You are on page 1of 16

PAPER

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME


6200 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75206

mm

THIS IS A PREPRINT -

A Study

SPE

3684

SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

of Oil Recovery
by
with the Addition

In-Situ
Combustion
of Water

By
John H. Alderman+ and J. S. Osoba, Members AIME, Texas A&M U.
@
Ameriean

Institute of Mining,

Copyright 1971
MetaIlur@cal,
and Petroleum

Engineer,

Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 42nd Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, to be held h Los Angeles, Calif., NOV. 4-5, 1%1. permission to coPY
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuousacknowledgmentof where and by whom the paper is presented.
Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is ususlly granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriatejournal
provided agreement to give proper crehi~ is made;
Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and,
with the paper, may be consideredfor publicationin one of the two SPE magazine.
ABSTRACT
The object of this work was to improve the
forward combustionprocess by injecting water
simultaneouslywith air. One of the methods
used to recover oil from underground reservoirs
that has gained interest in recent years is
in-situ combustion. This process involves
ignition of the oil in reservoir rock and the
propagation of the resultant combustion zone
toward producing wells by the injection of air.
However, at the present time this method has
enjoyed only margtial.economic success in a
limited number of applications.

from behind the combustion zone to the oil zone


ahead of the combustion zone.
INTRODUCTION

Among the methods to recover oil from underground reservoirs that have gained interest in
recent years are those involving the application
of heat to the reservoir. The use of heat to
increase production rate and recovery is not new,
however. Shortly after the completion of the
Drake well in 1859, steam was used to melt paraffin from the wellbore and increase the rate of
oil production. In 1935, the Russians were conducting experimentsto recover more oil by a
To study this process, a combustiontube
process they cslled crude oil gasification. Thi:
was packed with oil, water, ssnd and clay.
work involved mowing heat outward from a well+-..-...+4
.m ~.mA
fnvemmnnv
n?
-&A ~ 4UL-UI=UAV.L
-.
Combustionwas initiated and propagated dom the --uur= MUU
.u was ~~~ ...WM..
tube by the injection of air. In three runs
an oil-recoverymechanism known today as in-situ
water was injected with the air to study its
combustion.
effect. The produced gas and liquids were
measured and analyzed. The temperature and rate
In-situ combustionhas, however, met with
of advance of the combustion front were also
only marginal economic success in displacing oil
measured. Pressures at the inlet, outlet and
from reservoir rock and has found limited appli- dOH$j
~g+w~~p&
. @.e ~e~~~~ f~~ ~h~~ h~s been noor
=_
the
tiikm
were
ineasaed
thmugkmt
points
the run.
utilization of the generated heat. Most of the
heat is left in the burned portion of the reserIt was found that adding water to the
voir.
injected air effected the oil recovery. In all
One advantage gained from the application
cases where water was injected, oil recovery
of heat to a reservoir is based on reduction of
increased. The rate of oil recovery also
increased. More efficient utilization of heat
crude oil viscosity at the higher temperature.
also took place because of the movement of heat For the lower gravity oils this is a substantial
decrease.1*2 From Beals curves of viscosity
References and illustrationsat end of paper.
*Now with Shell Oil Co.

A STUDY OF OIL REOOVERY BY IN-SITU COMBUSTION


WITH THE ADD IONOF WATER
and temperature,1 the viscosity of an oil of 10
API and 20,000 cp at 100~ will be reduced to
490 cp at 200%. For a 20API oil the viscosity
will decrease from 80 cp at 100@ to 10.5 cp at
200%7. Since the flow of oil is inversely proportioned to its viscosity, a reduction in the
viscosity results in an increase in the mobility
of the oil.
Modifications of the basic forward combustion process are needed to make it more effective and give it wider application. One variation was reported by Scott in 1960.3 This
modificationinvolved adding water along with
the injected air. Because of the high heat
capacity of the water, more heat could be salvaged from the burned portion of the reservoir
and moved to the unburned portion. Before
Scotts patent, Kuhn and Koch also mentioned
facilitatingheat transfer by tijectin water
f Later
vapor with the air in lab experiments.
authors &Lso reported tnat additionalbenefits
nay be obtained by ~njectin~ water during an
in-situ combustionprocess.~ Recently apaper
was presented that considered some of the theoretical factors involved with water injection.6

SPE 3684

moved the length of the combustion tube through I


a thermowell. The thermowell was constructed I
from 0.012-in.OD tubing.
Pressure gauges were connected to the inlet
and outlet of the tube. In addition, five
pressure taps were placed slong its length. One
of these pressure taps was located 5 in. from
the bottom of the tube and the rest were spaced
at intervals of 5 in. along the tube. These
lines were partislly filled with oil to minimize the effect of gas compression.
A Fisher gas partitioned chromatography
with
a recorder was used to analyze the produced gas.
This instrument was capable of measuring the
percentage of nitrogen, o~gen, carbon diotide,
carbon monoxide, and methane. Analysis of the
gas was made periodicallythroughout a run.

For Run 1, 5,400 gm of sand, 600 gm of clay


J-lCn

.4
.<1
mn ~, ~f w~~~~ were mixed
L>u
&l
WA
U.LJ.
ad -
and carefully tamped in the combustiontube to
a height of 36 in. The thermowell had already
been placed into the tube and care was taken not
to damage or alter its vertical alignment.
During the packing, samples of the mixhre were
One field trial utilizing this process has
taken from each quarter of the pack and were
been described in detail.7-9 This was in the
later analyzed for liquid content and sand-grain
Carlyle pool of the Iola Field in Allen County, density. The mixture remaining after packing
Kan. The results of this test were encouraging. was weighed to detendne the amount of material
packed. This mixing and packing procedure was
the same for sll four runs.
The increased demand for crude oil and the
increase in the cost of finding new reserves ha:
.
.
l?!-.
ruur to 5 r~ criof raw limeed cd was
increased the need to recover more of the oii
placed on the sand face to Msure rapid and
presently being left in reservoirs. This is
uniform initial combustion.
particularlytrue in reservoirs containing oil
of low gravity where present technology has not
been successful and thermal methods such as
When all lines and flanges were in place,
steam and in-situ combustionhave enjoyed only
the thermocouplewas positioned opposite the
limited economic success. The object of this
heater and air was injected and regulated with
research was to study in the laboratory the
a differentialpressure cell to maintain the
desired air flux. After a flux of 4 cu ft/min
displacement of oil from porous media during
in-situ combustion with the injection of water. was obtained, the transformer supplying power
to the heater was adjusted to its mbum
setting.
EXPERIMENTALEQUIFMENT AND PFKXXDURES
A schematic drawing of the equipment used
in this study is shown in Fig. 1. The combustion tube was a flanged sta~ess-steel cylinde]
43 in. long and 2 in. in diameter. The wall
thickness of the tubes was 0.02-irn. This
+h+.kn...
~hosen to minimize heat loss and
..A.M.
- w==
..x--.--_-.still allow for the welding of flanges to the
tube to support a pressure differentialof 200
psi. A larger hea~-walled insulated cylinder
served as a pressure shell for the combustion
tube. Insulating material was poured into the
-I,*
---l-..-+<
-w.+T,l-.n
em,+~~~~
u=
-Au
SnnuLus DeTJw-eerl
the GullluuauLu,L
shell to further reduce heat loss from the
combustiontube.
Temperaturein the combustion tube was
measured with a thermocouplewhich could be

When the temperature in the tube reached


950%, the voltage to the heater was reduced to
maintain the temperature at 950F until igiition
was confirmed by the presence of car-bondioxide
fi-~+~. <m
aml caz-bor.
mw..w-w.
+..tb.epr@-u~@_ ga~e~= The
temperature at the heater was then adjusted to
900%7.
After ignition, traverses of the tube were
made with the thermocoupleto determine temperatures existing at the center of the tube and
waJ~=
a~~~.gt.b-e
thermocouplewas then
he
positioned just ahead of the combustion zone to
ascertain the temperature and rate of advsnce of
the front. As the peak temperature reached the
thermocouple,the time and temperature were
noted, and the thermocouplewas then moved 1 in.

S!JF,
368L

JOHN H.-AIDERMAN and J. S. OSOBA

at the Wet
to a minimum and then increased to
down the tube and the time and temperature of
a temperaturebetween 890F and 935F at the
the front as it reached this point were again
w,-.+
~~~
rqsztd.
thrmlghout a combustion front. The temperaturethen deALU
U-A
GU. ~.~~ py~~~~l~v~
run to permit calculationof the velocity of the creased sharply to about 300% and levelled off
for a distance of 1 to 3 fiches before deburning front. At least once each hour a comcreasing to the temperature of the original
plete traverse of the tube was made with the
pack, about 76F.
thermocouple.
In Run 2, shown in Fig. 3, the tijection
The cumulativevolume of gas passing
through the wet test meter was recorded every 15 of water was begun between the profile taken at
1.64 hours and the one at 2.18 hours. In Run 3
minutes. A sample of the produced gas was
---L-:-:.-A:-- L-----Lfi+,.,A.-.m
+Le
-..n+%la+.ba?.l
wa~~~ LILJtW1.dU1l
UC&~L
UC!#WCGAL
UiLG
~ALLLG
u-=..
anaiyzed every 6 to 10 minutes. Tne iiquids
at 1.61 hours and the one taken at 2.42 hours.
displaced from the tube were collected in
weighed bottles every 10 to 15 minutes. Water
In Run 4, Fig. 5, the heater was turned off
and oil in each sample were separated and the
density of the oil in the sample was determined after the ignition of the oil was confirmed.
Water injection was initiated between the temby means of a pycnometer.
perature profile taken at 1.60 hours and the one
The four samples of the sand taken when the taken at 2.23 hours.
combusion tube was packed were analyzed to
The burning front velocity was found to
determine the fraction of water and oil in the
. .
.
<- ~=_-_- uwr
-O*-- th
D,,m
water. Tm
*lL~Lw.
LILufease
i.i-lJ~CtiC)fi
d
mixture with a Dean-stark apparatus,witin
2 the burning front velocity was 0.508 ft~hr
tolulene used as a solvent. The samples were
before water injection and 0.562 ft/hr after
weighed before being placed in the extractor
water injection. In Runs 3 and 4 the velocity
and again after they were removed and dried.
The .v.Gy&T,
e of ~.;~and water ~m.dt~.e~Zm&&-gY~~m& increased from O..?@ and 0.51& to 0.676 and
0.609 ft/hr.
density of the samples were determined.
Gas compositiondata from the chromatographywere convertedto percent composition.
The gas compositionand liquid prcxluctiondata
were then fed to an IBM 360 computer for further
analysis, and the fuel concentration,air fuel
ratio, and percent carbon oxidized to carbon
monoxide were calculated.
In Runs 2 to.4 water was injected with the
air when the combustion front had advanced
approximately9.5 in. The procedure for
igniting the oil was the same as fn Run 1. In
Run 2, 1.0 cc/reinof water was injected and in
Run 3 the rate was increased to 4.0 cc/rein.
glLrnl@atiVe
water ~nje~ti~n was measured every
15 minutes.

The average fuel concentrationwas calculated during the steady-stateportion of a run.


In Run 1, 1.39 lb/cu ft was burned compared to
1.27, 1.41 and 1.21 lb/cu ft for the other three
runs before water injection. Figs. 6 to 9 show
the fuel concentrationas a function of time for
each of the runs. After water injection was
initiated,there was a decrease in the amount
of fuel consumed to 1/12, 0.95 and 1.13 lb/cu ft
in Runs 2 to 4, respectively.

Figs. 10 to 13 show the fraction of carbon


oxidized to carbon monoxide. This was calculated by dividing the percent carbon monoxide
in the produced gas by the sum of the percent
carbon dioxide and the percent carbon monotide
in the prcduced gas. The average fraction in
Run 1 was 0.313. In Run 2 the average fraction
In Run 4 water was injected at the same
before water injection was 0.304 and after water
rate as in Run 3, but the heater was turned off
after ignition of the oil. When the burned sand injection was 0.241. Runs 3 ~d 4 had ~
average fraction of 0.302 and 0.281 before water
was removed from the tube in this run, it was
obvious from inspection that the sand contained injection. This average decreased to 0.244 and
water. Water was not noted in the sand removed 0.216, respectively,after water injection.
from the tube at the completionof the other
~l~n.~, ~mlid
The compositionof the produced gas as a
=- saturations
.-. --.... of the swd recovered
function of time after ignition is shown in
at the completion of Run 4 were therefore
Figs 14 to 17. The percent o~gen, carbon
determined.
dioxide and carbon monoxide in the produced gas
are shown as a function of time after ignition.
RESULTS
The concentrationof carbon dioxide increased
after the injection of water while the concentra
Figs 2 to 5 show the temperatureprofiles
existing along the length of the combustiontube tion of the oxygen and carbon monoxide decreased
at different times during the four runs. In
TD,,,-,
1
+,-.+-1
a+
1 1/.
1. ,-nn a+= Qfl
w~~e
ALA LI,UA
L a
.
AA..+
~,
4.
Run i, Fig. 2, tinetemperature at the @
of t.hle
This represented60.8 percent of
sand pack was mainttied between 861F and &3890F recovered.
The temperaturedecreased from the temperature
the oil originally in place. klhenwater was

A STUDY OF OIL RECOVERY BY IN-SITU COMBUSTION


WITH THE ADDITION OF WATER

SPE 3684

ture at the sand face of the inlet was maintained at about 8750F by the electric heater.
Moving down the tube from the sand face, the
temperature decreased as a result of heat loss
from the tube. This heat loss was from radiation and conduction from the tube and from
convection and conduction through the sand pack
within the tube. Approximately 5 in. from the
In Run 2 water was injected at a rate of
sand face a minimum temperaturewas reached and
1.0 cc/reinfor a cumulativeinjected volume of
the temperaturethen increased as the combustion
water of 0.28 PV. The volume of oil recovered
zone was approached. At the combustion front,
from the tube was 66.2 percent of the oil
which at this time was located 13 in. from the
originally in place. When the water injection
sand face, a maximum temperature of 9200F was
rate was increased to 4.0 cc/reinin Runs 3 snd
reached. Here heat was being liberated by the
4, the oil recovery increased to 78.2 percent
and 80.2 percent, respectively. The cumulative combustionprocess. The temperaturewas
sharply lower at 3000F~13 in. farther down the
water injected in Run 3 was 0.83 PV and in Run
tube. In this zone some oil as well as all the
4, 0.88 Pv.
water were flowing as a vapor. The oil vapor
For comparisonpurposes, the oil-production was formed from cracking and vaporizing the
data was normalized because of small differences crude. Water vapor was formed from connate
water and water formed in the combustionprocess
in the volume of oil initially present. This
After the sharp decrease in temperature,the
difference resulted from a small variation in
temperaturelevel.ledoff for about 1.5 in. and
porosity of the packed sand for each run. The
in this plateau was controlledby the phase
oil production from Runs 2 to 4 was nomnalized
behavior of the water. As the water changed
to the amount of oil packed in Run 1. Fig. 19
nrwnali
v.ed
Q~~+~o.dl~ct~on
histO~
p~esents then._A..
from a vapor to a liquid, the temperature
remained constant. In this steam zone, oil was
for the four runs.
-being removed by physicsl displacementad
by
steam distillation. After all the water conWhen water was injected the first oil was
produced at an earlier thne than when air alone densed the temperature again decreased sharply.
Water and oil in front of the steam zone were
was injected. As can be seen in Fig. 18, the
first oil production in ~
2 occurred 1.10
slowly stripped of their heat as they moved into
the colder region of the pack.
hours before it did in Run 1. In Run 3 oil
production started 0.83 hours sooner than in
Run 2* In Run 4 the oil breakthroughtime was
The temperatureprofiles for Runs 2 to 4
earlier than in Run 2, but was 0.63 hours longer in which water was injected in conjunctionwith
thanin Run3.
the air are shown in Figs. 3 to 5. The temperature profile for Run 2 at 1.64 hours was taken
Water production from the tube during Run
before water was injected and its shape and
1 was 206.2 gm. During Run 2, 451.1 gm of water characteristicsare essentiallythe same as
those in Run 1. For Runs 3 and 4 the temperawere produced, and during Run 3, 930.5 gm were
--a++ln= .fnw
~.(j~
hnllr~
~u~
~,@
~Ql~F~.
VIAL.
y..~~.
. .
---prcxiuceci.During Run & approximatelythe saiie +---respectively,were taken before water injec;ion
amount of water was injected as in Run 3, but
only 480.5 gm of water were produced. However, was initiated, and they too have the same
characteristicsas Run 1. After water injection
the water remaining in the sand snd clay in the
enmh,>.++nn
+.~lho
a+. ~~-~
~ermination Of Run 4
in Runs 2 and 3? a larger fraction of the heat
e.11=-.*..
..-..
being supplied by the electric heater was rewas found to be 483.4 gm.
moved by the water. The temperature at the sand
face in Run 2 dropped from 875% before water
The pressures and temperatures efisting
injection to 820% after water injection. In
along the length of the combustiontube are
Run 3 the temperature at the top of tinesand
shown in figs. 20 to 23. Table 1 shows the
pack dropped from 875%? to 3750F. During Run 4
maximum pressure differentialmeasured between
the heater was turned off after ignition, and
the inlet and outlet of the combustiontube,
and the time that this differentialwas measur- therefore the temperature at the sand face
ed. Also shown is the time that the pressure
declined throughout the run.
differentialreturned to the initial value.
In the runs in which water was injected,
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
a longer steam zone fomed. The plateau was
1.5 in. long in Run 1 at 2.74 hours! while in
A temperatureprofile of an in-situ combus- Run 2 it was 5.5 in. long at 2.85 hours. In
tion process in which air alone was injected is
Runs 3 and 4 the steam zone was even larger than
shown in Fig. 2. The temperatureprofile for
in Run 2. Run 3 had a steam zone 13.5 in. long
2.74 hours shows the typical zones in the
at only 2.43 hours.
combustion tube for this type run. The tempera-

injected with the air, a larger fraction of the


oil packed h the tube was recovered. When
~~~~
W~S
fiCreaSed:
Oil
t~,ewater ~m.j~~~~~p.
recovery also increased. The weight of oil
produced from the combustiontube is presented
as a function of time in Fig. 18.

JOHN H. AIDERMAN and J. S. OSOBA

SPE -.
3684

The injection of water also resulted in an


increase in the velocity of the burning front.
Closely connected with the velocity of the
burning front is the fuel concentrationwhich
varies inversely with the velocity. After the
injection of water the pounds of fuel burned
were less. Burmhg less of the oil permitted
a higher fraction of the original oil to be
recoverd. The decrease in fuel concentration
resulted from the longer period that the oil
zone was subjected to steaming. More oil was
removed after the initial flushing by water
+.h~ol~h
~te=m distuatiOn.
..The temperature at the burning front,
however, was substantiallythe same for all the
iuns,even though less fuel was burned in the
runs in which water was injected. Heat carried
forward by the water helped to maintain the combustion front temperature at the same level. A
more efficient combustionprocess may have
resuitecifrom tineaddition of w-ater. ~Je ~,ea~
of formation of carbon dioxide is -94,052 cal/
mol, and for carbon monoxide, -26,416 cal/mol at
250C0 The fraction of oil recovered from the
sand pack was greater in the experimentin which
water was added as compared with the volume of
oil recovered when air alone was injected.
This study indicated water vapor sltered
the chemical process and resulted in a more
-.
ez-r~cientc- Dustionprocess. Howver, I)ietz
? reported that in their study
and Meijdema
steam passed through the combustion front without effecting the chemical reaction. Numerous
combustion studies, however, have reported that
water va or does effect a combustion
process.~2,13 Sirrowsnd lippesoffered one
explanationfor this.12 They indicated that
water vapor lowered the temperature at which
carbon monoxide is oxidized to carbon dioxide
to about 688F. This is well within the combustion zone temperature.
With a decrease in the amount of fuel
consumed, a correspondingincrease in oil
production was noted. The oil production vs
time presented in Fig. 18 showed more oil was
recovered in the experimentsin which water
was added. Run 1 recovered 60.8 percent of the
oil originally present, while Run 2 recovered
66.2 Peree~t --.LLLl..w~l.Jl
l.)11~
PV of water. About 0.83 and 0.88 PV were
injected in Runs 3 and 4, and the recovery
increased 12 and 16 percent, respectively,over
the recovery in Run 1. The pore volumes of
water injected in Run 3 were less than h Run 4
because the time to complete the two runs was
.1+-k
1.,A<p~e~~n+
2.LL&L
ULL.Q.b....
tLJ
:-4-.4:-M1J~G~4Uii

A*
U.L

al.11
UL4A~

~.~8

The oil production from each of the runs


as a function of time presented in Fig. 18 also
shows a decrease in time to recover the oil fron
the sand pack. The first oil production in Run

1 occurred at 4.94 hours. In Run 2 the time


was reduced to 3.134hours. In Runs 3 and k oil
production started at 3.01 hours and 3.64 hours,
respectively. The earlier start of oil production in Run 3 as compared with Run 4, even
though water was fijected at the same rate,
resulted from more water actuedly passing
through the combustion zone in Run 3. The rate
of formation of the steam plateau in Run 3 was
thus greater than in Run 4. This stem Passing
through the oil not only heated the oil, but
distilled it as well. These distilled products
fingered through the oil and representedthe
earlier oil production in Run 3 as compared with
the oil production in Run 4. The gravity of
the first production in Run 4 was 0.9318 gr/cc
while in Run 3 the gravit of the first oil
production was 0.8571 gr7 cc.
Figs. 20 to 23 show the pressure distributions and the associatedtemperatureprofiles
--efi-~-~;*
+hPnllv
FI?nc.
The pressure and
L GL.UJ u-u
u.
A.
.. --.
temperature distributionsin Run 1 are shown in
Fig. 20. A typical sequence of events for a run
in which only air was injected can be seen. The
pressure gradient across the tube first increased with time and then decreased. The maximum
pressure differentialin this run occurred at
3.40 hours and the maximum gradient etisted
between 21 and 31 in. from the top of the sand
pack. There was a negligible gradient between
.-A +he
fifk~.emapk.
y....
. The temperature
31 h~. alu
u..=-m~
e..-.
profile at this the showed the steam plateau
to exist between 19 and 23 h.
The maximum
pressure gradient, therefore, was located just
ahead of the stesm zone, and the oil bank was
also at this location.
The temperatureprofile in Run 2 at 1.6o
hours, which was recorded before the injection
of water was similar to the profile in Run 1.
The steam plateau occurred between 9 and 11 in.
from the top of the pack and the maximum pressure gradient occurred in front of the steam
--- L-L..--.
~~
.-2
ZU1leLJ~~W~~ll
~G tilU16
iii~.m-i.
~..-.area IS also
the location of the oil bank. After water
injection the steam zone increased in length.
At 2.85 hours the steam zone etiended from 17
to 24 in. The pressure profile at 2.90 hours
in Run 2 showed a decrease in differential
across the tube. The maximum gradient skaried
abOdt19 in. from the idet and extended to 28
in. There was no sharp drop in pressure at the
end of the steam zone, indicating no oil bank
had formed ahead of the steam zone as it had in
Run 1, or before water injection in Run 2.
Instead the pressure dropped within the steam
zone and in the area between 24 and 30 in.
which-had been subjectedto heating. This was
probably a transient condition, and with a
longer tube the oil zone would probably have
formed ahead of the steam zone as in Run 1.
In Run 3 the pressure profile and the

A STUDY OF OIL RECOVERY BY IN-SITU COMBUSTION


ATMITlTONOF
IJAI!ER
WTTH
THR
.
-----. . .
..- -..
..

temperatureprofile at 1.60 hours, which were


recorded before water injection, were similar
to those in Run 1. However, the temperature
profiles recorded at 2.43 hours and the pressures measured at 2.60 hours showed nearly all
the pressure drop occurred within the steam
zone. In Run 4 the temperature snd pressure
profiles for 2.30 hours, which were taken after
water injection, indicate that the maximum
pressure gradient also occurred wit~
the steam
zone.

2.

3.

4.

5.

CONCLUSIONS
6.
From this laboratory study of the recovery
of oil from a vertical column of sand by in-situ
combustion,the following general conclusions
seem to be warranted.
1. Water vapor passing through the combustion zone increased the fraction of oil
recovered due to a lower fuel concentration
needed to support combustion. Within the rates
of injection of this study, the higher the rate
of water injection the larger the recove~.

7.

8.

9.

9
~~~e~ .J~p~~ p~~~llcg through the combusti;; zone increased the rate of oil recovery, 10.
and within the rates of injection of this study,
the higher the rate of water injection the
higher the rate of recovery.
~1

3* The injection of water more effectively


utilized the heat from combustionby moving heat
from behind the combustion zone forward. The
steam zone was much longer with water tijection 12.
than in dry in-situ combustion.
REFERENCES
1.

Beal, Charlton: ?lViscosityof Air, Water


Natural Gas, Crude Oil and Its Associated
Gases at Oil-Field Temperaturessnd Pres94-115.
sures, Trans., AIME (1946)~,

TABLE 1 - SWRY

Run
Number

13

SPE 368L

Ownes, W. D. and Suter, V. E.: Steam


Stimulationfor Secondary Recovery,
Pet. Wg. (April, 1965) 67.
Insitu
Scott, P. H.: tlcombination
Combustion-WaterFlooding Process, U.S.
patent 3,131,76I, Dec. 16, 1960.
Kuhn, C. S. and Koch, R. L.: In-Situ
Combustion - Newest Methcd of Increasing
Oil Recovery, Oil and Gas J., Aug. 10,
1953, 52.
Coffer, H. F. and Dew, J. N.: How Newer
Oil Recovery Methmis are Performingii,
World Oil (Nov., 1964) 96.
Dietz, D. N. and Weijdema, J.: Wet and
Partially Quenched Combustion,J. Pet.
Tech. (April, 1968) 411-415.
=,
M. W.: f~s~~tmeous Underground
Combustion and Water Injection in the
Carlyle Pool, Iola Field, Kansas, J. Pet.
Tech. (JarI.,1966) 11-18.
Johnston, K. H.: Vh In~itu Combustion
Project and Three Waterflood Projects
in Allen, Anderson and Wilson Counties,
Kansas, 1964, IC 8238, USBM (1964) 24.
Bleakley, W. B.: lfHereAre Case Histories
of Two Thermai l?ojects::,
Gil ar-ld
Gas J.
(~~~,
26, 1964) 123.
penberthy,W. L., Jr.: ~tb Investigation
of the Fundamentals of Combustion Oil
Recovery, PhD dissertation,Texas A&M U.
(May, 1967).
Berry, H. J.: A Study of the Effect of
Process Variables on Forward Combustion
Oil Recovery,MS thesis, Texas A&M U.
(1966).
Skirrow, G. end Tipper, C. F.: Some
Processes in Gaseous Slow Combustion,
Fo?.mationof Carbon Monoxide and Carbon
Dioxide, Seventh Symposium (International)
On Combustion,London Butterworths
Scientific Publications (1959) 134.
Hinshelwood,C. N.: The Kinetics of
Chemicsl Chan e Oxford U. Press, London
~

OF PRESSURE BEHAVIOR ACROSS COMBUSTIONTUBE

Maximum
Pressure
Differential
Psig

Time of
Maximum
Differential
Hrs.

Time Pressure
Differential
Returnedto
Original Value
Hrs.

48

3.40

6.50

28

1.90

5.30

34

2.60

4.90

39

2.00

5.70

HEATER SAND

., . .
:**
-.
?. .
.,
. .. .

Ir

WATER RES.
PllJpN

4.

1tp ?

t
I
..4.

. coMBUSTION TUBE
...
.,,
.,,

TRANSFORMER

..

,.. .
. .
.,. .
. . .

7
-H
1F

-FimiR3EL*

--bmia

FA

?
!

J PRESSURE SHELL

!U.+E

SEPARATOR +

WET TEST METER

CHROMATOGRAPHY

Fig. 1 - Schematic diagram of equipment.

900

800

700

ok

6!IC

g
~

500

E
g

400

300

200

100

0
2

Oi
0

Fig. 3 -

Temperature

10

12

10

12

along

the

length

20
18
DISTANCE.
INCHES

22

18
20
DISlX17CE,
I~CHSS

22

the

tube

16

14

16

14

of

combustion

24

24

at

26

26

various

28

28

times

30

30

for

32

32

Run

~.

34

36

34

36

00
I

W- \/\/\/y\
I
1 1

\,/

700

60C

5Oc
~\

co

10

18

16

14

12

20

22

24

tube

at

26

32

30

28

34

36

DISTANCE,INCH33S
Fig.

. Temperature

along

the

10

length

12

of

the

18

16

74

combustion

20

22

various

24

26

times

28

fOr

Run 3.

30

32

34

DIsTANCE,INCHES

Fig. 5 -

Temperature

along

the

length

of

the

combustion

tube

at

v8riOUS

times

fOr

Run

J.

36

TIME, HOURS
Fig. 6 - Fuel concentrationas a function of time for Run 1.

2 .0
1 .8
m

H1 .6
~
Al .4
.2
.0
.8
.6
.4
0

.2
.0
0

TIME, HOURS
Fig.

7 -

Fuel

concentration

as

a function

of

time

for

Run

2.

2.0
1.8
(-n

~ 1.6
;
l-l
1.4
z
g 1.2
H
4
g 1.0
zl
W
u .8
z
8

.6
.4
.2
.C
)

TIME, HOURS
m

Fig. 8 - Fuei concentrationas a function 01

L,-

r___ . ...

TJLlllelUr

JXUI1 ~.

TIME, HOURS

Fig. 9 -

Fuel

concentration

as

a function

of

time

for

Run

j.

TIME , ifiOURS
Fig.

10

- Fraction

of

carbon

oxidized

to

carbon

monoxide

for

Run

1.

o
0

TIME,

Fig.

11

- Fraction

of

carbon

oxidized

carbon

monoxide

HOURS

to

for

Run

2.

TIME, HOURS
Fig. 12 - Fraction of carbon oxidized to carbon monoxide for Run 3.

T~E,4HOURS
Fig,

13 - Fraction of carbon oxidized to carbon monoxide for Run 4.

CARBON

DIOXIDE

TIME, HOURS
Fig. 14 - Produced gas compositionfor Run 1.

TIME, HOURS
Fig.

15 -

Produced

gas

composition

for

Run

2.

20

20
18
~ 16
d
o
+ 14
zg 12
e
H
w

0
&
z
08
v

10

03

46
u
4
2
0I
o

TIME , HOURS
Fig.

1(. - Produced

5,

TIME , HOURS

gas composition

for Run

3.

Fig.

17 . Produced

gas composition

for Run 4.

160,0

140.0

120.0
~
;lOO. O
~
~ 80.0
!-7
u
~ ~o+o
E-4

E 40.0

20.0

f-in
.

l-.fi

0.0

1.0

Fig.

18 -

,2.0

Cumulative

~//

Lk!#
3.0

,4

4.0
5.0
TIMIE, HOURS

oil production

for Runs

6.o

1 to b.

~.o

B*o

1.0

0.0

Fig.

19 -

2.0

4!
(I
3.0

./,
./ ,
5.C)
4.0
T~E, HOTJRS
d

,
6.0

Cumulative oil production


for Runs 1 to h normalized
to original oil in place for Run 1.

7.0

8.o

200[
..................................................................
t
190

..

IBO

...
.. .

..

3.40 HRS

.. .

..>

4.80 IIRS

-..
.

4.10 HR8

1000

~.

1 em

----.

<K: ~f

180

150
I 40 .

0$!

460101

21416

10

20

22

Z4

26

28

30

32

34

s,

DISTANCE. INCHES
Fig. 20 - Pressure

and teqerature

distributions

during

Run 1.

200
-----190
~
H
m Iao
&

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .=, :,,, ~------ . . . . . . . . . . . . .


-..
----------. ----------

----

170HRS

-...
.

1.60 HRil

?..S5 IIR8

-..

2,00
------

MRS
--------

~~-

R
m 160
B
~

150
140 .
[~QL
024681012

16

141S

20

22

2-4

26

i?o

30

32

a4

24

DISTANCE , INCHES
Fig.

21

- Pressure

and zenperature

distributions

during

Run

2.

200

I
160
e

1.60 14RS
.. . ...- .-..:----....................... ............ . ....................
..

-;:::=

k-----..

~lm

P+
- 170

2.43 HRS

1.60 )lRs

.
. 1000

. ..

..

ok

6W

.<

;150

-------

..

{
130
024681012

. ..

2,60 MRS
. . . . . . ---------

------

coo

E~

400

2
w

200

i
m

.-

c
0
1416

16

20

22

24

26

26

30

32

34

3S

DISTANCE , INCHES
Fi&.

22 - Pressure

and temperature

distributions

during

RuI

j.

200.
.. -. . ..- . --------1so
a
~

-------

-.=_sy__ -------=------- -----------

160
1.62 IIRS

la
-170

..-----

-------------

--a
1,60 M6
. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
..
. ..
. 1000
.-~.20
------ HRS. . ..-

. . . . . . . . . . . . ---------..
. ..

Z43 Hns

--------

=$ffa---:

600 @

E
~

,30

z
~

!60

140 ~-

: :!

I 30

0
02466.10)2

14161020

22

24

26

26

30

DISTANCE . INCHES
Fig.

23 - Pressure

and temperature

distributions

during

Run h.

32

34

36