Sand Production in Oil Sand

Under Heavy Oil Foamy Flow

R.C.K. WONG
University of Calgary

Abstract

Testing Material and Equipment

Sand production and foamy oil flow are the two key factors
contributing to successes in cold flow production in Alberta and
Saskatchewan. However, the two mechanisms have been studied
and treated separately as geomechanics and multiphase flow
problems, respectively. This paper describes special experiments
that were designed to combine these two processes, and conducted to study their interaction. The experiments involved flow
of heavy oil with no dissolved gas (dead oil) and heavy oil with
dissolved gas (live oil) in natural, intact heavy oil sand cores. It
was found that gas nucleation in heavy oil is the major factor in
causing the initiation of sand production in oil sand. This finding
is consistent with field observations. A mathematical framework
for sand production in heavy oil reservoirs was developed based
on the experiments observations. This model includes the
effects of geomechanics and gas exsolution phenomena such as
strength of oil sand, stress distribution in the reservoir, solution
gas diffusion, foamy oil gas, and fluid phase properties.

The oil sand cores (Clearwater formation) for the experimental

study presented in this paper were recovered at a depth of 424 m
from an observation well (3-66-4-W4M) at a site near Cold Lake,
Alberta. Core sampling was carried out using a conventional
rotary core barrel of 89 mm inside diameter. Cores recovered
were frozen at the site and kept inside PVC tubes in a freezer.
Prior to any testing, the frozen cores were X-Rayed for sample
selection.
A high-pressure (70 MPa capability) stainless steel triaxial cell
was used to conduct the sand production tests. The top and bottom
platens used to provide confining pressure to the test core were
modified to allow fluid injection and sand production (Figure 1).
Inlet and outlet drainage ports were provided at the top and bottom platens so that fluid could be injected through the core using a
displacement pump or pressurized reservoirs. The bottom platen
was made up of a removable disc and a hollow cylindrical section.
The removable disc had a circular hole of varying diameters (8,
13, and 20 mm) simulating the wellbore perforation. The hollow
section with a recess was used to store any produced sand.

Introduction
Sand production and foamy oil flow are interrelated mechanisms in primary production (cold production) of heavy oil reservoirs in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Massive sand production
could cause excessive deformation in oil sands and the overburden, resulting in detrimental effects on the wells and production
facilities. However, sand control measures tend to reduce the oil
production rate. Numerical studies(1-4) have been conducted to
predict sand production in heavy oil reservoirs. However, limited
experimental work has been performed to study the sand production in oil sand. Tremblay et al.(5, 6) used a computer tomography
imaging technique to examine the sand production process in
sandpack columns using dead oil injected at a constant rate. They
observed that a channel-like cavity was developed and evolved
under a critical flow pressure gradient. However, there is no
reported experimental study on sand production using natural oil
sand cores and live heavy oil. The main objective of this paper is
to investigate the effects of bitumen, oil sand interlocked structure, pressure gradient, and gas exsolution on the sand production
near a perforation in a heavy oil reservoir. The first part of this
paper describes the testing material, testing equipment, test details
and results. The second part focuses on the interpretation and
analysis of the test results and field observations, followed by
conclusions. Details of the mathematical models used in the
analysis of the test results are presented in the Appendix.

Test Details and Results

Reconstituted Oil-Free Sand Specimen
The objective of this test series was to study sand production in
a reconstituted oil-free sand specimen under constant flow rate
fluid injection. The reconstituted oil sand specimen was prepared
as follows: (i) remove the bitumen from the oil sand cores using
the Dean-Stark method; (ii) flush the sand with acetone to make
the sand water wet; (iii) compact the clean sand in a stainless
mold of 89 mm in diameter and 150 mm in height to a porosity of
33%, close to the in situ state, using the moisture tampering
method; and (iv) freeze the specimen inside the steel mold under a
small axial load to provide some strength to the reconstituted sand
specimen. The frozen specimen was allowed to thaw and consolidate under a 200 kPa confining pressure inside the triaxial cell
with a 8 mm hole disc (Figure 1). After consolidation, the confining pressure was gradually increased. It was observed that sand
was pushed out through the hole and the neoprene sleeve burst
when the confining pressure was increased to a value of 1.3 MPa.
This finding is consistent with the results observed from the borehole stability tests on reconstituted oil-free oil sand hollow cylindrical specimens conducted by Wong and Leung(7). In their tests,
the sand around the hole started to deform and yield inward when
the external confining pressure applied to the hollow cylindrical
specimen had reached 750 kPa. Massive yielding occurred at a

PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
56

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 1: Triaxial cell details for sand production tests.

FIGURE 2: X-Ray image of oil-removed oil sand specimen

under constant flow rate injection and choking.

pressure of 850 kPa. Their test results indicated that the viscous
heavy oil did not act as a binder to hold the oil sand matrix.

Oil Sand Specimen Under Constant

Pressure Gradient and Choking

Oil-Removed Oil Sand Specimen Under

Constant Flow Rate Injection and Choking

The objective of this test series was to study sand production in

an oil sand specimen under constant pressure gradient and choking. A natural oil sand specimen (89 mm in diameter and 152 mm
in height) was consolidated under a 10 MPa confining pressure
inside the triaxial cell with a 20 mm hole disc. Then, a constant 3
MPa pressure was applied at the upstream inlet using a pressurized water reservoir while the downstream outlet was opened to
the atmosphere. The pressure gradient applied to the specimen
was about 20 MPa/m that was much higher than those used in the
constant rate injection tests. However, no sand was produced after
two hours of water injection.
Then, the 3 MPa pressure choking procedure was applied to the
specimen several times. A channel-like cavity was developed at
the perforation (Figure 3).

The objective of this test series was to study the effect of

bitumen as a binding material on sand production in an oil sand
specimen under constant flow rate fluid injection and choking. A
natural oil sand specimen (89 mm in diameter and 135 mm in
height) was secured inside a Teflon shrinkable sleeve with two
stainless sintered porous ends. Bitumen was removed from the oil
sand specimen using the Dean-Stark distillation method, followed
by acetone distillation. Then, the oil-removed specimen was
mounted inside the triaxial cell with a 8 mm hole disc, and consolidated under a 10 MPa confining pressure. Constant flow rate
injection tests were conducted with the outlet opened to the
atmosphere. Water was injected at rates ranging from 0.33 to 1.2
l/min for seven hours. The oil-removed sand specimen had a measured permeability value of 0.3 Darcy. This low permeability
value might be due to the restricted flow at the perforation outlet.
The maximum pressure gradient measured across the specimen
was about 8.9 MPa/m. Traces of sand were produced. The sand
production tests were repeated with 13- and 20 mm hole discs
using the same specimen. Again, small amount of sand was
produced.
Finally, a constant 3 MPa pressure was applied at the upstream
inlet using a pressurized water reservoir while the downstream
outlet was closed. When the internal pore pressure reached the
constant 3 MPa pressure, the outlet valve was opened instantaneously. This choking procedure was repeated several times. An
X-Ray image of the specimen (Figure 2) shows that some sand
was produced forming a small conical cavity. Tensile fractures
were also induced along the specimen length.
March 2003, Volume 42, No. 3

Oil Sand Specimen Under Gas Exsolution

The objective of this test series was to study sand production in
an oil sand specimen under gas exsolution. A natural oil sand
specimen (89 mm in diameter and 150 mm in height) was consolidated under a 10 MPa confining pressure inside the triaxial cell
with a 20 mm hole disc. Then the specimen was saturated with
live heavy oil with a gas-oil ratio of 8 and viscosity of about
69,000 cp at 21 C. The saturation process involved displacement
of dead heavy oil inside the specimen by live heavy oil while
maintaining the pore pressure above the Bubble Point Pressure of
2 MPa. After two-pore volume displacement, the pore pressure
was maintained at a value of 3 MPa. The effective confining stress
was 7 MPa being close to the in situ value. The outlet pressure
was gradually decreased in increments of 0.1 MPa while the
upstream valve was closed. In each incremental decline, the pore
57

FIGURE 4: X-Ray image of oil sand specimen under gas

exsolution.
walled cell and not subjected to a controlled confining stress.
Thus, the sand production in the test series of the present study
was caused by the sand yielding due to stress failure, rather than
the fluid flow pressure gradient as detected by Tremblay et al.(5)

Oil-Removed Oil Sand Specimens Under

Constant Flow Rate and Choking

FIGURE 3: X-Ray image of oil sand specimen under

constant pressure gradient and choking.

pressure was allowed to equilibrate prior to the subsequent

decline. Gas and oil was produced and collected at the outlet. No
sand was produced when the outlet pressure was maintained
above the Bubble Point Pressure. When the outlet pressure
dropped slightly below 2 MPa, sand was flushed out with foamy
oil at a high rate such that the test was terminated to prevent rupturing the neoprene sleeve. An X-Ray image of the specimen
(Figure 4) shows that a bulb-like cavity was formed and tensile
parting was induced in the sand matrix around the cavity. The gas
saturation inside the specimen was estimated based on the mass
balance calculations of produced sand and oil. However, the estimation was found to be unreliable because it was difficult to
recover all produced sand and oil in the testing system.

Analysis of Test Results

Reconstituted Oil-Free Sand Specimen
Sand started to yield and flow out of the 8 mm perforation hole
when the confining pressure reached a value of 1.3 MPa. This is
consistent with observations from borehole stability tests(7). In the
sand production test, there was no support stress to the sand face
at the perforation. A sand arch developed around the perforation
hole by mobilizing the internal friction of sand particles since the
strength derived from the interlocked structure and bitumen was
removed in the reconstituted sand. When the confining stress
exceeded the ultimate capacity of the sand arch, the sand yielded
and flowed. Such a yielding and flow by the stress-induced sand
was not observed in experiments conducted by Tremblay et al.(5, 6)
because their sand specimens were packed inside a long, rigid58

In this test series, the bitumen was removed from the oil sand
specimen to eliminate the effect of bitumen as a binding material
on the sand production, and to promote single fluid phase flow. A
small amount of sand was produced under water injection of a rate
of 1 l/min. The measured pressure gradient across the specimen
length was about 8.9 MPa/m. Wong et al.(1) developed an analytical solution relating to the critical pressure gradient, dp/dr, destabilizing the sand arch around a cavity by shear failure:

'
dp
= Nc cot(45o )
dr
2

.....................................................................(1)

where N is shape factor (being 2 for long circular cavities and 4

for spherical cavities); c is cohesion; and, is friction angle of oil
sand. Assuming = 45 and N = 4, the back-calculated cohesion
could be as high as 0.9 MPa.

Oil Sand Specimen Under Constant

Pressure Gradient and Choking
A constant differential pressure of 3 MPa applied to the 150
mm specimen produces a pressure gradient of 20 MPa/m.
Assuming = 45 and N = 4, the back-calculated cohesion could
be as high as 2.1 MPa. This cohesion value is much higher than
those derived from the unconfined and triaxial compression tests
of oil sand specimens reported in the literature(1). This peculiar
behaviour raises the question as to why the oil sand was so strong
around the perforation under the flow flux. This behaviour was
also observed in the borehole stability tests in oil sand conducted
by Wong and Leung(7). They suggested that the effect of stress
path, intermediate stress, and size could enhance shear strength.
Another important factor is the different response of the interlocked structure of oil sand to different, imposed boundary conditions. The interlocked structure has low resistance to the tensile
loading mode, but offers high resistance to the shearing mode,
particularly in the passive mode under confinement. The passive
resistance of the interlocked structure increases with confining
pressure. Thus, high external compressive or shear load can be
transmitted through the interlocked structure enhancing overall
stability. This explains the field observation(8) that interlocked oil
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

sand was difficult to mine or erode under high pressure hydraulic

jetting.
Instant choking provides an infinite pressure gradient at the
perforation, but this steep gradient only lasts for a short duration.
This explains why sand was produced in each choking procedure,
but in a small amount.

Oil Sand Specimen Under Gas Exsolution

No sand was produced when the fluid pressure of the live oil
was reduced from 3 MPa to 2 MPa in incremental steps of 0.1
MPa. It took less than 15 minutes for the differential pressure
between the upstream and downstream to equilibrate in each step.
However, at the increment from 2 MPa to 1.9 MPa, sand particles
were washed out with the live oil instantaneously. It appears that
the massive sand production in this test series was associated with
the gas exsolution when the fluid pressure dropped below the bubble point.
Consider the response of the sand element at the perforation
under an incremental pressure reduction from 2 to 1.9 MPa. In
order to analyse the stability of the sand element, it is necessary to
study the interaction between the matrix stress and foamy oil pressure. Solutions to such coupled problems are complex and difficult to obtain (see Appendix). However, some assumptions can be
made to produce tractable solutions. Since the sand was produced
instantaneously in the increment just below the bubble point, it is
reasonable to assume that the free gas flow was not significant. In
addition, the fluid flux in and out of the sand element was small at
the instant of sand production, i.e., the sand element was subjected
to an instantaneous undrained unloading. The effective radial
stress was always zero at the perforation since the confining pressure was provided by the fluid. With these simplifications, one
only needs to determine the fluid pressure response of the sand
element under the undrained unloading below the bubble point.
The fluid pressure reacts to the pressure reduction and drops from
2.0 to 1.9 MPa. Below the bubble point, the live oil becomes
supersaturated with dissolved gas solute resulting in gas exsolution. The fluid pressure starts to rebound as gas bubbles nucleate
and grow with no net flux. The final equilibrium pressure and gas
saturation can be determined by setting Equation (A3) of the
Appendix to zero. For example:
( S o )

( So )
+ o ( So ) + o
=0
t
t
t
............................................(2)

The first term of Equation (2) relates to the change in volume

due to the fluid compressibility by the pressure change. The second term defines the change in volume due to the sand matrix
compressibility by the pressure change. The third term quantifies
the evolution of oil or gas saturation due to the gas exsolution
below the bubble point. For a 0.1 MPa pressure decline, the volume changes due to fluid and sand matrix compressibility(9, 10) are
0.0015% and 0.01%, respectively, given that cf (fluid compressibility) = 4.8 10-4/MPa; ce (matrix compressibility) = 10-3/MPa;
and, (porosity) = 0.32. Gas saturation at the thermodynamic
equilibrium after gas exsolution is 0.0265%. The gas bubbles at
this pressure increment just below the bubble point can be considered to be small, dispersed, and rigid. This implies that the fluid
pressure would rebound back to a pressure close to that before the
decline. Based on the mass balance of the gas phase which exists
in bubbles and solution, the equilibrium gas pressure in bubbles
due to the changes in gas saturation and production is given by:

pg =

RT
GOR

22.4

RT S g
p

+
G

OR
pb
22.4 1 S g

.............................................(3)

where pg is gas pressure; GOR is solution gas-oil ratio; p is oil

fraction produced from unit oil pore volume; pb is bubble point; R
March 2003, Volume 42, No. 3

FIGURE 5: Gas exsolution in a sand element near wellbore.

is universal gas constant; T is absolute temperature; and, where

one mole of gas occupies 22.4 l. Undrained, the unloading condition satisfies the condition of p = 0, i.e., there is no net flux. In
our case, where GOR = 8, pb = 2 MPa, RT/22.4 = 0.101 MPa, and
Sg = 0.0265%, the calculated pg is 1.998 MPa. For small capillary
pressure effect, the gas pressure is equal to the fluid (oil) pressure.
This justifies that the fluid pressure rebounds back to a pressure
close to that before the decline. It is important to note that this full
pressure rebound is only valid for unloading just below the bubble
point or at a small gas saturation. For high gas saturations, the
total compressibility of the system is so large that a large amount
of evolved gas is required to pressurize the system.
The evolution time for the thermodynamic equilibrium of gas
exsolution depends on many factors such as the bubble nucleation
site and population, imposed conditions (pressure decline or withdrawal), gas-solution ratio, and diffusion coefficient of dissolved
gas(11,12). In this study, simplistic models(13) were assumed for
solution diffusion of dissolved gas in live heavy oil. Gas solute
diffuses towards bubbles of a constant diameter, constant strength
(concentration), and fixed spacing (Figure 5). Two bubble populations or densities were considered in the analysis. The bubble density (Figure 5) is defined by the ratio (n) of the average spacing of
bubbles () to the average diameter of the bubbles (d). The evolution of fluid pressure, gas saturation, and effective radial stress are
plotted against the normalized time for n = 5 and n = 100, in
Figures 6 to 8. The solution diffusion process depends on the bubble density and spacing (n and ), and diffusion coefficient (D). It
is important to note that the effective radial stress becomes negative when the gas exsolution commences. It is postulated that the
oil sand would lose its interlocked grain contacts when the negative effective stress exceeds the tensile strength of the interlocked
structure. Since the sand production occurred almost instantaneously in the test, it infers either the interlocked structure of oil
sand has a low tensile strength or the rate of gas exsolution is
rapid. Thus, the tensile strength must be less than the incremental
pressure drop of 0.1 MPa. Destabilization of intact oil sands
around a cavern was also observed in hydraulic mining in a deep
heavy oil reservoir(14). A 5 m wide cavern at a depth of 450 m was
mined using high pressure water jetting. The cavern remained stable when the fluid pressure inside the cavern was maintained at its
hydrostatic pressure of 5 MPa. However, when the fluid pressure
was lowered to the Bubble Point Pressure of 2 MPa, massive sand
was produced from mining. The cavern grew extensively to a
width of 10 m. This field observation agrees with observations in
this series of sand production tests.
59

FIGURE 6: Evolution of fluid pressure due to gas exsolution

FIGURE 7: Evolution of gas saturation due to gas exsolution

in oil sand.

in oil sand.

FIGURE 8: Evolution of effective stress due to gas

exsolution in oil sand.

Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the sand production
experiments:
The sand production in reconstituted oil sandpacks is caused
by stress-induced yielding rather than the fluid flow pressure
gradient.
The interlocked structure of natural oil sand provides a high
shear resistance against the seepage force generated by the
fluid flow. However, the oil sand is weak in resisting tensile
failure under gas exsolution.
Solution gas evolved at the pressure state just below the bubble point could induce negative effective stresses in oil sand
at unsupported cavities or unscreened perforations. This
unravels the oil sand interlocked structure by tensile failure
or parting, resulting in massive sand production.

Acknowledgements
This research investigation was funded through an NSERCImperial Oil CRD Research Grant. Assistance provided by Bill
Barr was appreciated.

NOMENCLATURE
c
cf
ce
d
D
GOR
krg
60

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

cohesion
fluid compressibility
matrix compressibility
average diameter of bubbles
diffusion coefficient of dissolved gas solute
gas-oil ratio
relative permeability of gas

kro
k
N
n

=
=
=
=

p
pg
pb
po
r
R
So
Sg
T

o
g
dg
o
r

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

relative permeability of oil

absolute permeability
geometrical shape factor for sand production
ratio of average spacing of bubbles to average diameter of
bubbles
fluid pressure
gas pressure
bubble point pressure
oil pressure
radial distance
Universal gas constant
oil saturation
gas saturation
absolute temperature
porosity
friction angle
density of oil
density of gas
density of dissolved gas solute
viscosity of oil
total radial stress
total tangential stress
radial strain
tangential strain
average spacing of bubbles
oil fraction produced from unit oil pore volume

REFERENCES
1. WONG, R.C.K., SAMIEH, A.M., and KUHLEMEYER, R., Oil
Sand Strength Parameters at Low Effective StressesIts Effects on
Sand Production; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol.
30, pp. 44-50, 1994.
2. GEILIKMAN, M.B., DUSSEAULT, M.B., and DULLIEN, F.A.L.,
Sand Production and Yield Propagation Around Wellbores;
Petroleum Society paper 94-89 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference, Calgary, AB, June 12 15, 1994.
3. GEILIKMAN, M.B., DUSSEAULT, M.B., and DULLIEN, F.A.L.,
Dynamic Effects of Foamy Fluid Flow in Sand Production
Instability; paper SPE 30251 presented at the International Heavy
Oil Symposium, Calgary, AB, June 19 21, 1995.
4. FUNG, L. and WONG, R.C.K., Modelling of Cavity Stability and
Sand Production in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs; Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 35, pp. 46-52, 1996.
5. TREMBLAY, B., SEDGWICK, G., and FORSHNER, K., Imaging
of Sand Production in Horizontal Pack by X-Ray Computed
Tomography; SPE Formation Evaluation, pp. 94-98, June 1996.
6. TREMBLAY, B., SEDGWICK, G., and FORSHNER, K.,
Simulation of Cold Production in Heavy Oil Reservoirs: Wormhole
Dynamics; SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 110-117, May 1997.
7. WONG, R.C.K. and LEUNG, K.C., Borehole Stability in Oil Sand
Under Drilling; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 41,
pp. 55-60, 2002.
8. SHARPE, J.A., SHINDE, S.B., and WONG, R.C.K., Cold Lake
Borehole Mining; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol.
36, pp. 58-63, 1997.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

9. WONG, R.C.K., BARR, W.E., and KRY, P.R., Stress-Strain

Response of Cold Lake Oil Sands; Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 30, pp. 220-235, 1993.
10. WONG, R.C.K., GUO, F., WEAVER, J.S., and BARR, W.E., Heavy
Oil Flow Under Solution-Gas Drive: Pressure Depletion Tests;
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 38, pp. 31-37,
1999.
11. SZEKELY, J. and MARTINS, G.P., Non-Equilibrium Effects in the
Growth of Spherical Gas Bubbles Due to Solution Diffusion;
Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 26, pp. 147-159, 1971.
12. KUMAR, R. and POOLADI-DARVISH, M., Effect of Viscosity and
Diffusion Coefficient on the Kinetics of Bubble Growth in SolutionGas Drive in Heavy Oil; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 40, pp. 30-37, 2001.
13. CRAIG, R.F., Soil Mechanics; E & FN Spon, New York, NY, 481
pages, 1997.
14. WONG, R.C.K., Behaviour of Water Pressurized Caverns in Oil
Sand and Shale; Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 610617, 1996.

AppendixCoupled Stress-Foamy Oil

Flow Problem
Sand production involves physical detachment of sand particles
from its matrix, and transport through flow medium. In order to
analyse the mechanics triggering the initiation of detachment, it is
necessary to study the equations governing the coupled mechanical-hydraulic process around a wellbore perforation.

Equilibrium and Compatibility Equations

Stresses around a spherical cavity under a hydrostatic overburden pressure are given by stress equilibrium and strain compatibility equations, respectively:
d r
r
2
=0
dr
r
.........................................................................(A1)

Gas Phase
Gas phase exists as free gas in bubbles and dissolved gas solute
in oil. Thus, the mass conservation equation of the gas phase is
given as:

[(

d S g g + dg So

kk rg
kk
dg ro po + g
p g =

dt
o
g

)]
.............................(A4)

where g and dg are average free gas and dissolved gas densities;
krg is gas relative permeability; pg is gas pressure; and, Sg is gas
saturation. In Equation (A4), dg is a boundary condition-dependent parameter that is governed by the gas exsolution process, i.e.,
mass diffusion of dissolved gas in the oil phase to the bubbles of
free gas(11, 12).
Equations (A1) to (A4) provide a mathematical framework for
the coupled stress-foamy oil flow process around a spherical cavity in oil sands. Total radial and tangential stresses, oil pressure
and oil saturation are the four dependent variables. Gas pressure
can be related to oil pressure using the capillary pressure curve.
Gas and oil saturations are totaled to unity. The average dissolved
gas density is dependent on gas pressure through Henrys law. It
can be seen that all four variables appear in each of the four governing equations. Solutions to such fully coupled systems of equations are very complex and difficult. Since sand production is
likely to occur at the periphery of the cavity, there has been an
attempt to make some reasonable assumptions in this paper to
make the solution tractable.
ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Sand Production
in Oil Sand Under Heavy Oil Foamy Flow (2002-256) first presented at
the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 53 rd Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society) June 11-13, 2002, in
Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review December 17, 2001; editorial comments sent to the author(s) November 19, 2002; revised manuscript received December 24, 2002; paper approved for pre-press
December 23, 2002, final approval February 27, 2003.

Authors Biography
d

+2 r = 0
dr
r
............................................................................(A2)
where r and are total radial and tangential stresses, respectively; r and are radial and tangential strains, respectively; and, r is
the radial distance. The strains can be expressed in terms of total
radial and tangential stresses, fluid (oil) pressure po and gas pressure pg, using effective stress-strain constitutive laws.

Mass Conservation Equations

Oil Phase

Ron Wong is currently a professor with the

University of Calgary. Before joining the
University, he was involved in thermal
recovery research with Imperial Oil
Resources Canada. He received a B.Eng. in
1977 from McMaster University and a
Ph.D. in 1986 from the University of
Alberta. Dr. Wong is a member of APEGGA. His research interests include soil
mechanics, geomechanics in oil sand and
shale, multiphase flow in fractures and in
situ bioremediation.

Oil is assumed to be the only mobile fluid phase, i.e., water

exists in a connate saturation. The continuity condition yields the
following equation:
kk
d S
o ro po = o o
dt
o

..............................................................(A3)

where
d oSo

( So )
= ( So ) o + o ( So ) + o
dt
t
t
t ;
is oil density; k and kr are absolute and relative permeability
values; is porosity; and, S is oil saturation. In Equation
(A3), oil pressure, gas pressure, and total stresses are implicitly
embedded.
March 2003, Volume 42, No. 3

61