boiling point to be
delivered by steam; some helpful discussions can be found in Li
et al. (2011b).
Conclusions
The following main conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. The relative condensation-time difference of solvent and steam
creates different films of gas solvent, liquid solvent, and water.
A gas-solvent film impedes heat transfer, while a liquid-solvent
film increases solvent solubility and a water film dilutes the
solvent effect.
If too much injected light solvent stays in the gas phase (C3 in
this study), production performance under the steam/solvent
coinjection may be even worse than that with pure-steam
injection.
For the medium heavy solvents that are suitable for ES-SAGD
process, the solvent that condenses earlier (C7 in this study)
results in better production performance than the solvent that
condenses later (C6 in this study).
2. Heavy solvents, such as C12 in this study, may improve the pro-
duction performance by further reducing the oil viscosity and
residual oil saturation. Co-injection of solvent mixture may lead
to a better production performance in the field.
3. In the ES-SAGD process, the optimal solvent-ratio range, which
is in a low-concentration range (7 to 9 mol% in this study),
depends on the tradeoff between the heat effect from steam and
the solubility effect from solvent.
References
Butler, R.M. 1997. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen. Calgary:
GravDrain Inc.
Butler, R.M. and Mokrys, I.J. 1991. A New Process (VAPEX) for Recover-
ing Heavy Oils Using Hot Water and Hydrocarbon Vapour. J Can Pet
Technol 30 (1): 97106.
Butler, R.M. and Mokrys, I.J. 1993a. In-Situ Upgrading of Heavy Oils and
Bitumen by Propane De-Asphalting: The VAPEX Process. Paper SPE
25452 presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Okla-
homa City, Oklahoma, USA, 2123 March. doi: 10.2118/25452-MS.
Butler, R.M. and Mokrys, I.J. 1993b. Recovery of Heavy Oils Using
Vaporized Hydrocarbon Solvents: Further Development of the VAPEX
Process. J Can Pet Technol 32 (6): 3855.
Butler, R.M. and Mokrys, I.J. 1998. Closed Loop Extraction Method for
the Recovery of Heavy Oils and Bitumens Underlain by Aquifers: The
VAPEX Process. J Can Pet Technol 37 (4): 4150. JCPT Paper No.
98-04-04. doi: 10.2118/98-04-04.
ConocoPhillips. 2009. Challenged resources, http://www.conocophillips.
com/EN/tech/upstream/challenged/Pages/index.aspx.
Deng, X. 2005. Recovery Performance and Economics of Steam/Propane
Hybrid Process. Paper SPE 97760 presented at SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary,
13 November. doi: 10.2118/97760-MS.
330
Farouq Ali, S.M. and Abad, B. 1976. Bitumen Recovery from Oil Sands,
Using Solvents in Conjunction With Steam. J Can Pet Technol 15 (3):
8090. JCPT Paper No. 76-03-11. doi: 10.2118/76-03-11.
Gates, I.D. 2007. Oil phase viscosity behaviour in Expanding Solvent
Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 59 (12): 123134.
doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2007.03.006.
Govind, P.A., Das, S.K., Srinivasan, S., and Wheeler, T.J. 2008. Expanding
Solvent SAGD in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Paper SPE 117571 presented
at the International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium,
Calgary, 3023 October. doi: 10.2118/117571-MS.
Gupta, S. and Gittins, S. 2005. Christina Lake Solvent Aided Process Pilot.
Paper No. 2005-190 presented at the Petroleum Societys CIPC/Annual
Technical Meeting, Calgary, 79 June.
Gupta, S., Gittins, S., and Picherack, P. 2002. Field Implementation of
Solvent Aided Process. Paper No. 2002-299 presented at the Petro-
leum Societys Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC),
Calgary, 1113 June.
Law, D.H.-S. and Nasr, T.N. 2000. Field-Scale Numerical Simulation of
SAGD Process with Top-Water Zone. Paper SPE 65522 presented at
SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, 68 November. doi: 10.2118/65522-MS.
Leaute, R.P. 2002. Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery
(LASER) of Bitumen with CSS: Evolution of Technology From
Research Concept to a Field Pilot at Cold Lake. Paper SPE 79011
presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference,
Calgary, 47 November. doi: 10.2118/79011-MS.
Leaute, R.P. and Carey, B.S. 2005. Liquid addition to steam for enhancing
recovery (LASER) of bitumen with CSS: Results from the first pilot
cycle. Paper 2005-161 presented at the Canadian International Petro-
leum Conference (CIPC), Calgary, 79 June.
Li, W., Mamora, D.D., and Li, Y. 2011a. Light- and Heavy-Solvent
Impacts on solvent-Aided-SAGD process: A Low- Pressure Experi-
mental study. J Can Pet Technol 50 (4): 1930. SPE-133277-PA. doi:
10.2118/133277-PA.
Li, W., Mamora, D.D., Li, Y., and Qiu, F.D. 2011b. Numerical Investigation
of Potential Injection Strategies to Reduce Shale Barrier Impacts on
SAGD Process. J Can Pet Technol 50 (3): 5764. SPE-133298-PA. doi:
10.2118/133298-PA.
Mehrotra, A.K. and Svrcek, W.Y. 1986. Viscosity of compressed Athabasca
bitumen. The Canadian J. of Chemical Engineering 64 (5): 844847.
doi: 10.1002/cjce.5450640520.
Nasr, T.N. and Ayodele, O.R. 2005. Thermal Techniques for the Recovery
of Heavy Oil and Bitumen. Paper SPE 97488 presented at SPE Inter-
national Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala
Lumpur, 56 December. doi: 10.2118/97488-MS.
Nasr, T.N. and Ayodele, O.R. 2006. New Hybrid Steam-Solvent Process for
the Recovery of Heavy Oil and Bitumen. Paper SPE 101717 presented
at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,
Abu Dhabi, 58 November. doi: 10.2118/101717-MS.
Nasr, T.N., Beaulieu, G., Golbeck, H., and Heck, G. 2003. Novel Expending
Solvent-SAGD Process ES-SAGD. J Can Pet Technol 42 (1): 1316.
Poling, B.E., Prausnitz, J.M., and OConnell, J.P. 2000. The Properties of
Gases and Liquids, fifth edition (hardback). New York City: McGraw-
Hill Professional.
Redford, D.A. 1982. The Use of Solvents and Gases with Steam in the
Recovery of Bitumen From Oil Sands. J Can Pet Technol 21 (1): 4553.
JCPT Paper No. 82-01-03. doi: 10.2118/82-01-03.
Redford, D.A. and McKay, A.S. 1980. Hydrocarbon-Steam Processes for
Recovery of Bitumen from Oil Sands. Paper SPE 8823 presented at
the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 2023 April.
doi: 10.2118/8823-MS.
Shu, W.R. 1984. A Viscosity Correlation for Mixtures of Heavy Oil, Bitu-
men, and Petroleum Fractions. SPE J. 24 (3): 277282. SPE-11280-PA.
doi: 10.2118/11280-PA.
Shu, W.R. and Hartman, K.J. 1988. Effect of Solvent on Steam Recovery
of Heavy Oil. SPE Res Eng 3 (2): 457465. SPE-14223-PA. doi:
10.2118/14223-PA.
Thomas, S. 2007. Enhanced Oil RecoveryAn Overview. Oil & Gas Science
and TechnologyRev. IFP 63 (1): 919. doi: 10.2516/ogst: 2007060.
Zhao, L. 2004a. Steam Alternating Solvent Process. Paper SPE 86957
presented at the SPE Symposium on International Thermal Operations
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 and Heavy Oil and Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California,
USA, 1618 March. doi: 10.2118/86957-MS.
Zhao, L., Nasr, T.N., Hyang, H., Beaulieu, G., Heck, G., and Golbeck, H.
2004b. Steam Alternating Solvent Process: Lab Test and Simulation.
Paper SPE 2004-044 presented at the Canadian International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, 810 June. doi: 10.2118/2004-044.
Weiqiang Li worked for Sinopec as a thermal engineer from
1997 to 2005. His PhD research focuses on EOR processes of
unconventional resources. Li holds MS and PhD degrees in
petroleum engineering from Texas A&M University and a BS
degree in thermal engineering from Shandong University in
China. Daulat D. Mamora currently works as a consultant for
his company, Mamora & Associates, based in Sugar Land,
Texas, USA. He retired as a professor of petroleum engineering
June 2011 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
in January 2011 after serving Texas A&M University for 16 years.
Before academia, Mamora worked as a reservoir engineer with
Shell for 15 years and served as reservoir engineering manager
for Shell Malaysia. He also had cross-postings in Holland and
Nigeria. At Texas A&M, Mamora conducted research in steam
injection with solvent additives, in-situ combustion with cata-
lysts and hydrogen donors, water-alternating-gas injection with
miscible CO2, and alkaline-surfactant-polymer flood. He holds
a BSc honors degree in physics from the University of Malaya,
and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from
Stanford University. Yamin Li is with Occidental Petroleum Cor-
poration (OXY). Before joining OXY, she worked as a reservoir
geologist at Schlumberger. Before that, Li worked as a research
assistant at Texas A&M University and as geologist in Sinopec
China. Li holds an MS degree from Texas A&M University, and a
BS degree from the China University of Petroleum.
331