THE PETROLEUM

SOCIETY

PAPER 98-44

Modeling Cold Production for

Heavy Oil Reservoirs

ES. Denbina, R.O. Baker, G.G. Gegunde, A.J. Klesken, S.F. Sodero
Epic Consulting Services Ltd.

This paper is to be presented at the 49th Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 - 10,
1998. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior
to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in CIM journals. Publication rights
. are reserved. This is a pre-print and is subject to correction.

ABSTRACT
Eie term Told Production refers to the use of operating
techniques
and specialized
pumping
equipment
to
aggre&veIy
produce
heavy
oil reservoirs.
This
encourages the associatedproduction
of large quantities of
the unconsolidated reservoir sand creating a modijied
wellbore geomeby
that could include
Wormholes,
dilated zones, or posSbly cavities. As well, produced oil in
the form of an oil continuous foam resembling chocolate
mousse, suggests a foq
solution gas drive occurs in situ.
This Leaa!s to anomalous/y high oil producti@
and
recovery because free gas stays entrained in the foam,
thereby sustaining reservoir pressure. In a recent paper,
the mechanisms that lead to this increased productiviv
were outlined and the suitable reservoir types conducive to
cold proakction techniques were identified
In this paper3
these mechanistic concepts are extended to practical,
intuitive modeling techniques that can be applied to
existing black oil reservoir simuiators by appropriate
alterations to the input data Importantly, these techniques
have been found to match actual cold production

behaviour in applicable
heavy oil reservoirs.

Western Canadian

conventional

with a histov matched model, these techniques can be

used to extend the coldproduction
scenario into thejituhrre,
providing better estimates of ultimate recovery. As well,
sensitivities to the process can be investigated, including
eqoloring sensitivities to various reservoir and operating
parameters
(e.g., reservoir pressure, production
rate
strategies) and examining the impact of a preceding cold
production primq
depletion on subsequent secondary and
tertkny recovery processes.

INTRODUCTION

In approximately the last ten years, many authors have

written about the phenomena involved iu producing heavy
oil by solution-gas drive. Their work has been inspired by
field observations of cold production in some of the heavy
oil resavoi~~ in Canada and Venezuela where
une~ectexlly high oil rates and recoveries, is well as low
gas-oil ratios have been attained. This work has included

and interwell tracer aualysis work6 indicate wormhole,

longer than 400 m. McCaf&ey et al4 state that altbougl
the exact geometry of the failed sand zone is unknown a
this stage, interference effects observed during drill&
programs to lower zones suggest long directional &acum
type changes in porosity and permeability have occurred.
Lebel performed parametric foamy oil simulation
(using a suppressed gas mobility) with various wormholc
geometries (ranging from essentially radial to linear) am
noted the oil production rate decline signatores (these
signatnres were not compared to actual performance, bu
the cnmulative production
range was noted
a!
representative).

laboratory investigations of fluid and rock properties

(including geomechauical
studies of the so-called
COllCeptUl
postulation
of
effects),
wormholhg
mechanisms in the context of actnal field behaviour, as
well as some attempt to mathematically capture and
munericaUy model these mechanisms. Perhaps one of the
first to set forth the mechanisms and possible mathematics
was Smith2 at Husky, who also appears to be one of the
first investigators to note that the anomalous production
enhancement
must arise from a combination
of
geomechanical and flmd effects (i.e., results cannot be
excused as high permeability channels resulting r?om sand
production).
These two categories of mechanisms geomechauical effects and fluid effects - are the subject of
the mechanisms proposed in the literature for explaining
cold production performance of heavy oil reservoirs.

According to MetwaRy et aZ.* and Solar&i et a1.9

PanCanadian showed before and after logging tba
intervals with the highest porosity developed mtc
wormhole zones. The thicknesses of these intervals werf
-2 m (similar to laboratory observations at Alberb
Research Council by Tremblay et al.). They also noted
that the formation broke down very close to initia
reservoir pressure, suggestiug that the near wellbore regior
was dominated by remolded sand tmder very low stress.
FhtaIly, analysis of pressure transient responses suggested E
matrix permeability of 4 D (-2x kJ with a stimulated skir
of 6; however, their postulated increases in near wellbore
porosity from 30 % porosity units to 80 % porosity uuiu
would lead to permeability increases of 100 fold.
Tremblay et al. I0noted ~pressure build-up tests throughoul
the Lloydmhtster area, after saud production, have
indicated global effective permeabilities of 10 D. Elkim
et al.3 noted effective formation permeability
with
wormholiug of 30 D using steady state flow calculatiom
and bottomhole pressure measurements.

Geomechauical Effects
Productivity of heavy oil wells experiencing cold
production is typically much higher than would be
expected - actual productivity exceeds radial Darcy flow
predictions
(using typical oil viscosities and air
permeabiities) by factors of four to ten
The general
observation made by numerous producers, tbat oil rates
seem to correlate with sand production, has led many to
infer that the production of sand improves inftow
performance by increasing the effective permeability of the
formation, via the creation of a system of wormholes. One
of the first to conclude this was Elkins et aL3 in 1972,
when reporting a heavy oil fireflood test, because of no
sigyificaut increase in wellbore diameters with large
amomts of saud produced and because of extreme
chauueling/qoick injectant breaktbmugh times.
Many others have noted extremely fast interwell effects.
Lost circulation material and cement has been seen at
offset wells 100 m away in Elk Point, suggesting a
disturbed sand zone length of at least 100 m4 Husky,
Amoco and others have observed tracer breakthmugh
speeds of up to 7 m/mm through channel systems of
400-200@+ m in length at Aberfeldy, Elk Point and
Lasbburn
The appearance of undiluted water tracer in
many instances means that almost all the water flow was
through only the wormholes.

The pseudo-geomechanicnl approach used in this paper is

to define a region where wormholing is expected to occur,
and to dynamically enhance absolute permeability within
each gridblock of that region witb increasing pressure
depletion (i.e., k? as PA), simulating the increased
permeability of wormholes resulting from sand fluitition
and production.
Fluid Effects
As indicated in the foregoing Smith was perhaps the first
to note the importauce of the foamy oil mechanism in
awl-g
cold pmdncfion He suggested that evolved gas
formed microbubbles, which were carried with the flowing
oil phase as a result of viscous drag. Conceptually these
microbubbles would not plug off the pore throats and
would not coalesce to form a continuous gas phase. With
evolved gas retained in the reservoir (i.e., dispersed as a
thermodynamically separate phase, but hydrodynamically a
part of the liquid phase), system compressibility was high

Regarding the geometry of these induced features, the

experience of Loughead et al. of Mobil and Squires6 of
Amoco, as well as OIJI belief, is that usually linear
wormhole channels propagate deep into the pay section.
This is based on build-up and fall-off test data as well as
observiug very rapid tracer breakthrough. Generally these
wormhole features are oriented NE to SW. Unfortunately,
unlike ftxtore systems, the directional trends of these
channels are not always straightforward. Pressure transient
2

and the reservoir pressure declined less rapidly, consistent

with performance observations.
Smith also postulated
that the microbubbles would effectively act as ball
bearings for the oil, giving rise to an effective two-phase
fluid viscosi@ less than the single-phase oil itself.

apparent critical gas saturation was in the normal low

range (-5%), the very low gas mobility appeared to be the
key beneficial mechanism in suppressing gas production.
This maintamed high system compressibility and abating
pressure decline. Low gas mobility was attributed to the
presence of a large number of liquid lamella per unit
volume, which interfered with gas coalescence. Maim ef
al. and Sarma er al. I6 also reported suppressed gas
production in their experiments, implying low gas
mobility.

Claridge ef ai. also noted that, although sand production

may contribute to high production rates in some reservoirs,
it is not sufficient to explain all the observed behavior.
High in situ mobilities (observed Tom pressure
interference and pulse tests remote from production wells
per Dusseauh) strongly indicate that disturbances to
unconsolidated sands do not appear to be the root cause of
A consistent view is
the apparent high mobilities.
expressed by MetwaRy er al* and Solanki et 01.~in their
reservoir simulation and geomechanical evaluations of
PauCanadums Lindbergh and Frog Lake fields: simply
increasiug the permeability in a sand pmducing zone does
not result in production rates or recoveries that match those
observed in wells where sand production occurs.

Kraus et al. of Amoco, noted that foamy oil behaved as

though its effective bubble point pressure was below that

measured in the laboratory, and used an adjustable
parameter called the pseudo-bubble point pressure.
Using pseudo&d PVT instead of pseudoized gas relative
permeability to suppress gas mobility, their model
demonstrated the features of high oil recovery, low
producing GCR and natural pressure maiutenance.
The fluid approach used in this paper follows from the
work of Pooladi - Danish ef ~1. : a suppressed gas relative
permeability curve with essentially normal critical gas
satmation.

&ridge ef al. proposed asphaltene precipitation as a

mechanism for Smiths? postulated reduced viscosity of
foamy oil. Viscosities of mixtures are strongly correlated
with the long-chain molecules, so asphaltene precipitation,
if it occurs, could cause such an effect In addition they
extended Smith? view that abmdant asphaltene content
may act as dispersed nucleation sites for the formation of
Islam er uZ.14 showed that
dispersed microbubbles.
microbubbles could form in capillary tubes and porous
media, reduciug the effective viscosity of the two-phase
fluid. Their work also partially validated the work of
Smith* and Claridge et al. , suggesting that asphaltenes
had a major role in foamy oil flow.

Fiiy,
MUte previous authors who have either shown
generic results of their foamy oil models or who have not
shown specific results against actual field data, we history
match our model with u&al field data and disphy the
results of the evahration.

FIELD SELECTlON

Several heavy oil fields namely the Lindbergh/Frog Lake,

Elk Point and Edam were investigated to determine which
wells displayed evidence of cold production. The well that
best demonstrated cold production was located iu the Edam
tield at 12-3248-19W3.

Other authors hold different views. The laboratory work of

Maiui et al. Is and Sarma ef al. I6noted that, although in situ
foam formation was very benefmial for mcreasing oil
recovery, they attributed the benefit to a greatly increased
apparent critical gas saturation (-40%). They specitically
saw no evidence that the presence of microbubbles
enhanced the mobility of the heavy oil - rather, as in
conventional solution-gas-drive reservoirs, the oil mobility
decreused
due to gas nucleation (emphasis added).
Likewise, the experiments of Pooladi-Danish ei al.,
found that oil phase mobility was not improved upon
formation of the gas phase.

This well was on conventional production for 12 years with

an oil production rate ranging between l-3 m3/d. In 1992,
the well was considered for abandonment but was instead
used as a pilot well for cold production. The response was
excellent: oil rate increased from the conventional
production rate to approximately 15-20 m3/d.
The increase in oil rate is consistent with cold production,
where oil rates typically increase from 2-5 m3/d to
lO+m?d.
The gas-oil ratio from cold production is
systematically low (-20 m3/m3) due to the gas entminment
in the cold production mousse, which may remain in
Signiticant
solution for an extended period of tune.
volumes of water were produced with water cuts as high as

Although there are two camps with regard to the issue of

the in situ mobility of foamy oil, there is good agreement
on the issue of gas mobility.
The resuhs of
Pooladi-Darvish er al im@ied that gas flow was not in
the form of simultaneously flowing microbubbles - gas
flowed intermittently.
They suggest that, even though
3

90 %.
Current geological interpretation supports the
presence of aquifers to the north and the west of well
12-32-4819w3.
Production wells to the north
(13-32-4819W3) and to the west (8-3148-19W3), both
exhibit similar water production profiles as the 12-32 well.

RESERVOIR

compressibility and abating pressure decline. Wate

relative permeability was typical of a heavy oil system.
Overall, the primary mechanisms used to model foam flov
were wormholes (geomechanical effects) and a modifiec
gas relative permeability (fluid effects).

MODEL DESCRIPTION
MODEL INITIALIZATION
PARAMETERS

The model was wnsnucted using Landmark Graphics

Vectorized Implicit Program (VIP) numerical reservoir
simulator.
The model consisted of a block-centered
17 x 17 areal grid with six vertical layers. Grid block
dimensions were
10 mx 10 m at the well and
systematically increased outward to a maximum of
30 m x 30 m, and 3 m thickness per layer. Complete grid
dimensions are mmmarized in Table 1. Based on available
logs for the 12-32 well and other surromuhng wells, the
logs were interpreted and the average reservoir properties
derived were input into the model. The logs indicated a
warsenhg
upward
sequence
with
porosity
of
approxhnately 33 %. Table 2 shows the geological
properties utilized in the simulation model.

AND TUNING

The reservoir model was initialized with an average

reservoir pressure of 4500 kPa (653 psi) at a datmn depth
of 440 mSS. The water-oil wntact level was 457 mSS
located in the bottom third segment of layer six. A weak
aquifer was employed, acting upon the bottom layer of the
model. The absolute permeability and porosity varied
between layers as interpreted from available log
information. The extent of the reservoir model was based
on a drainage area of 8.4~ha (290 m x 290 m) and a tota!
net pay thickness of 17 m, resulting in an original
oil-in-place volume (GRIP) of 324 x IO3 m3 (2.0 MMSTB).

In cold production, the use of specialized pumping

equipment is employed.
This aggressive pumping is
associated with the production of large volumes of
unconsolidated sand, resulting in higher oil production
rates.
The produced saud results in near wellbore
geometry modifications through the generation of
increased porosity and permeability. This altered geometry
may have various wniiguralions including piping tubes
(wormholes). To model the wormholes, a tmnsmissiiility
multiplier function (IMF) was employed in the simulation
model. The TMF applied an increasing transmissibility
multiplier as a fimction of decreasing reservoir pressure.
Since tmnsmissiiity
is a function of grid block geometry
and permeability, it atlows for a dynamic and implicit
permeability increase due to sand fhddization and
pmduction.
Figure 1 Ustrams
the tmnsmissibility
multiplier function utilized in the model.

The model was initialized with a TMF, which became

active only during the cold production period.
To achieve the history match, various parameters were
modified including relative permeability curves, Th@,
absolute vertical and horizontal permeabilities, rock
wmpressibility, skin factor and aquifer strength.
By
tuning these parameters, an acceptable match of oil, gas
and water rates was achieved. Reservoir properties entered
into the model are presented in Table 3.

PRODUCTlON

HISTORY

MATCH

Figures 4 - 7 show the production history match for well

12-32-48-19W3. A match on pressure was not attempted
due to a lack of pressure data.

A fluid analysis was unavailable for the Edam well;

therefore, characteristic PVT data fi-om an analogous pool
in the Lloydminster region was used in the model.
Relative permeability curves from other analogous fields
were employed, and were also modified during the history
matching process, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Gas
relative permeability typically has a critical saturation of
2 %; however, in this case, the k,.r curve was suppressed up
to au apparent critical gas saturation of 40 %. Gas
evolution was the same as in conventional solution gas
systems but with greatly suppressed mobility. Therefore,
the gas remained in sihr longer pmviding higher system

TMF and Oil Rate

Since no pressure data was available, the first matching
pammeter was the oil rate, in wnjlmction with targeting
acceptable bottom-hole pressure values.
This was
achieved by tuning the magnitude of the TMF in
conjunction with other variables. The well was given a
skin factor of +3.5 during the pre-cold production period to
achieve a reasonable bottom-hole pressure while meeting
the historical flow rate. Conversely, the well was given a
-3.0 skin factor at the start of the cold production period

The -55 m radius of the region was not

match.
unreasonable in terms of the volumes implied by
observations of others.*0

representative of the enhanced inflow performance at the

well face, resulting from the sand production.
The TMF was applied globally throughout the reservoir
model, and became effective only at the start of the cold
production phase. The wormholes (areas of increased
transmissibility dictated by the TMF) were generated
implicitly based on the associated pressure drop with
increasing oil production rates at the wellbore, and
extended some distance away from the well. The resulting
wormhole geometry in the model was generally mdial.
Literature suggests that the typical shapes of the
wormholes are elliptical. The model predicted a generaIly
radial geometry due to (i) the predominantly homogeneous
reservoir modeled, and (ii) being a single well model; there
were no other nearby wells to create pressure sinks that
would promote wormhole generation in a preferential
direction. We would also note that the pressure influence
of the bottom aquifer suppressed wormhole growth at the
bottom of the model because of the pressure dependence of
theTMF

Gas Rate
The gas production that was measured in the field is likely
understated. It can take up to several days for the gas to
evolve from solution iu the stock tank and a percentage of
the total gas volume may be lost to the atmosphere. As a
result, the gas production that was reported may have large
uncertainties.
The historical gas production displayed a short-lived spike
of gas at the begimdng of the cold production period,
which was not modeled, because it was thought to be
anomalous. The gas production profile was achieved by
ahering the -tm.srelative permeabibty, mck compaction and
the TMF curve, while maintaining the oil rate match.
Water Rate
During the cold production period, a gradual increase in
water production was observed, associated with the
increasing oil rate. The fd water late match was attained
by modifications to water relative permeability, k&, ratio,
water-oil contact and aquifer strength.
Relative
permeability
permeability
and
absolute
vertical
adjustments dictated the water break-through time, and the
strength of the aquifer function affected the water
production trend.

Several evaluation nms were conducted adjusting the TMF

curve in order to achieve an acceptable history match on
oil rate. Modltications included adjusting the degree of
negative slope and adjustment to the pressure at which
the tmnmmmiiility multiplier was activated (TMF > 1).
The pressure where the TMF became invoked was
determined using the average reservoir pressure in the
simulator at the end of the pm-cold production era. This
fixed the curve at one end, and the slope of the wncluding
TMF was determined by history matching the historical oil
rate during the wld-pmduciion phase.

MODEL SENSlTlVlTlES

Model sensitivity was conducted by examining the effect

of varying the oil viscosity, rock compressibility and TMF,
and comparing the results with the history match (base
case).

Modifications to the TMF were wnshained by the higher

oil production rates in the cold production phase. The
simulation model had a primary wnstmint of oil rate, and a
secondary bottom-hole pressure wnsimint of 450 kPa
(65 psi). This yielded a good match for the oil rate (the
simulator was capable of meeting the set rates), with au
acceptable bottom-hole pressure during the foamy period.
To achieve
au acceptable
bottom-hole
pressure
@mnped-off system), the well skin factor and global
permeability were used as tuning parameters. The inability
of the model to fully attain prescribed oil rates during the
foamy period was a result of the well being pumped&f
and was symptomatic of near-perfect tuning. Rock
wmpressibillty was also adjusted during the history
matching process, using a range of values typical for heavy
oil reservoirs.

The model sensitivity to oil viscosity was studied by

examining the effects of (i) doubling the oil viscosity
(4000 q) and (ii) halving the oil viscosity (1000 cp).
Figures 10 - 12 show the resulting oil rates, gas rates and
water rates. As expected, the more viscous oil (4000 cp)
could not meet the historical rates at the same conditions as
the base case. The more unfavorable mobility ratio forced
the simulator to switch from the primary consuaint of oil
rate to the secondary constraint of bottom-hole pressure
thus failing to meet the targeted oil rate. For the case of
the less viscous oil (1000 cp). the simulator achieved all
historical oil rates, but failed to match the water production
rates due to mobility issues. Both scenarios could be
history matched by minor adjustment of the Th@ and
relative permeability curves. Compared with the base case

The resulting enhanced tmnsmissibillty region (wormhole

region) is shown in Figures 8 and 9 at the end of the history
5

on the fmdings supporting the modeling capabilities, with

respect to geomechanical and fluid effects typical of
reservoirs under cold production, a full field study could be
simulated applying these mechanisms.

oil recovery of 9.2 % OOIP, at the end of the history

matching period, the oil recoveries for the high and low
viswsity cases were 6.5 % and 9.2 %, respectively.
The effect of reservoir compressibility was investigated by
increasing and decreasing rock compressibility by tive
times. The results of this sensitivity are presented in
Figures 13 -15, illustrating the oil, gas and water rate
responses. The results indicate that the system was not
overly sensitive to the rock compressibility.
The
differences in oil rates between the cases examined were
negligible when compared to the base case.
Water
production rates for the case of iucreased rock
compressibility were lower when compared to the base
case, primarily due to the relatively lower pressure
drawdown.
Conversely, water rates mcreased due to
greater pressure dmwdown with decreased formation
wmpresstbility. The much greater mobiiw of water than
oil made it more responsive to the changes in drawdown

With a history matched model, evahmtions can be

performed to investigate the sensitivity of foamy oil to
parameters such as reservoir pressure, operating strategies
and secondary or tertiary recovery processes.

CONCLUSIONS
l

The TMF derived from the history match was decreased by

a factor of three to ill~te
the effect of the wormbole
generation.
The reduction in TMF was essentially a
reduction in allowable wormhole generation, impacting
production signiticantly as illustrated in Figures 16-18.
The oil rate, gas rate and water rate all failed to meet
historical values as a result of the degraded inflow
performance. At the end of the history matching period,
the oil recovered was 7.9 % OOLP, compared to 9.2 % for
the base case.

Foamy oil behavior can be matched with geomechanical

and fluid effects.
Transmissibility
enhancements provide a realistic
method to model wormhole growth. The transmlssibity
(permeability enhancements) grew larger as pressure
decreased
(i.e.,
as pressure
drop
increased),
representative of the mechanism and effect of actual
reservoir wormhole growth-

* A suppressed gas relative permeability was important. It

also helped to abate pressure decline and to keep the
system compressibility higher.
l

DISCUSSION

In general, the increased oil production correlates with

sand production, implying that sand pmduction impmves
iuflow performance
by increasing
the effective
permeability of the formation
This effect of increased
permeability has been successfully modeled by the
implementation of the TMF, testimony to the pmduction
history match. Based on the evaluations conducted, the
model was most sensitive to the TMF and oil viscosity; the
model was relatively insensitive to rock compressibility.
Additionally, a test case was run to determine if the foamy
oil behavior could be matched with only wormhole effects
(i.e., without a suppressed gas relative permeability). The
model results indicated that the production data wnld not
be matched without modification to the gas relative
permeability.
Therefore, modeling foamy oil behaviour
required a combination of both fluid effects and
geomechanical effects as suggested in the litemtme.

Consistent with the regional description, au aquifer was

required to match the water production, which could not
be matched through other mechanisms.
Taken together
the transmissibility enhancements
(simulating wormhole growth) and suppressed gas
relative permeability were shown to effectively match
historical cold production behavior. To our knowledge
this is the tirst demonstmtion of any such cold
production match documented in the petroleum
literature.
Fmdings presented can be applied to full field simulation
of
models to investigate various wIlfigmaliolls
forecasting scenarios and production strategies.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

The information presented here was solely based on a

single well model ,with an areally homogeneous reservoir,
and liited information regarding fhdd properties. Based

3.

Chugh, S., Baker, R., Telesford, A. and Zhang, E.,

Mainstream Options for Heavy Oil: Part I - Cold
Production, Paper 97-99, 48 Ammal Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society, June 1997, Calgary.
Smith, G.E., Fluid Flow and Sand Production in
Heavy Oil Reservoirs Under Solution Gas Drive, SPE
Prod. Eng., May 1988.
Elkins, L.F., Morton, R. and Blackwell, W.A.,
Experimental Fiiflood
in a Very Viscous OiiUnconsolidated Sand Restvoir, S.E. Pauls Valley

Field, Oklahoma, SPE 4086, 47 Ammal Fall

Meeting of the SPE, October 1972, San Antonio.
4. McCaf&ey, W.J. and Bowman
RD., Recent
Successes in Primary Bitumen Production, presented
at 1991 HOOS Technical Symposium Challenges and
Innovation.
5. Loughead, D.J. and Saltuklarogl~ M, Lloydminster
Heavy Oil Production - Why So Unusual?, Ninth
Ammal Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Technology
Symposium, March 1992, Calgary.
6. Squires, A.; Inter-Well Tracer Results and Gel
Blocking Program, March 1993.
7. Lebel, J.P., Performance Implications of Various
Reservoir Access Geometries (for cold heavy
oil/bitumen pmduction), Eleventh Ammal Heavy Oil
& Oil Sands Technology Symposium, 1994.
8. Metwally, M. and Solar&i, S.C., -Heavy Oil Reservoir
Mechanisms, Lindbergh and Frog Lake Fields, Alberta
- Part I: Field Observations
and Reservoir
Simulation, Paper 95-63, 46& Ammal Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, May 1995,
BXdT.
9. Solanki, S.C. and Metwally, M, Heavy Oil Reservoir
Mechanisms, Lindbergh and Frog Lake Fields, Alberta
- Part II: Geomechanical Evalmation, SPE 30249,
Heavy Oil Symposium, June 1995, Calgary.
10. Tremblay, B. Sedgwick, G. and Forshner, K,
Simulation of Cold Production in Heavy Oil
Reservoirs: Wormhole Dynamics, SPE/DOE 35387,
Tenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, April
1996, Tulsa.
11. Maini, B.B., Foamy Oil Flow in Heavy Oii
Production, JCPT, June 1996.
12. Claridge, E.L. and Pmts, M, A Proposed Model and
Mechanism for Anomalous Foamy Heavy Oil
Behavior, SPE 29243, unsolicited, August 1994.
13. Dusseault, M.B., Cold Production and Enhanced Oil
Recovery, JCPT, November 1993.
14. Islam, M.R and Chakma, A, Mechanics of Bubble
Flow in Heavy Oil Reservoirs, SPE 20070, 60
California Regional Meeting, April 1990, Ventura
15. Malni, B.B., Sarma, H.K. and George, A.E.,
Signiticance of Foamy-Oil Behaviour in Primary
Production of Heavy Oils, JCPT, November 1993.
16. Sarma, H.K. and Maini, B.B., Role of Solution Gas in
Primary Production of Heavy Oils, SPE 23631,
Second Latin American Petroleum Engineering
Conference, March 1992, Caracas.
17. Pooladi-Danish, M. and Firoozabadi, A., Solution
Gas Drive in Heavy Oil Reservoirs, Paper 97-113,
48 Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of CIM, June 1997, Calgary.
18. Kmus. W.P., McCafkey, W.J. and Boyd, G.W.,
Pseudo-Bubble Point Model for Foamy oils, Paper

9345, 44 Ammal Technical Meeting of

Petroleum Society of CIM, May 1993, Calgary.

tl

Table 1 - Model Grid Block Dimensions

Grid Block

x-direction
dimensior 1(ml

30
25
20
15
15
15

Table 2 - Model Geological

y-direction
dimension (m)

zdirection
dimension (m)

30
25
20
15
15

3
3
3
3
3

15

Properties

Table 3 - Model Reservoir Properties

Property

Value

hitialPressure

4500 kpa
7.40 E-6 kFd
440 mSS
457 mSS
12OAPI
1.09
13 m/m
2000 cp

Rock Compressibility
Datum Depth
Water-Oil Contact
Oil Gmvity
Formation Volume Factor, B,
Solution Gas, R,
Oil Viscosity, b

Figure

zoo0

1 -Transmissibility

2500

Multiplier

Function

3500

3ooo

4ooo

Average Grid Block Pressure (kPa)

Figure 2 -Water-Oil

Relative

Permeability

0.8

0.6

I
I

I
I

-vrx1,

I
I

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.6

0.4
water Sahlratlon

4-----I

(liacllon)

Figure 3 - Gas-Oil

Relative

Permeability

3
P
0
E
a

0.8
0.6

2
g! 0.4
=
d
P

02

Gas Saturation (fraction)

0.8

1
I
I

Figure

4 - History

Match

of Oil Rate vs. Time

30

25

20
G
2
E.
al
z
lx
=

15

10

0
1979

1981

1984

1987

1990

1992

1995

1998

Date

Figure

5 - History

Match

of Gas Rate vs. Time

7.5 f
.=

6-

E
0
E
a
E

4.5 -~

.
.
,:
#
00

Historical

..
8
.

-Simulator

I
3--

.
.
.

%
0
1.5 -

.
.

0 ,
1979

1981

1984

1987

1990
Date

1992

1995

1998

Figure

Match

of Water

Rate vs. lime

Historical

6 - History

-Simulator

1979

1981

1984

1987

1990

1992

1995

1998

Date

Figure

7 - History

Match

of Water

Cut vs. Time

100 _I
l

Historical
.

-Simulator
80

1979

1981

1984

1987

1990
Date

1992

1995

J
I

1998

Figre -Areal View of Enhanced TransmissibilityRegion Q&fom,hole)at end of Hitiory Match

,$I
0.00

,,,,

I
,,bi,lbl

I,,,

I
3,Eb.lfsl,,l

: ,;::-.::i<:$
-;?y&$j
4.ob

Figure 9 - Cross-Sectional View of Enh

anced TransmissibilityRegion (Wormhole) at end of

History Match

Figure 10 - Oil viscosity Sensitivity for Oil Rate vs. Time

25
20
15
10
5
0
,979

,981

1084

1987

,990

1302

1995

1s38

Figure 11 -Oil Viscosity Sensitivity for Gas Rate vs. Time

,981

1979

1084

1987

1090

1992

,995

1598

Figure 12 -Oil viscosity Sensitivity for Water Rate vs. Time

Figure 13 - Rock Compressibility Sensitivity for Oil Rate vs. Time

-1SE61wa

5 15
B
2
; 10

0
,979

,981

1984

,087

,990

1992

,995

1998

oak

Figure 14 - Rock Compressibility Sensitivity for Gas Rate vs. Time

0.7
0.6
3
E
0
;;
z
z
a
0

0.5
0.4
0.3
02
0.7
0
1979

1981

,984

1087

1090

1092

,995

1000

Dabe

Figure 15 - Reek Compressibility Sensitivity for Water Rate vs. Time

----1SE*

1979

,981

LE-.

HismyMach

1904

1987

,990
Da?

,092

1995

1098

Figure 16 - TMF Sensitivity for Oil Rate vs. Time

I

1970

,981

We4

1987

II

1990

oak

,902

1995

,098

Figure 17 - 7MF Sensitivity for Gas Fate vs. Time

I
0.6
I
-TMF

0.6 --

3 0.4 E
0

.,

2
1 o2

19-m

n.

x 0.3
0

0.7

.
*

.:.
.:

. TMF.HistoryMatch
i

0
.

-a.

xm

1981

,904

,987

1090

,092

1.

r I
,995

1995

Date

Figure 18 - TMF Sensitivity for Water Rate vs. Time

I

ea
. TMF.HistoryMatch

40

20

0
1970

1981

1984

1990

1987
oate

,992

,995

1590