SPE-174449-MS

Thermal Formation Damage and Relative Permeability of Oil Sands of the

Lower Cretaceous Formations in Western Canada
U. G. Romanova, T. Ma, and M. Piwowar, Weatherford Laboratories Canada; R. Strom, Calgary Rock and
Materials Services Inc.; J. Stepic, JMS Geological Consultants

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 9 –11 June 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Canada ranks third in the world in terms of oil reserves which are primarily heavy oil and oil sands. In
situ production of heavy oil and bitumen by thermal methods based on steam injection is a commercial
technology. However, as the availability of better quality deposits is declining, the industry is moving
towards development of lower quality oil sands. Lower quality oil sands are typically finer, have lower
initial oil saturation and a more complex mineralogy.
Thermal formation damage associated with steam injection is discussed in the paper in regards to oil
sands located in the Lower Cretaceous formations in Western Canada. The focus of the paper is the
McMurray, Clearwater and Grand Rapids oil deposits. Petrographic data (thin section analysis, X-ray
diffraction and scanning electron miscroscopy) and physical rock properties are used to compare three oil
sand formations. Results of laboratory experiments to obtain relative permeability data and evaluate
thermal formation damage are discussed. Examples of the high temperature-high pressure water-oil
relative permeability and steamflood data for three formations are presented. The paper shows that thermal
formation damage is reservoir specific.
A multidisciplinary approach is needed to obtain a good understanding of oil sand deposits, in
particular lowerquality reservoirs. Laboratory testing to evaluate formation damage effects and obtain
relative permeability data is essential for reservoir simulation and feasibility studies for a specific project.
Introduction
Heavy oil and bitumen account for more than double the resources of conventional oil in the world. There
are large resources of heavy oil and bitumen in Venezuela, Canada, Russia, United States and many other
countries [1]. Canada ranks third in the world in terms of oil reserves most of which are in oil sands
containing over 176 bln barrels of extra heavy oil and bitumen. Extra heavy oil and bitumen in oil sands
have API gravity in the range from 5 to 10 degrees and viscosity at reservoir conditions as high as 1 mln
cP or even higher [2]. Bitumen from oil sands is produced by both surface mining and by in- situ recovery.
Steam injection is proven to be an efficient technology for bitumen production in situ. Cyclic Steam
Stimulation (CSS) and Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) are commonly used [3]. The multiphase
flow interference effects associated with steam, steam condensate and bitumen moving concurrently
2 SPE-174449-MS

through the pore system is represented by relative permeability curves. As such, these curves play an
important role in determining the efficiency and ultimate economics of a thermal recovery process and the
future of a particular project. Results of relative permeability and steamflood studies conducted on oil
sands from different formations in Western Canada are reported elsewhere [4–9]. As conventional oil and
availability of better quality oil sands continue to decline, the industry is moving towards development of
more challenging reservoirs, including lower quality oil sands. Lower quality oil reservoirs are charac-
terized by lower oil saturation, lower permeability, lower recovery and higher potential of thermal
formation damage. Relative permeability curves for lower quality oil sands differ from that for better
quality oil sands.
Thermal formation damage associated with injection of hot water and steam has been studied since the
beginning of in-situ heavy oil and bitumen production by thermal methods. Steam injection in heavy oil
and oil sand reservoirs is known to cause the following:
● mineralogical diagenetic alterations in reservoir rock [10–12]
● formation of emulsions [13]
● changes in asphaltene structure what may lead to increase in oil viscosity [14]
● scale formation and corrosion of liners [15]
● wettability alteration [10]
● silica dissolution and precipitation [16].
Recent work of the authors of the paper show that permeability reduction in heavy oil and oil sand core
in steamflooding might be caused by fines migration, salinity shock, critical filtration and injection of
water with an oil slug. Either one or a combination of these factors might cause permeability impairment
of a reservoir. As of today, there is still no comprehensive understanding of all phenomena what would
allow simulation and prediction of oil recovery and reservoir permeability depending on a specidic
reservoir and specific operational conditions.
The focus of the paper is a comparison of the oil sands from three major oil sand formations in Western
Canada (McMurray, Clearwater and Grand Rapids) from a standpoint of thermal formation damage and
its effect on relative permeability.

Oil Sands of the Lower Cretaceous Formations in Western Canada

Most of the Canadian oil reserves are associated with oil sands located in the Western Canadian
Sedimentary Basin in the Peace River, Cold Lake and Athabasca areas. Oil sands contain bitumen in the
McMurray, Wabiskaw, Clearwater and Grand Rapids formations of the Lower Cretaceous period [2].
Main geological attributes of oil sands deposits are provided in Table 1.
SPE-174449-MS 3

Table 1—Geological attributes of oil sands

The McMurray formation consists of uncemented quartz sand with a very uniform, mature mineralogy
and little clay content, primarily kaolinite and illite. Channel sands have excellent reservoir characteris-
tics: air permeability in the range from 5 to 10 D, 30-40% porosity and initial oil saturation above 80 %.
Typical pay zones in McMurray are on the order of 20 to 40 m. Since the beginning of the development
of Canadian oil sands, the McMurray formation has been the primary target. Surface mining and the
following extraction processes allow over 90% of bitumen recovery. SAGD can achieve bitumen recovery
of up to 60% of oil in place.
Oil sands in the Wabiskaw, Clearwater and Grand Rapids formations are currently also under
development. Compared to the McMurray oil sand, oil sand deposits in these three formations are more
challenging. The Wabiskaw formation is typically a finer sand and is relatively thinner reservoirs. The
Clearwater and Grand Rapids sediments are characterized by a more complex mineralogy and typically
have somewhat poorer reservoir characteristics than the McMurray deposits (lower air permeability and
porosity and lower initial oil saturation) what leads to a lower oil recovery.
While quartz is the main grain mineral in the McMurray and Wabiskaw oil sand, the Grand Rapids oil
sand contains a fair amount of chert, feldspar and rock fragments in addition to quartz. The dominant grain
minerals in the Clearwater deposits are quartz, feldspar, rock fragments and altered grains. Together with
kaolinite and illite, Grand Rapids and Clearwater deposits have other clay minerals that are more sensitive
to water: namely chlorite and smectite. All of this makes the Grand Rapids and Clearwater oil sands
deposits more sensitive to formation damage from steam injection.
4 SPE-174449-MS

Wabiskaw formation and Upper McMurray formation are very similar and often no clear boundary
between them is defined. Both laboratory and field data for Wabiskaw are limited. Therefore Wabiskaw
is not discussed in the paper.

Procedures and Equipment

Oil sand samples are subjected to a petrographic analysis. Petrography included thin section preparation
and analysis, X-ray diffraction (XRD) - Bulk and Clay and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Thin
section images were obtained in both white and polarized light. Rietveld refinement method is used to
obtain XRD data. Clay species are normalized to 100%. Clay fraction ⬍5 micron wt% includes both clay
species and non-clay species; e.g. quartz). Amray 1820 I/D microscope was used for the SEM analysis.
High temperature-high pressure waterflood and steamflood data are obtained on the preserved (frozen)
core at full reservoir conditions as described elsewhere [6–9]. Baseline permeability to oil is measured at
80°C, temperature of bitumen mobilization (temperature Ti). Waterflood is conducted at the same
temperature. A solution of 1 wt% NaCl is used in the waterlood to represent formation brine. End point
relative permeability to hot water is measured at higher temperatures (T5 ⬎ T4 ⬎ T3 ⬎ T2 ⬎ T1).
Evaluation of thermal formation damage in oil sand core due to hot water and steam is also done by
conducting areactor test. The test included conducting exposure of oil sand plugs to steam in a reactor at
pressure and temperature and conducting petrography on the pre and post test core.
Sendra™ is used in the study to generate relative permeability curves obtained in the laboratory
experiments. Sendra™ is based upon a two-phase 1D black-oil simulation model together with an
automated history matching routine – estimation – utilized to reconcile time- and spatially dependent
experimental data.

Formation Damage Potential of Oil Sands

McMurray Formation
Thin section images and SEM images for typical McMurray oil sand are presented in Figure 1 and Figure
2, respectively. Table 2 contains XRD – Bulk and Clay data.
SPE-174449-MS 5

Figure 1—Thin section images of typical McMurray oil sand

Figure 2—SEM images of typical McMurray oil sand

6 SPE-174449-MS

Table 2—XRD - Bulk and Clay data for typical McMurray oil sand

Thin section and SEM imaging shows open porosity and a small amount of fines, primarily kaolinite
(Al2Si2O5(OH)4). Kaolinite is the most common clay in oil sands. It can migrate in the porous media.
Migration of kaolinite may or may not cause plugging – this depends on the physical core properties
(porosity and permeability), pore structure and flow rate. Thus, laboratory tests often show that post steam
core is almost 100% quartz while pre test core may have 5% of fines. In that case, fines, primarily
kaolinite, is removed from the core with oil during steamflooding.
The core is of somewhat lower permeability and kaolinite particles are not removed from the porous
media duringthe hot waterflood/steamflood, kaolinite can alter to smectite (NaAl7Si11O3(OH)6) in a
diagenetic reaction:

In the contact with fresh water, smectite can swell causing reduction of core porosity and permeability.
Hard-to-break emulsions are a problem in heavy oil and oil sands. Such emulsions are stabilized by
asphaltenes and fine solids, kaolinite and silt in particular [17, 18]. Flow of emulsion in a reservoir causes
permeability impairment [13].
McMurray oil sand may contain amorphous silica (SiO2). Silica dissolution and precipitation is an
issue in some clastics reservoirs. Silica scale is very hard to remove. Behavior of amorphous silica is
governed by pH and temperature [16] and follows the following reactions:

For sand control design, particle size diameter, shape of the grains (roundness and sphericity) and the
amount of fines need to be taken into account and evaluated [19, 20]. Plugging of liners by fines,
especially if the amount of fines is higher than 5 wt% can be an issue in the McMurray oil sands.

Clearwater Formation
Thin section images and SEM images for typical Clearwater oil sand are presented in Figure 3 and Figures
4–5, respectively. Table 3 contains XRD – Bulk and Clay data.
SPE-174449-MS 7

Figure 3—Thin section images of typical Clearwater oil sand

Figure 4 —SEM images of typical Clearwater oil sand showing kaolinite and smectite
8 SPE-174449-MS

Figure 5—SEM images of typical Clearwater oil sand showing feldspar and berthierine

Table 3—XRD - Bulk and Clay data for typical Clearwater oil sand

Thin section and SEM images show that the sand is finer grained than typical McMurray and has a
more complex mineralogy.
Clearwater oil sand can be rich in kaolinite and smectite (Figure 4) or can contain berthierine and
feldspar (Figure 5). The empirical formula of feldspar is KAlSi3O3. The empirical formula of berthierine
is Fe2⫹1.5AlFe3⫹0.2Mg0.2Si1.1Al0.9O5(OH)2. Berthierine is a distinct pore lining clay mineral found in the
Clearwater. The main concern is permeability reduction due to clay located in the pore throat areas.
SPE-174449-MS 9

In steamflood operations, feldspar can become kaolinite which later can form smectite [19]:

Other reactions, involving smectite, are also possible [19]:

In steam injection operations, especially if steam temperature exceeds 200°C, generation of acid gases,
primarity H2S and CO2 due to aquathermolysis reactions take place [22–24]. As a result, the environment
becomes acidic. In the acidic environment, smectite can become kaolinite and quartz (SiO2) or chlorite
(Fe4Mg4Al6Si6O20(OH)16):

If temperature and pH are high and Na⫹ cations are present in a solution, kaolinite and smectite can
become zeolite [21]. An example of zeolite is Na2Al2Si3O102H2O. Possibly such reactions take place in
CSS operations in the Clearwater formation as temperature of CSS operations is typically higher than that
in SAGD.
Grand Rapids Formation
Thin section images and SEM images for typical Grand Rapids oil sand are presented in Figure 6 and
Figure 7, respectively. Table 4 contains XRD – Bulk and Clay data.

Figure 6 —Thin section images of typical Grand Rapids oil sand

10 SPE-174449-MS

Figure 7—SEM images of typical Grand Rapids oil sand

Table 4 —XRD - Bulk and Clay data for typical Grand Rapids oil sand

Grand Rapids oil sand is known to be rich in rock fragments and feldspar, both alkaline feldspar and
plagioclase. The empirical formula of plagioclase is NaAlSi3O8 – CaAl2Si2O8. A very high amount of
nonclay species (68%), as shown in Table 4, is due to partial grain dissolution which liberates quartz and
feldspar clay fines into the pore system.
Results of the study show both fines migration and alteration in mineralogical composition of the
Grand Rapids oil sand which includes transformation or dissolution of feldspar and transformation of
kaolinite to smectite.
SPE-174449-MS 11

Petrographic data clearly show differences in the mineralogical composition and morphology of the
McMurray, Clearwater and Grand Rapids oil sands. Mineralogy and morphology as well as physical core
properties of oil sands, heavy oil characteristics, formation water composition and operational practices
affect in situ permeability of oil sands and recovery factor in steam injection operations.

Typical Relative Permeability of Different Quality Oil Sands

High Temperature-High Pressure Waterflood and Steamflood Database

A database of the low and high temperature water-oil relative permeability and steamflood data for oil
sand from different formations in Western Canada has been built based on the results of the laboratory
studies collected for the last two decades [6–9].
Attempts have been made to find possible correlations of the low and high temperature relative
permeability characteristics. In many cases considerable variance in the data sets was observed which is
likely related to variability of oil sand and heavy oil/bitumen characteristics and test parameters. However,
general trends have been derived and are as follows:
1. Water-oil relative permeability curves are very suppressed and end point relative permeability to
water is typically in the 0.01 – 0.1 range.
2. Residual oil saturation decreases in hot water/steam flooding with an increase in temperature.
3. High temperature waterflood typically provides the highest oil recovery (70-90%) while a
steamflood after the waterflood improves oil recovery by less than 5%.
4. A general increasing trend of the brine permeability with increasing temperature is observed, with
the largest increase in brine permeability being noted at the temperature ⬍100°C.
5. Data from high temperature oilfloods conducted after waterflooding to examine hysteresis effects
show that as temperature increases, “trapped” water saturation increases.
6. Rock type (lithology, mineralogy and morphology) of oil sand has a strong effect on relative
permeability and recovery factor
Examples of high temperature-high pressure water-oil relative permeability curves and end point
relative permeability to brine and pre and post steam freshwater for the McMurray, Clearwater and Grand
Rapids oil sands are shown below. Test results provided in this paper should be used for illustraction
purposes only and are not meant to replace specific laboratory measurements for a particular reservoir and
a specific production method.

McMurray Formation
Relative permeability curves and end point relative permeability data for the McMurray oil sand are
provided in Figure 8. Figure 8A shows a data set for the better quality, coarser McMurray oil sand
(approximately 10 D air permeability, 38% porosity, 90 % PV initial oil saturation). Total oil recovery is
approximately 94 % PV. The data set shows that as temperature increases, end point brine permeability
increases, i.e. no formation damage takes place.
12 SPE-174449-MS

Figure 8 —Examples of high temperature-high pressure water-oil relative permeability and steamflood test results for typical McMurray
oil sand

Figure 8B shows a data set for the lower quality, finer McMurray oil sand. Oil recovery is approxi-
mately 90 % PV. It is slightly lower than that for the better quality oil sand. The end point brine
permeability decreases at the highest temperatures (T4 and T5) showing some formation damage.
Clearwater Formation
Relative permeability curves and end point relative permeability data for the Clearwater oil sand are
provided in Figure 9. Figure 9A shows a data set for the better quality, higher permeability Clearwater oil
sand (approximately 6 D air permeability, 38% porosity, 79 % PV initial oil saturation). Total oil recovery
is approximately 84 PV %. The data set shows that as temperature increases, end point brine permeability
increases, i.e. no formation damage takes place. The post steam end point relative permeability to water
is higher than that for the better quality McMurray oil sand (Figure 8A).

Figure 9 —Examples of high temperature-high pressure water-oil relative permeability and steamflood test results for typical Clearwater
oil sand
SPE-174449-MS 13

Figure 9B provides a data set for the lower quality Clearwater oil sand (approximately 4 D air
permeability, 36% porosity, 72 % PV initial oil saturation). End point relative permeability to water first
increases at lower temperature and then decreases at higher temperature (T4 and T5) when fresh water is
injected before and after the steam This is somewhat similar to what is observed for the lower quality
McMurray oil sand (Figure 8B) and is an indication of formation damage. Total oil recovery (almost 90
% PV) is also similar to that for the lower quality McMurray.
Grand Rapids Formation
Relative permeability curves and end point relative permeability data for the Grand Rapids oil sand are
provided in Figure 10. Figure 10A shows a data set for the better quality Grand Rapids oil sand
(approximately 3 D air permeability, 33% porosity, 86 % PV initial oil saturation).

Figure 10 —Examples of high temperature-high pressure water-oil relative permeability and steamflood test results for typical Grand
Rapids oil sand

One would expect a gradual increase in the end point relative permeability to hot water when
temperature increases. However, the end point point relative permeability reaches 0.12 at temperature T4
and then sharply drops to 0.01 when fream fresh water is injected at T5 prior to steam. After the
steamflood at T5, the end point relative permeability to fresh water improves slightly and reaches 0.04.
Total oil recovery is relatively low: approximately 82 % PV.
Figure 10B provides a data set for the lower quality Grand Rapids oil sand (approximately 2 D air
permeability, 32% porosity, 79 % PV initial oil saturation). The data set shows no formation damage as
the end point relative permeability to water increases with an increase in temperature. The end point
relative permeability to post steam fresh water flood at T5 reaches 0.3 what is the highest value among
all data sets presented in the paper. Total oil recovery is approximately 85 PV %.
Analysis of pre and post test core by thin section analysis, XRD – Bulk and Clay and SEM needs to
be conducted to obtain data on possible changes in mineralogy and morphology of the oil sand core. It
is also important to understand possible alterations in oil sand wettability during thermal production
operations. Cryogenic SEM might be a useful tool [25]. Pre and post test analysis of the core can be done
in both coreflood tests and reactor tests. Coreflood tests provide more realistic results as the effect of flow
rate can be taken into account. Collection and analysis of produced fluids might provide useful informa-
tion in regards to silica dissolution, fines migration and removal of fines by fluid flow.
14 SPE-174449-MS

Summary
Oil sands from the Lower Cretaceous formations in Western Canada, McMurray, Clearwater and Grand
Rapids, are discussed in the paper in terms of their reservoir characteristics, potential formation damage
mechanisms and relative permeability. Thermal formation damage is shown to be reservoir specific. In
general, thermal formation damage is more significant in lower quality oil sands. However, there are
exceptions. More work is needed for a better understanding of different quality oil sands and thermal
formation damage related to thermal production operations.

Acknowledgments
The authors want to express their gratitude to late Dr. D.B. Bennion for the contribution to the study.

References
1. Speight, J. Heavy Oil Production Processes, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2013, 354 p.
2. AOSTRA Technical Handbook on Oil Sands, Bitumens and Heavy Oils, edited by Hepler, L. G.
and His, C., AOSTRA, 1989, 376 p.
3. Oil Sands Today, 2015,, http://www.oilsandstoday.ca
4. Frizzell, D. F. Analysis of 15 Years of Thermal Laboratory Data: Relative Permeability and
Saturation Endpoint Correlations for Heavy Oils, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 23-26, 1990, SPE paper 20528.
5. Polikar,M., Ali, F. M. S., and Puttagunta, V. R., High Temperature Relative Permeabilities for
Athabasca Oil Sands, SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal, 1990, Vol. 5, Issue 01, p. 25–32, SPE
paper 17424-PA.
6. Bennion, D. B., Thomas, F. B., Schulmeister, B. E., and Ma, T. A Correlation of Water and
GasOil Relative Permeability Properties for Various Western Canadian Sandstone and Carbonate
Oil Producing Formations, Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Canada, June
11-13, 2002, paper 2002-066.
7. Bennion, D. B., Thomas, F. B., Schulmeister, B. E., and Ma, T. A Correlation of the Low and
High Temperature Water-Oil Relative Permeability Characteristics of Typical Western Canadian
Unconsolidated Bitumen Producing Formations, Canadian International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, Canada, June 13-15, 2006, paper 2006-092.
8. Bennion, D. B., Ma, T., Thomas, F. B., and Romanova, U. G. Laboratory Procedures for
Optimizing the Recovery from High Temperature Thermal Heavy Oil and Bitumen Recovery
Operations, Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Canada, June 12-14, 2007,
paper 2007-206.
9. Romanova, U. G., Piwowar, M., and Ma, T., An Overview of the Low and High Temperature
Water-Oil Relative Permeability for Oil Sands from Different Formations in Western Canada,
International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Avignon, France, September 8-11,
2014, paper SCA 2014-066.
10. Bennion, D. B., Thomas, F. B., and Sheppard, D. A. Thermally Induced Formation Damage Due
to Hot Water and Steamflooding in Sandstone Reservoirs, Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of Canada, CIM, June 7 – 10, 1992, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, paper 92-45.
11. Gunter W. D., Zhou, Z., and Perkins, E. H., Modeling Formation Damage Caused by Kaolinite
from 25 to 30 degrees Centrigrade in the Oil Sand Reservoirs of Alberta, 23786-PA SPE Journal,
1994.
12. Zhou, Z., Cameron, S., Kadatz, B., and Gunter, W. D., Clay Swelling Diagrams: Their Applica-
tions in Formation Damage Control, SPE Formation Damage Control Symposiumm Februrary
14-15, 1996, Lafayette, USA, SPE paper 31123-MS.
SPE-174449-MS 15

13. Bennion, D. B., Chan,M. Y. S., Sarioglu, G., Courtnage, D., Wansleeben, J., and Hirata, T., The
In-Situ Formation of Bitumen-Water-Stable Emulsions in Porous Media During Thermal Stim-
ulation, SPE International Thermal Operations Symposium, 8-10 February, 1993, Bakersfield,
California, SPE paper 25802-MS.
14. Ganeeva, Yu. M., Yusupova, T. N., and Romanov, G. V. Specific Features of the Formation of
Super Molecular Structures in Crude Oil and their Effect on Crude Oil Characteristics, Review of
the Institute of Organic and Physical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, Russia,
2013, 1–24.
15. Romanova, U. and Ma, T. An Investigation of the Plugging Mechanisms in a Slotted Liner from
the Steam Assisted Gravity Operations. SPE European Formation Damage Conference and
Exhibition, June 5-7, 2013, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, SPE paper 165111-MS.
16. Koh, C. J., Larson, D. C., and Murer, A. S., Permeability Damage in Diatomite Due to In-Situ
Silica Dissolution/Precipitation, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, April 21-24,
1996, Tulsa, USA, SPE paper 35394-MS.
17. Sztukowski, D. M. and Yarranton, H. W., Oilfield Solids and Water-in-Oil Emulsion Stabilty, J.
of Collidal and Interface Science, 285 (2005), pp. 821–833.
18. Romanova, U. G., Yarranton, H. W., Schramm, L. L., and Shelfantook, W. E., Investioation of
Oil Sands Froth Treatment, Canadian J. of Chemical Engineering, V. 82, August 2004, pp.
710 –721.
19. Romanova, U. G., Gillespie, G., Sladic, J., Ma, T., Solvoll, T. A., and Andrews, J. S. A
Comparative Study of Wire Wrapped Screens vs. Slotted Liners for Steam Assisted Gravity
Drainage Operations. Paper WHOC14-113, World Heavy Oil Congress 2014, New Orleans,
March 5-7, 2014.
20. Bennion, D. B., Gupta, S., Gittins, S., and Hollies, D. Protocols for Slotted Liner Design for
Optimum SAGD Operations. Paper 2008-186, Canadian International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 17 – 19, 2008.
21. Krinari, G. F., Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia, http://kpfu.ru, personal communications.
22. Clark, P. D., Clarke, R. A., and Hyne J. B., Aquathermolysis: the Chemical Reactions of Steam
with Heavy Oils – Emphasizing the Critical Role of Sulphur Compounds, ASRL Quaterly Bulletin,
Vo. XXIII, No. 1 & 2, April – September 1986.
23. Clark, P. D., Clarke, R. A., Lesage, K. L., and Hyne, J. B., The Behaviour of Various Oil Sands
Towards High Temperature Steam, ASPR Quaterly Bulletin, Vol. XXIV, No. 3 & 4, October 1987
– March 1988.
24. Petrukhina, N. N., Kayukova, G. P., Romanov, G. V. et al, Transformation of Highly Viscoius Oil
in Catalytic and Non-catalytic Aquathermolysis, Chemistry and Technology of Fuel and Oil, No.
4, 2014, p. 30 –37.
25. Stancliffe, R. P. W., DeBuhr, C., and Krause, F., Scanning Electron Microscopy of Bitumen
Saturated Sandstone, GeoConvention 2013 May 2013, Calgary, Canada, paper 020S1228I.