processes

Article
Experimental Study on Optimizing Steam Solvent Co-Injection
Process in Akan Carbonate Oilfield
Muneer A. Suwaid 1, *, Ilgiz F. Minkhanov 1 , Mikhail A. Varfolomeev 1, * , Ameen A. Al-Muntaser 1 ,
Alexander V. Bolotov 1 , Richard Djimasbe 1 , Shadi A. Saeed 1 , Dmitrii A. Emelianov 1 , Ruslan K. Khairtdinov 2 ,
Aidar I. Sattarov 2 and Mohammed Amine Khelkhal 1, *

1 Department of Petroleum Engineering, Kazan Federal University, 18 Kremlyovskaya Str.,

420008 Kazan, Russia
2 CJSC “Enterprise Kara Altyn”, 48 Shevchenko Str., Almetyevsk District, Republic of Tatarstan,
423450 Almetyevsk, Russia
* Correspondence: suwaidmuneer@gmail.com (M.A.S.); vma.ksu@gmail.com (M.A.V.);
amine.khelkhal@gmail.com (M.A.K.)

Abstract: Steam solvent co-injection processes are generating considerable interest in terms of im-
proving heavy oil upgrading in unconventional reservoirs. The characteristics of the opted solvents in
the field have not been dealt with in depth. This paper presents a study on selecting the most optimal
solvent for the Akan oilfield enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The first step in this work consisted of
determining the Akan oil field viscosity, through an elemental and SARA analyses. Next, a set of
physical and chemical methods was used to understand the mechanism of solvents’ effect on oil
viscosity dynamics. The compositions of the used solvents were analyzed by a gas chromatography-
mass spectrometer system equipped with a mass selective detector ISQ (USA). The evidence from
the present study suggests that toluene and o-xylene are the most optimal solvents for enhancing
the Akan oil recovery and reducing its viscosity. The obtained data demonstrated a higher efficiency
of the used solvents on the oil viscosity reduction where the maximum oil viscosity reduction was
observed in the presence of toluene, which led to a value of 178.1 mPa.s. Moreover, the obtained
Citation: Suwaid, M.A.; Minkhanov, results reported that the solvent co-injection process efficiency increases gradually depending on the
I.F.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Al-Muntaser, chemical composition of the used solvent, as witnessed by the obtained oil recovery factor (RF) values.
A.A.; Bolotov, A.V.; Djimasbe, R.;
It has been found that the oil recovery factor values during the capillary soaking in the presence
Saeed, S.A.; Emelianov, D.A.;
of water was equal to 20%, in the presence of o-xylene it was equal to 61%, and in the presence of
Khairtdinov, R.K.; Sattarov, A.I.; et al.
toluene, it was equal to 69%. Likewise, a similar efficiency behavior has been demonstrated during
Experimental Study on Optimizing
filtration experiments where water led to a 26% recovery factor, o-xylene to 69%, and toluene to
Steam Solvent Co-Injection Process in
Akan Carbonate Oilfield. Processes 78%, meanwhile the solvent slug led to 65%. The results of this study would seem to suggest that
2023, 11, 459. https://doi.org/ the viscosity of the investigated oil decreases in the presence of aromatic solvents, such as toluene
10.3390/pr11020459 and o-xylene, as witnessed by the recovery factors they demonstrated. A consequence of these
changes is the possibility that aromatic solvent molecules tend to separate the asphaltene layers and
Academic Editor: Qingbang Meng
reduce the overlap between large asphaltene macromolecules, which leads to the dissociation of
Received: 8 December 2022 asphaltene aggregates.
Revised: 20 January 2023
Accepted: 31 January 2023 Keywords: enhanced oil recovery; steam injection; solvent; recovery factor; capillary soaking
Published: 3 February 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Until now, modern society is still highly dependent on a stable source of energy in
This article is an open access article order to achieve daily production and satisfy demands. It is common knowledge that
distributed under the terms and oil is the main source of energy nowadays. A recent ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’
conditions of the Creative Commons provided by BP has estimated the world’s proven oil reserves to 1.6 trillion barrels which
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// are planned to be exploited within the next 50 years. However, the amount of these reserves
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ would mainly come from unconventional sources, which are more difficult and expensive
4.0/). to produce [1,2].

Processes 2023, 11, 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020459 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2023, 11, 459 2 of 19

Unconventional oil reserves are mainly composed of heavy and extra-heavy oil, which
are produced by enhanced oil recovery methods (EOR). EOR is a set of methods designed to
extract heavy oil based on different techniques, such as in-situ combustion, which is based
on injecting air into the reservoir, and initiate the combustion of oil in place in order to
increase the reservoir temperature and hence decrease the viscosity of heavy oil [3,4]. Other
techniques are based on applying electromagnetic heating and the catalytic application,
such as reservoir microwave heating in the presence of transition metal based catalysts
which are able to improve the heating flow and consequently the oil mobility within the
reservoir [5–7]. Likewise, water steam injection has been reported to be one of the widely
applied techniques in the field of heavy oil enhanced recovery. It is based on injecting
hot water steam into the reservoir, and as a result of the heat flow and exchange, the
high molecular compounds contained in the heavy oil break down and turn into light oil
components which lead to oil viscosity reduction and hence is easy to recover [8–10].
Regardless of the importance of the aforementioned EOR methods, they are still very
far from real application in the field. Nevertheless, steam injection methods are still widely
used methods in extracting and producing heavy oil reserves. Steam assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD) [11–15] is commonly known to be the most common thermal recovery
method. It is based on injecting steam into the reservoir for creating hot zones able to
decrease the oil viscosity and increase its flow by gravity, and thus, its easy production
from the well [16,17].
One of the main issues concerning the knowledge about the application of the SAGD
process is the lack of control over the high energy and water consumption, CO2 emissions,
and the cost of the post-production water treatment [18,19]. Most studies regarding mini-
mizing the environmental impacts and operating costs of SAGD have tended to focus on the
application of several catalytic systems or developing hybrid systems, which combines it
with other enhanced oil recovery techniques. One of the most practical solutions proposed
for improving the SAGD technique is the solvent co-injection with water steam [8]. In fact,
the injection of a solvent contributes to the additional washing of heavy oil from the rock
and increases the drainage zone of wells [20–24]. Thus, the quantity of steam required is
minimized to produce the same amount of oil that can be obtained by the classical SAGD.
Experts have always seen the application of solvents based on aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons and their mixtures during SAGD as a promising approach to improve the
enhanced oil recovery during steam stimulation processes [20,23,25–27]. In their work,
Naser et al. conducted the first solvent/steam injection experiment by injecting naphtha
with steam. The obtained results witnessed a significant improvement in oil recovery in the
presence of the used solvents, compared to the traditional SAGD process [26]. In addition,
Zare, Alireza, et al. studied the effectiveness of the co-injection of aliphatic hydrocarbon
solvents as an additive similar to butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, and octane with steam
at low pressure to enhance the heavy oil recovery. The obtained results revealed that
co-injecting these solvents with steam leads to an efficient oil recovery. In addition, it has
been found that these solvents were able to reduce the cumulative steam oil ratio, especially
the lighter solvents, such as hexane, which was found to be the best performing solvent in
terms of oil recovery at 20 wt.% [23].
Keshararz et al. proved that the optimal solvents are those with the most identical
thermo-physical characteristics to water under pressure and temperature conditions in the
steam chamber [27]. In a similar study, Fatemi et al. studied the content of several solvents
in order to improve the heavy oil recovery from existing reservoirs. The authors reported
that they were able to determine the solvent type for the specific operating conditions in
which the reservoir and fluid properties result in an ideal solvent volatility [20].
This paper sheds light on the co-injection of different solvents during the development
of the Akan oilfield by steam injection enhanced oil recovery method. A solvent compatible
with oil properties was selected to ensure the heavy crude oil viscosity reduction and
maximum recovery, and a physical modeling on a composite model was conducted, taking
into account the reservoir conditions at the Akan oilfield.
Processes 2023, 11, 459 3 of 19

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
An oil and core sample extracted from the Akan oilfield was used in laboratory
conditions to perform the steam co-injection process experiments. The studied solvents
in this work were composed of toluene, benzene, o-xylene, benzyl alcohol, isopropyl
alcohol, ethyl acetate, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), nefras, commercial solvent (CS), and
petroleum ether and their mixture.

2.2. Viscosity, Elemental, and SARA Analysis

The SVM-3000 Stabinger viscometer (Anton Paar, Graz, Austria) was used to determine
the viscosity of the studied oil samples. The elemental composition analysis (carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur) of the heavy oil samples before and after upgrading,
was performed using a PerkinElmer 2400 Series II instrument (PerkinElmer, Waltham,
MA, USA). The saturated hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds, resins, and asphaltenes
(SARA) analysis of all of the studied oil samples was performed, according to the ASTM D
4124 method [28].

2.3. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) Analysis

The compositions of a multicomponent commercial solvent and a mixture of individual
solvents were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry equipped with a mass
selective detector ISQ (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The components of
the samples were identified using the NIST electronic library of mass spectra together with
the literature data, as described in detail in the work of Chemodanov et al. [29].

2.4. Evaluation of the Degree of Turbidity of the Solvents and Their Compositions in Oil
The measurements were carried out on a Hach 2100AN turbidity meter (Hach Com-
pany, Ames, IA, USA). Prior to completing the measurements, the device was warmed up
for at least half an hour and then calibrated against the standard solutions of Hach StabCal
formazin in the range of 0.1–7500 NTUs (nephelometric turbidity units). The studied
samples were placed in cylindrical cuvettes, the outer surface of which was wiped with
silicone oil before the measurements were taken. The turbidity readings for each sample
were recorded at least 5 times followed by obtaining the arithmetic mean.

2.5. Solvent’s Thermal Analysis

The experiments on the solvent’s thermal stability were performed on a TG209 F1
Libra precision thermogravimeter (Netzsch GmbH, Selb, Germany), combined with an
Alpha FT-IR spectrometer (Bruker GmbH, Billerica, MA, USA) using a transit line for
analyzing the gaseous products.

2.6. Porosity and Permeability Determination

A gas porosimeter-permeameter Plast-215ATM (Agrosy Technologies company, Irvine,
CA, USA) was used to determine the porosity and permeability of the studied samples.
Micro and nanofocus X-ray control system for computed tomography General Electric
V|tome|X S 240 (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) was used to determine the void ratio of
the core sample.

2.7. Filtration Experiments

Filtration studies on the solvent co-injection with steam were carried out on a labo-
ratory unit to determine the oil displacement efficiency under thermal exposure. For the
experiments with steam only and steam with solvent, the core samples were taken from
the desiccator, which were wiped with filter paper for oil, weighed, and then placed in a
core holder. The cores were positioned in the core holder according to the diagram shown
in Figure 1 and compacted.
 2.7. Filtration Experiments
Filtration studies on the solvent co-injection with steam were carried out on a labor-
atory unit to determine the oil displacement efficiency under thermal exposure. For the
experiments with steam only and steam with solvent, the core samples were taken from
the desiccator, which were wiped with filter paper for oil, weighed, and then placed in a
Processes 2023, 11, 459 4 of 19
core holder. The cores were positioned in the core holder according to the diagram shown
in Figure 1 and compacted.

Figure 1. The layout of the thermocouples in the core holder.

Figure 1. The layout of the thermocouples in the core holder.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Determination
3. Results and Discussionof the Group and Elemental Composition of the Heavy Oil
The group
3.1. Determination and
of the elemental
Group composition
and Elemental analysisofofthe
Composition the studied
Heavy Oilheavy oil was conducted
in order to select the appropriate solvents. The obtained data
The group and elemental composition analysis of the studied heavy are presented in Table
oil was con- 1.
ducted in order to select the appropriate solvents. The obtained data are presented in Ta-
ble 1. Table 1. Heavy oil physical properties and SARA analysis.
Group Composition, Weight%
Table 1. Heavy oil physical properties and SARA analysis.
Saturated Hydrocarbons Aromatic Hydrocarbons Resins Asphaltenes
Group Composition, Weight%.
34.97 ± 0.5 36.37 ± 0.6 18.93 ± 0.5 9.73 ± 0.3
Saturated Hydrocarbons Aromatic Hydrocarbons Resins Asphaltenes
Elemental Composition, %
34.97 ± 0.5 36.37 ± 0.6 18.93 ± 0.5 9.73 ± 0.3
C H
Elemental composition, % N NH /NC

C 83.30 H 11.97 N 0.37 NH/NC 1.72

83.30 11.97 0.37 1.72
According to the results of the SARA analysis, it can be noted that the studied oil
According
contains ato the amount
large results ofof the SARA
resins analysis,
(18.93 ± 0.5%)itand canasphaltenes
be noted that the±studied
(9.73 oil
0.3%), which, on
contains
theaone
large amount
hand, of resins
determine (18.93
its high ± 0.5%)and
viscosity, andon asphaltenes (9.73 they
the other hand, ± 0.3%),
maywhich,
serve asonnatural
the one hand, determine
emulsifiers (promote its the
high viscosity,ofand
formation on the other hand, they may serve as nat-
an emulsion).
ural emulsifiers (promote the formation of an emulsion).
3.2. Study of the Rate and Completeness of the Oil Dissolution in Selected Solvents and Their
Mixtures
3.2. Study of the in a Different
Rate Ratio
and Completeness of the Oil Dissolution in Selected Solvents and their
Mixtures inVarious
a Differentsolvents
Ratio were selected in this work to reduce the heavy oil viscosity, in-
cludingsolvents
Various individualwereand multicomponent
selected in this work compositions based oil
to reduce the heavy on viscosity,
aliphatic and aromatic
includ-
hydrocarbons,
ing individual as well as othercompositions
and multicomponent classes of organic
basedcompounds.
on aliphatic The physical and
and aromatic chemical
hydro-
composition of the used solvents is presented in Table 2.
carbons, as well as other classes of organic compounds. The physical and chemical com-
position of Table 2 shows
the used the main
solvents characteristics
is presented in Tableof2.the opted solvents in this study. The process
of the optimal solvents’ selection has been followed by the criteria of the structure of organic
solvents
Table 2. Physicaland the functional
properties fragments
and chemical in various
composition of theratios of their composition. Solvents with
used solvents.
different types of functional groups and different compositions were selected to study the
completeness and dissolution rate Composition, %
by the adiabatic calorimetry method as follows:
№ Sample • Alkanes: heptane, Non-Polar Solvent
Polar Solvent
Aromatics
• Naphthenes
Arenas: Alkanes Isomers of Alkanes, etc.
toluene, o-xylene,
1. Heptane •- -
Polar oxygen-containing 100 -
structures: ethyl acetate, MTBE, -
• Mixtures of individual solvents: toluene/ethyl acetate/heptane (40:40:20), toluene/ethyl
acetate (72:25),
• Mixtures of industrial solvents: CS, nefras, toluene/nefras (75:25).
It is common knowledge that dissolution heats (∆Hsolv ) are composed of the inter-
molecular interactions energy (∆Hint ) and the formation energy of a “cavity” (∆Hcav ) which
places the sorbate into the volume of the solvent, when considering the of change regu-
larities in the dissolution heats depending on the substances whose structural features
are under study. However, an increase in the energy of cavity formation was observed
Processes 2023, 11, 459 5 of 19

(∆Hcav heptane = 0 kJ/mol, ∆Hcav toluene = 2.65 × 10−2 kJ/mol) when passing from non-polar
paraffinic solvents (heptane) to aromatic (toluene, o-xylene) and oxygen-containing (MTBE,
ethyl acetate) solvents.

Table 2. Physical properties and chemical composition of the used solvents.

Composition, %
Non-Polar Solvent
No. Sample
Isomers of Polar Solvent
Aromatics Naphthenes Alkanes
Alkanes, etc.
1. Heptane - - 100 - -
2. Dodecane - - 100 - -
3. Toluene 100 - - - -
4. Benzene 100 - - - -
5. O-xylene 100 - - - -
6. Benzyl alcohol 100 - - - +
7. Isopropyl alcohol - - - - 100
8. Ethyl Acetate - - - - 100
Methyl tert-butyl ether
9. - - - - 100
(MTBE)
10. Nefras 20.53 15.77 17.06 46.64 -
11. Commercial solvent (CS) 23.45 1.48 23.68 51.39 -
12. Petroleum ether - 100 -
Toluene/Heptane
13. 50 - 50 - -
(50:50)
Toluene/Petroleum ether
14. 50 50 -
(50:50)
Heptane/Ethyl Acetate:
15. - - 50 - 50
(50:50)
Toluene:MTBE:
16. 75 - - - 25
(75:25)
Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
17. 50 - - - 50
(50:50)
Toluene:Ethyl
18. Acetate:Heptane 40 - 20 - 40
(40:40:20)
Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
19. 75 - - - 25
(75:25)
Toluene:Ethyl Acetate
20. 25 - - - 75
(25:75)
21. Ethyl cellosolve - - - - 100
22. CS-1 52.96 47.04
23. CS-2 67.66 32.34
24. Toluene/CS (50:50) 61.73 38.27
25. Toluene/Nefras (50:50) 60.27 39.73

The results of the calorimetric measurements (Table 3), showed only the endo-effect
of dissolution in the studied solvents. This means that there was no energy absorption
during the dissolution of the oil components and their further interaction with any of
Processes 2023, 11, 459 6 of 19

the solvents. Moreover, the absence of the thermal effect (∆Hsolv = 0) has been observed
in isopropanol, where there was a separation of the solvent oil phases and the absence
of intermolecular interaction; therefore, this solvent was not recommended for further
applications. Furthermore, the thermal effect of dissolution was found to be equal to
zero (∆Hsolv = 0) in heptane, while the formation enthalpy of the cavity was also found
to be equal to zero (∆Hcav heptane = 0). This led us to conclude that there is no gain in
energy in the formation of intermolecular bonds between oil components and heptane.
However, further rheological studies are recommended to exclude heptane and aliphatic
solvents. Moreover, the maximum values of the dissolution endo-effect were observed
for ethyl acetate, MTBE, toluene/ethyl acetate mixture (−14.5; −14.1; −14.2 J/g), which
is associated with a high-energy consumption for the rupture and cavity formation in the
polar solvents, such as ethyl acetate and MTBE. At the same time, the rate of formation
of the new bonds upon dissolution in MTBE was found to be two times higher than that
in ethyl acetate and in the ethyl acetate/toluene mixture. It is worthy to note that despite
the deep dissolution degree found in energy-intensive polar solvents, such as MTBE and
ethyl acetate, further studies on changing the viscosity and achieving aggregation stability
are importantly required. It can be noted that the ∆Hcav values of toluene and o-xylene,
are representatives of aromatic hydrocarbons, homologues and differ by one methylene
group, and differ by a factor of 2. In this case, the enthalpies and dissolution time in toluene
(10.9 J/g, 90 s) were found to be much longer than in o-xylene (2.3 kJ/mol, 60 s) which
indicates a deeper dissolution in toluene. In fact, aromatic solvents were recommended for
further research. For mixed solvents, intermediate values of the enthalpy of dissolution
were found, and they were also included in further studies.

Table 3. Oil dissolution heat and time in various pure solvents and their mixtures.

Solvent ∆H, J/g T, s

Commercial solvent (CS) 2.9 60
Nefras 8.7 50
Ethyl Acetate 14.5 80
Heptane 0 0
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 14.1 40
Toluene 10.9 90
Isopropanol 0 0
O-xylene 2.3 60
Toluene:ethyl acetate (75:25) 3.6 40
Toluene:ethyl acetate (75:25) 14.2 100

It is suggested that forming “suitable” solvation shells around the particle-aggregates

of asphaltenes is important for the rupture of aggregates and the formation of a stable
solution for the possible dissolution of oil in solvents [30–32].

3.3. Oil Viscosity Study in the Presence of Several Solvents and Their Mixtures at
Different Concentrations
Figure 2 shows the results of the initial oil viscosity at different temperatures. The
viscosity of the initial oil was found to be equal to 427.18 mPa.s at 25 ◦ C.
The research team prepared various solutions consisting of oil and solvents with
concentrations of 1, 2 and 3% by mass, in order to investigate the effect on the oil viscosity.
Viscosity measurements were taken at 25 ◦ C, and the results are displayed in Table 4.
The effectiveness of the solvents used (3% wt.) was evaluated based on their ability to
decrease the oil viscosity using the following criterion: less than 40%—low efficiency, not
recommended for use; 40–50%—effective, application is possible, continued research; more
Processes 2023, 11, 459 7 of 19

than 50%—high efficiency, further research is needed. According to the obtained criteria,
benzyl alcohol was excluded from further research (38%). Moreover, benzene, showed a
41% efficiency, but as it is a substance of the second hazard class, it was also excluded from
further studies. High efficiency in viscosity reduction was observed for heptane, toluene,
o-xylene, ethyl acetate, petroleum ether, toluene/ethyl acetate mixtures (50:50) and ethyl
cellosolve. Nevertheless, the decrease in viscosity in aliphatic and polar solvents can also
be explained by the precipitation of the asphaltene particles due to the destabilization of
colloids. In aromatic compounds, the viscosity decrease was the result of their dissolution.
Therefore, for all solvents, except for benzene and benzyl alcohol, studies were carried out
to determine their aggregation stability.

Table 4. Changes in the oil viscosity dynamics in the presence of different solvents.

Solvent Concentration, % wt.

No. Sample 1 2 3
Viscosity at 25 ◦ C, mPa.s
1. Heptane 313.3 290.8 183.4
2. Dodecane 321.1 276.8 245.2
3. Toluene 301.8 266.3 178.1
4. Benzene 324.5 289.1 252.6
5. O-xylene 298.2 256.1 208.4
6. Benzyl alcohol 378.8 354.8 264.5
7. Isopropyl alcohol 342.8 268.2 226.8
8. Ethyl acetate 315.7 252.9 198.8
Methyl tert-butyl ether
9. 308.9 261.1 225.1
(MTBE)
10. Nefras 336.9 316.4 233.1
Commercial solvent
11. 301.1 274.0 244.8
(CS)
12. Petroleum ether 319.9 279.8 190.8
13. Toluene/nephras (50:50) 291.2 277.5 248.3
Toluene/petroleum
14. 279.7 270.5 243.9
ether (50:50)
Heptane/ethyl acetate:
15. 282.4 278.9 249.5
(50:50)
16. Toluene/MTBE (75:25) 312.4 262.7 253.7
Toluene:ethyl acetate
17. 279.1 219.1 200.5
(50:50)
Toluene:ethyl acetate
18. 350.8 280.4 218.5
(75:25)
Toluene:ethyl acetate
19. 372.4 322.9 227.8
(25:75)
20. Ethyl cellosolve 312.9 280.1 213.5
21. CS-1 317.7 273.4 258.9
22. CS-2 326.5 277.8 234.4
23. Toluene/CS (50:50) 300.6 259.0 233.3
24. Toluene/nephras (50:50) 337.9 292.9 253.8
 Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

Processes 2023, 11, 459 8 of 19

Figure 2 shows the results of the initial oil viscosity at different temperatures. The
viscosity of the initial oil was found to be equal to 427.18 mPa.s at 25 °C.

Figure2.2.Initial
Figure Initialoiloilviscosity
viscositydepending
dependingonontemperature.
temperature.

3.4. OilThe
Solutions Aggregation
research Stability
team prepared in Several
various Solvents
solutions and Theirof
consisting Mixtures
oil and at Different
solvents Ratios
with con-
The obtained
centrations of 1, 2results
and 3%from turbidity
by mass, measurements
in order arethe
to investigate presented
effect oninthe
Table 5. Two
oil viscosity.
areas were measurements
Viscosity distinguished for werealltaken
of theatinvestigated
25 °C, and thesolutions: oil solutions
results are displayed(3% wt.) with
in Table 4.
NTU ≤ 1.1 and oil solutions (3% wt.) with NTU ≥ 91. The following criteria were estab-
lished
Tableto 4. assess
Changestheinoil/solvent stability:
the oil viscosity dynamics in the≤presence
(1) NTU 1—effective solvents
of different recommended for
solvents.
use; (2) NTU ≥ 50—ineffective solvents not recommended for further tests.
Solvent Concentration, % wt.
№ 5. ExperimentalSample
Table values of the oil solution turbidity1 in various solvents
2 and their mixtures.
3
Viscosity at 25 °C, mPa.s
Measurement Oil, Nephelometric
1.
No. Heptane Solvent 313.3 290.8 183.4
Number Mass. % Turbidity Unit, NTU
2. Dodecane 321.1 276.8 245.2
1. 1 490
3. Toluene 301.8 266.3 178.1
1. 4. 2. Heptane 2 1091
Benzene 324.5 289.1 252.6
5. 3. O-xylene 298.2 3 256.1 1665 208.4
6. 4.
Benzyl alcohol 378.8 1 354.8 140 264.5
2.7. Isopropyl
5. alcohol Dodecane 342.8 2 268.2 269 226.8
8. Ethyl
6. acetate 315.7 3 252.9 439 198.8
9. Methyl tert-butyl
7. ether (MTBE) 308.9 1 261.1 0.60 225.1
10. Nefras 336.9 316.4 233.1
3. 8. Toluene 2 0.26
11. Commercial solvent (CS) 301.1 274.0 244.8
9. 3 0.21
12. Petroleum ether 319.9 279.8 190.8
13. 10.
Toluene/nephras (50:50) 291.2 1 277.5 554 248.3
11.
4.14. Toluene/petroleum Ethyl
ether (50: 50)Acetate 279.7 2 270.5 3280 243.9
12.
15. Heptane/ethyl acetate:(50:50) 282.4 3 278.9 4186 249.5
16. Toluene/MTBE
13. (75: 25) 312.4 1 262.7 165 253.7
5.17. Toluene: 14.ethyl acetate (50:50) solvent279.1
Commercial (CS) 2 219.1 334 200.5
18. Toluene: 15.
ethyl acetate (75: 25) 350.8 3
280.4 636
218.5
19. Toluene: ethyl acetate (25:75) 372.4 322.9 227.8
16. 1 152
20. Ethyl cellosolve 312.9 280.1 213.5
6. 17. Nefras 2 389
18. 3 532
Processes 2023, 11, 459 9 of 19

Table 5. Cont.

Measurement Oil, Nephelometric

No. Solvent
Number Mass. % Turbidity Unit, NTU
19. 1 478
7. 20. Petroleum ether 2 464
21. 3 1245
22. 1 1.10
8. 23. Toluene/heptane 50:50 2 0.81
24. 3 0.31
25. 1 0.66
26. Toluene/petroleum ether 2 0.43
9.
50:50
27. 3 0.35
28. 1 162
Heptane/ethyl acetate:
10. 29. 2 380
(50:50)
30. 3 610
31. 1 278
Methyl tret butyl ether
11. 32. 2 291
(MTBE)
33. 3 649
34. 1 0.63
12. 35. Toluene/MTBE (75:25) 2 0.30
36. 3 0.27
37. 1 91.2
13. 38. Toluene:ethyl acetate (50:50) 2 123
39. 3 157
40. 1 0.58
14. 41. Toluene:ethyl acetate (75:25) 2 0.31
42. 3 0.22
43. 1 286
15. 44. Toluene:ethyl acetate (25:75) 2 852
45. 3 1534
46. 1
16. 47. Ethyl cellosolve 2 did not dissolve
48. 3
49. 1 0.74
17. 50. CS-1 2 0.49
51. 3 0.39
52. 1 0.90
18. 53. CS-2 2 0.61
54. 3 0.49
55. 1 0.97
19. 56. Toluene/CS (50:50) 2 0.63
57. 3 0.48
Processes 2023, 11, 459 10 of 19

Table 5. Cont.

Measurement Oil, Nephelometric

No. Solvent
Number Mass. % Turbidity Unit, NTU
58. 1 0.57
20. 59. Toluene/nephras (50:50) 2 0.32
60. 3 0.24
61. 1 0.51
21. 62. O-xylene (50:50) 2 0.28
63. 3 0.22
64. 1 0.83
Toluene/ethyl
22. 65. 2 0.42
acetate/heptane (40:40:20)
66. 3 0.32

According to the obtained results, heptane, dodecane, ethyl acetate, and MTBE did not
fall within the list of the recommended solvents included. In addition, it has been found
that oil does not dissolve in ethyl cellosolve, which also excludes it from further research.
Moreover, heptane/ethyl acetate (50:50), toluene/ethyl acetate (50:50), toluene/ethyl ac-
etate (25:75) were found to not be recommended mixtures of individual solvents. It should
be noted that the toluene/ethyl acetate mixture (75:25) shows generally good results
(NTU < 1), from which it can be concluded that the stabilization of the asphaltene particles
is due to the addition of toluene to the mixture. Moreover, the absence of colloidal particles
was achieved at a toluene to ethyl acetate ratio of 75:25. It can also be concluded that mixed
compositions from individual solvents and industrial mixtures—toluene/heptane (50:50),
toluene/petroleum ether (50:50), toluene/MTBE (75:25), toluene/ethyl acetate/heptane
(40:40:20), toluene/ethyl acetate (75:25), toluene/CS (50:50), toluene/Nefras (50:50) and
toluene/ethyl acetate/heptane (40:40:20) have low NTU values, only due to the presence of
toluene in the mixture. Such mixtures cannot be recommended due to the possible change
in composition during filtration and clogging of the core material with colloidal particles of
asphaltenes. The obtained results led us to propose toluene, o-xylene, CS-1 and CS-2 as
recommended solvents and compositions, as shown by their turbidity values.
Following the study of the impact of various solvents and their compositions on
the properties of Akan oil, such as viscosity, turbidity and calorimetry, the research team
selected toluene and o-xylene for further investigation.

3.5. Solvent’s Thermal Analysis

The thermal stability of toluene and o-xylene was determined by means of thermo-
gravimetric analysis. The obtained thermal properties of the studied solvents are presented
in Table 6.

Table 6. Solvent’s thermal stability parameters.

Temperature of the Maximum

Solvent End of Process Temperature, ◦ C
Intensity of the Process, ◦ C
Toluene 76.2 81.0
O-xylene 105.6 110.4

The obtained results (Table 6) showed that o-xylene has the highest thermal stability,
which correlates with its highest boiling point T = 144 ◦ C among the studied samples. In
addition, the thermogravimetric curves (Figure 3) show that all solvents occur completely
evaporated already at 110.4 ◦ C (in the case of o-xylene). This is explained by its high
volatility at atmospheric pressure. It is common knowledge that DTG curves are the
 Toluene 76.2 81.0
O-xylene 105.6 110.4

The obtained results (Table 6) showed that o-xylene has the highest thermal stability,
Processes 2023, 11, 459
which correlates with its highest boiling point T = 144 °C among the studied samples. In
11 of 19
addition, the thermogravimetric curves (Figure 3) show that all solvents occur completely
evaporated already at 110.4 °C (in the case of o-xylene). This is explained by its high vol-
atility at atmospheric pressure. It is common knowledge that DTG curves are the deriva-
derivatives of the weight
tives loss
of the curves
weight shown
loss curvesinshown
Figurein3 (dotted
Figure 3lines).
(dottedThe obtained
lines). curves curves
The obtained
demonstrate
demonstrate a one-stage a one-stage
behavior for allbehavior for all ofprocesses.
of the studied the studiedThis
processes. This stage corresponds
stage corresponds to
to the transition
the transition of solvents from theof liquid
solvents from to
phase thethe
liquid
vaporphase to the
phase vapor phase (evaporation).
(evaporation). During the Dur-
analysis of the IRingspectra
the analysis of the IR
of gaseous spectra ofitgaseous
products, products,that
was confirmed it was confirmed
they that they are rep-
are represented
resented by the
by the original solvent molecules. original solvent molecules.

Figure 3. TG-DTGFigure
curves3. of
TG-DTG curves ofsolvents
the analyzed the analyzed solvents
(o-xylene (o-xylene
(blue), (blue),
toluene toluene (red)).
(red)).

According to theAccording to the thermal

thermal stability stability
criteria, all of criteria, all ofsolvents
the selected the selected solvents
(toluene, (toluene, xy-
xylene)
lene) are suitable for the next stage of steam filtration
are suitable for the next stage of steam filtration and enhanced oil recovery.and enhanced oil recovery.

3.6. Core Preparation

In order to study the effect of the solvents on oil recovery, three core samples
(1c, 4c and 8c) were taken from well 2441 of the Akan field. Further, from the selected
samples, standard cylindrical samples were drilled, with a diameter of 30 mm and a length
of 50 mm. Following the preparation of the standard samples, the extraction stage began.
Extraction of the samples was carried out by standard hot extraction with a mixture of
solvents (chloroform + carbon tetrachloride + alcohol + benzene) according to the Russian
standard (GOST R 55878-2013, GOST 9572-93) in a Soxhlet apparatus. The degree of ex-
traction was checked out with an ultraviolet lamp, and the hydrocarbons were completely
removed from the samples. Following the extraction, standard studies were carried out
on the samples to determine the porosity and permeability. Table 7 shows the porosity,
permeability, and void ratio of the extracted samples. According to the obtained results,
the core 8c has the maximum permeability and porosity, as shown in the Table 7.

Table 7. Porosity, permeability, and void ratio of the extracted samples.

Weight before Weight after

No. Porosity, % Permeability, mD Void Ratio, %
Extraction, g Extraction, g
1c 74.445 72.114 16.52 64.18 2.60
4c 80.043 78.203 12.2 58.75 1.34
8c 77.343 74.066 18.87 65.08 2.14

Computed tomography was utilized to calculate the void ratio values (Table 7).
Figure S1 (Supplementary Material) shows the orthogonal X-ray density sections of the
Processes 2023, 11, 459 12 of 19

studied samples and three-dimensional visualization of the shape of the void space of the
studied samples.

3.7. Study of the Capillary Soaking of an Oil-Saturated Model

For the soaking experiments, test core samples (1c, 4c and 8c) were placed in a glass
container filled with formation water or solvent (formation water (1), toluene (2) and
o-xylene (3)), respectively. The samples were hermetically sealed and left for 7 days. Table 8
presents the main obtained parameters and results.

Table 8. The main parameters for conducting soaking experiments.

Core Sample, Core Weight before Solvent The Volume of Oil in Displaced Oil
Experiment RF, %
30 × 50 mm Impregnation, g Weight, g the Initial CoreVinit. , mL Volume Vd , mL *
1 1c 76.3456 75 3.47 0.70 20
2 4c 82.2514 75 2.87 1.98 69
3 8c 80.2091 75 4.09 2.50 61
* Determined by UV-VIS spectrophotometry.

The recovery factor (RF) by water and solvents during soaking was calculated by the
formula: RF = Vd /Vinit .
According to the data obtained in Table 8, a low value of RF can be noted during
the capillary impregnation with water due to the difference in the types of intermolecular
bonds of fluids (hydrophobic oil + hydrophilic solvent—water), which determine the
immiscible regime of oil-saturated rock soaking. By using the organic solvents in the two
to three experiments, an increase in RF was observed, which is associated with a good
dissolving ability of aromatic solvents. The driving energy behind soaking and solvation is
the stabilization of asphaltenes and the concomitant reduction in oil viscosity. The obtained
data showed good soaking values for toluene (RF = 69%). Tables S1 and S2 (Supplementary
Material) show photos of the core samples before and after capillary soaking.

3.8. Filtration Studies on the Solvent Injection in the Reservoir Conditions

During the experiments, the recovery factor was determined by formation water
and toluene and o-xylene solvents. Water injection was carried out at a selected rate of
3 mL/min continuously for 8 pore volumes, then 2 more pore volumes at a flow rate of
10 mL/min. The conditions for conducting the experiments by formation water and toluene
and o-xylene solvents are shown in Table 9, and the results of the experiment are shown in
Table 10 and Figure 4.

Table 9. Conditions for conducting the experiments.

Reservoir Flow Rate,

Type of Influence Core Sample Permeability, mD Inlet Temperature, ◦ C
Pressure, MPa mL/min
2c 460.8 3/8 P.V.
formation water 10 23
6c 480.95 10/2 P.V.
9c 154.06 3/8 P.V.
toluene 10 23
11c 153.38 10/2 P.V.
12c 117.97 3/8 P.V.
o-xylene 10 23
15c 114.54 10/2 P.V.
Processes 2023, 11, 459 13 of 19

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4. Filtration dynamics in the experiment with formation water (a), toluene (b) and o-xylene (c).

1
 Processes 2023, 11, 459 14 of 19

Table 10. Material balance in the filtration experiments.

Type of Core Oil Saturation of the Volume of Oil in the Material Balance after the Experiment
Influence Sample Initial Core, % Initial Core, mL Volume of Extracted Oil, mL RF, %

formation 2c 66 4.06
2.23 26
water 6c 65 4.52
9c 75 5.60
toluene 7.04 78
11c 73 3.43
12c 64 2.50
o-xylene 2.94 69
15c 41 1.76

A relatively low-pressure drop was observed during filtration with formation water,
up to a value of 0.24 MPa, as shown in Figure 4a. Despite the lower permeability values
in the experiment with toluene (153, 154 mD), compared with the experiment with water
(460, 480 mD) (Table 9), an even lower pressure drop in the model was observed during
filtration (up to a maximum value of 0.14 MPa), as shown in Figure 4b. These results
indicate a good dissolving power of the solvent with a recovery factor of 78%. During
filtration with o-xylene, a high pressure drop to 0.98 MPa was initially observed (Figure 4c),
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
which can be explained by the heterogeneity of core 12c and 15c (Figure 5). At the same
time, the recovery factor during filtration with o-xylene was 69%, as shown in Table 10.

Core sample 12C Core sample 15C

Figure 5. Three-dimensional
Figure visualization
5. Three-dimensional of of
visualization thethe
void space
void shape.
space shape.

3.9. 10.
Table Filtration
MaterialStudies
balanceduring
in the the Steamexperiments.
filtration and Solvent Injection on the Prepared Core Samples
During
Oil Saturation of the experiments, the recovery factor by
Material steamafter
Balance in the
thepresence and absence
Experiment
Type of Influ- Core Sam- Volume of Oil in the
of solvent was determined in different feed modes. Steam injection was carried out at
the Initial
ence ple a selected rate of Initial Core, mL
3 mL/min (by water)
Volumecontinuously
of ExtractedforOil,
8 pore
mL volumes, RF,then
% 2 more
Core, %
pore volumes at a flow rate of 10 mL/min. During the filtration, a pressure drop to the
formation wa- 2c 0.3166bar was observed. 4.06
The conditions associated to conducting the steam26 experiments
2.23
ter 6c 65 4.52 of solvent are shown in Table 11. The recovery factor was
in the presence and absence
9c 75
calculated, according to 5.60
the formula: RF = Vextr ./Vinit .
toluene 7.04 78
11c 73Where Vextr . is the3.43
volume of oil displaced from the model, mL; Vinit .—initial volume
12c of oil
64 in the model, mL. 2.50
o-xylene 2.94 69
15c 41Figure 6 shows the 1.76temperature profiles in the control experiment (steam). The
recovery factor by steam on a composite model of an oil-saturated core from the Akan
field
3.9. was determined.
Filtration Studies duringFollowing
the Steamfiltration with
and Solvent steam,on
Injection thethe
recovery
Preparedfactor achieved was
Core Samples
54.7%, as shown in Table 12. During the filtration process, a pressure drop of 0.31 MPa was
During the experiments, the recovery factor by steam in the presence and absence of
observed, as shown in Figure S2 (Supplementary Material).
solvent was determined in different feed modes. Steam injection was carried out at a se-
lected rate of 3 mL/min (by water) continuously for 8 pore volumes, then 2 more pore
volumes at a flow rate of 10 mL/min. During the filtration, a pressure drop to the 0.31 bar
was observed. The conditions associated to conducting the steam experiments in the pres-
ence and absence of solvent are shown in Table 11. The recovery factor was calculated,
according to the formula: RF = Vextr./Vinit.
Where Vextr. is the volume of oil displaced from the model, ml; Vinit.—initial volume
of oil in the model, ml.
Processes 2023, 11, 459 15 of 19

Table 11. Conditions for conducting experiments with steam only and steam with solvent.

Type of Reservoir Steam Consumption

No. Core Permeability, mD Inlet Temperature, ◦ C
Influence Pressure, MPa in Water, mL/min
3c 322.5
1 Steam 10 3 320
7c 234.13
Solvent
17c 75.6 23
2 (slug) + 10 3
18c 38.7 320
Steam
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR+PEER REVIEW
Steam 15 of 19
9c 154.06
3 Solvent 10 3 320
11c 153.38
(mixed)

350

300
Temperature, ̊С

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T2 T3 T4 Agent injection volume, p.v.

Figure 6. Temperature profiles in the control experiment.

Figure 6. Temperature profiles in the control experiment.
Table 12. Material balance before and after exposure in all experiments.
Figure 7 shows the temperature profiles where steam with a solvent were supplied
Type of Oil SaturationThe
in a slug. solvent
of the injection
The Volume was in the out at aMaterial
carried
of Oil selectedBalance
rate of after the Experiment
3 mL/min continuously
Core
Influence for 1 pore
Original volume,
Core, % then another
Original Core9Vpore
init ., volumes
mL of steam at a flow rate of
Volume of Extracted Oil Vextr , mL 3 mL/min.
RF, Dur-
%
3c
ing filtration,
67
a pressure drop to
3.93
0.07 MPa was observed, as shown in Figure S3 (Supple-
Steam mentary Material). Following filtration, the recovery factor 4.23 was fixed to 65%, as shown54.7 in
7c 65 3.81
Table 12.
Solvent 17c 65 2.71
4.1 65
(slug) + Steam 18c 66 3.59
350
Steam + 9c 65 4.8
Solvent 300 4.82 61
(mixed) 11c 66 3.1
Temperature, ℃

solvent injection (1 p.v.)

250

200 Figure 7 shows the temperature profiles where steam with a solvent were supplied in
steam injection
a slug. The solvent injection was carried ( 9 p.v.)rate of 3 mL/min continuously for
out at a selected
150 1 pore volume, then another 9 pore volumes of steam at a flow rate of 3 mL/min. During
filtration, a pressure drop to 0.07 MPa was observed, as shown in Figure S3 (Supplementary
100 Material). Following filtration, the recovery factor was fixed to 65%, as shown in Table 12.
50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T2 T3 T4
Agent injection volume, p.v.

Figure 7. Temperature profiles in the experiment with steam and solvent supplied in a slug.
 Figure 7 shows the temperature profiles where steam with a solvent were supplied
in a slug. The solvent injection was carried out at a selected rate of 3 mL/min continuously
for 1 pore volume, then another 9 pore volumes of steam at a flow rate of 3 mL/min. Dur-
ing filtration, a pressure drop to 0.07 MPa was observed, as shown in Figure S3 (Supple-
Processes 2023, 11, 459 mentary Material). Following filtration, the recovery factor was fixed to 65%, as shown
16 of 19in
Table 12.

350

300
Temperature, ℃

solvent injection (1 p.v.)

250

200
steam injection ( 9 p.v.)
150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T2 T3 T4
Agent injection volume, p.v.

Figure7.7.Temperature
Figure Temperature profiles
profiles inin the
the experiment
experiment with
with steam
steam and
and solvent
solvent supplied
supplied in in a slug.
a slug.

Figure
Figure88shows
shows the temperature profiles
the temperature profileswhere
wheresteam,
steam,inin
thethe presence
presence of solvent
of solvent was
was
supplied in a mixed mode. The injection of the solvent with steam was carried outout
supplied in a mixed mode. The injection of the solvent with steam was carried at a
atselected
a selected
rate rate
of 3 of 3 mL/min
mL/min continuously
continuously for 10 for 10volumes.
pore pore volumes.
During During filtration,
filtration, a pressurea
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19
pressure
drop todrop
0.043toMPa0.043was
MPaobserved,
was observed, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure S4 (Supplementary
S4 (Supplementary Material).
Material). Fol-
Following filtration,the
lowing filtration, therecovery
recoveryfactor
factorwas
was61%,
61%,asasshown
shownininTable
Table12.12.

350

300
Temperature, ℃

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Agent injection volume, p.v.

T2 T3 T4

Figure 8. Temperature profiles in the experiment with steam and solvent supplied in a mixed mode.
Figure 8. Temperature profiles in the experiment with steam and solvent supplied in a mixed
mode.
The obtained results provide evidence for the maximum value of the recovery factor
(65%) which was obtained with the solvent (slug) + steam, even though the core permeabil-
Table 12. Material balance before and after exposure in all experiments.
ity is lower than in other experiments, as shown in the Table 12.
The Volume of Oil in Material Balance after the Experiment
Type of Influ- Oil
4. Saturation
Conclusionsof the Original
Core the Original Core Vinit., Volume of Extracted
ence Core, % RF, %
To sum up, the present work led mLus to study theOil Vextr, mL
characteristics of the Akan oilfield.
3c The obtained 3.93 oil contains a high amount of resins (≈19%) and
67 results suggest that Akan
Steam 4.23 54.7
7c asphaltenes65(≈10%). Therefore, compositions
3.81 based on aromatic compounds should be
Solvent 17c considered65 preferable from the point of view of the stabilization of colloidal asphaltene
2.71
4.1 65
(slug) + Steam 18c particles. Further
66 studies were carried
3.59 out to determine the viscosity of Akan oil and
Steam + 9c the aggregation
65 stability in the presence
4.8 of a series of solvents and compositions with
Solvent different molecular structures and content of polar groups. 4.82The best results were
61 found
11c 66 3.1
(mixed) for oil solutions with toluene and o-xylene. The decrease in viscosity in aliphatic solvents
(heptane, nefras, petroleum ether) is associated with the precipitation of asphaltene fraction
The obtained results provide evidence for the maximum value of the recovery factor
(65%) which was obtained with the solvent (slug)+ steam, even though the core permea-
bility is lower than in other experiments, as shown in the Table 12.
Processes 2023, 11, 459 17 of 19

from the solution. The obtained data found that polar solvents (ethyl acetate, MTBE)
are characterized by high turbidity values. Additionally, the use of such solvents was
found unsuitable due to possible clogging during injection into the reservoir. Regarding
isopropanol and ethyl cellosolve, the obtained results showed phase separation, where
calorimetric data indicate a high rate of oil dissolution in their presence. Moreover, most
solvents exhibited the dissolution endo-effect, since the total gain in the dissolution energy
was resulted from the entropy asphaltene aggregate solvation process. Capillary soaking
data indicated a gradual increase in the efficiency of the studied solvents as follows: water
(RF = 20%), o-xylene (RF = 61%), toluene (RF = 69%), with water as being the least effective
soaking agent. Likewise, filtration experiments showed the same growth tendency in the
efficiency of the studied experiments, as follows: water (RF = 26%), o-xylene (RF = 69%),
toluene (RF = 78%). During the injection steam with solvent in a slug, the recovery factor
was fixed at 65%.
To sum up, the results of this study suggest an opposite relation between the viscosity
of the oil and the recovery factor in the presence of aromatic solvents, such as toluene and
o-xylene. All of these changes can be explained by the fact that aromatic solvent molecules
tend to be located between the asphaltene layers and reduce the overlap between large
asphaltene macromolecules, which leads to the dissociation of asphaltene aggregates.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pr11020459/s1. Figure S1: Orthogonal X-ray density sec-
tions and three-dimensional visualization of the shape of the void space of the samples; Figure S2:
Pressure profiles at the inlet, outlet of the model, pressure drop and water flow in the control exper-
iment (steam); Figure S3: Pressure profiles at the inlet and outlet of the model, pressure drop and
water flow in the experiment (steam with a solvent was supplied in slug); Figure S4: Pressure profiles
at the inlet and outlet of the model, pressure drop and water flow in the experiment (steam with the
solvent was supplied in a mixed mode); Table S1: Appearance of the solution (solvent + oil) before
and after soaking; Table S2: The oil-saturated core model before and after soaking.
Author Contributions: M.A.S.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Reviewing and Editing,
Visualization, Supervision, Formal analysis, Investigation. I.F.M.: Investigation, Formal analysis,
Writing–Original Draft. M.A.V.: Conceptualization, Reviewing and Editing, Supervision, Project ad-
ministration, Funding acquisition. A.A.A.-M.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–Reviewing
and Editing, Supervision. A.V.B.: Investigation, Formal analysis. R.D.: Investigation, Formal analysis.
S.A.S.: Investigation, Formal analysis. D.A.E.: Investigation, Formal analysis. R.K.K.: Investigation,
Project administration, Funding acquisition, A.I.S.: Investigation, Project administration, Funding
acquisition. M.A.K.: Formal analysis, Investigation, Editing–Reviewing, Visualization. All authors
discussed and approved the final version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not available.
Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the subsidy allocated to Kazan Federal University
for the state assignment in the sphere of scientific activities (Project No. 0671-2020-0048 of State
Assignment No. 075-00216-20-05 of 04.06.2020 (Part II Section I)).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Petroluem, B. BP Statistical Review of World Energy; BP Plc: London, UK, 2018.
2. Simão, A.; Domínguez-Álvarez, E.; Yuan, C.; Suwaid, M.A.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Ancheyta, J.; Al-mishaal, O.F.; Kudryashov,
S.I.; Afanasiev, I.S.; Antonenko, D.A. On the Use of Metallic Nanoparticulated Catalysts for In-Situ Oil Upgrading. Fuel 2022,
313, 122677. [CrossRef]
3. Ushakova, A.S.; Zatsepin, V.; Khelkhal, M.A.; Sitnov, S.A.; Vakhin, A.V. In Situ Combustion of Heavy, Medium, and Light Crude
Oils: Low-Temperature Oxidation in Terms of a Chain Reaction Approach. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 7710–7721. [CrossRef]
4. Khelkhal, M.A.M.A.; Eskin, A.A.A.; Vakhin, A.V.A.V. Kinetic Study on Heavy Oil Oxidation by Copper Tallates. Energy Fuels
2019, 33, 12690–12695. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 459 18 of 19

5. Murzakhanov, F.; Ponomarev, A.; Khelkhal, M.A.; Amziane, O.; Vakhin, A.V.; Gafurov, M. Conventional and High-Field Pulsed
EPR Experimental Studies on Bazhenov Oil Formation under the Influence of 50 Hz Electromagnetic Field. Fuel 2023, 334, 126580.
[CrossRef]
6. Vakhin, A.V.; Khelkhal, M.A.; Tajik, A.; Ignashev, N.E.; Krapivnitskaya, T.O.; Peskov, N.Y.; Glyavin, M.Y.; Bulanova, S.A.; Slavkina,
O.V.; Schekoldin, K.A. Microwave Radiation Impact on Heavy Oil Upgrading from Carbonate Deposits in the Presence of
Nano-Sized Magnetite. Processes 2021, 9, 2021. [CrossRef]
7. Vakhin, A.V.; Khelkhal, M.A.; Mukhamatdinov, I.I.; Mukhamatdinova, R.E.; Tajik, A.; Slavkina, O.V.; Malaniy, S.Y.; Gafurov, M.R.;
Nasybullin, A.R.; Morozov, O.G. Changes in Heavy Oil Saturates and Aromatics in the Presence of Microwave Radiation and
Iron-Based Nanoparticles. Catalysts 2022, 12, 514. [CrossRef]
8. Sitnov, S.A.; Khelkhal, M.A.; Mukhamatdinov, I.I.; Feoktistov, D.A.; Vakhin, A.V. Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Impact on Improving
Reservoir Rock Minerals Catalytic Effect on Heavy Oil Aquathermolysis. Fuel 2022, 327, 124956. [CrossRef]
9. Khelkhal, M.A.; Lapuk, S.E.; Buzyurov, A.V.; Ignashev, N.E.; Shmeleva, E.I.; Mukhamatdinov, I.I.; Vakhin, A.V. Thermal Behavior
of Heavy Oil Catalytic Pyrolysis and Aquathermolysis. Catalysts 2022, 12, 449. [CrossRef]
10. Bagci, A.S. Steam Injection in Oil Reservoirs with Bottom Water Zone. Energy Sources 2005, 27, 1439–1447. [CrossRef]
11. Butler, R.M. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen. OSTI: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 1991.
12. Mathews, T.A.; Cortes, J.A.; Bryant, R.; Hascakir, B. Miscible Flooding for Bitumen Recovery with a Novel Solvent. In Proceedings
of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, OnePetro, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 21–23 September 2021.
13. Huang, S.; Chen, X.; Liu, H.; Jiang, J.; Cao, M.; Xia, Y. Experimental and Numerical Study of Solvent Optimization during
Horizontal-Well Solvent-Enhanced Steam Flooding in Thin Heavy-Oil Reservoirs. Fuel 2018, 228, 379–389. [CrossRef]
14. Edmunds, N.R.; Kovalsky, J.A.; Gittins, S.D.; Pennacchioli, E.D. Review of Phase A Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage Test. SPE
Reserv. Eng. 1994, 9, 119–124. [CrossRef]
15. de Haas, T.W.; Fadaei, H.; Guerrero, U.; Sinton, D. Steam-on-a-Chip for Oil Recovery: The Role of Alkaline Additives in Steam
Assisted Gravity Drainage. Lab Chip 2013, 13, 3832–3839. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Chung, T.; Bae, W.; Lee, J.; Lee, W.; Jung, B. A Review of Practical Experience and Management of the SAGD Process for Oil Sands
Development. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2011, 34, 219–226. [CrossRef]
17. Speight, J.G. Enhanced Recovery Methods for Heavy Oil and Tar Sands; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; ISBN 0127999884.
18. Mohammadzadeh, O.; Rezaei, N.; Chatzis, I. Production Characteristics of the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) and
Solvent-Aided SAGD (SA-SAGD) Processes Using a 2-D Macroscale Physical Model. Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 4346–4365. [CrossRef]
19. Suranto, A.M.; Bae, W.; Permadi, A.K. An Investigation of Hybrid Steam-Solvent Injection for Increasing Economy and Reducing
CO2 Emission. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2015, 33, 302–310. [CrossRef]
20. Fatemi, S.M. The Applicability of Expanding Solvent Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (ES-SAGD) in Fractured Systems. Pet. Sci.
Technol. 2010, 28, 1906–1918. [CrossRef]
21. Dehghan, A.; Sedaee Sola, B.; Naderifar, A.; Gholampour, E. An Investigation on the Effects of the Reservoir Variables and
Operational Parameters on Steam-Propane Injection Performance. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2013, 31, 1778–1789. [CrossRef]
22. Al-Murayri, M.T.; Maini, B.B.; Harding, T.G.; Oskouei, J. Multicomponent Solvent Co-Injection with Steam in Heavy and
Extra-Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 2604–2616. [CrossRef]
23. Zare, A.; Abdulhameed, F.M.; Hesland, B.; Hamouda, A.A. Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery (SAGD), Coinjection of Steam and
Solvent, Reduction of CEOR and CSOR. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35, 570–577. [CrossRef]
24. Al-Muntaser, A.A.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Suwaid, M.A.; Saleh, M.M.; Djimasbe, R.; Yuan, C.; Zairov, R.R.; Ancheyta, J. Effect
of Decalin as Hydrogen-Donor for in-Situ Upgrading of Heavy Crude Oil in Presence of Nickel-Based Catalyst. Fuel 2021,
313, 122652. [CrossRef]
25. Sheng, K.; Okuno, R.; Wang, M. Dimethyl Ether as an Additive to Steam for Improved Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage. SPE J.
2018, 23, 1201–1222. [CrossRef]
26. Nasr, T.N.; Kimber, K.D.; Vendrinsky, D.A.; Jha, K.N. Process Enhancement in Horizontal Wells through the Use of Vertical
Drainage Channels and Hydrocarbon Additives. In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional Meeting, OnePetro, Long Beach,
CA, USA, 20–22 March 1991.
27. Keshavarz, M.; Okuno, R.; Babadagli, T. Optimal Application Conditions for Steam/Solvent Coinjection. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng.
2015, 18, 20–38. [CrossRef]
28. Al-Muntaser, A.A.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Suwaid, M.A.; Yuan, C.; Chemodanov, A.E.; Feoktistov, D.A.; Rakhmatullin, I.Z.; Abbas,
M.; Domínguez-Álvarez, E.; Akhmadiyarov, A.A.; et al. Hydrothermal Upgrading of Heavy Oil in the Presence of Water at
Sub-Critical, near-Critical and Supercritical Conditions. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 184, 106592. [CrossRef]
29. Chemodanov, A.E.; Akhmadullin, R.R.; Sudakov, V.A.; Usmanov, S.A.; Khayrtdinov, R.K. Geochemical Modeling with the Use of
Vertical and Horizontal Relative Concentrations of Oil Compounds for the Heavy Oil Fields. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2018, 36, 1100–1106.
[CrossRef]
30. Minkhanov, I.F.; Bolotov, A.V.; Al-Muntaser, A.A.; Mukhamatdinov, I.I.; Vakhin, A.V.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Slavkina, O.V.;
Shchekoldin, K.A.; Darishchev, V.I. Experimental Study on the Improving the Efficiency of Oil Displacement by Co-Using of the
Steam-Solvent Catalyst (Russian). Oil Ind. J. 2021, 2021, 54–57.
Processes 2023, 11, 459 19 of 19

31. Varfolomeev, M.A.; Yuan, C.; Bolotov, A.V.; Minkhanov, I.F.; Mehrabi-Kalajahi, S.; Saifullin, E.R.; Marvanov, M.M.; Baygildin, E.R.;
Sabiryanov, R.M.; Rojas, A. Effect of Copper Stearate as Catalysts on the Performance of In-Situ Combustion Process for Heavy
Oil Recovery and Upgrading. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 207, 109125. [CrossRef]
32. Minkhanov, I.F.; Marvanov, M.M.; Bolotov, A.V.; Varfolomeev, M.A.; Khairtdinov, R.K. Improvement of Heavy Oil Displacement
Efficiency by Using Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvent. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConf. SGEM 2020, 20, 711–718.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.