Laboratory Experimental Testing
and Development of an Efficient Low
Pressure ES-SAGD Process
O.R. Ayodele*, T.N. Nasr**, G. Beaulieu, G. Heck
Alberta Research Council
*currently with Shell Exploration & Production Company
**currently with ConocoPhillips Company
Abstract
Certain Athabasca reservoirs have low pressures because they
have been depleted due to production of overlying gas. Other
reservoirs are naturally occurring low pressure shallow bitumen
reservoirs. Hence, there is a need to develop or investigate re-
covery processes under which such low pressure reservoirs can
be developed. As a result of this, experiments were initiated to
extend the Expanding Solvent-SAGD (ES-SAGD) process appli-
cation to low pressure Athabasca reservoirs in order to evaluate
oil recovery from such reservoirs. The goal of these experiments
is to develop a low pressure ES-SAGD process with better per-
formance than, or comparable performance to, that of the high
pressure SAGD process.
This paper describes five sets of laboratory experiments ex-
amining recovery processes, which includes a low pressure (500
kPag +/- 50 kPag) SAGD experiment, a propane-SAGD experi-
ment, multi-component ES-SAGD (at low and high concentra-
tions) experiments and a high pressure (2,100 kPag +/- 50 kPag)
SAGD experiment. The results of these experiments are presented
and analyzed in order to evaluate the performance of low pres-
sure ES-SAGD in comparison to SAGD (at low and high pres-
sure) and propane-SAGD at low pressure. The processes were
assessed for recovery, recovery time, heat loss, steam chamber
growth and energy efficiency.
The principal conclusion is that the low pressure multi-com-
ponent ES-SAGD at the right concentration (mostly at low con-
centration) is fairly competitive with SAGD at a high pressure.
The energy consumption in the steam or steam/solvent zone per
oil recovered (ECDZ) for low pressure multi-component ES-
SAGD experiments is much lower than the low pressure and
high pressure SAGD tests. The propane-SAGD test recovery is
very low, even at higher energy consumption, than that of the ES-
SAGD experiment at low concentration. The work presented in
this paper shows that the application of a multi-component ES-
SAGD process in the field at low pressure is a practical option.
It also shows that bitumen/heavy oil reservoirs that would have
remained untapped due to low reservoir pressure could be pro-
duced at lower energy consumption per oil recovered if a low
pressure ES-SAGD process at low concentration of the diluents
is employed in the recovery of the oil.
Introduction
Certain Athabasca reservoirs have low pressures because they
have been depleted due to production of overlying gas. Other res-
ervoirs are naturally occurring low pressure shallow bitumen res-
ervoirs. The application of Expanding Solvent-SAGD (ES-SAGD)
(1-2) to these low pressure reservoirs has been a major area of
Peer Reviewed Paper (“Review and Publication Process” can be found on our Website)
54 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
attention at the Alberta Research Council (ARC) in recent years.
As a result of this, experiments were initiated to extend the ES-
SAGD application to low pressure Athabasca reservoirs. The goal
is to develop a low pressure ES-SAGD process with better perfor-
mance than, or comparable performance to, that of the high pres-
sure SAGD process and extend the ES-SAGD process application
to gas-over-bitumen reservoirs and naturally occurring low pres-
sure reservoirs.
In this paper, four low pressure experiments and one high pres-
sure experiment conducted in a 2D experimental facility at the
Alberta Research Council are presented and analyzed in order to
evaluate the performance of ES-SAGD at low pressure. The low
pressure experiments are SAGD, propane-SAGD, high concen-
tration multi-component ES-SAGD and low concentration multi-
component ES-SAGD experiments.
Objectives
The objectives of the present study are to:
1. Evaluate recovery performance for low pressure (~500 kPag
+/- 50 kPag) tests in a typical Athabasca reservoir.
2. Use steam and steam/solvent mixture: SAGD, propane-
SAGD and multi-component ES-SAGD.
3. Analyze data and assess recovery, heat loss, steam chamber
growth and energy efficiency for different processes.
4. Better understanding of the mechanisms controlling low
pressure multi-component ES-SAGD and SAGD-solvent
processes to provide the means for better prediction of field-
scale performance.
Laboratory Equipment and Testing
Procedure
Description of Equipment
The 2D high pressure and high temperature scaled model fa-
cility at ARC was used for all the tests. A brief description of the
equipment is presented here. Figures 1 and 2 show the set-up of the
equipment and the test cell (model), respectively. The model is an
insulated stainless steel box with the dimensions of 24 cm × 80 cm
× 10 cm. Thermocouples are located at several points within the
model, as shown in Figure 3.
The locations of the injector and producer wells, which are
spaced 5 cm vertically, are also shown in Figure 2. The bottom
well (the producer) is located at about 1 cm from the bottom of the
model. The two wells are both located at the middle of the length
of the model.

FIGURE 1: Equipment set-up.
FIGURE 3: Dimension of test model.
The model is filled with Ottawa sand with a scaled permeability
value of 120 Darcy (representing ~1 Darcy in the field) in all the
five tests presented in this paper. In all tests, the model was first
saturated with water, and the water was then displaced by dead
Athabasca bitumen. The initial oil saturations for all tests are given
in Table 1. A summary of model, fluid properties, experimental
conditions, equipment and equipment control are also given in
Table 1. Model parameters and steam operating conditions are the
same or nearly identical in all the tests within the margin of experi-
mental errors. The only significant differences are the overburden
pressure and the steam operating conditions for the high pressure
SAGD test.
In running the tests, steam from a central supply was injected
solely or co-injected with a solvent. A control valve controls the
injection rate of steam and a regulator also controlled the injection
pressure. In the three tests that involved co-injection of solvents,
solvents were injected with a pump running at constant volumetric
rates.
Produced fluids, a mixture of water, oil and solvents, were col-
lected in piston-type accumulators from where they were passed
through an intermediate condenser. Condensed fluids were col-
lected in sample bottles and analyzed. The volumes of vented
gases were measured by a gas flow meter. An online gas chro-
matograph (GC) was used to analyze produced gases. As injection
and production continued, samples of the gases were channeled
through the gas chromatograph at intervals of 10 minutes to de-
termine gas compositions. In addition, temperature, pressure and
injection rates were measured and recorded in the computer by an
automated data acquisition system at intervals of one minute.
All the experiments reported below are scaled using the Pujol
and Boberg(3) scaling approach with a scaling factor of 109.
September 2009, Volume 48, No. 9 55
24.0 cm 10.0 cm
80.0 cm
FIGURE 2: Location of thermocouples within the test model.
Testing Procedure
The low and high concentrations refer to the concentrations of
the diluent in the ES-SAGD experiments. The high pressure ex-
periment is also a SAGD experiment. Even though the propane-
SAGD involve co-injection of solvent, it cannot be classified as an
ES-SAGD process because the process does not operate under the
same mechanism of a strictly ES-SAGD process where condens-
able solvent is used in ES-SAGD at the low pressure of 500 kPag.
The first test is the baseline SAGD test at low pressure. In this
test, at start-up, steam at 159°C and 500 kPag was injected/circu-
lated in both the injector and producer to establish communication
between the well pair at a total average rate of 3.99 kg/hr for about
10 minutes. After the space between the wells had been heated up,
injection of steam to the bottom well was discontinued and the well
was converted to normal fixed pressure production mode. How-
ever, steam injection to the upper well continued until the end of
the test at 910 minutes (20.57 years at field-scale) at an average in-
jection rate of 2.02 kg/hr.
The start-up procedure for the second (low pressure propane-
SAGD) test and the third and fourth (two low pressure multi-com-
ponent ES-SAGD) tests were the same as that of the low pressure
SAGD test. For all four low pressure tests, the initial model pres-
sure was slightly below 500 kPag (20 – 50 kPa). Average steam
injection rates of almost the same rate as that of the low pressure
SAGD test were used in establishing communication between the
wells (a total of 3.97 kg/hr for the propane-SAGD test, 4.01 kg/hr
for the low concentration multi-components solvent ES-SAGD test
and a total of 3.98 kg/hr for the high concentration multi-compo-
nents solvent ES-SAGD test). The start-up procedure for the fifth
(high pressure SAGD) test is also the same as those of the four tests
above, except that the steam was injected/circulated at the injector
Table 1: Summary of model, fluid properties, experimental conditions and equipment.

Low Pressure Low Pressure Low Pressure

Propane-SAGD ES-SAGD ES-SAGD
(conc. – (low conc. - (high conc. -
Low-Pressure 0.0292 0.1252 0.3565
SAGD mass basis) mass basis) mass basis) HP SAGD
(Test 1) (Test 2) (Test 3) (Test 4) (Test 5)
Sand/Model
Dimension (rounded end) 80 x 24 x 10 cm 80 x 24 x 10 cm 80 x 24 x 10 cm 80 x 24 x 10 cm 80 x 24 x 10 cm
Volume 18,608 cm3 18,745 cm3 18,747 cm3 18,551 cm3 18,596 cm3
Sand permeability 120 Darcy 120 Darcy 120 Darcy 120 Darcy 120 Darcy
Sand type Ottawa sand Ottawa sand Ottawa sand Ottawa sand Ottawa sand
Sand size 20-40 20-40 20-40 20-40 20-40
Sand mass 33.778 x 103 g 33.652 x 103 g 33.614 x 103 g 33.707x 103 g 33.855 x 103 g
Pore volume 5,910 cm3 6,094 cm3 6,110 cm3 5,879 cm3 5,632 cm3
Porosity 31.85% 32.5% 32.6% 31.7% 31.6%
Fluids & Solvent Properties
Initial oil saturation 92.6% 95.1% 95.9% 94.2% 93.7%
Initial oil mass 5,511.4 g 5,838.4 g 5,898.6 g 5,574.0 g 5,536.1 g
Mass of produced oil 4,013.1 g 3,035.9 g 4,316.1 g 3,867.2 g 4,596.2 g
Oil density 1.0007 g/cm3 1.0007 g/cm3 1.0007 g/cm3 1.0007 g/cm3 1.0007 g/cm3
Oil type 100% Athabasca 100% Athabasca 100% Athabasca 100% Athabasca 100% Athabasca
Bitumen (UTF) Bitumen (UTF) Bitumen (UTF) Bitumen (UTF) Bitumen (UTF)
Mass of injected solvent Not applicable 888.7 4464.3 g 17,172.0 g Not applicable
Injection Conditions
Average steam pressure 500 kPag 500 kPag 500 kPag 500 kPag 2,100 kPag
Average steam inj. temp. 159°C 159°C 159°C 159°C 219°C
Average steam injection rate 2.02 x 103 g/hr 1.97 x 103 g/hr 2.06 x 103 g/hr 2.04 x 103 g/hr 2.03 x 103 g/hr
Mass of total steam injected 30.58 x 103 g 29.81 x 103 g 31.18 x 103 g 30.99 x 103 g 30.71 x 103 g
Run time 910 min. 910 min. 910 min. 910 min. 910 min.
(20.57 yrs. (20.57 yrs. (20.57 yrs. (20.57 yrs. (20.57 yrs.
at field-scale) at field-scale) at field-scale) at field-scale) at field-scale)
Equipment Components and Control (The same for the five tests, except overburden pressure as indicated for Test 5.)
Model constructed with 18 gauge SS316 sheet
Inside top and bottom liner 0.635cm Teflon sheet
Injector/Producer liner Concentric tubing/liner
Injection line heat tapes 416 watts
Pressure control Honeywell UDC3000
Injection valves Research Control Valves (“M” Trim)
Production Dual cyclic accumulators
Production control Nitrogen Backpressure regulators
Steam supply 250 psig – superheated
Heat tracing Flex Tapes – UDC300 control
Flex tapes 120 Vac – resistive wire
Surface thermocouple Type K
Total Surface thermocouples 8
Core thermocouple 1/8” - Multipoint type K
Core thermocouple 1/16” single point type K
Total core thermocouple 21
Insulator 1/8” Nomex aramid thermal cloth
Thermal conductivity, Kh of insulator 0.0433 W/m°C
Overburden – Nitrogen (average) 1.90 MPa (tests 1 to 4 ) and 3.45 MPa (test 5)
PC Data Log Paragon 5.3

and producer at a higher injection temperature of 221°C and a pres-
sure of 2.1 MPag at a total average rate of 4.24 kg/hr for a period
of 10 minutes. The initial model pressure was slightly below 2,100
kPag (20 – 50 kPa)
In the case of the propane-SAGD test, after the space between
the injector and producer had been warmed up to establish com-
munication, steam injection at the lower well stopped and co-in-
jection of steam and propane commenced at the upper well until
the end of the test at 910 minutes at an average steam injection
rate of 1.97 kg/hr and average propane injection rate of 59.2 g/
hr [31,196.43 cm3/hr at standard temperature and pressure (STP)].
The concentration of propane in the injected mixture on a mass
basis is 2.92%.
Post start-up operations in the two multi-component ES-SAGD
tests were the same as post start-up operations in the propane-
SAGD test except that a diluent (gas condensate) was co-injected
with steam instead of propane until the end of the test at 910 min-
utes at low and high concentration values of 0.1252 and 0.3565 on
56 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
a mass basis of the injected mixture, respectively. Average steam
injection rate of 2.06 kg/hr and an average diluent injection rate
of 297.6 g/hr (400.57 cm3/hr at STP) were used for the post start-
up operation of the low concentration test. On the other hand, an
average steam injection rate of 2.04 kg/hr and an average diluent
injection rate of 1,188.80 g/hr (1,600 cm3/hr at STP) were used for
the post start-up operation of the high concentration test.
For the fifth test, the post start-up procedure was the same as
that of the first test and the steam injection to the upper well con-
tinued until the end of the test at 910 minutes at an average injec-
tion rate of about 2.03 kg/hr and at a temperature and a pressure of
219°C and 2,100 kPag, respectively.
In the ES-SAGD experiments, the co-injected multi-component
diluent/solvent is a gas condensate. The compositions of the con-
densate and their boiling points, mole fractions, mass fractions and
volume fractions are shown in Table 2.
For brevity, from now until the end of this paper, the experi-
ments (low pressure SAGD, low pressure propane-SAGD, low
Table 2: Compositions of the condensate used in the
LP Propane-SAGD - propane inj. rate
experiments. LP Propane-SAGD - steam inj. rate
4,000
3,800 LP SAGD - steam inj. rate
Boiling 3,600 LP ES-SAGD - diluent inj. rate (low conc.)
3,400 LP ES-SAGD - steam inj. rate (low conc.)

Injection Rate (g/hr)

Point Mole Mass Volume 3,200 LP ES-SAGD - diluent inj. (high conc.)
Components (oC) Fraction Fraction Fraction 3,000
LP ES-SAGD - steam inj. (high conc.)
2,800
2,600 HP SAGD - steam inj.
Ethane -89 0.0004 0.0001 0.0002 2,400
Propane -42 0.0223 0.0093 0.0132 2,200
2,000
i-Butane -12 0.0199 0.0109 0.0140 1,800
n-Butane 0 0.0582 0.0319 0.0394 1,600
1,400
I-Pentane 28 0.0434 0.0295 0.0341 1,200
1,000
n-Pentane 36 0.0538 0.0366 0.0418 800
Hexanes 69 0.0994 0.0807 0.0872 600
400
Heptanes 98 0.0999 0.0953 0.1001 200
0
Octanes 126 0.1037 0.1108 0.1134 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Nonanes 151 0.0745 0.0886 0.0888
Decanes 174 0.0631 0.0821 0.0809 Time (minutes)
Undecanes 196 0.0382 0.0537 0.0521
Dodecanes 216 0.0237 0.0359 0.0345 FIGURE 4: Comparison of injection rates.
Tridecanes 236 0.0184 0.0295 0.0280
Tetradecanes 253 0.0117 0.0199 0.0187

Volumetric Injection Rate (cm3/hr)

Pentadecanes 271 0.0084 0.0149 0.0140
40,000
Hexadecanes 287 0.0056 0.0105 0.0098 38,000
36,000
Heptadecanes 302 0.0046 0.0091 0.0084 34,000
Octadecanes 317 0.0029 0.0061 0.0056 32,000
30,000
Nonadecanes 331 0.0018 0.0039 0.0036 28,000
Eicosanes 343 0.0016 0.0038 0.0035 26,000
24,000
Heneicosanes 357 0.0013 0.0032 0.0029 22,000
20,000 LP Propane-SAGD
Docosanes 369 0.0011 0.0028 0.0025 18,000 LP ES-SAGD - diluent (low conc.)
Tricosanes 380 0.0010 0.0026 0.0024 16,000
14,000 LP ES-SAGD - diluent (high conc.)
Tetracosanes 391 0.0008 0.0023 0.0021 12,000
10,000
Pentacosanes 402 0.0007 0.0021 0.0019 8,000
Hexacosanes 412 0.0007 0.0019 0.0017 6,000
4,000
Heptacosanes 422 0.0006 0.0018 0.0016 2,000
0
Octacosanes 432 0.0005 0.0016 0.0014 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Nonacosanes 441 0.0005 0.0015 0.0013
Triacosanes+ 449 0.0014 0.0047 0.0042 Time (minutes)
Neo-Hexane 50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Methyl Cyclopentane 72 0.0248 0.0197 0.0188 FIGURE 5: Comparison of volumetric injection rates of injected
Benzene 80 0.0110 0.0081 0.0066 solvents at standard temperature and pressure (STP).
Cyclohexane 81 0.0311 0.0247 0.0228
Methyl Cyclohexane 101 0.0637 0.0590 0.0551
2,400
Toluene 111 0.0434 0.0377 0.0313 2,300
Ethyl Benzene 136 0.0041 0.0041 0.0034 2,200
2,100
m+p-Xylene 139 0.0390 0.0390 0.0322 2,000
o-Xylene 144 0.0106 0.0106 0.0087 1,900
Pressure (kPa)

1,800 LP Propane-SAGD
1,2,4 Trimethyl 169 0.0082 0.0095 0.0078 1,700
LP SAGD
Benzene 1,600
1,500 LP ES-SAGD (low conc.)
1,400 LP ES-SAGD (high conc.)
Totals   1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,300
HP SAGD
1,200
1,100
1,000
pressure low concentration multi-component ES-SAGD, low 900
800
pressure high concentration multi-component ES-SAGD and 700
600
high pressure SAGD) will be referred to as Tests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 500
respectively. Anywhere a reference is made to these tests, they 400
300
might be referred to by the numeric equivalent above. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Time (minutes)

FIGURE 6: Comparison of injection pressure profiles.

Results and Discussion
Injection Rates
Injection rates of steam and solvents are shown in Figure 4 for
comparison purposes. For all tests, injection rates of steam are ap-
proximately the same throughout the period of the tests. This shows
that a basis exists for comparing the tests. On the other hand, the
mass injection rates of propane and low and high concentration
diluents are different, as shown in Figure 4. The rates were inten-
tionally varied to help in evaluating the effect of injecting various
amounts of these solvents. As indicated in Figure 4, the mass in-
jection rates [average rate: 297.6 g/hr (Test 3) and average rate:
1,188.8 g/hr (Test 4)] of the diluent are higher than those of the
propane mass injection rate (average rate: 59.2 g/hr) at the injec-
tion temperature and pressure at all times. However, the correct
rate that should be used as the basis of comparison for these addi-
tive injection rates should be the volumetric injection rates at STP.
September 2009, Volume 48, No. 9 57
As a result of this, propane and diluent volumetric injection rates at
STP were plotted and are shown in Figure 5.
Propane volumetric rates are consistently significantly higher
than those of diluent (at low and high concentrations) throughout
the period of the tests. Despite the higher average rate and quantity
of propane on volumetric basis at standard conditions, propane-
SAGD recovery is much lower than those of the ES-SAGD. This
is discussed further later under the sections entitled Oil Recovery
Analysis and Energy Recovery Analysis.
Pressure Profiles
For Tests 1 to 4, experimental conditions of injection pressure
and overburden pressure are the same or nearly the same within
the margin of experimental errors as shown in Figures 6 and 7, re-
spectively. This again confirms that the tests are conducted under
the same low pressure reservoir condition. In the case of Test 5, the
 6,000 LP Propane-SAGD - oil prod. rate
850
5,600 LP Propane-SAGD 800 LP SAGD - oil prod. rate
LP SAGD.

Production Rate (g/hr)

5,200 750 LP ES-SAGD - oil prod. rate (low conc.)
4,800 LP ES-SAGD (low conc.) 700 LP ES-SAGD - oil prod. rate (high conc.)
LP ES-SAGD (high conc.) 650
4,400 HP SAGD HP SAGD - oil prod rate.
600
Pressure (kPa)
4,000 550
3,600 500
3,200 450
2,800 400
2,400 350
300
2,000 250
1,600 200
1,200 150
800 100
400 50
0
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Time (minutes)
Time (minutes)
FIGURE 10: Comparison of oil production rates.
FIGURE 7: Comparison of overburden pressure profiles.

6,000
5,600

Production Rate (g/hr)

5,200 LP Propane-SAGD
2,000 LP SAGD
4,800
Injected - low conc. 4,400 LP ES-SAGD (low conc.)
Produced - low conc. LP ES-SAGD (high conc.)
4,000 HP SAGD
1,600 Injected - high conc.
Produced - high conc. 3,600
3,200
2,800
Mass (g)

1,200 2,400
2,000
1,600
800 1,200
800
400
400 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

0
Time (minutes)
3 4 5 6 7 8
Carbon Number FIGURE 11: Comparison of water production rates.

FIGURE 8: Comparison of the cumulative quantities of C3 to C8 in

the injected and produced diluent at low and high concentrations. LP Propane-SAGD (Recovery - 52.00%)
LP SAGD (Recovery - 72.56%)
LP ES-SAGD (Recovery - 73.17%) - low conc. (0.1252)
100
95 LP ES-SAGD (Recovery - 69.38%) - high conc. - (0.3565)
Percentage of OOIP (%)

90 HP SAGD (Recovery - 83.02%)

85
1,300 80
Oil Recovery as

1,200 75
70
Production Rate (g/hr)

1,100 65
60
1,000 55
900 LP Propane-SAGD - oil prod. rate 50
LP Propane-SAGD - propane prod. rate 45
800 LP SAGD - oil prod. rate 40
700 LP ES-SAGD - oil prod. rate (low conc.) 35
LP ES-SAGD - diluent prod. rate (low conc.) 30
600 LP ES-SAGD - oil prod. rate (high conc.) 25
LP ES-SAGD - diluent prod. rate (high conc.) 20
500 15
HP SAGD - oil prod rate.
400 10 210 mins. ~ 4.75 yrs.
5 80 mins.~1.81 yrs.
300 0
200 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 960
100
0 Time (minutes)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Time (minutes) FIGURE 12: Comparison of oil recoveries (% of OOIP).

FIGURE 9: Comparison of oil and solvent production rates.
injection pressure and overburden pressure, as shown in Figures 6
and 7, respectively, throughout the period of test are significantly
higher than those of Tests 1 to 4, as expected.
Diluent Composition Analysis
Cumulative masses of C2 to C8 (alkanes) in the injected diluent
are shown in bar chart format in Figure 8 for both Tests 3 and
4. Also, cumulative masses of C2 to C8 in the produced mixture
(in the vapour phase) are shown in Figure 8 for both Tests 3 and
4. Other constituents of the produced mixture (only in the vapour
phase) are not shown because the gas chromatography analysis did
not include an analysis of these constituents. The volume or mass
fractions of C3 to C8 in the liquid phase were not determined.
From Figure 8, in both the high and low concentration tests
(Tests 3 and 4, respectively), produced quantities are highest in
the C4 to C7 range. This shows that the quantity of hydrocarbon
in this range evaporates and condenses intermittently at the same
58 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
time or nearly the same time as steam, thereby encouraging more
oil production. This is discussed further in detail when the results
depicted in Figures 12, 13 and 14 are discussed.
Production Rates
Production rates of solvents are shown in Figure 9, while pro-
duction rates of only oil are shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows
the production rates of water (condensed steam), which are ap-
proximately the same for all the tests except for occasional spikes
noticeable in the case of the low pressure propane-SAGD experi-
ment (Test 2).
In Figure 9, propane production rates are fairly constant, espe-
cially at later times of the experiment. This behaviour partly shows
that propane remains mostly in the same state (vapour phase) with
little condensation. On the contrary, the diluent production rates
for both the low and the high concentration tests (Tests 3 and 4,
respectively) fluctuates within a given rate ‘interval’ resulting in
‘zigzag’ or meandering patterns, as shown in Figure 9.
 3.00 50
2.80 C1 48
C2 46
2.60

Quantity Produced (g)

44
C3 42
2.40 C4 40

Temperature (ºC)
2.20 C5 38
2.00 C6 C6 36
34
C7 32
1.80 C8 C5 Mass quantities of 30
1.60 28
1.40 C4, C5 and C6 26
24
C4 22
1.20 20 LP Propane-SAGD
1.00 18 LP SAGD
16
0.80 14 LP ES-SAGD (low conc.)
0.60 12 LP ES-SAGD (high conc.)
10
0.40 8 HP SAGD
0.20 6
4
0.00 2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Time (minutes)
Time (minutes)
FIGURE 13: Produced quantity of C3 to C8 (in vapour phase) for
Test 3 at various times. FIGURE 15: Comparison of overburden temperature profiles.

recovery is 52.00%. The ultimate recoveries of Tests 3, 4 and 5

10.00 as percentage of OOIP are 73.17%, 69.83% and 83.02%, respec-
9.50
9.00 C1 tively, as indicated in Figure 12. From the above results, it can be
Quantity Produced (g)

8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (minutes)
FIGURE 14: Produced quantity of C3 to C8 (in vapour phase) for
Test 4 at various times.
In Figure 10, Test 5 shows the highest production rates, as ex-
pected due to high pressure, at the early times and the lowest pro-
duction rates at later times (after 610 minutes at lab-scale, i.e.
13.79 years at field-scale). The higher production rates at early
times resulted in more oil recovery (See Figure 12) leaving behind
a lower quantity of oil to be produced at later times. In general,
the production rates for all the other tests follow the same pattern
of high production rates at early times and low production rates at
later times.
Oil Recovery Analysis
Oil recovery as a percentage of the original oil-in-place for each
test is shown in Figure 12. One important noticeable observation
in this figure is that, in approximately the first two years at field-
scale (1.81 years), the performance of the high pressure SAGD
test (Test 5) is the same as the performance of the two low pres-
sure ES-SAGD tests (Tests 3 and 4). The recovery as a percentage
of the OOIP is about 12% in all three tests. On the other hand, the
performance of the low pressure SAGD and low pressure propane-
SAGD tests (Tests 1 and 2) are significantly lower than those of
Tests 3, 4 and 5 within this time interval.
The low pressure propane-SAGD test shows marginal improve-
ment in oil recovery as percentage of OOIP over the low pressure
SAGD test at early times (~ the first 4.75 years of a 20.57-year
operation at field-scale). Both the low pressure multi-component
ES-SAGD tests also show better recovery than the low pressure
propane-SAGD and low pressure SAGD test at early times, but
the recovery of the low pressure multi-component ES-SAGD test
at low concentrations is higher than that of the low pressure multi-
component ES-SAGD test at high concentrations during the same
period.
After these initial times, the low pressure SAGD test’s recovery
increases steadily much more than the low pressure propane-
SAGD test until the end of the experimental runs. Ultimately, at
the end of the runs, low pressure SAGD recovery as percentage
of original oil-in-place (OOIP) is 72.56%, while propane-SAGD
September 2009, Volume 48, No. 9 59
C2
C3 seen that Test 5 shows the best recovery as expected. Test 3 shows
C5 C4 better recovery than Test 4, while the recovery for Tests 1 and 3 are
C5
C6
C7
almost the same. Test 2 shows the lowest recovery.
C8 In order to identify the reason why the low concentration test
C4
Mass quantities of (Test 3) has a better recovery performance than the high concentra-
C4, C5 and C6
tion test (Test 4), plots of the produced quantity of C3 to C8 (in the
vapour phase) for Tests 3 and 4 at various times were generated.
C6 These plots are shown in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. From
these figures, it can be seen that the quantities of C4, C5 and C6
700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 produced (in the vapour phase) in the case of the low concentration
test (Figure 13) are much smaller than the quantities of C4, C5 and
C6 produced (in the vapour phase) in the case of the high concen-
tration test (Figure 14). Most of that the quantity of hydrocarbon in
the C4 to C6 range evaporates and condenses intermittently at the
same time or nearly the same time as steam, thereby encouraging
more oil production. From these results and the results presented
in Figure 8, as well as earlier discussions on compositional anal-
ysis, it can be concluded that some of these compositions (e.g. low
carbon hydrocarbons, C1 to C5) accumulate in large quantities at
the interface of Test 4 and prevent heat transfer due to low thermal
conductivities of these gaseous low carbon hydrocarbons and limit
the growth of the size of the steam/solvent chamber, when com-
pared with Test 3.
Temperature Profiles and Steam Chamber
Growth
Figure 15 shows the plots of overburden temperature versus
time. Temperature (and hence, heat) losses to the overburden are
less in the case of Tests 2, 3 and 4. This is because propane, for
Test 2, and other lower carbon hydrocarbons (≤ C5) for Tests 3 and
4, which dispersed to the top of the model, slowed the transfer of
heat energy, thereby reducing energy loss. However, for the case
of Test 1 and Test 5, no such solvents are available to provide in-
sulation that might limit heat loss.
Figure 16 shows temperature distributions (temperature contour
plots) within the model over time. At initial times (≤ 100 minutes
~ 2.26 years at field-scale), temperature distributions within the
model are almost the same for Tests 1 to 4. At later times, the tem-
perature increases away from the steam chamber at a faster rate in
the case of the SAGD test, than in the case of the propane-SAGD
test and the two ES-SAGD tests. Eventually, the rate at which the
temperature increases away from the steam chamber, in the case
of propane-SAGD, reduces drastically. Generally, Test 5 tempera-
ture profiles within the model changed faster away from the well
to the edges of the model. That is, the steam chamber grows faster
than the steam chambers of the other tests. This is due to the high
injection temperature and pressure of Test 5. For Tests 1 to 4, the
steam chamber grows slower due to low injection temperature and
pressure.
The explanation in the last paragraph of the Oil Recovery Anal-
ysis section supports the slightly bigger steam/solvent chamber

FIGURE 16: Comparison of temperature distribution within the
model over time.
in Test 3 than Test 4, which promotes a slightly higher recovery
in Test 3 than Test 4. There is a slightly higher heat loss due to
slightly higher temperatures at the top of the test cell (model) in
Test 3 than in Test 4, but the mechanism described in the last
paragraph of the Oil Recovery Analysis section is more dominant
than the heat loss effect.
Energy Recovery Analysis
As discussed early on, under Oil Recovery Analysis, recovery
as percentage of OOIP is highest in Test 5, followed by Test 3 and
then Tests 1, 4 and 2, respectively. More oil is recovered in Test
5 than in Tests 2, 3 and 4 despite the fact that these tests reduced
heat loss.
This shows that propane (for Test 2) and lower carbon hydro-
carbon (≤ C5 for Tests 3 and 4) moved away (dispersed) from the
steam chamber and accumulated at the edge of the steam chamber,
trapping (conserving) heat within the chamber and reducing loss of
heat to the overburden. By accumulating at the edges and reducing
the transfer of heat, these lighter solvents essentially minimized
the upward and sideways transfer of heat. This reduced the con-
tact area of the oil-in-place with the steam/solvent mixture and the
amount of oil that is eventually recovered from Tests 2, 3 and 4 as
compared with the case of the high pressure SAGD test, and from
Tests 2 and 4 when compared with the low pressure SAGD test.
Because different types of solvents, different amounts of sol-
vents and different amounts of energy were used in the experi-
ments, recovery as percentage of the OOIP is not the only measure
of the performance of the various tests. Recovery as a percentage
of OOIP does not provide enough information for the economic
performance of the process. As a result of this, energy consump-
tion in the steam or steam/solvent zone per oil recovered (ECDZ)
was used as the basis for further analysis and comparison. The re-
sults of this comparison are shown in Figure 17. To calculate the
energy consumed per oil recovered in kJ/kg, the amount of energy
stored in the steam or steam/solvent zone of the model was divided
by the total mass of oil produced in each of the five tests.
To compute the energy stored for Test 1, the specific heat ca-
pacity and the latent heat of vapourization of steam, which are
4.18 kJ/kg/°C and 2,086 kJ/kg(4), respectively, and a specific heat
60 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
per Oil Recovered - ECDZ (kJ/kg)
Steam or Steam/Solvent Zone
1,200
Energy Consumption in the
HP SAGD
1,100
1,000
900 LP ES-SAGD
LP ES-SAGD
LP SAGD LP Propane- high
800 low
concentration
SAGD concentration
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5
Test Number
FIGURE 17: Comparison of energy consumption in the steam or
steam/solvent zone per oil recovered.
capacity for sand of 0.96 kJ/kg/°C were used. For Test 2, the spe-
cific heat capacity and the latent heat of vapourization of steam,
which have the same values as the values for Test 1 as well as the
heat of combustion (assuming 70% conversion efficiency) of the
propane left behind in the steam-propane zone in the model, at
standard conditions (35,335 kJ/kg)(5), were used to calculate the
energy stored.
For Tests 3 and 4, the specific heat capacity and the latent heat
of vapourization of steam (4.18 kJ/kg/°C and 2,086 kJ/kg) and the
mass-averaged heat of combustion (assuming 70% conversion ef-
ficiency) of the diluent left behind in the steam/solvent zone in the
model, at standard conditions (33,864 kJ/kg)(4), were used to calcu-
late the energy stored. The energy stored for Test 5 was also based
on the specific heat capacity and the latent heat of vapourization of
steam, which are 4.18 kJ/kg/°C and 1,862 kJ/kg(3), respectively.
From Figure 17, it can be seen that the ECDZ is highest in the
high pressure SAGD experiment, followed sequentially in de-
creasing order by the low pressure SAGD experiment, low pres-
sure ES-SAGD at high concentration experiment, low pressure
propane-SAGD experiment and the low pressure ES-SAGD at low
concentration experiment. The high pressure SAGD experiment
has the highest ECDZ. In general, the lower the ECDZ, the better
the recovery process because less energy is used to obtain a given
quantity of oil. This shows that Test 3 outperformed other tests.
Also, it should be noted that energy losses were not accounted
for in the analysis above. In the field, the thermal conductivities of
the overburden and the underburden are almost the same as that of
the reservoir rock matrix. Hence, with ES-SAGD processes, the
solvent provides additional insulation that prevents heat loss. Such
heat loss prevention is not available in both low pressure and high
pressure SAGD in the field. For temperature distribution and ad-
vancement with time within the model, see Figure 16. If such heat
losses are accounted for in both low pressure and high pressure
SAGD, then energy consumption by oil recovered would become
higher and this would make the ES-SAGD process at low con-
centration even more attractive as a recovery process relative to
SAGD at low and high pressure.
Conclusion
The work presented here shows that low pressure multi-com-
ponent ES-SAGD at low concentration can be used to recover oil
from low pressure Athabasca reservoirs. The objectives for which
the experiments were conducted have been realized. The energy
consumption in the steam or steam/solvent zone per oil recovered
(ECDZ) for low pressure multi-component ES-SAGD at low con-
centration is lower than that of low pressure and high pressure
SAGD. The propane-SAGD recovery is very low, even at higher
energy consumption, than those of the ES-SAGD at low concen-
tration experiment.
These results show, in general, that heavy oil/bitumen that
would have remained untapped due to low reservoir pressure could
be produced at lower energy consumption per oil recovered if a
low pressure ES-SAGD process at low concentration of the diluent
is employed in the recovery of the oil.
This work demonstrated that the application of multi-compo-
nent ES-SAGD in the field at low pressure is a practical option.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the AERI/ARC Core Industry Research
(AACI) Program for their financial and technical support and Dr.
Olajide Akinlade of ARC for his comments.
Nomenclature
ECDZ = energy consumption in the steam or steam/
solvent zone per oil recovered
ECR = energy consumption per oil recovered
ES-SAGD = expanding-solvent steam-assisted gravity
drainage
HC = high concentration
HP = high pressure
LP = low pressure
LC = low concentration
OOIP = original oil-in-place
Pref = reference pressure
Pref = atmospheric pressure
Pag = gauge pressure
Pa = absolute pressure
Pa - Pag + Pref = Pag + 101 kPa
SAGD = steam-assisted gravity drainage
STP = standard condition of temperature and
pressure
Test 1 = low pressure SAGD test
Test 2 = low pressure propane-SAGD test
Test 3 = low pressure, low concentration multi-compo-
nent ES-SAGD test
Test 4 = low pressure, high concentration multi-com-
ponent ES-SAGD test
Test 5 = high pressure SAGD test
References
1. Nasr, T.N. and Isaac, E.E., Process for Enhancing Hydrocarbon
Mobility Using a Steam Additive; United States Patent No. 6,230,814,
15 May 2001.
2. Nasr, T.N., Beaulieu, G., Golbeck, H. and Heck, G., Novel
Expanding Solvent-SAGD Process “ES-SAGD”; Journal of Ca-
nadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 13-16, January
2003.
3. PUJOL, L. and BOBERG, T.C., Scaling Accuracy of Laboratory
Steam Flooding Models; paper SPE 4191 presented at the SPE Cali-
fornia Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, 8-10 November 1972.
4. RažnjevIĆ, K., Handbook of Thermodynamics Tables and Charts;
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1976.
5. Inbuilt H-Values in Computer Modelling Groups’s WinProp® Soft-
ware (Version 2004.10).
Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript, Laboratory Ex-
perimental Testing and Development of an Efficient Low-Pressure
ES-SAGD Process (2008-184), first presented at the 9th Canadian Inter-
national Petroleum Conference (the 59th Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society), June 17-19, 2008, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract sub-
mitted for review January 18, 2008; editorial comments sent to the author(s)
February 6, 2009; revised manuscript received June 26, 2009; paper ap-
proved for pre-press June 26, 2009; final approval August 3, 2009.
September 2009, Volume 48, No. 9 61
Authors’ Biographies
Dr. Oluropo Rufus Ayodele is currently a
Senior Reservoir Engineer in the Grosmont
Venture of Shell’s Upstream Americas Unit
in Houston, Texas, USA. Prior to joining
Shell, he worked in several areas, including
R&D (Alberta Research Council and Uni-
versity of Alberta, Canada), oilfield services
(Schlumberger, Nigeria), teaching (Univer-
sity of Port Harcourt and RSUST, Nigeria)
and consulting (Pajuno, Nigeria). He holds a
Ph.D. degree in petroleum engineering from
the University of Alberta, a masters degree (M.Tech.) in mechan-
ical engineering from the Rivers State University of Science & Tech-
nology, Nigeria and a bachelors degree (B.Eng. Hons.) in agricultural
engineering from the Federal University of Technology, Nigeria. Dr.
Ayodele’s technical interests include reservoir simulation, character-
ization and geophysics, recovery technologies for unconventional oil
and gas, LWD and wireline log interpretation and analysis, numeric
computing and petroleum economics. He has authored and co-au-
thored over 15 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conference pro-
ceedings and he is a co-inventor on a WIPO patent. He is a registered
professional engineer in the Province of Alberta and is a member of
SPE and the Petroleum Society of Canada. He is also a technical ed-
itor for SPEERE, TIPM and the Journal of Petroleum Science & En-
gineering.
Dr. T.N. Nasr is currently the Director of
Hybrid Solvent/Steam Recovery Process in
the Heavy Oil Technology Department of
ConocoPhillips Company in Houston, Texas,
USA. Prior to joining ConocoPhillips, he was
a leader of the thermal gravity oil recovery
and hybrid thermal/solvent recovery stra-
tegic areas in the Heavy Oil and Oil Sands
business unit at the Alberta Research Council
(ARC). Dr. Nasr holds B.Sc. and M.Sc. de-
grees in engineering and a Ph.D. degree in
physics from the University of Alexandria, Egypt and the University
of Manitoba, Canada. Dr. Nasr’s interests include thermal in situ oil
recovery processes, particularly development and implementation of
the steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and steam-solvent pro-
cesses, horizontal well applications, fluid flow in porous media and
heat transfer. He has authored and co-authored more than 130 tech-
nical papers and reports, and holds eight patents in the area of in situ
oil recovery. He is a member of the Petroleum Society of Canada, the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and the Canadian Heavy Oil
Association (CHOA).
Gilles Beaulieu is a Research Technologist
with the Alberta Research Council (ARC).
He is currently conducting research on the
recovery of bitumen with the steam-assisted
gravity drainage (SAGD) and steam-addi-
tives processes. Since joining ARC in 1984,
he has been involved in the research and de-
velopment of new technologies related to
thermal gravity drainage, as well as hydro-
carbon upgrading. He received a B.Sc. de-
gree in chemistry from the University of
Alberta in 1983.
Gord Heck is a Research Technologist at
the Alberta Research Council (ARC). For
the past nine years he has been involved with
conducting physical lab experiments in the
area of SAGD and steam-solvent processes.
He received his diploma in hydrocarbon en-
gineering technology from the Northern Al-
berta Institute of Technology. Since joining
ARC in 1984, he has been involved in the de-
sign, construction and operation of lab-scale
to pilot-scale experiments in the areas of coal
research, heavy oil upgrading and numerous environmental projects.