SPE-171371-MS

Improved Artificial Lift Design for Solvent Assisted SAGD Processes

Babatunde Babayemi, Xingru Wu, and Suresh Sharma, University of Oklahoma

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Artificial Lift Conference & Exhibition-North America held in Houston, Texas, USA, 6 8 October 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee followingreview of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Artificial lift design for heavy oil systems is a continual changing process in which evolving technological
advancements coupled with constant learning experience has led to production capabilities that were not
feasible in the past. There has been an increase in installation of temperature tolerant Electric Submersible
pumps (ESP) with the primary aim of improving deliverability from mature heavy oil fields. Similarly, in
the heavy oil industry, the desire to attain energy efficiency has birthed variations of the Steam Assisted
Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process that use solvent additives in further reducing bitumen viscosity. The
heavy oil emulsion formed in these systems exhibit rheological characteristics and outflow behaviors
different to conventional SAGD systems. Tubing hydraulic performance, steam trap requirements and
flow assurance behaviors associated with production from these systems are investigated in this work.
This paper presents dynamic multiphase simulations detailing fluid flow regimes, mass and heat
transfer mechanisms and pressure/temperature changes as the reservoir fluid flows out of the reservoir,
through an ESP and up the production tubing to the surface. The reservoir is a 3D fully coupled
reservoir/wellbore model with properties similar to the Athabasca bitumen reservoir. The simulation was
conducted considering all periods in the lifecycle of production i.e. pre and post ramp up. This research
finds that a detailed understanding of fluid phase behavior and reservoir operating parameters during the
different periods can dramatically improve operating efficiency and impact on ESP design.
Furthermore, results generated from this research can be used as a yardstick for SAGD production
engineers in designing artificial lift systems for solvent assisted processes

Introduction
Over the years, there have been improvements in bitumen exploitation strategies with Steam Assisted
Gravity Drainage (SAGD) operations recording significant success. SAGD is a heavy oil recovery process
that uses steam injection for heavy oil production as resources are becoming too deep for extraction
through mining operations. The SAGD process involves drilling two horizontal wells with the injector
often located a few meters above the producer. The steam injected heats up the reservoir leading to
reduction in heavy oil viscosity, enhanced mobility and eventually initiates drainage to the producer.
Figure 1 illustrates the cross section of the SAGD process and shows the process of steam injection and
emulsion drainage to the producer.
The SAGD process was initially modelled by Butler et al. (1981) and is as follows:

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 1Cross section of a SAGD operation

The equation shows that reducing the kinematic viscosity of oil in place, v, contributes significantly to
oil production. Hence, the ability to effectively reduce the viscosity of bitumen at every point during
production is an important attribute that impacts reservoir deliverability. This has led to continuous effort
and research aimed at developing SAGD variants that would achieve this goal.
Solvent-assisted SAGD (SASAGD) processes were developed to meet such requirements and involve
solvent and steam injection strategies aimed at enhancing viscosity reduction of heavy oil. This leads to
a corresponding decrease in energy use as less steam is generated to achieve the same production
throughput. SAVEX (Gutek et al. 2003), SAS (Zhao 2007), SAP (Gupta et al. 2004) and ES-SAGD (Nasr
et al. 2003) are some of the more successful SASAGD processes that are being tested in field operations.
In this work we focus primarily on the Expanding Solvent Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (ES-SAGD)
process because of its wide acceptance as a successful SASAGD strategy.
The rheology of the bitumen emulsion tremendously impacts the dynamics of production from SAGD
systems. It influences the interaction between inflow variables and outflow variables and therefore affects
engineering design for sustaining stable production. Emulsions are formed during SAGD operations.
Emulsions are thermodynamically unstable mixtures of two immiscible fluids made stable by altering the
interfacial tension existing between each fluid. The large quantity of asphaltene molecules in heavy oil
initiates formation of oil-water emulsions as the asphaltene molecule acts as a natural emulsifier that
stabilizes the emulsion formed. Besides, the significant quantity of solid particles in place with heavy oil
assist in stabilizing the oil-water emulsion, these type of emulsions are known as Pickering emulsions
(Spiecker et al. 2003). The co-injection of solvents impacts the chemical properties of the asphaltene
molecules and as such alters the behavior of the heavy oil emulsion formed. An important property
impacted and which forms the subject of interest in this paper is the rheological behavior of the emulsion.
Reservoir depletion and the deep location of the reservoir make artificial lift systems necessary.
Besides, the drive toward achieving an energy efficient process requires operating at lower pressures
which implies that artificial lift might be required even before maturity is reached. The Electro Submers-

SPE-171371-MS

ible Pump (ESP) is widely preferred because of its

flexibility in operation as well as newer units being
more temperature tolerant. The change in fluid rheology and the corresponding impact on engineering
design for solvent SAGD processes infers that ESP
design would be equally affected. This paper investigates this and presents results toward this effect.

SAGD production and Emulsion

behavior
SAGD production differs from conventional hydrocarbon production. The major variables influencing
SAGD performance as pointed out by Yuan and
Nugent (2013) include the liquid head above the
Figure 2Illustration of low subcool vs high subcool
producer, steam trap efficiency and the effective
viscosity of the emulsion located between the injector and producer.
The liquid head is the pressure exerted by the fluid that accumulates above the producer as a result of
the downward flow of the heavy oil emulsion. Steam trap, also referred to as subcool, is the temperature
difference between the measured temperature at a point and the saturated steam temperature at that point.
In SAGD operations the subcool concept is used to achieve thermal efficiency by ensuring the temperature
of the production fluid at the bottomhole is lower than the saturation temperature of steam at the operating
bottomhole pressure. As shown in Figure 2 low subcool values indicates the steam chamber being closer
to the production well, while high subcool values imply the steam chamber is further away from the
producer. Thus, it is expected that the subcool value strongly influences the viscosity of the emulsion
located between the injector and producer.
High subcool values correlate with high emulsion viscosities between the injector and producer and
vice versa. Although ESPs are being designed to handle steam (Noonan et al. 2013), steam influx is
generally unwanted. Therefore, there is an optimal subcool value and corresponding viscosity value
required to attain the necessary flow rates during the different stages of production. The addition of
solvents as an injection additive would alter the subcool-viscosity-productivity behavior that exists when
compared to conventional SAGD operations.
Proper characterization of the emulsion is an important step for engineers designing SAGD production
systems as emulsions differ significantly in their rheological properties. There are two major forms of
emulsions typical to heavy oil production. These are Water in Oil (WIO) emulsions and Oil in Water
(OIW) emulsions; although complex variations occur which include Water in Oil in Water (W/O/W) and
Oil in Water in Oil (O/W/O) emulsions.
As far as subsurface emulsion characterization is concerned, contrary views have been presented. In his
study (Bosch et al. 2004) explicitly states that OIW emulsions are produced at bottomhole conditions
while another study (Chung and Butler 1988) has stated that WIO emulsions dominate during subsurface
bottomhole production. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that WIO emulsions are received at surface
facilities and require additional processing to make them suitable for pipeline transportation (McGowan
1990). The rheology of the Oil-Water emulsion is an important factor that determines design parameters
used in sizing subsurface and surface production systems.
This was taken into cognizance while carrying out this study and significantly contributed towards the
conclusions reached.

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 3The major stages of production investigated for both SAGD and ES-SAGD operations

Methodology
Variables that impact most on sustaining stable production from an inflow perspective are the subcool
value (determines effective viscosity), bottomhole pressures and liquid accumulation rate from the
reservoir bulk. These variables vary significantly for different stages during production. Hence, it is
imperative to analyze dominant stages and present results specific for each stage. The major stages
investigated are the Pre ramp-up stage, Post ramp-up stage and Wind-down stage of SAGD production.
Production for SAGD operations is such that operating constraints are designed with the intent of
maximizing recovery while ensuring stable production within operable limits. Figures 3 present a brief
overview of these periods and illustrate features characterizing each.
Steps taken in the study are as follows:
1. Reservoir simulation of SAGD and ES-SAGD operations; component volumes, mass fractions and
phase distributions for both operations are documented
2. Numerical simulation investigating relationship between subcool, bottomhole pressure and liquid
head above producer for the SAGD and ES-SAGD operations
3. Emulsion design/characterization based on inflow volumes and mass composition
4. Dynamic simulation of outflow behavior using inflow parameters supporting stable production
calculated in steps 1 to 3 above for both SAGD and ES-SAGD operations
5. ESP design and sizing for both operations

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 4 3D reservoir illustrating IK and JK cross sections

Figure 5Relative permeability curves of reservoir model

Reservoir Simulation Model

The reservoir model was built with thermal simulation software CMG STARS. The reservoir is a 3D
fully coupled model with properties similar to bitumen from the McMurray formation of the Athabasca area. The injector is 6 m above the producer
which is 1 m above the bottom of the reservoir. Both
the producer and the injector run across the entire
length of the reservoir. Figure 4 illustates the 3D
structure and details of the reservoir. Figure 5 shows
its relative permeability curves. Table 1 presents
information on the input data used in building the
model and Table 2 gives details of solvent characterization data for ES-SAGD input generated using

Table 1Summary of the reservoir and fluid properties used in

building reservoir model
Reservoir Properties
Parameter

Value

Length (m)
Width (m)
Thickness (m)
Grid blocks in x,y,z directions
Initial Temperature (C)
Reference Depth (m)
Reservoir Permeability (mD)
Reservoir Porosity
Formation Compressibilty (1/kPa)
Rock Heat capacity (kJ/m3-C)
Thermal conductivity of Rock (kJ/m-day-K)
Heat loss to Over/Under burden (kJ/m-day-K)

300
46
50
26,3,26
48
760
1468
0.25
1.80E-05
1500
1.50E02
1.00E03

SPE-171371-MS

Table 2Summary of pseudo-solvent and heavy oil properties used for solvent characterization

Pseudo Solvent
Heavies

Molecular Weight (kg/gmole)

Mass Density (kg/m3)

Critical molar volume(l/mol)

Critical Temp (K)

Critical Pres (atm)

97.35
533.9

722.5
1013.2

0.399
1.557

546.9
1037.2

29.62
10.26

Table 3Mass fraction distribution of components at bottomhole location for both SAGD and ES-SAGD
SAGD

Pre Ramp-Up
Post Ramp-Up
Wind Down

ES-SAGD

Oil

Water

Oil

Solv

Water

12.13%
12.58%
2.70%

87.87%
87.42%
97.30%

13.19%
8.64%
2.68%

0.14%
0.07%
0.02%

86.67%
91.29%
97.30%

phase behavior software WINPROP. The solvent is a pseudo-solvent containing a mixture of fractions
ranging from C4-C10. K-value data were simulated across relevant temperature and pressure ranges
applicable to each operation. Viscosity data was tuned to match viscosity data calculated using Putanguttas correlation (Puttagunata et al. 1993) with a bitumen viscosity of 20480 mPa.s at 25C
The maximum injection pressure of the injector was initially 11000 kPa and then switched to 5500 kPa
after circulation and depressurization stages which took five months. Production was allowed to continue
until rates were less than 5 m3/d. For the solvent injection model 2% solvent mole fraction was co-injected
continously once production commenced. The steam quality was 0.9 for all cases.

Subcool, Bottomhole pressure and liquid head study

The relationship between the subcool (SC) values, bottomhole pressures (BHP) and the effective liquid
head were investigated for both operations by using the reservoir model to conduct necessary sensitivity
analysis. The goal here is to reach a scenario for each operation and at the 3 stages of production such that
the viscosity value at grid blocks beneath the injector all the way down to the grid block located at the
producer were of the same numerical value. It was assumed that the concept of having equal viscosities
at both locations implies production into the wellbore balances accumulation from the reservoir bulk for
the set operating condition. Hence, it can be stated that optimal pseudosteady state of production is
reached in the model when no build up of emulsion allows a viscosity gradient to develop between the
injector and producer.
This was carried out at subcool values ranging from 1C to 35C for the selected periods in both cases.
At 35C, production was unstable in all cases while 1C was assumed to be the onset of steam influx and
is not accounted for in the production analysis. The flow rates and equivalent BHP are documented as a
stable combination for each case that allows stable inflow into the bottomhole.

Emulsion design/Characterization
The average mass fraction of oil, water and solvent (for the ES-SAGD case) produced into the bottomhole
for both operations at each stage of production are presented in Table 3. These values are used for the PVT
simulation of the fluid with the emulsion characterization software. Taylors equation (Taylor 1932) was
used in calculating the viscosity of the emulsion.
For the solvated bitumen mixture, viscosity was calculated using viscosity correlation developed by
Shu et al (1984) before applying Taylors equation. The viscosity data in all cases were calculated over
all pressure and temperature conditions attainable at bottomhole conditions. Figure 6 presents details of
the viscosity variations for both the SAGD and ES-SAGD at 5500 kPa. The WIO emulsion was calculated

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 6 Viscosity variations with temperature for dead oil case and solvated case

Figure 7Illustration of the production outflow model used in analyzing tubing hydraulic performance

with water as the dispersed phase and oil as the continuous phase while the OIW emulsion was calculated
with water as the continuous phase and oil as the dispersed phase.For both operations the WIO viscosity
values were input into the software and used to tune the model. The inversion point was set at 0.7

Outflow model and ESP design

Dynamic multiphase simulator OLGA was used to build the outflow model for analyzing the flow
behavior of the fluid exiting the reservoir. Figure 7 presents the tubing configuration of the outflow model.
The ESP is located 30 m from the heel of the lateral which connects to a 760 m vertical tubing string and
exits at the wellhead after flowing through a 30 m flowline at the surface.
Fluid flow behaviors investigated include superficial velocities, flow regimes, liquid hold up, steam
flash dynamics and changes in rheology. Their impact on pressure and temperature variations and heat
transfer mechanisms as the fluid flows through the system was investigated. Outflow dependent variables
including total pressure head, frictional pressure losses and stable flow rates at the surface coupled with
inflow variables which include pump intake pressure (PIP), optimal subcool and stable rates at the
sandface were used in sizing the ESP. Table 4 provides relevant information for design of the outflow

SPE-171371-MS

Table 4 Relevant information required for design of outflow model

Pipe Dimensions
Vertical Height (m)
Tubing Diameter (m)
Roughness (m)

760
0.102
4.50E05

Pipe Heat Transfer

Hmean (W/m2-C)
Csteel (J/Kg-C)
Ksteel (W/m-C)

5
500
50

Formation Heat Transfer

rformation (kg/m3)
Cformation (J/Kg-C)
Kformation (W/m-C)

2243
1256
1.59

Figure 8 Illustration of production and injection flow rates over the lifecycle of production

tubing model with details of tubing dimensions and heat exchange parameters for the tubing and
formation.

Results and Discussion

Reservoir Simulations SAGD vs ES-SAGD production variation
The effect of solvent co-injection in comparison to pure steam injection is observed by referring to Figure
8 and Figure 9. Figure 8 illustrates the mass flow rate over the entire production period for 9 years while
Figure 9 illustrates its corresponding cumulative production profile as well as the Cumulative Steam Oil
Ratio (CSOR) in each case. CSOR is the yardstick used to measure the thermal efficiency of a SAGD
project, the higher the CSOR the less efficient and vice versa. In Figure 8 the ES-SAGD case shows that
production during the pre ramp-up phase is higher compared to the SAGD case. After reaching the peak
rate (post ramp-up), production rates decline rapidly and are lower for the ES-SAGD case when compared
average SAGD rates.
The solvent injection in combination with steam leads to a rapid increase in production because of the
additional viscosity reduction effect caused by the presence of the solvent. The drop in production rates
for the ES-SAGD case post ramp-up is because of a larger fraction of bitumen produced pre ramp-up. The
dilution and dissolution effect of the injected solvent allows the steam chamber to expand further out
before reaching the top of the formation.

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 9 Illustration of cumulative production and CSOR values for both the SAGD and ES-SAGD operation

The mass rates of water as illustrated in Figure 8 represents the steam injection rate for both cases and
is lower in the ES-SAGD case for all periods although it seemed to increase slightly during the post ramp
up period. The cumulative bitumen produced in both cases is illustrated in Figure 9 and shows that the
oil recovery is higher in the ES-SAGD case than in the SAGD case. The corresponding increase in
cumulative oil recovery combined with less steam injection at the expense of the solvent injected is the
cause for the reduction in CSOR for the ES-SAGD case.The variation in CSOR value over the entire
lifecycle of the project is presented in Figure 9. The initial increase is because of the increase in steam
injection volumes and a corresponding low bitumen production rate during the circulation and depressurization phases.
Numerical Simulations Subcool, Bottomhole pressures and Stable rates
In understanding the relationship that exists between the subcool value, bottomhole pressure and
production inflow to the wellbore, comparisons were made on a stage by stage basis for both operations.
SAGD vs ES-SAGD Pre Ramp-Up Figure 10 presents the average stable rates attained at standard
conditions for SAGD and ES-SAGD cases. The rates vary from 214 m3/d at 30C SC to 244 m3/d at 5C
SC for the SAGD case. The increasing flow rates as subcool reduces is because of the effect of less
viscous drag between liquid layers which resist the effect of gravity on downward drainage. Hence,
gravity drainage is more effective at lower viscosity values (lower subcool). ES-SAGD flow rate values
range from 221.4 m3/d at 30C SC to 254.6 m3/d at 5C SC. The flow rate values are larger in the
ES-SAGD case because of a larger delivery from the reservoir.
The bottomhole pressure for each case is equal to the pressure value higher than the saturation pressure
at the producer grid blocks as defined by the subcool value. Hence the higher the subcool (SC) value, the
higher the bottomhole pressure (BHP). In most cases a positive pressure difference is required between
the operating BHP and BHP values that intiates steam influx. Going forward we assume all operations are
carried out at 10C SC and steam influx occurs at 1C.
In the SAGD case the BHP at 10C SC is 5469.3 kPa and is 5472 kPa for the ES-SAGD case while
at 1C, the BHP for the SAGD case is 5468 kPa while for the ES-SAGD case the BHP is 5467 kPa. This
implies the ES-SAGD case has a larger leverage of drawdown prior to steam influx; 5 kPa for the

10

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 10 SAGD vs ES-SAGD relationship between subcool, flowrate and bottomhole pressure during pre ramp-up stage

Figure 11SAGD vs ES-SAGD relationship between subcool, flowrate and bottom hole pressure during Post ramp-up stage

ES-SAGD case and 1.3 kPa for the SAGD case. This probably occurs because the solvent creates a solvent
vapor chamber below the base of the steam chamber acting as a buffer where concurrent condensation and
vaporization leads to cooling of bitumen at the steam chamber-bitumen interphase. This effect becomes
visible as subcool values become lower and aids in delaying steam breakthrough
SAGD vs ES-SAGD Post Ramp-Up Figures 11 shows the average stable rates at standard conditions
and corresponding BHP at various subcool values for the post ramp up stage of the SAGD and ES-SAGD
operations. The rates vary from 182.16 m3/d at 30C SC to 199.72 m3/d at 5C SC for the SAGD case
and from 155.56 m3/d at 30C SC to 176.62 m3/d at 5C SC for the ES-SAGD case. The rates for both
cases are less than their pre ramp-up equivalent however; the reduction in the ES-SAGD cases is
comparatively higher and is equally lower than in the SAGD post ramp-up case as most of the oil was
produced in the pre ramp-up stage.
At 1C SC the BHP for the SAGD case is 5492.3 kPa and at 10C SC it is 5492.2 kPa, for the
ES-SAGD case at 1C SC the BHP is 5495.3 kPa while at 10C SC it is 5496.8 kPa. The drawdown is
1.5 kPa for the ES-SAGD and for the SAGD case and is 0.1 kPa for the SAGD case. The drawdown
trend is still higher in the ES-SAGD case compared to the SAGD case as seen in the pre ramp-up stage.

SPE-171371-MS

11

Figure 12SAGD vs ES-SAGD relationship between subcool, flowrate and bottomhole pressure during Wind-Down stage

The less bitumen in place during this phase of production is because of a thinner bitumen column meaning
the solvent effect on steam breakthrough is not as pronounced.
SAGD vs ES-SAGD Wind-down Figure 12 shows the average stable rates at standard conditions and
the corresponding BHP at various subcool values for the wind-down stage of the SAGD and ES-SAGD
operations. The rates are significantly less for both cases with flow rates ranging from 19.1 m3/d at 30C
SC to 31.8 m3/d at 5C SC for the SAGD case and 13.37 m3/d at 30C SC to 29.9 m3/d at 5C SC for
the ES-SAGD case.
For the SAGD case the BHP at 10C SC is 5507.8 kPa and is 5500.9 kPa at 1C while for the
ES-SAGD case the BHP is 5501.3 kPa at 10C and is 5500.6 kPa at 10C. Here the operating BHP at 10C
SC is significantly less in the ES-SAGD case in comparison to the SAGD case as less bitumen is being
produced with more solvent being recovered, hence a relatively less hydraulic pressure potential on the
wellbore pressure.
Outflow model
Discussions were presented with reference to flow through a production tubing. 0 m is the inlet of the
production tubing i.e. at the exit of the ESP and it increases to 820 m at the surface where it exits at the
wellhead. The Pump intake pressure (PIP) was assumed to be 500 kPa higher than the saturation pressure
of the production fluid at the sandface for both operations.
Fluid Rheology
Figure 13 illustrates the rheological behavior of the emulsion produced for both SAGD and ES-SAGD
operations during transport through the production tubing to the surface. Results show that the fluid
flowing out of the ESP into the vertical is an emulsion of the OIW type which forms because the
temperature extremes at the bottomhole neutralize the natural tendency of the asphaltene molecule to aid
formation of a WIO emulsion. Moreover, it would be difficult for a WIO emulsion to exist stably with the
high water to oil mass fraction as shown in laboratory experiments (Bennion et al. 1993).
The SAGD produced fluid stays as an OIW emulsion until a switch to a WIO emulsion occurs which
is recognized because of the sudden increase in viscosity. This occurs 228m from the bottom for the
wind-down case and approximately 390m from the bottom for both the pre ramp-up and post ramp-up
cases. The formation of a lubricating layer of continuous aqueous phase (water in this case) along the
walls of the pipe (Nez et al. 1996) leads to a reduction in the water to bitumen ratio. As the water to
bitumen ratio reduces it gets closer to the inversion point, once the water to bitumen fraction reaches 70%
by volume the flip to a WIO emulsion occurs.

12

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 13Rheological variations along production profile for both SAGD and ES-SAGD emulsions.

Figure 14 liquid hold up variation on production tubing for each of the phases for SAGD and ES-SAGD production

The less extreme temperature as the emulsion is transported towards the surface favors reactivation of
the more dominant lipophilic bonds in the asphaltene molecule. The flip occurs more readily in the
wind-down case because of a lesser water fraction relative to the surface area of the pipe and as such the
inversion point is reached more readily. The spike in viscosity as seen in all profiles indicates the onset
of water flashing to steam as it approaches the surface. This occurs as the system pressure drops below
the saturation pressure of the emulsion in the pipe.
For the ES-SAGD case, the injection of the solvent promotes precipitation of some asphaltene
molecules in the reservoir and alters the chemical composition of the remaining asphaltene molecules to
be more hydrophilic. This stabilizes the OIW emulsion that is formed and no switch is seen in the
ES-SAGD case. This is highest for the wind-down case because of its lesser water fraction relative to the
surface area of the pipe when compared to the other stages of production.

SPE-171371-MS

13

Figure 15Viscosity and liquid holdup relationship for SAGD Pre ramp up stage.

Figure 16 Superficial velocities of liquid and gas phases for SAGD pre ramp-up (represents other stages for both operations)

Liquid holdup and Fluid Regimes

Figure 14 illustrates the variation in liquid hold up for both SAGD and ES-SAGD operations across the
entire length of the production tubing. In the SAGD case the drop in hold up as the fluid approaches the
surface indicates water flashing to steam on pressure reduction below equivalent saturation pressure for
the temperature reached at that point. The relatively less volume of emulsion formed in the wind-down
stage leads to constant emulsion instability and hence large free water flashes much lower down the
production tubing during transport to the surface. Steam starts flashing 250 m from the base of the vertical
for the wind-down case and occurs 680 m from the base of the vertical for both the pre ramp-up and post
ramp-up cases. The liquid hold-up has an effect on the viscosity profile of the system as illustrated in
Figures 15. As the emulsions water phase flashes into steam it assists in reducing the viscosity of the
emulsion further.
In the ES-SAGD production case, the larger volume of liquid flashed is because of the presence of the
solvent. The solvent has saturation properties close to water and as such the solvent flashes as conditions
are reached that initiates water flash. The corresponding reduction in solvent volume leads to further

14

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 17Illustration of heat transfer profile across production tubing for SAGD and ES-SAGD production

alteration in chemical composition of the emulsion and a sudden drop out of large volumes of free water.
In both operations the volume of steam flash is highest in the wind-down case because of the larger water
to bitumen ratio compared to other stages of production as illustrated in Table 3
Figures 16 illustrates the superficial velocity of liquid and gas phases for the SAGD and ES-SAGD
operations respectively and variations that occur within the tubing string. In both cases the liquid
superficial velocity exceeds the gas superficial velocity. It can thus be inferred that bubble flow dominates
vertical transport and stratified flow dominates the horizontal segments, this was verified with the
simulator.
Temperature Gradient and Heat transfer mechanism
Figures 17 present a graphical illustration of the heat transferred from the production fluid to the
surrounding formation for the ES-SAGD and SAGD operations respectively. The temperature of the fluid
exiting the reservoir is high and as such drives heat loss to the production tubing and then to the formation
during transport to the surface. Two factors determine the quantity of heat loss; the volumetric flow rates
of the fluid (either in liquid or gaseous phase) and the gas fraction present after vaporization. Analysis is
presented comparing SAGD production stages with corresponding ES-SAGD production stages.
The pre ramp-up stage for the ES-SAGD case has a higher flow rate leading to higher heat transfer
rates when compared to the SAGD case as heat transfer is more effective at high fluid velocities. The
higher volume of liquid flashing to steam for the ES-SAGD case implies higher cooling effect on the
tubing because of latent heat of vaporization. Water in vapor phase (steam) has a relatively high thermal
diffusivity value. The presence of a larger volumetric flow of steam corresponds to a larger heat
conduction potential as the production fluid approaches the surface. Hence, the heat transfer effect is
highest in the ES-SAGD case compared to the SAGD case for the pre ramp-up stage of production.
Comparing post ramp-up production stages for each case, the SAGD and ES-SAGD cases show similar
heat transfer profiles across all sections of the tubing. The higher fluid flow rate in the SAGD case
partially offsets the higher steam fraction of the ES-SAGD case and as such the magnitude of difference
seen in the pre ramp-up stage is not imminent here. Comparing for the wind-down stage, the flow rates
are similar for both SAGD and ES-SAGD cases, the higher steam fraction in the ES-SAGD case however
would determine the heat transfer rate and leads to a higher heat transfer rate for the ES-SAGD case.
The heat transfer rates impact the temperature gradient for each case and the final temperature at the
surface as shown in Figures 18. Note that in making comparison among the different stages of production
for each operation (either SAGD or ES-SAGD) the increasing flow rate is the dominating factor that
determines the heat transfer rate.

SPE-171371-MS

15

Figure 18 Temperature gradient for each stage of production for both operations

Figure 19 Potential pressure gradient for each stage of production for both operations

Pressure gradient
The pressure gradient is the sum of the potential pressure gradient and frictional pressure gradient
assuming acceleration effects are neglected. The potential pressure gradient is primarily dependent on the
mixture density as well as the height of the liquid column. The density of the emulsion is affected by the
relative volume of the water phase and this varies at the different production stages for each operation.
This is beyond the scope of our work and is not investigated. However, Figure 19 presents the potential
pressure gradient variation with depth for various stages of production in both operations.
The frictional pressure gradient is expected to differ more significantly because of the varying
rheological behaviors for each operation. Figure 20 presents the frictional pressure gradient profile for
SAGD and ES-SAGD operations. Locations dominated by OIW emulsions have less frictional gradient
values because of lower viscosity values while locations dominated by WIO emulsions have larger
frictional gradient values because of higher viscosity values. The roughness value of the pipe presented
in Table 4 implies the pipe inner surface is not smooth and the velocity distribution of fluid flow
influences the frictional pressure drop. The increase in volumetric flow rate of steam implies that the
Reynolds number would be easily exceeded in comparison to the liquid volumetric flow rate and
turbulence would be easily reached. This magnifies the frictional pressure drop effect.

16

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 20 Frictional pressure gradient profile for SAGD and ES-SAGD case across production tubing

Figure 21Frctional pressure drop variation with depth for SAGD and ES-SAGD operations

For the SAGD case, the larger steam throughput during the post ramp-up stage when compared to the
pre ramp-up stage is responsible for the higher frictional pressure gradient as illustrated in Figure 20. The
peaks correspond with points that have maximum steam velocity in each case. In the wind down case the
volume of steam is high, however the velocity is not high enough to reach turbulence therefore, frictional
pressure drops are not imminent.
The ES-SAGD case has a constant frictional pressure gradient and this is minimal compared to the
SAGD case. This is because of the stable OIW emulsion being transported from the bottomhole to the
surface and its lower viscosity value when compared to the WIO emulsion. The faster the flow the higher
the frictional gradient, so it is expected that the pre ramp-up period would have the highest frictional
gradient and then post ramp-up and then wind-down in that order. Figures 21 illustrates the variation of
average frictional pressure drop variation with depth for both the SAGD and ES-SAGD cases to give a
feel of the difference in magnitude on production for both operations.
ESP Design
The ESP design was carried out analytically using results attained from the reservoir simulations,
sensitivity analysis on inflow variables and outflow variables obtained from the wellbore model. Tables

SPE-171371-MS

17

Table 5Outflow, Inflow and ESP variables

SAGD
PRE
RAMPUP
INFLOW

OUTFLOW

ESP DESIGN

BHP (bara)
PIP (bara)
Psat (bara)
Dpmax (bara)
Surface Rate (m3/d)
Bottomhole Rate (m3/d)
Mixture density (kg/m)
Potential head (bara)
Frictional head (bara)
Total head (bara)
PUMP HEAD (m)
PUMP SPEED (rpm)
No of stages
ESP duty (HP)

54.69
51.47
46.47
3.22
241.4
300.3
966.9
74.82
0.41
75.23
253.2
2917
51
17.72

ESSAGD

POST
RAMPUP

WINDDOWN

PRE
RAMPUP

POST
RAMPUP

WINDDOWN

54.92
51.68
46.68
3.24
200.5
249.0
972.3
74.79
0.67
75.46
251.8
2917
46
13.73

55.07
51.81
46.81
3.26
28.71
35.57
971.5
71.17
0.04
71.21
205.5
2917
34
2.74

54.71
51.49
46.49
3.22
278.4
345.3
982.0
74.92
0.010
74.93
245.7
2917
55
19.11

54.96
53.44
48.44
1.52
174.9
217
995.5
75.42
0.008
75.43
227.2
2917
38
11.36

55.01
52.36
47.36
2.64
28.8
35.64
997.7
76.20
0.001
76.20
245.9
2917
41
3.27

Figure 22Pump curves used in sizing ESP for the different phases of production.

5 present the model parameters used in sizing the pump. Figure 22 gives details of the pump curves used
in sizing the pre ramp-up, post ramp-up and wind-down stages for both the SAGD and ES-SAGD
operations. The curves were chosen as the rated flow rate of the pump for optimal efficiency fell within
the operating flow rate ranges for each operation.
From Table 5, it is realized that the potential pressure head is within the same range for all cases,
however the frictional pressure head is significantly higher in the SAGD case and as such the overall

18

SPE-171371-MS

Figure 23Illustration of variation between pump duty and flow rates into ESP across the different phases

pressure head is reduced in the ES-SAGD cases. Figure 23 gives a graphical illustration of variations in
pump duty and flow rates through the pump for both cases across the different phases of production.
From Figure 23 the high pump duty at the pre-ramp up stage is because of higher flow rates for the
ES-SAGD case compared to its SAGD equivalent. It can be inferred that for equal production throughput
for both operations a higher pump duty is required for the SAGD case. However, it should be noted that
production rates in this analysis are low compared to average field rates. At higher rates, the difference
in frictional losses and corresponding pump duties would be magnified

Conclusion
The study investigates the significance of differing rheology of emulsions formed during solvent assisted
SAGD and conventional SAGD production and analyzes its impact on tubing hydraulic performance and
ESP design.
Major conclusions reached are as follows:

The presence of solvents could aid in delaying steam breakthrough thereby increasing the
operating drawdown envelope relative to the producer sandface when compared to conventional
SAGD operations.
Solvent injection leads to precipitation of asphaltene molecules within the reservoir and alteration
of the molecular make up of the asphaltene molecules such that it stabilizes the formation of an
OIW emulsion.
OIW emulsions are formed at the bottomhole for both SAGD and ES-SAGD production. However,
during transport to the surface a combination of factors including reduction in the water to bitumen
volume fraction and less extreme temperatures leads aids inversion to a WIO emulsion for the
SAGD case. The stable OIW emulsion formed in the ES-SAGD case does not flip.
Larger volumes of steam flash for the ES-SAGD case is because of the presence of the solvent
which has saturation properties close to water. This equally leads to a large dropout of free water
because of the alteration in emulsion properties.

SPE-171371-MS

19

The combination of varying rheological properties and differing steam flash volumes influences
the frictional pressure gradient and average pressure drop during production. The larger volume of
steam flash for the ES-SAGD case however is not offset by the large rheological differences
between SAGD and ES-SAGD cases. Hence, the frictional pressure loss is higher in the SAGD
case.
ESP design for solvent assisted SAGD processes requires less pump duty to deliver the same
production through put when compared to conventional SAGD operations. Higher rates magnify
the difference in pump duty required to transport heavy oil when comparing conventional SAGD
to solvent assisted SAGD operations.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Oklahoma Geological Survey for their financial support. We also
acknowledge the support of CMG Ltd and Schlumberger for providing the license to use their software.
Nomenclatures
Symbol
C
Specific Heat Capacity L2t2T1, J/Kg-C
g
Gravitational acceleration Lt 2, m/s2
H
Reservoir Thickness L, m
k
Permeability L2, Darcy
K
Thermal Conductivity mLt3T1, W/m-C
m
Parameter used for viscosity function
S
Oil saturation
SC
Subcool
T
Temperature T, C
U
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient mt3T1, W/m2-C
Greek

Letters
Thermal diffusivity L2t1, m2/s
Density mL3, Kg/m3
Porosity
Kinematic Viscosity L2t1,m2/s
Difference

Subscripts
o
Oil
r
Reservoir bulk
s
Steam
steel Production tubing

References
Bennion, D. B., Chan, M., Sarioglu, G., Courtnage, D., Wansleeben, J. and Hirata, T. 1993. The
In-Situ Formation of Bitumen-Water-Stable Emulsions in Porous Media During Thermal Stimulation.
SPE International Thermal Operations Symposium, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Bosch, R., Axcell, E., Little, V., Cleary, R., Wang, S., Gabel, R. and Moreland, B. 2004. A novel
approach for resolving reverse emulsions in SAGD production systems. The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering 82(4): 836 839.

20

SPE-171371-MS

Butler, R., McNab, G. and Lo, H. 1981. Theoretical studies on the gravity drainage of heavy oil
during in-situ steam heating. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 59(4): 455460.
Chung, K. and Butler, R. 1988. Geometrical Effect Of Steam Injection On The Formation Of
Emulsions Nn The Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Process. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 27(01).
CMG. 2012. STARS User Manual, Version 2013.13. Calgary, Alberta: Computer Modelling Group
Gupta, S., Gittins, S., and Picherack, P. 2004. Insights into some key issues with Solvent Aided
Process. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 43(2): 54 61.
Gutek, A. H., Harschnitz, B., Myers, R. D. and Okazawa, T. 2003. Combined steam and vapor
extraction process (SAVEX) for in situ bitumen and heavy oil production, Google Patents.
McGowan, F. 1990. The development of Orimulsion and Venezuelan oil strategy. Energy policy
18(10): 913926.
Nasr, T., Beaulieu, G., Golbeck, H. and Heck, G. 2003. Novel expanding solvent-SAGD process
ES-SAGD. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 42(1): 1316.
Noonan, S. G., Baugh, A. R., Wonitoy, K., Klaczek, W. and Wilson, B. 2013. Got Steam? Understanding ESP Steam Handling Capabilities in the Centrifugal Pump. Paper SPE 165432-MS Presented at
SPE Heavy Oil conference, Alberta, Canada, 1113 June
Nez, G. A., Briceo, M., Mata C., Rivas, H. and Joseph D. D. 1996. Flow characteristics of
concentrated emulsions of very viscous oil in water. Journal of Rheology (1978-present) 40(3): 405423.
OLGA Well Dynamics User Manual, Version 7.1.3. Kjeller, Norway: SPT Group
Puttagunata, V., Singh B. and Miadonye A. 1993. Correlation of bitumen viscosity with temperature
and pressure. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 71(3): 447450.
PVTSim User Manual. Version 21. Copenhagen, Denmark: Calsep International Consultants
Schlumberger. 2007. REDA Electric Submersible Pump Technology ESP Catalog http://zeitecs.com/
ztwpengine/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/REDA_ESP_Catalog.pdf (downloaded 21 April 2014)
Shu, W. 1984. A viscosity correlation for mixtures of heavy oil, bitumen, and petroleum fractions.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 24(3): 277282.
Spiecker, P. M., Gawrys, K. L., Trail, C. B. and Kilpatrick, P. K. 2003. Effects of petroleum resins
on asphaltene aggregation and water-in-oil emulsion formation. Colloids and surfaces: A Physicochemical and engineering aspects 220(1): 9 27.
Taylor, G. I. 1932. The viscosity of a fluid containing small drops of another fluid. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London. Series A 138(834): 4148.
Yuan, J.-Y. and Nugent D. 2013. Subcool, Fluid Productivity, and Liquid Level Above a SAGD
Producer. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 52(5): 360 367.
Zhao, L. 2007. Steam alternating solvent process. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 10(02):
185190.