PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2006-164

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

LEUM

Economic Analysis of Thermal Solvent

Processes
T.W. FRAUENFELD, X. DENG, C. JOSSY
Alberta Research Council

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (57th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13 – 15, 2006. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract thick Athabasca formation, and that the Thermal Solvent

SAGD and CSS are the main commercial technologies used
for in-situ recovery of bitumen in Alberta. Due to the
increasing costs for energy (natural gas) and the increasing
restrictions on fresh water usage, VAPEX and other
technologies have been proposed as alternative technologies for
heavy oil production. VAPEX uses a pair of horizontal wells,
similar to SAGD, but uses a gaseous solvent, typically propane,
to mobilize the oil. The Thermal Solvent process uses a light
hydrocarbon solvent, injected into the upper will of a horizontal
well pair. The action of the solvent is augmented by heating the
wellbores, possibly by a steam loop. The Hybrid Solvent
process injects light hydrocarbon solvent (propane) plus a
modest amount of steam, sufficient to vaporize the solvent.
Several scaled laboratory model experiments were designed
to evaluate VAPEX and other solvent-based processes for
recovery of heavy oil or bitumen. One experiment evaluated the
VAPEX process in Athabasca UTF bitumen. Two experiments
were completed to evaluate the Thermal Solvent Process. Two
experiments were completed to evaluate a Hybrid Solvent
process. All experiments were compared using a common set of
economic assumptions. The economic results indicated that a
hybrid process could be cost-competitive with SAGD for a 30 m
process could be competitive in certain thick heavy oil
situations.
Introduction
Heavy oil and bitumen reservoirs may be immobile at
reservoir temperature, or they may have some initial oil
mobility and some reservoir drive energy. These reservoirs
may contain dead oil, as in the case of Athabasca bitumen, or
they may have some dissolved gas, as in the case of Cold Lake
or Burnt Lake reservoirs.
SAGD is the main commercial technology used for in-situ
recovery for Athabasca reservoirs. Due to the increasing costs
for energy and the increasing restrictions on fresh water usage,
VAPEX has been proposed as an alternative technology for
bitumen production. VAPEX uses a pair of horizontal wells,
similar to SAGD, but uses a gaseous solvent, typically propane,
to recover the oil. Experimental evaluation of VAPEX and
related processes for mobile heavy oil recovery was assessed by
Alberta Research Council in Reference 1.

1
 The VAPEX process may be augmented by adding heat.
Heating of a horizontal wellbore will reduce viscosity
sufficiently to produce a large increase in oil rate. The heat will
also serve to initiate communication between the injector and
the producer. The heat will serve to speed the diffusion of
solvent into the oil. The combination of heated wellbores and
VAPEX is known as the Thermal Solvent process. Again, a
pair of horizontal wells is used, but the wells contain heating
strings. This heat vaporizes the injected solvent. Solvent vapour
moves to the oil interface at the edge of the vapour chamber and
dissolves in the oil. The diluted oil is reduced in viscosity and
flows down the edge of the vapour chamber to the production
well. The vaporized solvent is driven out of the oil by the heat
as it enters the production well. The vaporized solvent will
return to the vapour chamber, where it will mobilize additional
oil.
Heat may be injected by using vaporized solvent or steam.
Because of the low thermal mass of solvent, it is expedient to
heat the solvent by co-injection of steam. The result is a Hybrid
Solvent process. This process may be operated at any set of
steam and solvent rates between pure SAGD and pure VAPEX.
Detailed modelling and economic studies are required to
determine an optimum point for this process.
Scaled Laboratory Models for Heavy Oil
Recovery
The Scaling Theory
In order to scale a process dominated by gravity, viscous
forces, diffusion, heat transfer and capillary forces, the model
design must match the ratios of these forces in the lab to the
ratios in the field. The criteria used for modelling these
processes were the Pujol and Boberg scaling criteria (Reference
2). This set of scaling criteria matched the ratios of gravity,
viscous forces, conductive and convective heat transfer, and
diffusion, at the expense of incorrectly scaling pressure drop vs.
capillary forces, and dispersion vs. diffusion. The errors
generated by this scaling method are acceptable for SAGD,
where thermal diffusion is the rate-controlling step. The scaling
may be less accurate for VAPEX, where diffusion and
dispersion both play major roles in controlling process rates. In
hybrid processes, where both diffusion and heat transfer are
important, the errors should be intermediate. Other scaling
criteria have been developed by Kimber (Reference 3), but they
do not scale heat transfer, or gravity.
Butler and Mokrys (Reference 4) developed a set of scaling
criteria for VAPEX experiments. These criteria used a square
root k*h relationship to scale oil rate.
Karmaker and Maini (Reference 5) reported high
permeability experiments that appeared to follow a linear
relationship between height and oil rate, but a square root
relationship between permeability and rate. This data suggests
that for a lab model sand permeability of 200 Darcy or greater, a
Pujol and Boberg scaling would underestimate field scale oil
production.
Experimental Design
The project compared a VAPEX process, a Thermal Solvent
Reflux process, and a hybrid solvent-SAGD process, using
scaled lab models. Several experimental models were used. The
2
first high-pressure Thermal Solvent experiment was done in a
lab model designed to scale a 20 m thick Burnt Lake reservoir.
It was a Pujol and Boberg scaled experiment that used propane
as the solvent. The model was a rigid “box” inside of a pressure
vessel. (Figure 1) The experiment was run using Hillmond
heavy oil. The experimental schematic is shown in (Figure 2).
The second sequence of experiments scaled a range of
processes, from VAPEX to Hybrid solvent, for an Athabasca
bitumen reservoir. They used a “sealed can” type of model
confined by a gaseous overburden. (Figure 3) The solvent used
was propane. The first experiment was VAPEX but with heat to
initiate communication between wells. The second experiment
was a Thermal Solvent experiment, with heated injection and
production wells. The third experiment was a Hybrid Solvent
experiment in which propane and steam were injected
simultaneously into the injector well. The final experiment was
a propane-stream hybrid experiment, but at a higher steam
injection rate.
The experiments were done to evaluate the processes. The
experiments were also done to build a database of experimental
performance and the economic evaluation of the thermal solvent
process, and the hybrid solvent process, to determine whether
any single process has a significant economic advantage.
Scaling Design
The Pujol and Boberg scaling method, suitable for thermal
processes (Reference 2) was used. A scale factor of 100:1 was
used for all experiments. The time was scaled down by a factor
of 1002 or 10,000. One year was therefore scaled to 0.88 hours
of lab time. It was desired to scale a field history of 15 years,
producing a typical laboratory run time of 13.3 hours. Field
flow rates were scaled down by a factor of 100. Energy flux
rates were similarly scaled down. An energy flux in the field of
500 W/m was scaled down to 5 W/cm. A field fluid flow of 100
m3/d oil /1000 m well (0.1 m3/d/m) was scaled down to 41.5
g/h/cm. The experiments all used high permeability sand, 240 or
400 Darcy. The oil used was the actual field oil, or oil with a
slightly lower viscosity, in order to correctly scale the field
mobility. The sand was water-wet in all cases. The model was
insulated on the sides and top and bottom to reduce parasitic
heat loss, and in some cases (thermal visual models) had guard
heaters on the side faces.
The high-pressure models were chosen to match earlier
experiments (AACI Partially Miscible experiments), and to
provide a reasonably rapid turnaround of the experiments.
Experimental Procedure
The following steps were followed to prepare the sand pack,
for all experiments:
A rectangular stainless steel container, of the appropriate
dimensions, and containing injection, production and
thermocouple wells in appropriate locations, was welded. The
250 Darcy sand was packed into the container to ensure the
maximum packing density. The sand pack was flooded with
synthetic reservoir brine and then with the appropriate oil. Oil
viscosity was (23000 cp@ 20ºC) for experiment 5. and was
47,000 cP @ 30°C for Experiments #8 – 11. The solvent was
propane for all experiments. The injection pressure for steam
and solvent was 750 – 950 kPa. Table 1 shows the experimental
conditions. Table 2 shows the experimental results and
calculated supply costs.
Experimental Results
SAGD Simulation @2500kPa
This was a numerical simulation rather than an experiment.
The simulation was based on a 1000 m long horizontal well,
and a 25 m thick Athabasca reservoir. The injection pressure
was 2500 kPa. The steam/oil ratio was 2.37 and the ultimate
recovery was 87.5% IOIP at 10 years. Figure 4 illustrates
incremental and cumulative oil production, and incremental and
cumulative cost.
SAGD Simulation @ 1000 kPa
This simulation was done to check the effectiveness of
SAGD at reduced pressure. Injection pressure was 1000 kPa.
The steam/oil ratio was 1.66, and the ultimate oil recovery was
83.2% IOIP at 10 years. The reduced steam-oil ratio translated
into an economic advantage of $3.10/bbl, as compared to 2500
kPa SAGD. The simulations did not take into account
geomechanical effects such as reservoir dilation and enhanced
permeability due to pressure and thermal effects. Figure 5
illustrates cumulative and incremental oil production, and costs.
Table 3 shows the numerical simulation results.
Thermal Solvent Reflux Experiment #5 (C3)
The high-pressure thermal solvent experiment that was run is
a 20 cm high x 40 cm long x 12 cm wide cell (Figure 3) to
simulate a 20 m thick reservoir with 5 m vertical well separation
and 80 m well pair spacing. The experimental model
represented a slice through a 20 m thick reservoir cell
perpendicular to a pair of horizontal injection/production wells
at one end of the model. This model represented production
from half of a well pair. The injection and production wells
were equipped with electrical heaters, 1 in the injector and 1 in
the producer. These were used to vapourize injected solvent, to
heat the reservoir, and to reflux produced solvent.
The injector was 5 cm above the producer, and the producer
2 cm above the bottom. Propane was injected through the upper
well at 50cc/h and oil and solvent produced through the lower
well at 800 kPag. The experiment ran for 15.5 hours. The
experiment produced 34.3%IOIP in 16 hours, and had a supply
cost of $16.05/bbl. Figure 6 shows cumulative injection and oil
production for this experiment.
VAPEX Experiment #8 (UTF/C3)
The canister type models were insulated with Nomex
blankets plus ¾” plywood panels on the sides of the model. The
model was wrapped with Nomex on the top and bottom to
further control heat loss. The overburden was supplied using
nitrogen gas pressure.
The model was 20 cm high x 80 cm long x 10 cm wide. It
had a pair of horizontal wells through the pack, the wells were
vertically spaced, 5 cm apart. An initial mobilization heat-up
phase was used. Both wells were heated to 180°C for the first
hour of the experiment. The initial reservoir temperature was
10°C, and the reservoir oil was UTF bitumen. Solvent injection
rates were initially 100 cc/h liquid propane. Production pressure
was 600 - 800 kPa. The experiment ran for 13 hours. The
experiment produced 9.8%IOIP in 13.5 hours, and had a supply
cost of $46.04/bbl. Figure 7 shows the cumulative injection and
production for this experiment. Figure 8 shows the oil
production scaled up to the field (1000 m wells). The VAPEX
3
startup was slow in spite of the initial heating to ensure
communication.
Thermal Solvent Reflux Experiment #9
(UTF/C3)
This experiment modelled a Thermal Solvent Reflux process
in a 30 m thick Athabasca reservoir, using UTF bitumen as the
oil. The model scaled a 30 m thick reservoir. The solvent used
was propane. The initial reservoir temperature was 10°C.
Injection and production wells were heated to 180ºC using
electrical heaters.
The Propane injection rate was initially 100 cc/h liquid. The
operating pressure was 760 kPag. The experiment ran for 15
hours. The experiment produced 14.6% IOIP in 15 hours, and
had a supply cost of $24.97/bbl. Figure 9 shows the cumulative
injection and production for this experiment. The experiment
produced oil 48% faster than VAPEX without heat. Figure 10
shows the oil production extrapolated to field scale. Startup
was faster than for the cold VAPEX experiment. The oil rate
was approximately 20 m3/d.
Thermal Solvent Hybrid Experiment #10
(UTF/C3)
This experiment modelled a Thermal Solvent Hybrid process
(Figure 11) in a 30 m thick Athabasca reservoir. The oil used
was UTF bitumen. The solvent used was propane. The initial
reservoir temperature was 10°C.
An initial mobilization heat-up phase was required. Both
wells were pre-heated by injecting steam. After the pre-heat
phase, the production well steam was shifted to the injection
well only.
Solvent injection rates were initially 100 cc/h liquid propane.
The steam injection rate was 400 g/h. The operating pressure
was 800 kPag. The experiment was run for 14 hours. The
experiment produced 35.5%IOIP in 14 hours. Figure 12 shows
the cumulative injection and production. The experiment
showed a 265% rate gain over the VAPEX experiment. Figure
13 shows the oil production extrapolated to field scale. The oil
rate is a 160% gain over the Thermal Solvent experiment.
Thermal Solvent Hybrid Experiment #11
(UTF/C3)
This experiment modelled a Hybrid solvent process in a 30
m thick Athabasca reservoir. The experiment used UTF
bitumen. The initial reservoir temperature was 10°C. An initial
mobilization heat-up phase was used. Both wells were heated to
180ºC by injection of steam. Solvent injection rates were
initially 100 cc/h liquid propane. The rate was reduced to 75
cc/h later in the experiment, to reduce sampling frequency. The
steam injection rate was 500 g/h. The experiment operated at a
pressure of 800 kPag. The experiment ran for 14.5 hours. It
produced 40.4%IOIP and had a supply cost of $13.09/bbl.
Figure 14 shows the cumulative injection and production.
Figure 15 shows the oil production extrapolated to field scale.
An increase in steam rate from 400 g/h to 500 g/h increased the
oil production by 93%.
Economic Assumptions
The economic analysis was done by applying a common set
of assumptions to the experimental results. All experiments
were 100:1 scale models of a particular recovery process. In
order to extrapolate the experimental results to the field scale,
the injection and production data were scaled up to field scale,
and were multiplied by a well length factor to represent a 1000
meter well. A common set of costs was applied to all of the
cases studied. Significant parameters include: A 12% per anum
discount rate. The well costs were assumed to be $1.2 x106 Cdn
per thermal well, and $0.6x106 per non-thermal well.
Exploration costs were set at $0.2x106 per well pair. Project life
was assigned a value between 10 years and 16 years, depending
on the well life predicted by the experiment or the simulation.
Steam generator capital cost was $2.2x106 for a 435 m3/d
capacity generator. Water treatment capital cost was $3.3x106
for a 600 m3/d capacity plant. Solvent capital cost was $100k.
Solvent handling costs were $20k/year/well, and solvent
recompression costs were $.017/std m3. The solvent costs were
based on the equivalent energy cost of natural gas. The natural
gas cost was assumed to be $5.87/GJ.
Economic Analysis Results
The 2500 kPa SAGD numerical simulations (Figure 4)
showed a minimum cumulative cost of $105/m3 at 5 years,
when most of the oil was produced, climbing to a cumulative oil
cost of $125/m3 at the end of 10 years, at the conclusion of the
simulation. The 1000 kPa numerical simulation showed a
supply cost of $98/m3 at 7 years. At 10 years the incremental
cost was $100/m3. The biggest cost (Figure 16) was the cost of
steam.
The first high-pressure Thermal Solvent experiment (Figure
6) was done using a 34,000 mPa.s heavy oil and propane. The
lowest cumulative oil cost was $100.93/m3 at 16 years (Figure
16). There was still significant oil to be recovered, so the
ultimate cost may be lower. The average cumulative oil rate was
37.8 m3/d. The largest single cost was the energy (steam
equivalent) used to heat the wells.
The Athabasca bitumen/propane VAPEX experiment (Figure
7) produced a minimum cumulative oil cost of $294/m3 at 16
years (Figure 16). The cost would be expected to come down
somewhat in a longer experiment, as the experiment had a very
prolonged startup, in spite of heating the wells for the first hour.
The average cumulative oil rate was 14 m3/day. The biggest
single cost was the injected solvent and solvent inventory,
followed by the well capital cost.
The Athabasca bitumen/propane experiment #9 (Figure 9)
employed Thermal Solvent Reflux. The experiment predicted a
minimum cumulative oil cost of $157.05/m3 at 16 years. The
cumulative cost was still declining, as oil production was far
from complete. The average cumulative oil rate was 20 m3/d.
The biggest cost was the well capital cost.
The Thermal Solvent Hybrid experiment #10 had a
minimum cumulative oil cost of $104.88/m3 at 14 years (Figure
16). The cost increased to $108.13/m3 at 16 years. The average
cumulative oil rate was 52 m3/d. The biggest cost was the steam
injected. The cumulative SOR was 1.80.
The second Thermal Solvent Hybrid experiment (Figure 14)
used a 25% higher steam injection rate. This experiment had a
minimum cumulative oil cost of $82.31/m3 (Figure 16). The
cost was still declining at the end of the experiment and could
have dropped lower with a longer run time. The average
4
cumulative oil rate was 103 m3/day. The largest single cost was
the steam injected. The cumulative SOR was 1.16.
Discussion
The scaling method used, Pujol and Boberg, is good for
thermal processes, but has a significant limitation when scaling
VAPEX processes. The Pujol and Boberg scaling will correctly
scale heat transfer, which is the rate- limiting step for a SAGD
process. In a VAPEX process the rate-limiting step is the
mixing of solvent into virgin immobile oil. This mixing is the
result of several factors, namely molecular diffusion,
hydrodynamic dispersion as the oil and solvent flow around the
sand grains, flow due to capillary forces and interfacial tension,
and hydrodynamic dispersion due to oil flow around
heterogeneities in the reservoir. Accurate expression of these
mechanisms requires that the lab model sand be the same
permeability as the reservoir sand. This can be done using a
VAPEX model scaling, using the same sand as the reservoir.
Unfortunately type of model does not scale the heat transfer
aspects of the process.
For a thermal process, in particular a steam-assisted process,
the thermal effects may be very important. Other types of
scaling are possible but may produce cumbersome experiments.
For this reason we chose to use the thermal model scaling, and
to accept the error due to inadequate expression of the mass
transfer mechanisms in a high permeability sand model. For
processes where the heat transfer will dominate, as in solvent-
steam processes, the lab results should be scaleable to the field.
Processes with a low heat input will have to be upscaled via
numerical simulation.
This comparison of several thermal-solvent experiments is a
highlight of key processes as expressed by the experiments,
rather than a comprehensive examination of the processes,
simply because a prohibitively large number of experiments
would be required to completely scope out the process domain.
History-matching the current experiments and then running a
suite of field scale simulations will produce a “road map” of
process performance. This will produce a comprehensive
comparison of the process options. An economic analysis run
on the numerical predictions will predict the relative economic
advantage of the processes.
Conclusions
1. The lowest cost processes for Athabasca bitumen was the
Thermal Solvent Hybrid process as modelled in
experiment #11 ($13.09/bbl)and low pressure SAGD
($13.06/bbl). This was followed by the 2500 kPa SAGD
simulation ($16.16/bbl) and by the Thermal Solvent
Hybrid Experiment #10 ($17.04/bbl).
2. The process for heavy oil modelled by Thermal Solvent
experiment #5 using hot propane injection had a supply
cost of ($16.05/bbl). The Thermal Solvent process using
refluxed hot propane could recover heavy oil at costs
competitive to SAGD.
3. The Thermal Solvent Reflux experiment #9 had a
projected supply cost of $24.97/bbl. for recovery of
Athabasca UTF bitumen. This is substantially higher than
the SAGD, cost. It may be possible to further optimize
this process to improve performance.
4. Many of the experiments suggested a process life longer
than 15 years. Due to lower oil production rates, a longer
 payout period than for SAGD is expected. The lower oil
rates are in some cases compensated for by the lower
energy input costs.
5. For VAPEX in Athabasca bitumen, the average oil
production rate was 14 m3/d, which did not produce a
commercially competitive oil cost. The high viscosity of
Athabasca bitumen, and the resulting low diffusivity
resulted in a slow oil recovery process.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the AERI/ARC/ Core/Industry Research
program for their financial and technical support. Discussions
with Dr. Dave Cuthiell and Dr. Xiaohui Deng, concerning the
numerical simulation of the experiments and the economic
analysis inputs, were much appreciated. Thanks to Ms. Valerie
Pinkoski for final formatting and editing of the manuscript.

REFERENCES
1. FRAUENFELD, T., LILLICO, D., JOSSY, C., RABEEH,
S., SINGH, S., Evaluation of Partially Miscible Processes
for Alberta Heavy Oil Reservoirs, Paper #CIM 96-101,
presented at the 47th Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta, June 10-12,
1996.
2. PUJOL, L., AND BOBERG, T.C., Scaling Accuracy of
Laboratory Steamflooding Models, Paper presented at the
43rd Ann. Calif. Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, Cal., SPE
Paper No. 4191, 1972.
3. KIMBER, K.D., PUTTAGUNTA, V.R., AND FAROUQ
ALI, S.M., New Scaling Criteria and Their Relative Merit
for Steam Recovery Experiments, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, July-August 1988, Vol. 27, No.4,
pp. 86 – 94.
4. BUTLER, R.M. AND MOKRYS, I.J.: “Closed Loop
Extraction Method for the Recovery of Heavy Oils and
Bitumens underlain by aquifers: The VAPEX Process”,
Paper No. 35, presented at the Fifth Petroleum Conference
of the South Saskatchewan Section, Regina, Saskatchewan,
Oct. 18 – 20, 1993.
5. KARMAKER, K. AND MAINI, B., “Experimental
Investigation of Oil Drainage Rates in the VAPEX Process
for Heavy oil and Bitumen Reservoirs”, Paper SPE84199,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5 – 8 October, 2003.

5
 Parameter Expt. #5 Expt. #8 Expt. #9 Expt. #10 Expt. #11
Permeability of sand pack (Darcy) 250 250 250 250 250
Oil type Hillmond UTF bitumen UTF bitumen UTF bitumen UTF bitumen
Oil viscosity (mPa.s) 23000@ 20C 47000@ 30C 47,000@ 30C 47,000@ 30C 47,000@ 30C
Reservoir temperature (°C) 22 10 10 10 10
Well configuration 5 cm spaced 5 cm spaced 5 cm spaced 5 cm spaced 5 cm spaced
horizontal pairs horizontal pairs horizontal pairs horizontal pairs horizontal pairs

Well heating Electrical Electrical Electrical Direct steam Direct steam

Injection pressure (kPa gauge) 925 780 750 800 850
Solvent composition 100%C3 100%C3 100%C3 100%C3 100%C3
Duration of Experiment 16 hours 13.4 hours 15 hours 14.0 14.5 hours
Table 1. Summary of Experiments

Parameter Expt. #5 Expt. #8 Expt. #9 Expt. #10 Expt. #11

Solvent input (std. l/h) 13.6 40.5 16.67 22.28 21.3
Heat input or steam rate (g/h) Inj. and prod. to Inj. And Prod. to Inj. And Prod. to 400 g/h 500 g/h
180°C 180°C 180°C

Steam-oil ratio (m3 CWE/m3 oil) 1.45 0.15 1.43 1.80 1.16

Avg. oil rate 81.8 g/h 59 g/h 83.1 218 g/h 250 g/h
Oil produced @ 13.4 hours 1097 g 795 g 1105 g 2983.g 3387 g
Recovery (%IOIP) 34.3 9.8 14.6 35.5 40.4
3/ 3 3 3
Scaled oil rate (1000 m hor. Well) 37.81 m d 13.68 m /d 20.15 m /d 52.31 m /d 103.02 m3/d
Peak solvent inventory 34 std. l 228 std l 69 std l 65 std. l 107 std. l
Supply cost (Cdn.$/bbl) 16.05 46.74 24.97 17.19 13.09
Table 2. Summary of Experimental Results

Parameter 2500 KPa SAGD 1000 kPa SAGD

Pressure 2500 kPa 1000 kPa
Steam rate (m3/d) 418 278
Oil rate (m3/d) 176.6 168.1
Field time 10 years 10 years
Oil recovery (%IOIP) 87.5 83.2
SOR (m3/m3) 2.37 1.66
Supply cost ($Cdn) 16.16 13.06
Table 3. Numerical Simulation Parameters

6
 Insulation
2.5 cm from wall
5 cm
T.C. rod #7 T.C. rod #1
Thermocouple rods 7.5 cm from wall

20 cm 250 Darcy oil -saturated sand

injector
injector
heater
heater
12.5 cm producer
producer oil-saturated sand
Wells heater
heater
Cooling coils
40 cm

Figure 1. Thermal Solvent Experimental Apparatus Figure 2. Schematic of Model Used in Hillmond Oil Thermal
Solvent Experiment
600000 300

Incremental Oil Production (m3)

Cumulative Oil Production (m3)
10 cm 500000 Incremental Oil Cost ($/m3 oil) 250
Cumulative Oil Cost($/m3)
T.C. #1

Cum. and Incremental Oil Prod (M3)

T.C. #2 400000 200
30

SupplY Cost ($/m3)

cm
T.C. #3
300000 150
T.C. #4

In jector T.C. #5
5
200000 100
T.C. #6 cm
Producer

90 cm
100000 50
2 cm from bottom

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Year

Figure 3. Schematic of Model Used in Athabasca Bitumen Figure 4. Incremental and Cumulative Oil Prod. and Cost, SAGD
Experiments @ 2500 kPa
600000 300 200000 2000
Incremental Oil Production (m3)
Cumulative Oil Production (m3)
500000 Incremental Oil Cost ($/m3 oil) 250 160000 1600
Cumulative Oil Cost($/m3)
Cum. and Incremental Oil Prod (M3)

gas inj/prod. (std. cc)

400000 200
120000 1200

oil prod. (g)

SupplY Cost ($/m3)

300000 150
80000 800

200000 100

40000 400

100000 50

0 0
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Time ( hours )
Year

gas inj. gas prod. oil prod.

Figure 5. Incremental and Cumulative Oil Prod. and Cost, Figure 6. Thermal Solvent Reflux, C3, Hillmond Oil
SAGD @ 1000 kPa

7
 600 900 20 40

800
% recovery Oil rate
500
700
15 30

Oil Recovery (% IOIP)

400 600
Gas Inj/Prd. (std. l)

Oil/Water Prod. (g)

Oil Rate ( m3/d/well )

500
300 10 20
400

200 300

5 10
200
100
100

0 0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time ( hours ) Scaled Time ( Years )

Gas inj. Prod. (std l) Oil prod.

Figure 7. Thermal Solvent Experiment #8, UTF VAPEX, Heated Well Figure 8. Thermal Solvent Reflux #8, UTF VAPEX,
Startup, Cumulative Injection and Production Heated Well Startup, Scaled Rate and
Recovery

300 1400.0
20 40

1200.0
250
% recovery Oil rate

1000.0
15 30
200
Gas Inj/Prod. (std. l).

Oil/Water/Prod. (g).

800.0

Oil Rate (m3/d/well)

Oil Rec. (% IOIP)

150

600.0 10 20

100
400.0

50 5 10
200.0

0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time ( h ) 0 0
0 2 4 Scaled
6 Time ( Years
8 ) 10 12 14

Gas inj. Prod. (std l) Oil prod.

Figure 9. Thermal Solvent Experiment #9, UTF Bitumen, Figure 10. Thermal Solvent Experiment #9, UTF
Cumulative Injection and Production Thermal Solvent, Scaled Rate and Recovery

6000 350
overburden

300
5000
vapor
chamber
Mobilized oil
250
4000
Oil/H2O Inj/Prod. (g).

gas inj./prod. (std l)

200

3000
Solvent + steam
150
Injector Oil sand
2000
100

1000
Producer 50

Steam for startup

0 0
underburden 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time ( h )

Oil prod. Cum Water prod (g) cum H2O inj ( g) Gas inj. Prod. (std l)

Figure 11. A Solvent-Steam Hybrid Process Figure 12. Thermal Solvent Experiment #10, Steam-
Propane Hybrid, Cumulative Injection and

8
 Production

8000 350
Scaled Field Rate and Recovery
100 100
7000 300
90
% recovery Oil rate
6000
80 80 250

Oil/H2O Inj/Prod. (g)

gas inj./prod. (std l)

70 5000
200
Oil Recovery (% IOIP)

Oil Rate (m3/d/well)

60 60
4000

50 150
3000
40 40
100
2000
30

20 20 1000 50

10
0 0
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time ( h )
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Scaled Time ( Years )

Cum Oil Prod. ( g) Cum H2O Prod. (std cc) Cum H2O Inj. ( g)
Cum Gas Inj. (std. l) Cum Gas Prod. (std l)

Figure 13. Thermal Solvent Experiment #10, Steam-Propane Figure 14. Thermal Solvent Experiment #11, Steam-Propane
Hybrid, Scaled Field Rate and Recovery Hybrid, Cumulative Injection and Production

y
Administration Transportation Well Operating
100 200
Steam Water Treatment Capital
Solvent Solvent Handling Capital for Solvent

40.00

80 160

30.00
Oil Rate (m3/d/well) '

Supply Cost ($/bbl)

Oil Rec. (% IOIP)

60 120

20.00

40 80

10.00

20 40
0.00
Pa

Pa

3)

3)

3)
3)
x#

/C

/C
/C

/C
k

flu
00

00

TF

TF

TF
TF
25

10

Re

(U

(U
U

(U
8(
@

0 0

10

11
3)

#9
x#
D

(C

.#

.#
G

pe

ex

rid

rid
v.
SA

SA

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
ap
Va
ol

yb

yb
.S

Scaled Time ( Years )

H
Th

al

al

al
m

m
er

er

er
Th

Th

Th
Oil Recovery (% IOIP) Field Oil Prod. Rate (m3/d/ well)

Figure 15. Thermal Solvent Experiment #11, Steam-Propane Figure 16. Thermal Solvent Hybrid Experimental Economics
Hybrid, Scaled Field Rate and Recovery