Role of Asphaltenes in Foamy Oil Flow

I. ADIL, B.B. MAINI

University of Calgary

Abstract
It has been suggested in several studies that there may be a link
between the presence of high asphaltenes content and the foamability of oil. However, a systematic examination of the impact of
asphaltenes on the performance of solution gas drive, in connection with foamy oil flow, has not been reported. This paper presents an experimental study that addresses this issue.
The objective of this work was to examine whether or not
the presence of asphaltenes has a strong influence on the performance of foamy solution gas drive. To this end, parallel solution gas drive experiments were conducted using a heavy crude
oil from the Lloydminster area and a deasphalted version of the
same oil. To eliminate the influence of oil viscosity, the viscosity
of the crude oil was reduced to the same level as that of the deasphalted oil by diluting it with a 50-50 mixture of heptane and
toluene. The experiments were carried out in a visual sandpack
that permits observation of bubble formation in the sand. The
results show that the presence of asphaltenes significantly promotes foamy oil flow.

Introduction
Noticeable progress in understanding the high efficiency of solution gas drive in heavy oil reservoirs has been made in recent
years. However, basic mechanisms and reservoir engineering parameters are still being evaluated(1). Some authors attribute the high
efficiency of solution gas drive in heavy oil reservoirs to foam, and
the term foamy oil is used to describe the process. The question of
how the foam forms and how it helps in improving the production
performance remains to be fully answered.
In order to explain this high primary production, two main
mechanisms have been proposed(1, 2). The first is the increase of
the drainage radius of the well by the formation of high permeability channels, called wormholes(3). The second mechanism is the
low gas mobility in heavy oil leading to gas retention that helps in
maintaining high pressures in the reservoirs. Low gas mobility is
explained by the high oil viscosity and its foamy nature.
Smith(4) was the first to propose a model in which the gas flow
was in the form of micro bubbles dispersed in the oil phase. Subsequently, Maini et al.(5) experimentally observed this dispersed
gas phase and called it Foamy Oil. This leads to the discussion
of how the foam is formed and its nature, stability and movement
in the formation rock. Although the foamy oil flow occurs in all
viscous oil systems, irrespective of whether or not the oil contains asphaltenes, it has been suggested that asphaltenes enhance
foaminess.

Claridge and Prats(6) proposed that bubble stability is related to

the asphaltenes adsorption at the gas-oil interface, which protects
bubbles against coalescence. However, experimental results on the
effect of asphaltenes are conflicting. In micromodel experiments,
Bora et al.(7) observed that asphaltenes lower coalescence rates.
Tang and Firoozabadi(8) did not observe any differences in comparing crude oil and silicon oil with similar viscosity. Other authors have suggested that foaming and surface properties of crude
oils change with the asphaltenes concentration(9-12). However, the
effect of asphaltenes on foamy oil flow remains unclear.
Asphaltenes are well known to help increase the viscosity of
crude. It is therefore possible that the foam stability in high asphaltenic crude is due to high viscosity rather than Claridges
proposed mechanism of asphaltenes adsorption at the gas-oil
interface.
Recently, Bouget et al.(12) presented results of their experiments
that showed a significant increase in foamability, bubble stability
and viscosity of crude at a higher than threshold asphaltenes concentration. This supports Claridges concept of the role of asphaltenes in foamy oil flow but it does not confirm the role of
adsorption at the gas-oil interface.
The aforementioned studies to elucidate the role of asphaltenes
were based on comparisons of oil samples from two different
sources, with one being asphaltenes-free or low in asphaltenes
concentration. To the best of our knowledge, a systematic study
to evaluate the role of asphaltenes that eliminates other extraneous
factors arising from the use of oils from different sources has not
been reported.
The work presented in this paper evaluates the impact of asphaltenes on foamy oil flow using oil samples from a single reservoir source. For the experiments, asphaltenes were removed from
part of the crude oil sample and the viscosity of the remaining oil
sample was lowered by diluting it with a 50-50 mixture of toluene
and heptane. Toluene is known to inhibit asphaltenes precipitation,
while heptane promotes asphaltenes precipitation. The 50-50 mixture of toluene and heptane was selected to make the diluent neutral in precipitation characteristics. Parallel flow tests at various
depletion rates were carried out to compare the results of the diluted oil and the deasphalted oil.

Sandpack Depletion Tests

Apparatus
The equipment used for the solution gas drive experiments is
shown schematically in Figure 1. A transparent sandpack model
of 101.3 cm 3.17 cm 4.9 cm size that allowed direct visual observations of gas bubbles and their movement was packed with
dry sand. The sand used to prepare the sandpack was clean silica,

PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
18

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 1: Equipment setup for the depletion experiments.

round grain sand of 140 200 mesh size that was washed to remove fines prior to packing in the sandpack holder. The model was
vibrated on a heavy duty vibration table during packing to obtain
a uniform packing density. The properties of the sandpack used in
primary depletion tests are listed in Table 1. The measured porosity
of 35.5% confirms that a relatively dense packing was obtained by
this method.
A back pressure regulator (BPR) was used to control the pressure at the production port of the sandpack. A mass flow controller
that discharged gas at constant mass rate from a nitrogen gas cylinder connected to the gas dome of the back pressure regulator was
used to reduce the pressure in the dome of the back pressure regulator. The constant rate of mass flow out of a pressurized gas tank
results in a nearly linear decline in the pressure in the tank. Since
the tank was connected to the dome of the BPR, we get a constant
decline rate of pressure at the production port of the sandpack.
Produced oil flowed into a 4 L transparent plexiglas vessel
placed on an electronic balance to monitor the oil production rate.
The produced gas was collected in a 9.6 L pressure vessel connected to the oil collection vessel. The gas production rate was
determined by the increase in the pressure of the gas collection
cylinder.
An automated data acquisition system was employed to record the oil production rate, gas production rate, core temperature
and values of gauge pressures at inlet and production ends of the
sandpack.

Oil Preparation
A heavy oil sample of 15.7API gravity was obtained from the
Golden Lake Field in Lloydminister, Canada. Viscosity of this oil
was measured with a rotational viscometer and was found to be
9,800 mPas at 20C. At a room temperature of 23C, the viscosity
was 5,500 mPas.
Asphaltenes were removed from about 3 L of the crude oil by
precipitating them with pentane using a volume ratio of crude to
pentane of 1:20. The precipitated asphaltenes were allowed to

agglomerate for at least 24 hrs and subsequently filtered out with 8

micron filters. The pentane was removed from the deasphalted oil
by vacuum distillation. About 950 ml of original crude oil yielded
700 ml of deasphalted oil. As a result of deasphalting, the API
gravity increased from 15.7 to 19.6. The fraction of material removed from the original oil was 26.3% by volume and 28% by
weight.
To eliminate the influence of oil viscosity, the viscosity of the
original crude oil was reduced to the level of the deasphalted oil by
mixing (17.7% by volume) a diluent mixture of heptane and toluene, containing 50 vol% heptane. The oil viscosity was measured
with the help of a rotational viscometer and later verified with a
capillary tube viscometer at several flow rates. A fluid of known
viscosity was used to calibrate both viscometers.
Recombined oil (also referred to as live oil) was prepared by
saturating the oil at 2.76 MPa (400 psi) with methane gas in a high
pressure mixer. The mixing was continued until pressure in the gas
phase above the liquid oil became stable and the solution gas-oil
ratio (GOR) stopped changing. The solution gas-oil ratio was measured by taking small samples from the mixer and analyzing them
with a separator.

Experimental Procedure
The sandpack in an upright position was evacuated for more
than three hours before it was saturated with water to measure the
pore volume. Its absolute permeability was measured by flowing
water through it and measuring the flow rate and the pressure gradient. Subsequently, dead oil (at least 1.5 PV) was injected to displace the water, pressure up the system to 2.76 MPa (400 psi) and
measure the effective oil permeability.
At a sandpack pressure of 2.76 MPa (400 psi), live oil was injected for over 1.5 PV or until the inlet and outlet pressures were
stable and the solution GOR in the produced oil was same as in the
injected oil. At the late stages of live oil injection, the produced solution GOR was measured regularly to ascertain the complete displacement of dead oil.
Once a uniform fluid was established in the sandpack, the live
oil injection was stopped and the system was allowed to equilibrate for at least six hours to allow the pressure and temperature
to become uniform. Thereafter, the outlet valve was opened and
the solution gas drive test started. The produced live oil volume
was determined from the weight of oil collected in the production vessel. The produced gas volume was determined from the recorded gas pressure and the volume of the gas. The pressure data
and balance readings were recorded every minute.
In this experimental work, we were primarily interested in the
recovery, rates and pressure response of the two oil samples at various depletion rates. For this, a total of six experiments that included three depletion tests at pressure decline rates of 980 kPa/hr
(142 psi/hr), 276 kPa/hr (40 psi/hr) and 115 kPa/hr (16.67 psi/hr)
were carried out with each of the diluted oil and the deasphalted oil.
The temperature for most of the experiments remained at 23C.

TABLE 1: Sandpack and oil properties.

Description

Deasphalted Oil

Diluted Oil

Original Oil

Permeability
Porosity
Pore-volume (PV)
Dead oil viscosity
API gravity
Specific gravity of oil
Solution gas oil ratio
Live oil viscosity
Oil formation volume factor
Swi
Length of core
Sand grain size
Displaceable PV
Asphaltenes concentration

6.4 Darcy
35.5%
574 ml
171 mPas
19.6
0.937
10.0 Std. m3/m3
70 mPas
1.03 res-m3/st-m3
4.4%
101 cm
140 200 mesh
548 ml
-

6.4 Darcy
35.5%
574 ml
188 mPas
17.9
0.948
9.4 Std. m3/m3
84 mPas
1.023 res-m3/st-m3
4.4%
101 cm
140 200 mesh
548 ml
22.3% by weight

5,500 mPas
15.7
0.961
28% by weight

April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

19

Results
When the depletions start with the system being fully liquid saturated, fluid withdrawal initially causes the pressure to go down
almost uniformly everywhere in the system. This is because, at
this stage, only low compressibility liquid is present in the system
Cumulative oildeasphalted
Upstream pressurediluted
Cumulative oildiluted

500

100.00

450

90.00

400
350

80.00
70.00

300
250

60.00
50.00

200

40.00

150
100

30.00
20.00

50
0

10.00
0.00
0

10

15

20

Cumulative Oil (mL)

Pressure (psig)

Upstream pressuredeasphalted
Downstream pressurediluted
Downstream pressuredeasphalted

and the small amount of liquid that flows out requires only a small
pressure gradient for the flow. For gas nucleation and its expansion
to start, it requires a certain level of supersaturation that will come
with the pressure depletion.
Figures 2 to 4 show the upstream and downstream pressure
profiles and cumulative oil volumes for the deasphalted and the
diluted oils for the three depletion rates mentioned above. It is observed that the pressure recovery, resulting from gas release, occurs at a value much lower than the oil saturation pressure of 2.76
MPa. This pressure can be called apparent bubble point pressure
and is dependent on rate of pressure depletion. The size of pressure
recovery depends on the degree of supersaturation of the oil and
the mobility of the system. A larger pressure recovery shows that
the gas released from the solution was not able to move out of the
500

Upstream Pressure (psig)

A high rate depletion test at 980 kPa/hr was obtained by a

sudden pressure decrease at the production end. It involved an instantaneous decrease of production port pressure to atmospheric
pressure and can therefore be called a full drawdown case. In the
other cases, the mass flow controller was used to control the depletion rate.

450
400
350

Diluted

300
250
200
150

Deasphalted

100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Cumulative Oil Production (mL)

25

Time (hours)

Cumulative oildeasphalted
Upstream pressurediluted
Cumulative oildiluted

550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

10

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Cumulative Oil (mL)

Pressure (psig)

Upstream pressuredeasphalted
Downstream pressurediluted
Downstream pressuredeasphalted

FIGURE 5: Comparison of upstream pressure vs. cumulative oil

recovery for diluted and deasphalted oils at 16.67 psi/hour (31.9
Pa/s) depletion rate.

500

Upstream Pressure (psig)

FIGURE 2: Oil production and pressure profiles of diluted and deasphalted oils at depletion rate of 16.67 psi/hr (31.9 Pa/s).

450
400
350
Diluted

300
250
Deasphalted

200
150
100
50
0
0

Time (hours)

Cumulative oildeasphalted
Upstream pressurediluted
Cumulative oildiluted

Pressure (psig)

200

450

180

400
350

160
140

300
250

120
100

200

80

150
100

60
40

50
0

Cumulative Oil (mL)

500

0
0

40

60

80

100

120

FIGURE 6: Comparison of upstream pressure vs. cumulative oil

recovery for diluted and deasphalted oils at 40 psi/hour (76.6 Pa/s)
depletion rate.

Upstream Pressure (psig)

FIGURE 3: Oil production and pressure profiles of diluted and deasphalted oils at depletion rate of 40 psi/hr (76.6 Pa/s).

Upstream pressuredeasphalted
Downstream pressurediluted
Downstream pressuredeasphalted

20

Cumulative Oil Production (mL)

500
450
400
Diluted

350
300
250
200
150
100

Deasphalted

50
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Cumulative Oil Production (mL)

Time (hours)
FIGURE 4: Oil production and pressure profiles of diluted and deasphalted oils in full drawdown depletions.
20

FIGURE 7: Comparison of upstream pressure vs. cumulative

oil recovery for diluted and deasphalted oils in full drawdown
depletion.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

region at fast enough rates and indicates fast release of gas and/or
low gas mobility. This pressure recovery phenomenon is not very
conspicuous in slow depletion rates, mainly due to a balance between the gas production and fluid movement in the sandpack. A
larger recovery and larger volume of oil production was noticed in
the slow depletion test with the diluted oil.
The pressure profiles of the three cases as a function of cumulative oil produced are shown in Figures 5 to 7. The final oil recovery in tests with the diluted oil (oil in this case includes the
liquid diluent) is higher. It is interesting to note that in runs with
the diluted oil, the recovery in earlier stages of depletion is significantly higher as compared to the corresponding deasphalted oil
runs. At the later stages of depletion, the deasphalted oil appears to
be catching up, but still falls a little short.

Oil ratediluted
GORdiluted

45

225

40

200

35

175

30

150

25

125

20

100

15

75

10

50

25

0
0

10

15

20

0
25

Pressure Drawdown (psi)

Deasphalted oil

GOR (Std. m3/m3)

Oil Production Rate (mL/hr)

Oil ratedeasphalted
GOR deasphalted

The oil flow rates and GOR profiles for the two systems, as
shown in Figures 8-10, demonstrate similar behaviour. The GOR
is comparable in both systems, whereas the diluted oil shows a
higher production rate at the start of gas release in the core. The
GOR in the full drawdown test remains low throughout, whereas in
the slowest test, it shows a gradually increasing trend. Somewhat
lower initial GOR in tests with the diluted oil, at all depletion rates,
indicates its higher propensity to retain gas and it may be an indication of the effect of asphaltenes in reducing gas mobility.
Plots showing pressure drawdown (pressure difference between
the shut-in end and the production end of the sandpack) as a function of time are shown in Figures 11 to 13. Other than at the time
of initial gas nucleation and expansion, the two oil systems show
only minor differences. The higher pressure drawdown at the time

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

Time (hours)

180
160

70

140

60

120

50
40

100
80

30

60

20
10

40
20

0
6

Pressure Drawdown (psi)

200

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

10
25

0
4

Time (hours)
FIGURE 10: Oil rate and GOR in full drawdown depletions.

Pressure Drawdown (psi)

50

GOR (Std. m3/m3)

Oil Production Rate (mL/hr)

Deasphalted oil

75

April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

10

Diluted oil

200

100

FIGURE 12: Pressure drawdown profile for 40 psi/hour (76.6 Pa/s)

depletion rate.

Oil ratediluted
GORdiluted
100

Time (hours)

1,000

Diluted oil

16

10

FIGURE 9: Oil rate and GOR at 40 psi/hour (76.6 Pa/s) depletion

rate.

25

18

Time (hours)

Oil ratedeasphalted
GOR deasphalted

20

20

GOR (Std. m3/m3)

Oil Production Rate (mL/hr)

Deasphalted oil

Oil ratediluted
GORdiluted

90
80

15

FIGURE 11: Pressure drawdown profile for 16.67 psi/hour (31.9

Pa/s) depletion rate.

100

10

Time (hours)

FIGURE 8: Oil rate and GOR at 16.67 psi/hour (31.9 Pa/s)

depletion rate.

Oil ratedeasphalted
GOR deasphalted

Diluted oil

10

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

Time (hours)
FIGURE 13: Pressure drawdown profile in full drawdown
depletions.
21

Diluted oil

Finally, it is apparent that the depletion rates used in these tests

are much faster than what is likely to occur in the field. The question is then whether these results have any relevance for the field
situation. Obviously, if one looks only at the pressure depletion
rate measure, the laboratory tests are nowhere near the field conditions. However, the earlier literature suggests that the pressure gradient generated in the sandpack is an equally important yardstick.
From that perspective, the pressure gradients seen in these tests
are not too far from the field conditions. In the intermediate depletion rate test, the pressure difference across the 1 m long sandpack
was less than 4 psi (28 kPa) during most of the depletion. Similar
pressure gradients would exist in the field during cold heavy oil
production.

Deasphalted oil

50%

Recovery Factor
(% of oil in-place)

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Depletion Rate (psi/hour)

FIGURE 14: Recovery factors of three depletion tests for deasphalted and diluted oil systems.

of initial gas release appears to show the more foamy nature of the
diluted oil.
Earlier release of gas from solution in both slow depletion tests
indicates gas nucleation at lower supersaturation in the case of oil
with asphaltenes.
The pressure recovery that occurs after the start of gas evolution
is a reflection of the speed of gas release and the inability of the released gas to flow out of the system at high enough rates. The rate
of gas release depends on the level of supersaturation present, the
gas diffusivity in oil and the number of bubble nuclei formed. The
rate at which the gas can flow depends on the gas mobility in the
system. It is apparent that this balance between the release of gas
and its migration out of the system varied significantly between the
two systems investigated. The pressure recovery was more prominent in the case of the diluted oil.
The relationship between the final recovery factor and the depletion rate is shown in Figure 14. Though there is not much difference between the deasphalted and the diluted oil in the full
drawdown test, a small shift of about 2% recovery can be seen in
the longer tests. This, however, may or may not be significant in
view of the experimental errors.
The visual observations of the model provided additional insight
into the gas release process. The full drawdown tests showed uniform dispersion of small (1 to 2 mm) gas bubbles in both the systems and these were observed to flow with the oil throughout the
sand face. This is an indication of the foamy oil flow. In the slow
depletion tests, this phenomenon was more prominent in the diluted oil. Relatively larger bodies of coalesced gas were observed
in slower tests with the deasphalted oil.

Discussion
In this work, we have examined the effect of asphaltenes on
the recovery factors and production rates in the solution gas drive
process. The performance of deasphalted oil was compared with
that of the diluted version of the same crude oil. The presence of
asphaltenes was found to facilitate the bubble nucleation and reduce the critical supersaturation compared to the deasphalted case.
However, the presence of asphaltenes did not dramatically alter the
final recovery factor. The most significant difference comes near
the time of gas release/expansion and most of the incremental oil is
produced at this point. The results suggest that the concentration of
asphaltenes is a significant factor in foamy oil flow.
It should be mentioned that there was a small difference in the
solution gas-oil ratio of the two oils, as shown in Table 1. This
could have some effect on the depletion performance and the
higher GOR system would be expected to give better performance. However, in these tests, the diluted oil, which had lower
GOR, showed better performance. Therefore, the difference in
solution GOR cannot account for the observed differences in the
performance.
22

Conclusions
1. Asphaltenes appear to contribute to a small amount of additional oil recovery (about 2% of original oil in place).
The recovery contrast is more significant near the start of
depletion.
2. Crude oil with asphaltenes shows superior gas retention as
the pressure recovery was higher with the asphaltenes containing oil.
3. The presence of asphaltenes appears to facilitate bubble nucleation and decreases the critical supersaturation.
4. Asphaltenes appear to help in maintaining the dispersed gas
flow by suppressing bubble coalescence.

REFERENCES
1. MAINI, B.B., Foamy-Oil Flow; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 53, No. 10, pp. 54-64, October 2001.
2. HUERTA, M., OTERO, C., RICO, A., JIMENEZ, I., DE MIRABAL,
M. and ROJAS, G., Understanding Foamy Oil Mechanisms for
Heavy Oil Reservoirs During Primary Production; paper SPE 36749
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, CO, 6-9 October 1996.
3. DUSSEAULT, M.B. and EL-SAYED, S., Heavy-Oil Production
Enhancement by Encouraging Sand Production; paper SPE 59276
presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
OK, 3-5 April 2000.
4. SMITH, G.E., Fluid Flow and Sand Production in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs under Solution-Gas Drive; SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 3,
No 2, pp. 169-180, May 1988.
5. MAINI, B.B., SARMA, H.K. and GEORGE, A.E., Significance of
Foamy-Oil Behaviour in Primary Production of Heavy Oils; Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 50-54, November 1993.
6. CLARIDGE, E.L. and PRATS, M., A Proposed Model and Mechanism for Anomalous Foamy Heavy Oil Behaviour; paper SPE 29243
presented at the International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB,
19-21 June 1995.
7. BORA, R., MAINI, B.B. and CHAKMA, A., Flow Visualization
Studies of Solution Gas Drive Process in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Using
a Glass Micromodel; paper SPE 37519 presented at the International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, CA, 1012 February 1997.
8. TANG, G-Q. and FIROOZABADI, A., Gas and Liquid-Phase Relative Permeabilities for Cold Production From Heavy Oil Reservoirs;
paper SPE 56540 presented at the SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 3-6 October 1999.
9. ANDARCIA, L., HENY, C. and RICO, A., Experimental Study on
Production Performance of Two Different Heavy Oils in Venezuela;
paper presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, 4-8 June 2000.
10. ROGEL, E., LEN, O., TORRES, G. and ESPIDEL, J., Aggregation
of Asphaltenes in Organic Solvents Using Surface Tension Measurements; Fuel, Vol. 79, No. 11, pp. 1389-1394, September 2000.
11. TURTA, A.T., MAINI, B.B. and JACKSON, C., Mobility of GasIn-Oil Dispersions in Enhanced Solution Gas Drive (Foamy Oil)
Exploitation of Heavy Oil Reservoirs; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 48-55, March 2003.
12. BAUGET F., LANGEVIN, D. and LENORMAND, R., Effects of Asphaltenes and Resins on Foamability of Heavy Oil; paper SPE 71504
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA, 30 September-3 October 2001.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Role of Asphaltenes in Foamy Oil Flow (2003-118), first presented at the 4th
Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 54th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society), June 10-12, 2003, in Calgary, Alberta.
Abstract submitted for review December 2, 2002; editorial comments sent
to the author(s) November 17, 2004; revised manuscript received November 17, 2006; paper approved for pre-press November 17, 2006; final
approval March 1, 2007.

Authors Biographies
Imtiaz Adil is a senior reservoir engineer
with British Petroleum (BP) Canada. He
joined this organization in 1991, and has
enjoyed various upstream engineering positions in Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the
United States and Canada. Currently, Mr.
Adil has been providing subsurface expertise in tight gas and coalbed methane for
BPs Canadian Business Unit. In 2001, he
took educational leave and joined the University of Calgary to pursue an M.Sc. in
chemical engineering. His thesis work, and various other efforts,
became the basis for this technical paper.
Brij Maini is a professor of chemical and
petroleum engineering at the University of
Calgary. He holds a B.Tech. from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur and a Ph.D.
from the University of Washington, both in
chemical engineering. He served as a senior
staff research engineer and group leader
for heavy oil research at the Petroleum Recovery Institute for over 20 years before
taking up his current academic position in
1999. He has been studying the unusual behaviour of primary production in several Canadian heavy oil reservoirs for nearly 20 years and has authored several papers on this
topic. His other research interests include bitumen recovery with
Vapex and steam assisted gravity drainage processes and multiphase flow through porous media.

April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

23