11
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
Craig Smalley
1 INTRODUCTION AND
DEFINITIONS
No book on modern petroleum technology would
be complete without a section on heavy oil. Volu-
metrically, heavy oil is very important: there is
probably more heavy oil on Earth than any other
petroleum resource. Furthermore, technology is
key to the production of heavy oil; it is only
through the application of modern, and future,
petroleum technology that the Earths vast heavy
oil resources will be fully exploited.
1.1 What is Heavy Oil?
The definition of heavy oil is not consistent,
varying between authors. The word heavy relates
to the high density of the oil, as usually measured
by the API gravity scale. A common definition
(see, e.g., [1]) is that heavy oil refers to oil with
API gravity < 20 ; this seems like a good arbi-
trary value it is a round number. However, other
sources of authoritative data use different cut-offs:
for example, the World Energy Council classifies
oil as being heavy if its API gravity is < 22.3 (i.e.
a density above 0.920 [2]). Petroleum liquids with
API gravities of < 10 are often classed separately
as bitumen or extra-heavy oil.
Edited by Richard A. Dawe. Published on behalf of the Institute of Petroleum. Modern Petroleum Technology 2000 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Classifying heavy oil on the basis of gravity is
useful for the refining industry, because the API
gravity correlates with fundamental refining value
drivers: for example, the lower the API gravity,
the lower the likely yield of valuable refined prod-
ucts such as gasoline, and the higher the yield of
low value products such as tar or coke. Gravity
may also correlate with the content of undesir-
able components such as asphaltenes, sulphur and
metals like nickel and vanadium. However, gravity
itself does not usually present a problem to the
oil production process; here viscosity is far more
important.
1.2 What is Viscous Oil?
Again, definitions are very woolly. Various sources
quote viscosities of 10 centipoise (cP), 100 cP
or 1000 cP (measured at reservoir conditions) as
being the cut off between conventional and viscous
oiltwo orders of magnitude variation! When it
comes to behaviour in the reservoir, viscosities as
low as 5 or 10 cP can make a big difference to
ease and amount of recovery.
Heavy oil and viscous oil are not completely
interchangeable terms, because viscosity is not
perfectly correlated with API gravity (Fig. 11.1).
This is because of the many ways in which heavy
2 Modern Petroleum Technology

50 gravity is sufficiently low to become a problem

45 when trying to refine or market it. Oil is viscous
40 if its viscosity is sufficiently high to become a
35
problem for flowing the oil out of the reservoir and
API gravity

30
25
through surface pipework. That said, the general
20 range covered in this chapter is oil of < 23 API
15 gravity and > 10 cP viscosity.
10
5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
2 THE RESOURCE BASE
Live oil viscosity (cp)
The consensus is that there may be more than
Fig. 11.1 Oil API gravity versus viscosity at reservoir 6 trillion barrels of heavy oil on Earth, although
conditions. Each point represents an oilfield (from Oil & confirming this is made difficult by the inconsis-
Gas Journal 1994 EOR database). At any single API tencies in the definition of heavy oil and in the
gravity value, there may be two orders of magnitude reporting style by different countries and agencies.
variation in viscosity. This compares to total initial reserves estimates
of 1.75 2.3 trillion barrels for conventional oils,
oil has been created (discussed later) as well as the 3040% of which has already been produced [2].
effect of external factors (e.g. reservoir temper- The locations of the main viscous and heavy
ature) on viscosity. Classifications such as Oil oil resources are shown in Fig. 11.2. Several
is considered heavy if . . . its viscosity is greater lands have tens of billions of barrels in place:
than . . . (reference shall remain nameless!) are three Canada, Russia and Venezuela are esti-
thus completely meaningless. mated to have over one trillion.
My feeling is that precise cut-off values should Canada has the largest heavy oil resource,
be avoided if possible. Oil is heavy if its API with some 1.7 trillion barrels of extra-heavy oil

Key
Alaska Barrels in place:

Russia 1 billion
UK
Netherlands
Canada E. Europe 10 billion
Italy
Turkey
USA Lower 48 Jordan Kuwait
Iran 1 trillion
Egypt
Mexico
Saudi India
Trinidad Arabia
Venezuela
Colombia
Indonesia
Brazil Angola

Argentina Madagascar

Australia

Fig. 11.2 Major heavy and viscous oil resources.

Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
(270 billion tonnes) situated in the oil sands
of Alberta, plus a further 25 billion barrels of
heavy oil in the 10 22.3 API gravity range [2].
Production in Canada was about 160 million
barrels in 1996, less than 0.0001% of the total
volume. This is clearly a resource for the future.
Canadas heavy oil and bitumen is situated in
the Athabasca, Wabasca, Peace River and Cold
Lake areas of Alberta, and the Lloydminster area
of Saskatchewan (Fig. 11.3). The oil is produced
by a variety of methods, ranging from surface
mining to high-tech thermal processes (discussed
later). Much of the heavy oil is processed through
upgrading plants, producing a much lighter syn-
thetic crude oil. About 280 mbopd of this syn-
crude were produced in 1996.
Venezuela has around 1.2 trillion barrels of
extra-heavy oil in the 400 mile long Orinoco Belt
(known as the Faja) in the east of the country
(Fig. 11.4), plus up to 250 billion barrels of heavy
oil in other areas. In the Orinoco Belt, reported
NWT
BC Alberta
Athabasca
Peace Wabasca
river
Cold lake
Edmonton
Lloydminster
Calgary
250 km
Canada
USA
Fig. 11.3 The main heavy oil and bitumen deposits in Canada.
3
producible reserves for the four main areas are
265 billion bbl in Machete, 220 billion bbl in
Hamaca, 500 billion bbl in Zuata, and 215 billion
bbl in Cerro Negro (Fig. 11.4). Various produc-
tion methods have been employed, especially hori-
zontal wells with periodic thermal stimulation
using steam. Much of the heavy oil is blended
with lighter liquids for sale or export, while the
extra heavy oil is predominantly exported in the
form of an easily transported wateroil emulsion
(Orimulsion) for burning in power plants. Some
17 million barrels of oil were exported in this form
in 1996, produced from the Cerro Negro area of
the Orinoco Belt (Fig. 11.4).
Compared to Canada and Venezuela, Russia
the other heavy oil giantis way behind in
exploiting its vast resources, which includes appro-
aching 200 billion barrels of bitumen and extra-
heavy oil. The Yarega field, in the TimanPechora
area, produces about 10 000 b/d of bitumen and
extra-heavy oil, some by surface mining.
Saskatchewan
4 Modern Petroleum Technology
Caribbean sea
Caracas
Jose
Machete
Zuata
100 kms(approx)
Fig. 11.4 The Orinoco Belt of extra-heavy oil accumulations in Venezuela.
3 ORIGINS OF HEAVY OIL
Heavy oil is not a genetically distinct grouping
there are several routes by which heavy oil may
be created, or by which light oils might become
heavier. These are described below.
3.1 Biodegradation
The huge volumes of heavy oil in places like
Canada, Venezuela and Alaska, owe their low
API gravity to biodegradation. Biodegradation
occurs when microbes attack components of the
oil. Unfortunately, the most easily metabolized
components of crude oil are the smallest
and simplest ones; that is, the lightest and
most valuable components. With progressive
biodegradation the easily metabolized compounds
are gradually stripped from the oil. Normal
alkanes are the first compounds to disappear,
followed by the more complex cyclic and aromatic
compounds. The largest and heaviest compounds
in oilthe asphaltenesare relatively resistant to
microbial attack. Thus, in the most severe cases
of biodegradation, all that is left of the oil is
a tarry residue rich in resins and asphaltenes.
Guiria
Caripito
El tigre
Cerro negro
Hamaca
Puerto ordaz
ver
oco ri
Orin
A comparison of fresh and biodegraded oil is
shown in Fig. 11.5, a set of gas chromatograph
traces. This figure clearly shows the disappearance
of the lighter compounds (to the left) during
degradation. If the original oil contains sulphur
and metals such as nickel and vanadium, these will
be up-concentrated in the residual oil, leading to
unattractively high levels of these elements.
Biodegradation is limited to temperatures at
which bacteria can thrive, usually < 70 C, and
is thus restricted to relatively shallow oil accu-
mulations (generally < 2.5 km, although there are
exceptions in cold environments such as Alaska).
Bacteria require a source of energy in order to
metabolize the oil. The main group of bacteria that
eat oil are aerobic, and they require a constant
source of oxygen; aerobic biodegradation thus
occurs where a shallow oil accumulation is over-
lain or underlain by an active aquifer carrying
dissolved oxygen. Anaerobic biodegradation can
occur through a fermentation-type process, where-
by oxygenated compounds in the oil are broken
down, with methane and carbon dioxide as by-
products.
Biodegradation van be a very variable process,
even within a single reservoir; consequently
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil 5

MCH Degree of biodegradation:

None
7
6

5
8
T 9

11
13
4
17 18
Pr Ph 25
33

Minor

11 13
17 18
T
5 Pr Ph 25
4 33

Extensive

MCH

Fig. 11.5 Gas chromatograms, showing the effect of biodegradation on an oil from South Pass 61 field, Gulf of
Mexico (modified from Holba et al. [35]). Biodegradation increases from top to bottom. On these plots, each peak
is a specific compound in the oil; the larger, more complex, molecules lie to the right. The carbon numbers of the
n-alkanes are noted, with thick lines joining key peaks. These become difficult to identify in the heavily degraded
sample, where alkanes have all but disappeared.

biodegraded oil can have widely variable 3.2 Low-maturity Oil

compositions from place to place within a single
field. This is a often a major challenge to Some oil source rocks, particularly calcareous
determining the value of the resource and its ones, begin generating oil at relatively low
optimal production strategy (see e.g. [3,4]). temperatures. Such source rocks can generate large
6 Modern Petroleum Technology
volumes of low-maturity oil that is relatively
heavy (15 23 API) and viscous (note it is
not usual for very heavy or extra-heavy oils
to be generated in this way, unless they are
subsequently biodegraded). One example of this
is the Cretaceous La Luna source rock that
has sourced many of the moderately heavy
oil accumulations in western part of Venezuela,
around Lake Maracaibo.
3.3 Gravity Segregation
In some oilfields, particularly those that have
a large column height and good vertical
permeability, gravity segregation may occur,
where heavier components of the oil (e.g. resins,
asphaltenes) sink towards the base of the oil
column. This is exacerbated in situations where
asphaltenes have been encouraged to precipitate,
for example by a late gas charge into the field.
The end result can be a distinct accumulation of
heavy oil at or close to the oil-water contact. Many
of the worlds giant fields have these heavy oil legs
at the base: Prudhoe Bay (Alaska), Gharwar (Saudi
Arabia), Burgan (KuwaitFig. 11.6) and Soroush
(Iran) to name but a few. In many cases, billions of
API gravity
10 15 20 25 30 35
3400
3500 Burgan
3600 NE Burgan
3700
3800
Depth (ft)
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
Fig. 11.6 Decrease in oil API gravity with depth in the
Burgan field, Kuwait, due to gravity segregation (after
Kaufman et al. [36]). The basal 100 ft or so could be
classed as heavy oil. The cross-sectional area of the field
increases with depth, so this represents a lot of oil.
barrels of heavy oil may be situated within these
heavy oil legs, currently ignored because of the
huge quantities of light oil above. In coming years,
as the lighter oil becomes depleted, production
of the heavy oil will no doubt be attempted,
particularly as the production infrastructure is
already in place.
4 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES
Why is heavy oil classified separately from other
petroleum fluids? It is because heavy oils and
viscous oils carry with them a unique set of
technical challenges when it comes to exploiting
them. These challenges were recently highlighted
by a survey conducted within BP Amoco and
partner organizations; the findings were reported
at a United States Department of Energy Work-
shop [5], and confirmed by the outcomes of that
workshop. These technical challenges are summa-
rized and discussed in the subsequent sections.
4.1 Reservoir Issues
4.1.1 Fluid Characterization and Prediction
Heavy and viscous oils are notoriously difficult to
characterize. For one thing, oil samples may be
40 difficult to acquire, particularly reservoir-condition
samples for PVT work, as some of the standard
sampling tools are unreliable in heavy oils. Further,
the cost of sample acquisition may be difficult
to support in low flow rate, low value wells.
Next, the actual measurements are more problem-
atic in heavier oils. Relatively simple measure-
ments such as API gravity can suffer from the
difficulty of being able to separate oil or gas
effectively from the oil, particularly where emul-
sions have formed through the use of electric
submersible pumps. Standard viscosity measure-
ments also break down in very viscous oils;
specialized techniques must be applied to obtain
reliable results, although this is not always done in
service laboratories.
Direct detection of oil using seismic techniques
is becoming an increasingly important tool in
reservoir development. However, this does not
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
work well in heavy oils due to the similar densities
between the oil and water.
A further problem is that the fluids in a heavy
oil reservoir may be much more variable than
in a conventional reservoir. For example, in the
Schrader Bluff reservoir in Alaska, produced fluids
vary between 14 and 24 API, and between 15 and
600 cP at reservoir conditions [3]. This constitutes
the difference between an attractive mobile oil, and
an unattractive oil that is very difficult to produce.
Hence new approaches, using geochemical tech-
niques for example, that can help predict the loca-
tions of oil quality sweetspots, can be very valuable
for designing commercially attractive heavy oil
developments.
4.1.2 Rock Characterization
As well as suffering from all the same reser-
voir description issues as conventional oil develop-
ments, heavy oil fields have some additional issues.
These are mainly related to the fact that heavy oil,
particularly that formed by biodegradation, is often
situated in shallow, unconsolidated sands. Apart
from sand production problems, discussed below,
there are two other issues peculiar to unconsoli-
dated sands:
Soft sands are very difficult to core and, even
when using state-of-the-art soft sand coring
procedures, there is clear evidence that conven-
tional core analyses may give anomalous results
(BP Amoco, unpublished data). Generally, soft
sands yield porosities that are too high and
permeabilities that are too low compared to
(a) modelled values, or (b) extrapolations from
their consolidated equivalents. Great care must
thus be taken in using core-derived reservoir
quality data for predicting volumetrics or well
deliverabilities, and the uncertainty taken into
account. Log-derived properties may also be
suspect due to dilation of the soft rock in the
near-wellbore region.
Unconsolidated sands often have high compress-
ibilities. This can lead to a range of concerns,
including potential surface subsidence as the
reservoir pressure is drawn down, permeability
modification as the reservoir compresses, and
7
the possibility of pressure support from reservoir
compaction which, though beneficial, can be
difficult to simulate accurately.
4.1.3 Performance Prediction
There are a number of specific problems that make
performance prediction (e.g. rates and recovery
factors) difficult in heavy and viscous oils. These
relate to the unusual production technologies that
must be used to mobilize the oil (e.g. thermal
processes, discussed later), and unusual PVT prop-
erties of the oils. One example of the latter is the
formation of a third petroleum liquid phase during
miscible flooding of heavy oils [6], a situation that
some reservoir simulators cannot handle.
4.1.4 Recovery Processes
Primary recovery factors for heavy oils in the
1423 API gravity range are very low, generally
in the 510% range (Oil & Gas Journal 1994 EOR
database). For extra heavy oils, production may
not be possible at all without supplying energy
to the oil. Consequently, heavy oil production
almost always involves some form of improved
recovery process. These include waterflooding in
the less-viscous end of the spectrum, and many
processes peculiar to heavy oil such as steam
stimulation and steam-assisted gravity drainage.
These recovery processes will be discussed in more
detail later. Here it is relevant to note that there are
challenges related to generating the expertise and
infrastructure for these unusual recovery processes,
a well as problems with simulating and predicting
their outcome, in turn leading to a high degree
of risk in development decisions. The latter is
particularly the case with the newer experimental
recovery processes (e.g. VAPEX). Note too, that
many of the thermal processes are very energy-
intensive: perhaps 25% of the produced oil may
have to be burnt to generate the energy needed for
production; this skews development economics yet
further away from heavy oils.
4.2 Well Issues
There are four interlinked challenges related to
well design for heavy oil production: the well
8 Modern Petroleum Technology
and completion type, the artificial lift process, the
strategy for dealing with sand production and all
these feed into the overall well rate and cost. The
well rate and cost balance is a delicate one. Wells
can be designed for optimal rate, but then they may
be too costly. Wells can be de-scoped stripped not thermally stimulated) production projects in
of everything unnecessary and scaled down in
hardware to a bare minimum cost but then rate
may be compromised. In each heavy oil devel-
opment, the optimum rate/cost balance must be
determined.
The need for a sand management strategy is
linked to the fact that unconsolidated heavy oil
reservoirs are prone to sand production. Sand can
be controlled downhole by using screens or gravel
packs to prevent sand from entering the wellbore.
However, these add cost to the well and may intro-
duce a well skin factor that reduces flow rate. Sand
production can also be minimized by using hori-
zontal wells with a small drawdown, with slotted
liners with a slot size designed to exclude sand,
or induced fractures filled with resin coated prop-
pant. Alternatively, sand production can be toler-
ated or, in the case of the cold production process,
encouraged, often with gains in well productivity.
However, this can generate cost and environmental
concerns over disposal of the oily sand at the
surface, as well as playing havoc with any pumps
in the well.
Many heavy oils require artificial lift in order
to be produced to the surface. In some fields,
Electrical Submersible (or Submergible) Pumps, or
ESPs, are favoured because of the large drawdown
they can produce (e.g. Schrader Bluff, Alaska;
see [7]). ESPs comprise a series of rotating turbine-
type blades. These pumps have the drawback of
being very sensitive to even small amounts of
sand production, and pump failures can form the
major component of operating expenditure in such
fields. Recent advances in pump retrievability,
including wireline and tubing conveyed ESPs, will
reduce the cost associated with replacing failed
pumps, enabling them to be pulled without the
need for a full scale rig. Progressive Cavity Pumps
(PCPs) have a rotating spiral shaft that is shaped
to produce a low pressure zone on the under-
side of the spiral and draw the fluid upwards.
Used previously for moving viscous fluids in the
foodstuffs industry (e.g. cherry pie filling!), PCPs
are suited to lifting viscous oil and are more
tolerant of sand though they can still fail with
high sand cuts. PCPs are favoured in cold (i.e.
Canada (see, e.g., [8]). These are mainly surface-
driven PCPs, where the motors are situated on
the surface and the downhole pumps are operated
by a long rotating rod. Such pumps are relatively
easy to unseat, clean out, retrieve, and the motor
is easily accessible for service. Surface-driven
pumps are less attractive in deeper reservoirs,
particularly those with curved well trajectories,
as these are more susceptible to rod wear and
failure. In such reservoirs, downhole-driven Elec-
trical Submersible PCPs may be favoured, though
with concomitant increased cost of pump failures.
Other types of artificial lift that have been used
for viscous oils include gas lift, water or oil-
powered hydraulic pumps, and jet pumps.
A consequence of the need for artificial lift
in heavy oil fields is that the wells may often
be pumped below the bubble point of the oil.
This leads to gas coming out of solution in the
near-wellbore region, leaving that oil gas-depleted,
and thus more viscous. In time a bank of gas-
depleted dead oil can develop around the well,
dramatically decreasing well flow rate (the so-
called viscous skin effect). The PVT properties
of the oil are thus another set of parameters that
need to be taken into account in optimizing this
complex system.
The key message when it comes to well issues
for viscous oils, is that the wells need to be seen
holistically, as a system that involves the forma-
tion, the completion, the well and the lift process.
Only by achieving an integrated view of these
elements and their interactions can the optimal
cost/rate design be selected and implemented.
4.3 Processing Issues
Processing here refers to the things that have to be
done to the oil once it has been produced, before
it can be exported or marketed. There are several
relatively minor issues that fit here: for example
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil 9

sand carry-over into the surface facilities may be
a problem in wells prone to sand production, and
corrosion may be a risk in oils produced by certain
EOR processessuch as CO2 flooding or in situ
combustion, where elevated CO2 contents in the
fluids may increase the corrosion rate. However,
the two processing issues that are most specific for
heavy or viscous oils are oil water gas separation
and oil upgrading.
4.3.1 OilWater Gas Separation
The separation of produced heavy/viscous oil from
co-produced water is difficult because the separa-
tion process usually relies on density segregation,
but in heavy oils the density difference between
the oil and water may be very small, making sepa-
ration very slow. The high oil viscosity itself also
makes the separation process slower; the higher the
viscosity of the oil-water emulsion, the poorer the
separation efficiency (Fig. 11.7). These problems
are exacerbated with the use of certain produc-
tion processes (e.g. using ESPs for artificial lift)
that create intimately mixed oilwater emulsions,
or cold heavy oil production that may produce a
foamy mixture of oil and gas. The susceptibility of
viscous oil wells to water coning where there is an
underlying aquifer also leads to high water cuts.
10
9
Separation efficiency (%)
Separation time in a conventional separator can be
shortened by heating the oil, by adding demulsi-
fying chemicals, or by increasing residence time
in the separator (by making the separator larger or
modifying the internal geometries).
The rheology of viscous oils, and in particular
mixtures of viscous oils and other fluids (water,
low-viscosity oil etc.) is very poorly understood.
The lack of predictive behaviour for viscous oil
separation arises from the fact that bottle tests take
no account of dynamic factors such as shearing and
shear history. This lack of understanding makes it
difficult to generate predictive models for separator
performance in heavy oils under different oper-
ating conditions. This in turn makes it important
to design the separation facilities with sufficient
flexibility (e.g. designing conventional separators
to handle a range of different internals) in order
to avoid costly retrofitting. Designed-in flexibility
involves up-front costs, but some recent studies
have shown that, for offshore viscous oil fields,
this investment is worth it. This is because the
penalty for over-sizing facilities is small relative
to the penalty for under-sizing them limiting the
entire subsequent revenue stream.
It is often the case that production chemistry has
a far greater influence on the performance of a sepa-
rator performance than its size. This would include
features such as emulsions, waxes, asphaltenes and
solids. Considerable effort has been made over the
years to develop oil-water separation models which

8 5000 G
7 take account of field conditions and factors such as
6 shear, dropletdroplet coalescence and emulsion-
5 forming tendency, but this is still a key uncertainty
4 in separator design.
1G
3 In some cases it may not be possible
2 to deal with heavy oil separation problems
1 simply by making the conventional separator
0 bigger or more complex. Such situations would
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Viscosity (cSt) include: (1) onshore developments where some
degree of near-well processing is required or
Fig. 11.7 Separation efficiency for separating water where the central process facilities are size-
from an oil-continuous oil-water emulsion as a function constrained (e.g. environmentally sensitive areas
of emulsion viscosity. The 1G curve illustrates sepa- where facilities footprint must be kept small);
ration efficiency under a natural gravity field, i.e. a
conventional separator. The 5000 G curve illustrates the (2) offshore satellite developments where the
effect of a centrifuge separating system (modified from facilities need to be modified to receive higher-
Dhuldhoya et al. [37]). viscosity oil, but where there is no platform
10
space to retrofit larger separation facilities; (3) new
offshore developments where high oil viscosity
would necessitate prohibitively large, heavy or
expensive conventional equipment; (4) modular
flexible developments. In these cases compact
separation technologies are required. There have
been some recent advances in the application
of compact separators to heavy and viscous oil,
including centrifuges. These improve oilwater
separation efficiency by replacing the natural
gravitational force on the oil with a centrifugal
force several thousand times greater (Fig. 11.7).
4.3.2 Oil Upgrading
Upgrading here refers to pre-refinery processes that
are designed to raise the API gravity and/or lower
the viscosity of the oil to make it either more trans-
portable or more easily marketable. Upgrading is
necessitated in some situations because, without
it, the produced oil is too viscous to flow in a
pipeline. In other cases, it is market considera-
tions that make upgrading necessary. Upgrading
the oil from, say, 10 API to 25 API may help it
compete more effectively with conventional crudes
for specific markets, and thus realize a higher
price: on average the per-barrel price rises by $0.40
per API gravity degree. In some cases, upgrading
may occur as the first stage of treatment in the
refinery.
Various processes are available for oil upgrading
(see [9] for further details). These are two main
types of processes. Carbon-out processes use vary-
ing severity of heat and pressure treatment, often
in the presence of catalysts, to break up (crack)
high molecular weight substances into lighter and
heavier fractions. The lighter components make the
oil lighter, while carbon is removed from the oil
in the form of heavier carbon-rich species such
as coke. Hydrogen-in processes add hydrogen to
the oil by exposing oil to a hydrogen donor (e.g.
hydrogen gas and water), usually in the presence
of a catalyst . Examples include:
Catalytic cracking. This involves heating the
heavy oil to 500 600 C in the presence of a
catalyst (e.g. zeolite) to produce lighter comp-
ounds and coke.
Modern Petroleum Technology
Delayed coking. This process uses rapid heating
to 400500 C, producing lighter fluids and large
amounts of coke this is usually a drawback.
Visbreaking. This is a relatively mild thermal
cracking operation (450500 C at elevated pres-
sure), which breaks off the long paraffinic side
chains attached to aromatic rings, thus reducing
viscosity. The drawback of this process is that
the products may be unstable and unattractive to
a refinery without subsequent hydrotreating.
Hydrocracking. A hydrogen-in process that
occurs at 300400 C in the presence of catalysts
(Co/Mo/Ni/zeolite), to produce lighter oil.
Hydrotreating. A relatively mild operation (280
420 C at high pressure, in the presence of Co/Mo/
alumina catalysts) that saturates olefins with
hydrogen and reduces sulphur content.
There are also various hybrid processes. One
such is Aquaconversion, a process developed in
Venezuela by PDVSA. This is a catalytic hydro-
visbreaking process that involves heating the crude
oil in the presence of water and a catalyst, with
hydrogen being released from the water and being
added to the oil. Other related processes have been
developed that use varying degrees of heat and
pressure treatment severity and different hydrogen
donorsmethane, for example.
Upgrading systems vary from massive plants
capable of handling > 100 000 barrels of crude
per day (e.g. the Canadian Syncrude and Suncor
plants), to small mobile units that can be placed
near a wellhead. Most of the latter are currently at
the experimental stage. Taking the process one step
further, another potential development is downhole
upgrading, for example by placing a catalyst bed
into the wellbore and making use of the natural
heat of the reservoir (see, e.g., [10]). It is likely
to be some time before such possibilities become
commercially viable.
4.4 Transport Issues
Transporting heavy or viscous oil is made difficult
because of their sluggish flow properties, and their
propensity to precipitate undesirable substances
such as asphaltenes. There are two categories of
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
problem: transport of heavy oil in its own in a
pipeline or flowline; and addition of heavy oil to
an existing conventional oil pipeline.
The first of these is a problem when exporting
heavy oil from large heavy or extra-heavy oil
provinces where there is little or no lighter oil
production to dilute it with. In such cases, the
very viscous oil will not flow in a pipeline unless
something is done with it first. Various options
include:
Upgrading. Discussed above, the process here is
to perform the first step of refining prior to trans-
port, to reduce the oil viscosity and improve its
flow characteristics. This occurs in some of the
large Canadian projects (e.g. Suncor, Syncrude).
Advantages: a more marketable product. Disad-
vantage: large up-front capital expenditure req-
uired that can be crippling to project economics.
Dilution. Here, the viscous oil is mixed with
a low-viscosity fluid to improve its flow prop-
erties. In some cases a natural diluent may be
present locally; for example, lighter oil from
a deeper reservoir unit, or methanol generated
from nearby gas. This may be attractive, but the
positive effect for transportation of the viscous
oil has to be weighed up against the loss in
value of the light oil or methanol by contami-
nating it with the heavy oil. The economics of
this will vary from case to case. Where there is
no local supply, diluent would have to be trans-
ported in, requiring a second pipeline (one for
diluent in, the other for diluted crude out). The
capital cost of the second pipeline negatively
affects economics; also the cost of the diluent,
or the cost of separating the diluent from the
crude for re-use, has to be factored in. This type
of process has been proposed for extra heavy oil
developments in Venezuela.
Trucking. A low capital-cost, low-tech solution
that will only work for very short transport
distances.
Orimulsion. Orimulsion is a concept developed
in the 1980s by PDVSA in Venezuela for the
purpose of transporting and exploiting the vast
Orinoco extra heavy oil resources (Fig. 11.4).
Orimulsion is an emulsion of 70% heavy crude,
11
30% water, and a surfactant additive that stabi-
lizes the emulsion. Orimulsion, once formed,
can be pumped, transported, stored and finally
burnt as a fuel in power plants using virtu-
ally conventional equipment. Orimulsion has
been generated in the Cerro Negro area of
Venezuela (Fig. 11.4) and exported to markets
in various countries since 1988. Growth in sales
has been constrained by environmental issues
related to emissions of particulates and sulphur
compounds.
4.5 Environmental Issues
A number of oil companies are driving to reduce
the environmental impact of their operations. When
it comes to heavy oil production, there is a real
challenge to reach similar standards as would be
expected for lighter oil production, simply because
heavy oils face natural disadvantages. The main
disadvantage is that heavy oil reservoirs do not
give up their resources easily. Just to get the oil
to flow from the reservoir into the wellbore often
requires coaxing through the use of heat. When in
the wellbore, artificial lift is often required to bring
the oil to the surface, through the use of pumps
or gas lift, requiring compression. At the surface,
flow lines and processing equipment may need to
be heated to keep the oil mobile and to facilitate
separation from water and gas. Finally, heavy oil
export in pipelines may require additional pumping
or heating. All of these factors require energy; the
energy consumed to lift and process a barrel of
heavy oil may equate to 20% or more of the oil
produced, several times more than is needed to lift
a barrel of conventional oil. This energy consump-
tion produces CO2 ; if heavy oil is being burnt
in the field (for example, in steam boilers) then
this may also produce emissions of sulphur and
metals.
These natural disadvantages are not insurmount-
able: they can be tackled through the innovative
use of technology. One example of this is the
possibility of extracting the CO2 from flue gases
from power generators or compressors, and using
it for re-injection into the reservoir as an IOR
solvent [11]. Much work is being carried out on
12
this at present, and this may soon develop into
a way of making CO2 do useful work, while
becoming sequestered safely in the subsurface.
Another environmental impact of heavy oil
production is its areal footprint. Because well flow
rates are generally low, and reserves per well
too, many more wells are required to develop a
heavy oil field than an equivalent conventional
oil field. In onshore fields, this has often trans-
lated in the past to very small well spacings:
16 or 8 acre spacing is not uncommon. This can
make an obvious visual impact on the landscape
that would not be tolerated in a new development
today. Again, new technologies can help. Some
new and proposed developments in environmen-
tally sensitive areas, such as Arctic tundra and
South American rain forest or wetlands, utilize
horizontal well technology to reduce the number of
wells needed, as well as allowing several wells to
be drilled from a single site, minimizing footprint.
In addition, the use of new types of compact facil-
ities further reduces the need for large processing
plants.
However responsible the industry is in producing
and processing heavy oil, the fact is that sooner
or later much of it is going to be burnt as fuel.
The high carbon/hydrogen ratio of heavy oil means
that, when burnt, it produces more CO2 than the
equivalent amount of conventional oil, and a lot
more than natural gas. In the grand scheme of
things, heavy oil is thus much better suited to
use as a feedstock for petrochemicals than as
a fuel.
5 RECOVERY PROCESSES FOR
HEAVY AND VISCOUS OIL
Much of the problem with exploiting heavy and
viscous oil revolves around extracting sufficient
amounts at sufficient rates to be commercially
competitive. This is why so much effort has been
put into various production processes for heavy
oils, and why a separate section is devoted to them
here. The different processes are dealt with individ-
ually; a basic description of the process is given,
together with the advantages and disadvantages of
eachbecause none of them is the panacea.
Modern Petroleum Technology
5.1 Primary Recovery
Primary recovery is the simple production of the
oil, with no artificial addition of reservoir energy.
Primary production can benefit from natural pres-
sure support if underlain by large aquifers, but even
so, the recovery factors associated with primary
production of heavy oil are very low, almost
always < 10% (Table 11.1). As discussed previ-
ously, heavy and viscous oils are often situated
in shallow under-compacted sands which can have
very high compressibilities; with pressure reduc-
tion due to production, this can lead to a degree of
support from compaction drive. This can be signif-
icant in fields that start out highly overpressured;
otherwise the pressure drop is not large enough
to do more than add a couple of percent to the
recovery from compaction drive.
Primary recovery requires the least initial
capital outlay of all the recovery processes,
unless complex well designs are needed to
provide sufficient production rate. However, in
the absence of pressure support, reservoir pressure
decline will reduce well flow rates, increase
gas production if the oil goes below bubble
point, and this will then increase the viscosity
of the gas-depleted remaining oil. Furthermore,
large reservoir drawdowns increase the potential
for sand production and the costs entailed with
managing it. Primary recovery is most likely to be
attractive in fields with high initial pressure and a
strongly undersaturated oil, or in the initial phases
of development prior to making decisions about
later EOR.
The primary production of heavy oil, without
thermal stimulation, has become known as cold
production or CHOP (cold heavy oil produc-
tion). In some cases, CHOP involves the inten-
tional production of sand, because this is seen to
Table 11.1 Recovery factors (%) for heavy oils
(Oil & Gas Journal 1994 EOR database) for
primary and incremental waterflood recovery
API gravity Primary Waterflood Total n
10 15 API 4.9 1.7 6.6 28
15 20 API 8.1 7.4 15.5 44
20 23 API 9.6 12.2 21.8 37
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil 13

increase the rate of oil production. Unexpectedly
high production rates and recovery factors have
been found during CHOP in some reservoirs.
History matching the simulations of such well
behaviours often requires unrealistic adjustment
of the measured parameters, such as increasing
the measured permeability by an order of magni-
tude or more. Clearly, there must be an additional
phenomenon at work. There are two schools of
thought about the reasons for this:
1. Foamy oil. One explanation is foamy oil
behaviour [12 15]. This phenomenon is thou-
ght to be due to gas coming out of solution due
to production below the bubble point, but the
gas is unable to separate into a free gas phase
because of the viscosity of the oil. The result
is an oil-continuous foam resembling choco-
late mousse, with a viscosity much lower than
that of the original oil. The foam is thought
to form in the formation, greatly enhancing the
mobility of the oil as it flows into the well.
Foamy oil is still poorly understood, and is
only recently starting to be replicated in the
laboratory [12,13]. Support for this mechanism
comes from the fact that chocolate mousse
has been produced from some CHOP wells (see
e.g., [15]).
2. Wormholes. The alternative explanation of
CHOP behaviour is the development of
wormholes or areas of dilation around the well.
The idea is that the production of viscous
oil through the unconsolidated sand creates a
drag force that overcomes the cohesive forces
holding the formation together. The result is
sand production: as much as 10 m3 during the
initiation of some CHOP wells [8], stabilizing
with time to < 1 m3 per day (cf. Fig. 11.8).
Where does this sand come from? Log data
and geomechanical modelling indicate that the
sand production does not merely create a cavern
around the well. Rather, there is either a zone
of dilated sand (i.e. where sand has yielded
and expanded due to reduced effective stress

500 10

450 9

400 8
Rate (bbl oil / day

Sand cut- %

350 7

300 6

250 5

200 4

150 3

100 2

50 1

0 0
A B C
Time

Fig. 11.8 The oil production rate from an oil well in Alaska undergoing a cold production trial, involving the
intentional production of sand. Note that in the early stages of the trial (time A) little sand has been produced and
oil rates are low. At time B the PCP pump was adjusted to give a greater drawdown, initiating significant sand
production; this was accompanied by a distinct rise in oil rate. After a while (time C) sand production stabilised to a
low background level, and oil rate levelled off.
14
and liquefaction processes, resulting in higher
porosity and permeability [16]) around the well,
or a radiating network of tubes (wormholes)
extending out from the well or a combination
of both. These phenomena greatly increase
the contact area between the well and the
formation, thus enhancing rate and recovery.
Support for this mechanism is derived from the
clear relation in some wells between amount of
sand produced and well flow rates (Fig. 11.8).
In practice, more than one mechanism may
contribute to the behaviour of CHOP wells.
Horizontal wells are becoming popular to use
during primary recovery as a way of increasing
well rate without having to use excessive draw-
down.
Examples of heavy oil fields that have had
a significant primary production phase include
Quiriquire Shallow (Venezuela), and some of the
heavy oil reservoirs from the Lloydminster area
of Canada (Fig. 11.3 [17]) and the Hamaca area
of the Orinoco Belt in Venezuela (Fig. 11.4).
However, there are many hundred heavy oil fields
that had a primary production phase before going
on to other recovery processes.
5.2 Waterflood
The well known, tried and tested, process of
injecting water into reservoirs for pressure support
has been applied to many viscous oil reservoirs,
especially those in the higher API gravity part
of the range. Recovery factors vary, decreasing
dramatically in higher viscosity oils (Table 11.1)
as the wateroil mobility ratio becomes worse
(note that mobility is the effective permeability
divided by the viscosity), leading to greater viscous
fingering and poorer sweep. In viscous oils, the
time taken for the pressure support from an injector
to be seen at a producer, and to be reflected in
enhanced flow rates, is longer; this makes injec-
tors sometimes difficult to justify commercially,
even if the long-term recovery is there.
Examples of fields being developed as water-
floods are Schrader Bluff in Alaska [7] and the
offshore Captain Field in the North Sea [18].
Waterfloods are a popular recovery process for
Modern Petroleum Technology
oils in the 10100 cP range; they are less popular
for oils with > 100 cP viscosity and API gravities
< 15 (Plates 11.111.3). In a database of over
400 enhanced oil recovery projects in fields with
oils with API gravity < 23 , some 32% employed
waterfloods of some form or another; 25% were
straight waterfloods, the remainder employed an
additional process (Fig. 11.9).
A variant of waterflooding is polymer flooding
[19]. The idea of this is that the addition of small
concentrations of high molecular weight poly-
mers, such as polyacrylamides and xanthan gum,
increases injection water viscosity to improve the
water oil mobility ratio (typical mobility ratio
reductions are 2 to 9 times for polymer solutions
compared to pure water) and thus increase sweep
efficiency. Polymer flooding is best suited to low
reservoir temperatures, since polymers degrade at
high temperatures. Because the polymers work
by increasing the viscosity of the water, this
can create injectivity problems in low perme-
ability formations: oil viscosities of < 200 cP and
permeabilities of > 20 mD are general screening
criteria, with reservoir temperatures < 95 C for
polyacrylamides and < 70 C for xanthan gums.
Other problems with polymer deployment include
reduced effectiveness in high-salinity waters and
degradation with shearing in surface equipment,
and the high cost of the polymers. Polymer floods
are rare in fields with viscosities > 100 cP and
API gravities < 20 (Plates 11.1 11.3). However,
polymer-assisted waterfloods account for about 5%
of EOR projects in heavy oil fields (Fig. 11.12).
Another variant of waterflooding is alkaline
flooding (or caustic flooding [20]). This involves
the injection of high pH chemicals (e.g. sodium
hydroxide or sodium orthosilicates) along with the
water. The alkali reacts with acidic components
(organic acids) in the crude oils to form surfac-
tants, resulting in transient reductions in interfa-
cial tension (IFT) between the aqueous caustic
solution and the crude oil. Lower IFT mobilizes
the oil. Additional benefits may be achieved from
wettability changes and a degree of emulsification.
Results from field trials of alkaline floods have
been fairly discouraging. The process works best
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil 15

CO2 immiscible
CO2 miscible 1% HC miscible
1% 0% Horizontal
SAGD
3%
1%
Steam horiz
1% Combustion
5%

Cycilc steam
5%

Waterflood
25%

Hot water
Steam 2%
51%

Polymer
5%
Alkaline
0%

Fig. 11.9 The popularity of recovery processes for fields with oil < 23 API gravity. Taken from a 1994 database of
417 fields.

in crudes with a high Total Acid Number (TAN)
of > 0.5.
While an alkaline flood looks to create
surfactants in situ in the reservoir through reaction
of the alkali with the oil, a surfactant flood
injects surfactants directly with the injected
water. Two mechanisms are involved: (1) low
concentration surfactant injection for large pore
volumes (1560% PV ), where the surfactant
dissolves in either the water or oil and is in
equilibrium with aggregates of the surfactant
(micelles) here, it is the reduced IFT between
water and oil that increases oil recovery; (2) high
concentration surfactant injection over smaller
pore volumes (320% PV ) here, the micelles
become a surfactant stabilized dispersion of either
water in hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon in water.
Rapid displacement of all the contacted oil occurs
as the surfactant becomes diluted and the process
reverts to a low-concentration surfactant flood.
Field results indicate high concentration surfactant
(micellar) floods are more effective than low-
concentration surfactant floods.
The surfactants used are usually petroleum
sulphonates in low-concentration injection, while
high-concentration surfactant floods have formula-
tions containing three basic components (hydro-
carbon, surfactant and water), together with
16
optional co-surfactant (usually alcohol) and elec-
trolytes (usually inorganic salts) for preparing the
micellar solutions or microemulsions. Surfactant
floods have been more popular in field testing than
alkaline floods.
The recovery mechanisms include oilwater
IFT decrease, lower capillary number, lower resi-
dual oil and enhanced oil mobility. The process is
favoured by the following conditions: oil viscosity
< 30 cP, temperature < 120 C, permeability >
20 mD. There may be sensitivity to brine compo-
sition and salinity. Recent novel variants of surfac-
tant flooding include injecting solvent-in-water
emulsions, using natural gas condensate or petro-
leum naphtha as solvents, to reduce oil viscosity
through solvent dilution and to control mobility
through emulsion droplet trapping.
Hot water injection has been applied in some
field trials, typically recovering 4 15% of OOIP.
This can be used as a potential preheating treat-
ment before steam injection, and can be used to
reduce fuel requirements for mature steam floods.
However, hot water injection is a much less effi-
cient way of heating the oil than steam, since it
does not have any of the latent heat benefits of
steam (i.e. water temperature drops as heat is lost).
About 2% of heavy oil EOR projects use hot water
(Fig. 11.12).
5.3 Immiscible Gas Injection
The injection of immiscible gas carries a number of
benefits, besides helping maintain reservoir pres-
sure. If some of the gas dissolves in the oil, this
can swell the oil, reducing residual oil saturation
and making the oil more mobile. With subsequent
blowdown, the gas may be liberated to form a
solution gas drive. There is the additional benefit
that this can provide a means for sequestering
undesirable gasesprincipally CO2 . A variety of
injection gases has been used, including flue gas
(85 mole% N2 , 15% CO2 ), pure CO2 , nitrogen
and methane. Flue gas combines the benefits of a
N2 displacement mechanism with CO2 solubility.
Gas injection can be combined with intermittent
water injection, and can be used as a single well
stimulation as well as an inter-well flood process.
Modern Petroleum Technology
A description of immiscible gas injection, as it
applies to CO2 , is given in Mungan [21].
Gas injection may be applicable in thin reser-
voirs where thermal processes would be imprac-
tical due to excessive heat loss. Indications for the
use of immiscible gas injection are a ready supply
of inexpensive gas, good reservoir quality to allow
good contact between the gas and the oil, lack of
fractures or prominent thief zones, and the lack of
a large underlying aquifer. With very viscous oil,
gas injection suffers from mobility ratio problems.
Immiscible injection has better performance with
higher initial oil saturations; Soi > 50% is typi-
cally recommended. Specific problems with CO2
injection are the potential for asphaltene precipi-
tation in the reservoir or in production equipment,
and corrosion. Estimates of CO2 requirements vary
between 2 and 12 scf/bbl incremental oil.
Examples of immiscible gas injection (all CO2 )
include Halfmoon field Wyoming (17 API, 118 cP
oil), Lick Creek, Arkansas, and parts of Bati
Raman (13 API) in Turkey.
5.4 Miscible Gas
Miscible gas flooding involves injecting a gas, or
cocktail of gases, that will mix with the reservoir
oil and form a mixed hydrocarbon phase with
much more favourable flow properties. The gas
injection process may be operated as a continuous
injection, or be alternated with water injection. It
may also be operated as a cyclic huff-and-puff
process rather than a well-to-well flood.
Miscible gas injection may utilize CO2 , hydro-
carbon gases or mixtures of both. CO2 , which
is a liquid under some shallow heavy oil reser-
voir conditions, may be favoured due to its lower
cost, and also because significant amounts of CO2
may be sequestered in the reservoir, contributing
to reduced atmospheric emissions [11]. It is an
efficient displacement mechanism, leading to high
potential recovery due to low residual oil; the
process reduces capillary and viscous forces to
allow efficient oil displacement. Miscible gas injec-
tion is advantageous in low-permeability forma-
tions where water injectivity is too low.
A miscible CO2 flood works by stripping C5 C30
components from the crude oil to form a miscible
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
bank at the CO2 oil front; C2 C4 components are
easily extracted by the dense CO2 and these aid in
the generation of miscibility. The CO2 density influ-
ences the extraction of oil components, with higher
density CO2 (at higher pressure) extracting more
and heavier hydrocarbons. CO2 slug sizes typically
range from 15 25% of pore volume, with 12
stock tank barrels of oil recovered per reservoir
barrel of CO2 left in reservoir. Using CO2 above
its critical temperature of 31 C (critical pressure is
1073 psi) results in a larger CO2 reservoir volume
and higher oil recovery per unit mass of CO2 , but
lower degrees of CO2 sequestration.
A hydrocarbon gas flood can be first contact
miscible at high pressure or if injected gas is
sufficiently enriched with C2 C6 components.
Vaporizing gas drives achieve multiple contact
miscibility at the oilgas front by stripping C2 C6
components from the crude oil. Condensing gas
drives achieve multiple contact miscibility at
the rear of an oilgas slug by condensing out
C2 C6 components from the gas. A disadvantage
of the hydrocarbon process is that in some
cases the hydrocarbon gases themselves may have
considerable value. There will be mobility ratio
problems in viscous oils, and the poor vertical and
horizontal sweep efficiencies may requiring large
slug volumes, decreasing economic performance.
Mobility control may be achieved by beginning
with water injection, followed by alternating
gas and water injection. For the CO2 process,
asphaltene precipitation may be a problem.
There have been many applications of this tech-
nology, the largest in the world being that in
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, but the great majority of
these projects (including Prudhoe Bay) are in
light oils. With heavy oils the technology is less
widespread and more experimental, but there have
been some commercial successes in hydrocarbon
miscible and CO2 miscible projects. An example
of the latter is Nagylengyel field in Hungary.
5.5 Steam Flood
The viscosity of oil decreases with increasing
temperature (Fig. 11.13). This effect is even more
dramatic in viscous oils. Steam flooding (or
17
10000
1000
Viscosity (cP)
100
10
12API
1 20API
30API
0.1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (C)
Fig. 11.10 The dependence of oil viscosity on temper-
ature (after Archer and Wall [1]).
continuous steam injection) uses steam to transfer
heat to the oil and thus greatly reduce its viscosity
(Fig. 11.10), concomitantly enhancing oil flow
rates and overall recoveries. Water has a large
heat content per unit mass (high specific heat
and latent heat of vaporization). Steam is thus
an efficient way of transferring heat to the oil; it
remains at high temperature as it condenses. Steam
flooding is a continuous process that involves the
use of dedicated injection and production wells.
Steam flood technology is described in depth by
Hong [22] and Pratts [23].
As the steam moves through the reservoir from
injector to producer, it creates several variable
regions of differing temperature and fluid satura-
tion (Fig. 11.11). Around the injector is a steam-
saturated zone, with a temperature close to that of
the injected steam. This zone gradually grows as
more steam is injected. Here, oil saturations are the
lowest. Oil is moved from here to the next zone
by steam distillation; just ahead of the steam front,
a solvent bank forms from the distilled light ends
from the steam-saturated zone. Ahead of the steam-
saturated zone, the steam condenses to water as
heat is lost to the reservoir; this is the hot conden-
sate zone. Some heat is carried beyond this into the
cooler regions of the reservoir until the condensed
water finally equilibrates to the initial reservoir
temperature. The solvent bank formed ahead of the
steam zone dissolves more oil from the formation
18
200
Tsteam
Temperature (C)
100
0 formation water. Steam or steam condensate may
80
Oil saturation (%)
A B C D
40
Sor
0
Injector
Fig. 11.11 Typical temperature and saturation profiles
between injection and producer wells in a steam flood
process. Zones: A, steam zone; B, solvent bank; C, hot
water bank; D, oil bank; E, reservoir fluid zone. Zones B
and C together form the hot condensate zone; zone D is
the cold condensate zone (after Hong [22]).
to form a miscible flood front. It is the high temper-
atures in this zone, which expand the oil and
make it less viscous, that leads to the low satu-
rations in the steam zone, significantly lower than
the residual saturations seen in heavy oil water-
floods. In the oil bank that is mobilized and pushed
ahead of the advancing steam and hot water fronts
(Fig. 11.11), oil saturations are often higher than
they were initially. The now cooled water in this
zone displaces the oil bank in a process analogous
to a waterflood. Total recovery from steam flooding
can exceed 80% in the swept areas.
Screening criteria rank reservoir thickness and
low operating pressure as the most important indi-
cations for steam flooding. Thin reservoirs will
lose heat to the surrounding rocks, wasting energy.
Steam processes are favoured by low pressure,
because the water boiling point is lower. The
higher the reservoir pressure, the higher the water
temperature has to be to generate steam, and
thus the process is less energetically favourable.
It is for this reason that virtually no steam-based
EOR schemes have been implemented in reservoirs
deeper than 4000 ft (Fig. 11.10). Good reservoir
transmissibility (> 100 mD.ft/cP) is an advantage,
while the presence of bottom water can be either
Modern Petroleum Technology
a zone of higher injectivity (beneficial) or heat
thief zone (detrimental) depending on the reservoir
geometry.
Some reservoir formations may be sensitive to
steam, and to condensate from steam which, being
Treservoir
very low salinity, is different from the original
facilitate reactions between natural carbonate and
E
aluminosilicate minerals in the formation, gener-
ating formation-damaging phases such as swelling
Soi clays, as well as generating CO2 from the break-
down of the carbonate [24,25]. This formation
damage can greatly reduce well flow rates. It
Producer is thus wise to conduct formation compatibility
studies prior to embarking on any steam-based
process.
5.6 Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS)
Cyclic steam stimulation (or cyclic steam injection,
steam soak or huff-and-puff) is a form of well
stimulation that involves transfer of heat to the
reservoir oil by the periodic injection of steam into
production wells. As with steam flood (above), the
addition of heat to the viscous oil greatly reduces
its viscosity, enhancing oil flow rates when the
well is brought back into production. Not only
rates are enhanced, but so is the overall recovery
before the well falls below economic flow rates.
An excellent and in depth description of CSS is
given in Hong [22].
CSS was discovered almost by accident [26].
A steam flood pilot was being operated in the
Mene Grande field in Venezuela in 1956, when
the project suffered a crisis: steam broke through
to the surface. To relieve reservoir pressure, the
steam injection wells were opened and allowed to
produce, and it was discovered that these wells
flowed oil profusely. Subsequently, CSS has grad-
ually gained in popularity.
In CSS, the steam injection phase may last for
a few weeks to months; this is then followed
by a soak period before the well is put back
on production for a few months to over a year.
The cycle may be repeated from 3 to 15 times.
With each cycle, the initial peak production rate
gradually decreases. After a certain number of
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
cycles the process becomes uneconomic and may
be converted to a steam flood. CSS has been used
in both vertical and horizontal wells. It is a popular,
tried and tested process (Fig. 11.10).
CSS has better short-term economics than steam
flood due to the immediate production response,
and the fact that all of the wells produce oil.
Up-front capital expenditure can be kept to a
minimum by utilizing small portable steam boilers
that can be moved around from well to well.
Typical recoveries are 1025% of total OOIP.
Examples of CSS include Kern River, California,
and numerous fields in Venezuela it being the
main enhanced recovery process for Venezuelan
heavy and extra-heavy crudes.
5.7 Steam-assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD)
In 1982, AOSTRA (the Alberta Oil Sands Tech-
nology and Research Authority) began develop-
ment of an underground test facility to demonstrate
new technologies for producing heavy oil. SAGD,
a process that had been mooted some years earlier
(see, e.g., [27]) was one of the first processes to be
tested in this facility, with three well-pairs being
drilled and completed in 19861987, and produc-
tion testing following from 1987 to 1990. Results
were deemed successful, and commercial pilots
followed. The method has increased in popularity
to the extent that between 1993 and 1997 some
28 SAGD well-pairs were completed, mainly in
Canada, but some also in Venezuela and California,
and another 50 or so well-pairs were at the plan-
ning stage in 1998.
SAGD is a combined conduction-convection
process (see Butler [28] for more details of the
process). In its initial form, it consists of a pair
of horizontal wells, one drilled directly above the
other at a constant spacing. Depending on the
thickness of the reservoir and the oil viscosity, the
optimal well offset can be from a few metres up to
several tens of metres. The second horizontal well
is drilled using special magnetic measurement-
while-drilling technology to detect the first well
and ensure constant offset. The upper well is a
steam injector, the lower one an oil producer. As
19
steam is injected, a steam chamber forms above
the wells, with approximately the same tempera-
ture as the injected steam (Plate 11.4). The steam
gradually rises over a period of months until it
reaches the top of the reservoir. The steam chamber
then expands laterally, until it becomes limited
by heat loss to the surroundings or interference
from adjacent well-pairs. At the margins of the
steam chamber, the steam condenses, and trans-
mits heat to the surrounding oil. The condensed
steam slumps to the base of the chamber and
is produced in the lower well, along with the
heated oil, which drains by gravity along the
outer margin of the chamber down to the produc-
tion well.
During upward growth of the steam chamber
(0.1 and 1 year steps in Fig. 11.15), a ceiling
drainage process operates, where heated oil is
pulled away from the roof of the chamber and
slumps almost vertically down to the producer.
The rate at which the steam chamber propagates
upwards is a function of the steam temperature
and the reservoir vertical permeability. In this
stage, oil production rate increases rapidly. Oil
rate continues to rise slowly, or stay constant,
as the steam chamber spreads laterally (24 year
steps in Fig. 11.15). Gradually, slope drainage
takes over as the mechanism for moving the oil to
the production well; as the slope becomes shal-
lower, the oil has further to travel, though this
is balanced by the greater area of the interface
between the steam chamber and the surrounding
oil. Oil rate decreases when the lateral spread of
the chamber becomes limited (68 year steps on
Fig. 11.15). Factors that influence SAGD perfor-
mance include reservoir permeability, oil viscosity,
reservoir heterogeneity and gas/oil ratio.
Recovery factors for SAGD projects are typi-
cally estimated to be in the 5570% range. Well
flow rates might be in the region of 1500 b/d for
a properly performing SAGD well pair, an order
of magnitude more than would be achieved from
a conventional horizontal well.
Variants of SAGD include the use of vertical
injectors combined with a horizontal producer, and
single-well SAGD. The latter is a process that
utilises a single horizontal well. Steam is injected
20
continuously into the formation from the toe of
the well, via insulated tubing. The heated oil and
steam condensate then drain back into the annulus
of the horizontal wellbore to be produced. Other
variants involve the addition of additives to the
steam, or replacement of steam by solventsas
in the VAPEX process discussed next.
5.8 Vapour Extraction (VAPEX)
The Vapex process [29] is emerging as a rival
for thermal processes in the exploitation of extra-
heavy oil, particularly in thin formations where
thermal processes are inefficient. Vapex involves
the injection of a solvent vapour into the reser-
voir, usually via a horizontal well, with production
from a second horizontal well beneath (Fig. 11.12),
analogous to the thermal SAGD process. Solvents
could include light hydrocarbons such as ethane,
propane and butane, and various mixtures. The
solvents dissolve into the oil and dramatically
reduce its viscosity. The diluted oil then drains
downwards into the production well. With time,
the solvent chamber grows (cf. Fig. 11.15), mobi-
lizing oil from progressively larger areas of the
reservoir.
The process may also lead to a certain degree
of in situ solvent de-asphalting when the solvent
mixes with the oil; asphaltenes precipitate from
the oil in the reservoir, increasing the API gravity
Solvent
vapour
chamber
Solvent-diluted
Horizontal injector deasphalted oil
drains to
producer
Horizontal producer Heavy oil
Fig. 11.12 A schematic of the Vapex process; a view
parallel to the wells.
Modern Petroleum Technology
of the remaining oil. This is an in situ upgrading
process which may increase the value of the
produced oil.
Because Vapex operates at reservoir temperature
and pressure, the process is much more energy effi-
cient than a thermal process, consuming < 5% of
the energy of an equivalent steam-based process
(note that early descriptions of the process indi-
cated the use of hot water in addition to solvents;
subsequent testing indicated the use of heat was
not generally necessary). The well completions
will also be less expensive than those needed to
support a thermal process. Vapex does not suffer
from the formation damage problems (e.g. swelling
clays) that can affect steam floods. Vapex also has
a great advantage over steam in reservoirs that are
underlain by an aquifer. Steam will condense and
dissipate into the aquifer, while the Vapex solvent
will float on the aquifer and continue to help
recover oil. The solvents can easily be recovered
from the oil at the surface and recycled. Recovery
factors are thought to be similar to those modelled
for SAGD.
Disadvantages of this process are the high
cost of the solvent, and permeability loss due to
asphaltene precipitation. An overlying gas cap will
absorb Vapex solvent and make the process less
efficient. Although demonstrated extensively in the
laboratory, field tests have only recently got under
way. It is likely that, in places where there is an
accessible source of solvent, and a thick homoge-
neous reservoir, this may develop quickly into the
process of choice for heavy-oil recovery.
5.9 In situ Combustion
In situ combustion, or fire flooding, is a process
that involves injection of air into the reservoir,
initiating a combustion reaction in the oil itself,
thus creating heat in situ within the reservoir.
In some cases the oil may start to burn sponta-
neously on contact with injected air; in other cases
a heater or chemical treatment may have to be
placed in the injection well to initiate combustion.
The main way of controlling the combustion, once
initiated, is by tuning the amount of air injected.
As the oil begins to burn, the heat of combustion
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil 21

preferentially vaporises the lighter fractions of the
crude oil, driving them ahead of the combustion
front. In this way, it is the residual heavier fractions
that end up being burnt. Hence, in situ combus-
tion has an element of oil upgrading associated
with it, because the oil that is produced may be
24 API degrees lighter than the initial crude, and
have lower sulphur and metals contents. The heat
of combustion also vaporises water in the combus-
tion zone, generating steam in situ. Together with
the air combustion products (nitrogen and CO2 ),
this forms a kind of steam drive with some immis-
cible/miscible gas displacement mixed in. This
drives the oil, with its viscosity reduced due to
the heat (Fig. 11.13), from the injectors toward the
producers.

3 2 1W 0 1E 2

Northern
north
61N
sea
Clair

West of
shetland

Viking g
Shetland islands

Bressay
raben
East
shetland 60
platform

Mariner
way
UK
Nor

Gryphon
harding

59
Orkney islands Fladen
ground
spur

Captain
Halibut horst
Moray firth

58
Alba
Cen
tral

Central
north
g
rabe

Scotland sea
n

Fields
Basins Heavy oil
Highs Other Gannet E
100 km Mid north 57
sea high

Fig. 11.13 The heavy oil fields of the North Sea area.
22
In situ combustion has the potential for high
recovery factors, perhaps the highest of all the
thermal processes (up to 90%), it providing a very
efficient drive mechanism. Furthermore, energy
consumption is much less than for steam injection:
perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of steam generation
and placement for a typical 1000 psi reservoir.
This may, in turn, lead to an overall lower total
environmental impact.
Screening criteria for in situ combustion are
depth > 300 ft (to avoid air breakthrough to the
surface), net pay > 10 ft, oil viscosity < 1000 cP,
porosity > 20%, oil density < 45 API, initial oil
saturation > 50%, permeability > 100 mD, oper-
ating pressure > 250 psi and spacing < 40 acres.
A uniform clean sand greater than 10 ft thick is
ideal.
In situ combustion is in theory applicable to
deeper reservoirs than steam processes. For one
thing, there are no wellbore heat losses, which
would be very significant for steam in deeper reser-
voirs. The higher pressures would, though, incur
additional operating costs (injection and lifting).
In situ combustion is a highly complex process,
with the degree and style of oxidation depending
on the temperature and the amount of oxygen
available. Greater heat losses from thin layers
may cause a shift from high-temperature oxidation
to low-temperature oxidation, resulting in poten-
tial formation of surfactants causing emulsions
to form (hard to pump, hard to break), plug-
ging the formation and potentially stalling the
combustion front. Poor ignition can lead to oxygen
contacting cold oil, causing pre-oxidation with
formation of a refractive asphaltene-rich or coke
phases which can cause reservoir plugging. Also,
reservoir heterogeneities can cause fingering of the
combustion front, leading to poor areal sweep and
premature breakthrough of air to the producers.
In situ combustion is experiencing a lull in
activity, reflecting the lack of commercial success in
previous projects. Why have previous projects been
disappointing? Difficulty in controlling the process
is one key aspect. This makes in situ combus-
tion commercially risky compared to steam-based
processes. Insufficient air supply and well patterns
being too large (< 40 acre spacing is desirable) are
Modern Petroleum Technology
other failure reasons. Safety is a concern too: with
high-pressure air compressors, there is a potential
for air injector explosions.
5.10 Downhole Electrical Heating
For many years, there has been interest in ways
of stimulating well productivity in viscous oils by
heating the near-wellbore region without the need
for steam, thus avoiding the high initial infras-
tructure cost associated with steam boilers and
compressors. One possibility is downhole elec-
trical heating, which actually consists of several
distinct processes, each with their own advantages
an disadvantages. The main variants are electro-
resistive heating, inductive heating, and microwave
heating.
Electro-resistive heating covers a variety of indi-
vidual techniques and geometries. Basically, it
involves using a segment of well casing as an elec-
trode to introduce electrical current into the area of
the formation requiring simulation. This segment
of casing must be electrically isolated from the rest
of the well. This could mean, for example, placing
a fibreglass casing section above and below the
reservoir interval, with regular steel casing acting
as an electrode over the reservoir interval. Power
is sent from the surface to the isolated segment of
casing via a cable. The electrical energy penetrates
from the casing into the formation (via the water
phase), causing it to heat up. This in turn heats the
oil, reducing its viscosity (Fig. 11.13), increasing
well flow rate, and breaking any viscous skin effect
that has built up. A simulation of the heating effect
of this method is illustrated in Plate 11.5. The
simulation shows that the heating effect in the near-
wellbore region of the reservoir is counteracted to
some extent by the influx of cool oil, restricting
high temperatures to within a few feet of the well.
The deepest penetration of elevated temperatures
actually occurs in or close to the encasing shales,
which have high water saturation (thus acting as a
channel for the electricity) and are not cooled by
the influx of oil.
On paper, this looks to be a promising tech-
nology. However, the limited field experience indi-
cates that, although enhanced oil rates are achieved
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
for a while, the system is susceptible to frequent
failures (see, e.g., [30]). Most often this is due
to casing insulation failure. Scoping economics
suggest that, for this system to be economic, it
must function trouble-free for roughly 2 years;
this compares to average failure rates of about
6 months (unpublished data). A secondary problem
that is identified through simulation of the process
is that, because water is the carrier for the power,
this is where the heat is concentrated. What can
happen is that the water vaporises under the heat,
leaving the formation very insulating. This reduces
the effectiveness of the process or stops it alto-
gether. More development work is needed before
this becomes a routine process.
Resistive heating involves hanging a powerful
induction coil, or set of coils, in the well, oppo-
site the formation(s) to be stimulated. The coils
are connected by cable to a power source at the
surface. The magnetic field from the coil induces
eddy currents in the steel well casing, causing the
casing to become hot. Heat is transmitted to the
formation and to the oil by conduction.
The disadvantage of this process is that the
heating effect is limited to the area very close to
and inside the well. While this still yields distinct
improvements in well rate, this is not as much
as could be achieved by placing the heat further
out into the formation. However, a big advantage
of resistive heating is its reliability; it does not
depend on electrical contact with the formation, or
on insulated casing joints and so does not suffer the
problems of electro-resistive heating. This process
is presently undergoing extensive testing.
The other main downhole heating technology
is microwave heating. Microwaves are generated
either at the surface, and piped down to the reser-
voir through a wave guide tube, or down hole, with
a subsurface microwave generator. Microwave
heating is a promising process [31]: it is energet-
ically efficient, heats the reservoir fluids directly
and is relatively controllable. The big disadvan-
tage is initial cost. It requires a wave guide, a
shielded conduit for the microwaves, which has
to be 2025 cm in diameter, thus necessitating a
large-diameter and expensive well. The slotted end
of the wave guide (to emit the microwaves) must
23
be in a fluid-free ceramic casing string; this adds
cost and the risk of mechanical failures.
In conclusion, none of the downhole heating
processes are currently stable technologies. There
is promise, but extensive field testing is needed to
minimize costly equipment failures.
5.11 Surface Mining
Two large plants operate in Canada, strip mining
oil sands at the surface and then upgrading the
heavy oil to produce a lighter synthetic crude.
The Suncor plant started up in 1967, the larger
Syncrude plant in 1978. Total output from the two
plants was 280 000 b/d of synthetic crude in 1997.
In the TimanPechora district of Russia,
bitumen deposits in the Yarega field are being
produced at a rate of about 10 000 b/d through
a combination of surface mining and in situ
production.
6 OFFSHORE VISCOUS OIL
DEVELOPMENTS
The vast majority of heavy and viscous oil produc-
tion worldwide occurs onshore. However, the past
decade has begun to see offshore developments
start up, and with new discoveries offshore, there is
the potential for much more in the future. Offshore
heavy oil developments carry their own list of
special problems and concerns, warranting sepa-
rate discussion here.
The main problem with offshore heavy or vis-
cous oil developments is that, being platform-
based, they are limited in the number of wells
that can be used, and must make rapid economic
return to pay back for the high facility costs.
These limitations are critical, because in onshore
fields, the low well rates and recoveries are usually
mitigated by drilling many closely spaced wells.
A fundamentally different approach must be taken
offshore.
Offshore heavy and viscous oil development
has been pioneered in the UK Continental Shelf,
where several successful field developments have
been carried out (Fig. 11.13), in gradually more
24
challenging oils [32]. In general, the limitations
on well number have been counteracted by using
very long, highly productive horizontal wells. This
helps with an additional problem that some of the
UK fields have overlying gas gaps and under-
lying active aquifers, both of which could cone
into the wells if drawdowns were too high. Coning
problems are often worse in viscous oil fields than
in conventional ones, partly because the wells have
to be pumped harder to obtain equivalent produc-
tion, and partly because the adverse water-oil and
gas-oil mobility ratios exacerbate coning effects.
Furthermore, the viscosity of the oil and, with
heavy oils, the small density difference between
water and oil, can make coning very slow to heal
by simply reducing production rate.
The Gryphon Field, containing 300 MMbbl
STOOIP, started up in 1993. Its main reservoir
is high quality hydrostatically pressured sands
of the Eocene Balder Formation, at a depth of
5500 ft sub-sea. Gryphon has been developed with
eight horizontal producers and three water injec-
tors, drilled from a sub-sea cluster; production of
the 21 API, 6 cP oil is through a FPSO (floating
production, storage and offloading facility). FPSOs
have solved a key problem in the North Sea heavy
oilfields: how to export the oils to shore, avoiding
the need for a long cold sea-bed pipeline. Produced
water is re-injected, but seawater injection has not
been used due to its high scaling potential with the
high-barium formation water.
The Harding Field came on stream in 1996.
It actually consists of four accumulations. The
two first to be developed, the Central and South
pools, contain over 320 MMbbl STOOIP; gas
caps are present in both. The reservoir is highly
permeable, unconsolidated Eocene sands, similar
to Gryphon. It was developed using ten long hori-
zontal wells. Where the gas cap was present, wells
were placed about 75 ft beneath the gas cap. High
well productivity indices (PIs) in the region of
1000 bopd/psi mean that the wells can be pulled
very gently to achieve high oil rates while avoiding
early coning. A key part of the planning process
was the drilling of a horizontal extended well
test (EWT) that demonstrated producibility and
reduced risk on reservoir deliverability. This is a
Modern Petroleum Technology
common feature of several of these UK heavy-
oil developments. Water injection supplies pressure
support; water from a shallow aquifer is used rather
than seawater, to avoid barite scale. In Harding,
the produced oil is exported via tanker. The oil
viscosity in Harding is not that high (510 cP,
at 1921 API), and this is mitigated by the very
permeable reservoir.
The Alba Field development followed similar
lines, though the lack of a gas cap meant the
wells could be placed higher in the reservoir, away
from the OWC. Alba contains > 500 MMbbl of
20 API, 7 cP oil in high quality Eocene sands. The
Gannet E Field, containing 20 API, 20 cP oil, was
developed as a satellite tied back to the existing
Gannet complex, which contains light oil. This
is the only one or the fields to be exported by
pipeline, once the oil has been diluted with Gannet
light oil.
The fields described so far all contain marginally
heavy and viscous oil, combined with very for-
giving reservoirs. Offshore viscous oil develop-
ment achieved another level in 1997 with Texacos
pioneering development of the Captain Field, con-
taining 88 cP oil (19 API). Again, EWTs were
important, demonstrating sustained deliverability
[33]. The Captain EWT well 13/22a-10, drilled in
1993, consisted of a 5532 ft horizontal section; it
produced at a stunning average rate of over 10 000
bopd for 90 days. Subsequent development has
used long horizontal wells, lifted with ESPs into
a FPSO. The field is being waterflooded, using a
mixture of produced and aquifer water. However,
simulations show rapid slumping of injected water
to the bottom of the reservoir in this wide low-
relief structure. To improve the waterflood perfor-
mance, use of polymers has been considered [18].
Several other North Sea fields viscous oil fields
are currently under appraisal. They are becoming
gradually more challenging: Mariner B has 540 cP
oil, while the development of Bressay (1000 cP)
may still be some way off. Although the North Sea
developments have pioneered offshore production
technologies for viscous oil, there are many other
parts of the world where offshore viscous oil is
emerging: some of the shallow oil accumulations
in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and offshore
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
West Africa are good examples for us to watch
unfold in the coming years.
7 USES OF HEAVY OILPAST
PRESENT AND FUTURE
Heavy oil has had possibly the longest history of
usage of any of the petroleum resources, mainly
because it was the surface seeps that were most
accessible to man, and these seeps are often heavy
due to biodegradation in this shallow environment.
In fact, mankinds very existence could be due to
heavy oil seeps in the Middle East, for without
its coating of tar, Noahs Ark might have sunk
(Genesis 6 : 14)! Surface deposits of heavy oil,
bitumen, tar or pitch (e.g. the La Brea tar lake in
Trinidad) have been used for centuries for water-
proofing less critical boats.
The heaviest oils, natural bitumens, are used
directly in road making. The dubious quality of
roads in Trinidad is certainly not due to the quan-
tity or quality of the natural bitumen used. In
Canada, oily sand that has been co-produced with
the heavy oil is frequently used in road-making.
However, the bitumen used for this purpose in
many parts of the world is not natural, but is actu-
ally the heavier products of light crude oil refining.
Today, most of the heavy oil produced is turned
into refined petroleum products. It may be diluted
with lighter oils prior to refining in a conven-
tional refinery, or it may be upgraded first, either
remotely in a purpose-built upgrading plant, or in
the earliest stages of a refinery tuned to handle
heavy oil. The cost of the upgrading step, and the
low per-barrel yields from heavy oil, means that
it is not the most attractive feedstockhence the
discounted per-barrel price of heavy oil compared
to lighter liquids. High sulphur and metals contents
only add to the problem.
Another use of heavy oil is as fuel. Orimulsion
has revolutionised this process, making heavy oil
easier to transport to power stations for burning.
However, heavy oil carries the disadvantage of
a high carbon to hydrogen ratio, meaning that,
compared to lighter oils or natural gas, it produces
much more carbon dioxide per unit of energy
produced. If the heavy oil is high in sulphur, as
25
is the Orinoco oil incorporated into Orimulsion,
burning will produce sulphur compounds that, if
emitted, can contribute to acid rain. Hence, costs
are incurred by the need for sulphur scrubbers in
the flues of such power plants. Carbon dioxide
taxes will add further financial disincentives to the
burning of heavy oils.
As the lighter petroleum liquids become deple-
ted, heavier oil production may well expand to fill
the gap [34]. From an environmental perspective,
it would make sense if the heavier oils were used
as refinery feedstock rather than simply a fuel for
burning. Growth in heavy-oil production will be
undoubtedly be limited by the amount of energy
required to produce heavier and heavier oils and
process them into a useful form: there will be an
economic cut-off where so much of the energy in
the oil is consumed by processes before it reaches
the consumer, that it is not worth producing at
all. New technologies that can produce or process
heavy oils more efficiently will be key in enabling
the full potential of heavy oils to be realized.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Heavy and viscous oils constitute a vast petroleum
resource, perhaps four times greater in size than
that of remaining conventional oil, that is currently
under-exploited. This is partly due to the technical
difficulties, but mainly this is related to commer-
cial pressures; the technical challenges add cost to
production, transport and processing of the heavy
oil, and after all this the price realized for the
heavy oil is still lower than for conventional oil.
In the near term, it appears that exploitation of
heavy oil will remain patchy, restricted to the most
easily accessible accumulations. In the longer term,
as conventional oil becomes depleted and world
energy demand increases, greater exploitation of
heavy oil exploitation may become commercially
viable. Some predictions have heavy oil produc-
tion growing to 10 billion barrels per year by the
end of the next century [34]. Whether such predic-
tions materialize will depend to a large extent on
the development of energy-efficient new technolo-
gies for heavy oil production and processing, and on
environmental considerations: whether the drive for
26
lighter and cleaner fuels outweighs the impetus for
those counties hosting the giant heavy oil resources
to supply the demand for increasing energy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many colleagues in BP Amoco have contributed
knowingly or unknowinglyto the content of
this chapter. Their efforts, including work on the
Viscous Oil Technology Project, have been of great
value. BP Amocos Western North Slope Business
Unit (Alaska) have much to answer for in getting
me interested in viscous oil in the first place, and in
supporting technology development over the past
5 years. Thanks also go to Geoff Warren (currently
with Schlumberger), who influenced much of the
material on recovery processes.
REFERENCES
1. J.S. Archer and P.G. Wall 1986 Petroleum Engi-
neering: Principles and Practice. London: Graham
and Trotman.
2. WEC 1998 Survey of Energy Resources. London:
World Energy Council.
3. P.C. Smalley, N.S. Goodwin, J.F. Dillon, C.R.
Bidinger and R.J. Drozd 1997 New tools target
oil-quality sweetspots in viscous-oil accumulations.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, August, 157 161.
4. P.C. Henshaw, R.M.K. Carlson, M.M. Pena, M.M.
Boduszynski, C.E. Rechsteiner and A.S.G. Shafi-
zadeh 1998 Evaluation of geochemical approaches
to heavy oil viscosity mapping in San Joaquin
Valley, California. SPE Paper 46205, presented at
the 1998 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakers-
field, 10 13 May.
5. DOE 1998 Alaska Heavy Oil Workshop, 4 5
August 1998, Girdwood, Alaska. US Department of
Energy report DOE/FE-0380.
6. S.P. Godbole, K.J. Thele and E.W. Reinbold 1995
EOS modelling and experimental observations of
three-hydrocarbon phase equilibria. SPE paper
24936-P, SPE Reservoir Engineering (May 1995),
101 109.
7. C.R. Bidinger and J.F. Dillon 1995 Milne Point
Schrader Bluff: Finding the keys to two billion
barrels. SPE paper 30289, presented at the 1995
International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary,
Canada, 19 21 June.
8. M.B. Dusseault and S. El-Sayed 1999 CHOP
Cold Heavy Oil Production. Paper 086, proceedings
Modern Petroleum Technology
of the 10th European Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Brighton, UK, 18 20 August 1999.
9. G.H. Gary and G.E. Handwerk 1994 Petroleum
Refining: Technology and Economics. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
10. J.G. Weissman, R.V. Kessler, R.A. Sawicki, J.D.M.
Belgrave, C.J. Laureshen, S.A. Mehta, R.G. Moore
and M.G. Ursenbach 1996 Down-hole catalytic up-
grading of heavy crude oil. Energy & Fuels 10,
883 889.
11. T.A.M. McKean, R.M. Wall and A.A. Espie 1998
Conceptual evaluation of using CO2 extracted from
flue gas for enhanced oil recovery, Schrader Bluff
Field, North Slope, Alaska. In: Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies (B. Eliasson, P.W.F. Riemer
and A. Wokaun, eds). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press,
pp. 207 215.
12. D. Urgelli, M. Durandeau, H. Foucault, and J.-F.
Besnier 1999 Investigations of foamy-oil effect
from laboratory experiments. SPE Paper 54083,
presented at the 1999 SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield,
California, 17 19 March.
13. M. Huerta, C. Otero, A. Rico, I. Jimenez, M. de
Mirabal and G. Rojas 1996 Understanding foamy
oil mechanisms for heavy oil reservoirs during
primary production. SPE paper 36749, presented at
the 1996 SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, 6 9 October.
14. S. Solanki and M. Metwally 1995 Heavy oil reser-
voir mechanisms, Lindbergh and Frog Lake Fields,
Alberta. Part II: Geomechanical evaluation. SPE
Paper 30249, presented at the 1995 International
Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
19 21 June.
15. B.B. Mainin, H.K. Srama and A.E. George 1993
Significance of foamy oil behaviour in primary
production of heavy oils. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 32, 50 54.
16. M.B. Dusseault, M.B. Geilikman and W.D. Roggen-
sack 1995 Practical requirements for sand produc-
tion implementation in heavy oil applications. SPE
Paper 30250, presented at the 1995 International
Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 19 21
June.
17. G.E. Smith 1988 Fluid flow and sand production in
heavy-oil reservoirs under solution gas drive. SPE
Production Engineering, May, 169 180.
18. J.R. Lach and W.T. Osterloh 1995 Viscous oil
recovery processes, Captain Field. SPE paper
35281, presented at the 1995 DTI/SPE Conference
on IOR, London, UK, 9 November.
19. N. Mungan 1984 Principles of polymer flooding. In:
Heavy Crude Oil Recovery (E. Okandan, ed.). The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 353 378.
Heavy Oil and Viscous Oil
20. N. Mungan 1984 Alkaline flooding fundamentals.
In: Heavy Crude Oil Recovery (E. Okandan, ed.).
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 317 352.
21. N. Mungan 1984 Carbon dioxide flooding funda-
mentals. In: Heavy Crude Oil Recovery (E. Okandan,
ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 131 176.
22. K.C. Hong 1994 Steamflood Reservoir Manage-
ment: Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery. Tulsa, Okla-
homa: PennWell Publishing.
23. M. Pratts 1986 Thermal Recovery. Monograph 7.
Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
24. T. Chakrabarty and J.M. Longo 1994 Production
problems in the steam-stimulated shaley oil sands
of the Cold Lake reservoir: cause and possible solu-
tions. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
33, 34 39.
25. I. Hutcheon, H.J. Abercrombie, M. Shevalier and
C. Nahnybida 1989 A comparison of formation
reactivity in quartz-rich and quartz-poor reservoirs
during steam-assisted thermal recovery. In: Fourth
UNITAR/UNDP International Conference on Heavy
Crude and Tar Sands (R.F. Meyer and E.J. Wiggins,
eds), AOSTRA, 2, 747 757.
26. I. Layrisse 1999 Heavy-oil production in Venezuela:
Historical recap and scenarios for the next century.
SPE Paper 53464, presented at the 1999 SPE
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 16 19
February.
27. R.M. Butler and D.J. Stephens 1980 The gravity
drainage of steam heated heavy oil to parallel hori-
zontal wells. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Tech-
nology 20, 90 96.
28. R.M. Butler 1991 Thermal Recovery of Oil and
Bitumen. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
29. R.M. Butler and I.J. Mokrys 1991 A new process
(VAPEX) for recovering heavy oil using hot water
and hydrocarbon vapour. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 30, 97 105.
30. R.J. Davison 1995 Electromagnetic stimulation of
Lloydminster heavy oil reservoirs: field test results.
27
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 34,
15 24.
31. G.M. Warren, G.A. Behle and J.M. Tranquilla 1996
Microwave heating of horizontal wells in heavy
oil with active water drive. SPE Paper 37114,
presented at the 1996 conference on Hori-
zontal Well Technology, Calgary, Canada, 18 20
November.
32. A.J. Jayasekera and S.G. Goodyear 1999 The
development of heavy oil fields in the U.K.
Continental Shelf: past, present and future. SPE
Paper 54623, presented at the 1999 SPE Western
Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 26 28 May.
33. M. Pallant, D.J. Cohen and J.R. Lach 1995 Reser-
voir engineering aspects of the Captain extended
well test appraisal program. SPE Paper 30437,
presented at the 1995 Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, UK, 5 8 September.
34. J.D. Edwards 1987 Crude oil and alternate energy
production forecasts for the twenty-first century:
the end of the hydrocarbon era. AAPG Bulletin 81,
1292 1305.
35. A.G. Holba, L.I.P. Dzou, J.J. Hickey, S.G. Franks,
S.J. May and T.Lenney 1996 Reservoir geochem-
istry of the South Pass 61 field, Gulf of Mexico:
compositional heterogeneities reflecting filling
history and biodegradation. Organic Geochemistry
14, 1179 1198.
36. R.J. Kaufman, C.S. Kabir, B. Abdul-Rahman,
R. Quttainah, H. Dashti, J.M. Pederson and M.S.
Moon 1998 Characterizing the Greater Burgan
field using geochemical and other field data. SPE
paper 49216, prepared for the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 27 30 September.
37. N. Duldhoya, M. Mileo, M. Faucher and E. Sellman
1998 Dehydration of heavy crude oil using disk-
stack centrifuges. SPE paper 49119, prepared for
the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 27 30 September.