SPE

Society of F W m h m n Engineers

SPE 24082

Airlo* Fireflood: Comparison of Field-Scale Performances

and Economics
H.J-M. Petit,* E.P. Valentin,** and J-P. Desmarquest, Inst. Fran~aisdu P6trole
'SPE Member now with Howell.
*'SPE Member

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Western Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, March 30-April 1, 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author@). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author@). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permissionto copy is restrictedto an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuousacknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833838, Richardson, TX 750834836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT Based on results for one inverted five-spot, it has

A comparison of oxygen and air fireflooding is presented
from the technical and economic points of view for three
specific applications produced by in-situ combustion.
In order to evaluate the economic interest of using of
oxygen instead of air, a technicc+economic assessment was
made of the supplying of oxygen. In the three cases
examined, supplying pure oxygen at wellhead pressure is
always at least as economical as air compression with an
equivalent oxygen flowrate. It is all the more advantageous
as the flowrate is high and the injection pressure is low in the
range examined (10 to 30 MPa) and considering the
development strategies used in this study. However, the
difference between the two techniques is sufficiently small to
take into consideration the implementation conditions and
performances of each type of gas in the recovery process
itself.
3D field-scale combustion simulations and analytical
calculations were carried out to evaluate the real technical
advantages and disadvantages of the enriched-air combustion
process for three idealized applications. This study includes
the effect of CO, dissolution ( 4 combustion) and the water
been found that scavenging of the oxygen fill-up
behind the burn-front is not detrimental to the oxygen
fireflood process when followed by waterflooding.
By comparison with wet oxygen combustion, this
technique may lead to higher recovery factors at
slightly higher technical costs.
Regarding the field developments examined, O2 wet
combustion (simultaneous O2 and water injection) is
definitely the most efficient process for deep hea-
vy-oil reservoirs.
Finally, the various processes and injection strategies
applied to the three cases examined were compared from an
economic point of view, which considers 021air production
costs, recovery and field costs including the additional costs
of oxygen over air (safety, cleaning, completion).
This study gives a complete determination of key 02/Air
fireflood parameters for the field of application covered by
the cases examined.
INTRODUCTION
I

injection strategy (wet combustion, following water drive) on
the sweep efficiency.
The technical part of the paper leads to the following main
conclusions:
For a thin heavy41 reservoir, it has been
demonstrated that it is not possible to use air in a
6.25 ha (15.4 acres) inverted five-spot because of the
air injectivity limitation. Oxygen clearly has a
technical advantage in this case.
On the contrary, injection of oxygen instead of air is
not recommended for waterflooded or steam-stimula-
ted shallow reservoirs.
References and illustrations at end of paper
Fireflooding or in-situ combustion has been extensively
applied to heavy oil and tar sands over the last 30 years.
However, about 90% of oil produced by EOR techniques is
by thermal methods, and the contribution of fieflooding has
been small.
Despite many successful projects, the industrial interest for
fireflooding has lessened in the last few years because of
several commonly cited factors:
The most evident is the market price of oil which
affects most of the EOR industrial projects.
The capital costs required to initiate a commercial
fireflood project are higher than those using steam
injection processes (which continues to be more
widely applied).
 2 AIR/02 FIREFLOOD: COMPARISON OF FIELD-SCALE PERFORMANCE ANT) ECON~MICS
There are technical problems relative to the control
and the monitoring of the process, and to safety
factors associated with gas containing oxygen in an
oil field environment.
In fact, other technical and economic factors can also
explain the present stagnation of this process. Fireflooding
has suffered from having a typical domain of application
which covers thin, deep, medium to extra-heavy oil
reservoirs. Steam is often applied to the best reservoirs, and
generally in-situ combustion is considered as a second-choi-
ce method, once steam is rejected.
Although steam injection is the preferred process, in-situ
combustion is applicable to a wider range of reservoirs and is
recognized to be more efficient. As mentioned by Burger ',
the energy yield for combustion is much greater than for
steam drive. That is because for in-situ combustion, the fuel
formed from the heavy ends of the crude oil is generally
completely used to feed the combustion front, and the amount
of oil components, either hardly producible from the steam-s-
wept zone or burned in the volume swept by the combustion
front, are of the same order of magnitude. In this process, the
heat is released to the immediate vicinity of the zone
containing the displaceable oil, limiting the heat loss out of
the formation.
For the Western world, heavy to extra-heavy oil reservoirs
are mainly located in Canada and Venezuela and these
reserves now represent more than the remaining reserves of
the United States. A large part of these heavy-oil reservoirs
are multilayered andlor deep, seriously limiting the use of
steam injection. The question is how to recover this
considerable potential.
O~~gen-enriched air fireflooding has generated
considerable interest in recent years. Field tests have
demonstrated the technical advantage of injecting oxygen
instead of air, i.e. the possibility of using it in low injectivity
reservoirs thanks to the decrease in the amount of gas to be
injected.
From an economic point of view, oxygen suppliers (2) have
recently shown that the use of oxygen is cheaper than using
air for large-scale operations requiring high pressures.
Moreover, the high CO, content of the exhaust combustion
gas (90 -95% for heavy oils) can be recovered and reinjected
in nearby C02 injection projects.
The results published on oxygen fireflood field projects are
too limited to enable the advantages and disadvantages of
oxygen versus air injection to be classified.
The present study directly compares the performance of
oxygen versus air fireflooding.
First of all, a numerical study based on laboratory research
has been performed, covering the dry/wet and
airlo, combustion processes for three specific applications.
The three fields considered were produced by in-situ
combustion. Of course, the numerical study was based on
simplified and idealized reservoirs (no heterogeneities,
regular spacing, etc.) in order to limit the varying parameters.
Then, a comparison of costs for producing oxygen and air
under field operating conditions was made within the
framework of EOR operations using in-situ combustion.
Finally, a complete comparative economic evaluation was
performed on a field-scale basis, considering the recoveries
and field costs of the processes. Economic calculations of
SPE 24082
unit cost per barrel enable the current economic merits of the
different in-situ combustion processes to be evaluated.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
To cover a wide domain of application of the in-situ
combustion process, three reservoirs were examined which
can be considered as reference cases for this process. These
idealized cases are taken from fields where in-situ
combustion has been tested or applied on an industrial scale.
Two cases (field B, C) concern deep to very deep reservoirs
where steam injection could not be applied. The first one (B)
is thin, the second one is thick (Table 1).
The third case (field A) is a shallow reservoir containing ex-
tra-heavy oil. For this case, steam stimulation prior to
fireflooding is needed to obtain sufficient injectivity.
For each case studied, the reservoir was assumed to have a
large extent and to be produced with a repetitive well
configuration scheme (inverted five-spot), so that only one
pattern element with close boundary conditions has been
simulated. As such, 3 D grids have been considered in order
to simulate a 118th five-spot pattern.
IFP's multipurpose thermal compositional simulator, SARI.,
was used to perform the simulations.
Combustion Representation
To represent the combustion process itself, we assumed that
a constant amount of coke deposited ahead of the combustion
front would bum in contact with oxygen according to a
kinetic law of the Arrhenius type. Our representation of the
reaction scheme enabled the problem to be simplified, and
enabled other reaction kinetics, such as low temperature
oxidation and cracking or direct oxidation of the oil, to be
suppressed.
Of course, these phenomena can be taken into account in the
present model but accurate kinetic data for these reactions are
difficult to obtain in the laboratory and difficult to apply on
field-scale because of the influence of the 3-phase
hydrodynamics on residual oil saturations ahead of the
combustion front. This point has been already discussed in a
previous paper and systematic studies on the influence of
the grid block size on the reaction scheme have been carried
out by numerical modeling specialists.
For our purpose, available values of the coke laydown
obtained in the laboratory for the considered oils were
introduced in the model. As all the values needed to
represent drylwet combustion were not available, an
extensive paper review on this topic has been consulted 1A4A6
leading to the results presented in Figure 1.
Two average curves were established from results issued
from laboratory tests performed on more than 10 types of oil
classified in the heavy and medium ranges. For several
pressure tests, these curves show the evoldon of the coke
laydown reduction during wet airlo, fireflooding. These
curves have been established for a water injectedlair eq. ratio
of about 2 x 10-3m3/Nm3eq. air.
For the three types of oil studied in this paper the values of
coke laydown introduced in the model are reported in Table
2. These values were sometimes available from reports or can
 SPE 24082 HJ.M PETIT, E.P. VALENTIN,J.P. DESMARQUEST
be extrapolated from these curves, considering the injection
pressure, the oil gravity and the waterlair ratio
(1.5-1.6 m3/Nm3eq. air) used in this study.
Note that the same amount of coke laydown was used for air
and 0, fireflooding.
Indeed, results from comparative laboratory experiments
show little difference, on the average, between oxygen and ah
injection for medium to heavy oil, especially for high
pressures 39 '. However a sizeable coke reduction was
observed with a 26' API oil during moderate 0, injections 3.
Laboratory tests also show appreciably higher amount of
oxygen to be required at the burning front with increasing
oxygen partial pressure, whatever the test pressure and oil
studied. This effect is related to the fact that the excess
oxygen in the burning zone bums part of the oil in place in
the cracking zone. This result is very important and must be
taken into consideration in designing 0, injection strategies
for field applications. In order to avoid risks of 0, by-pas-
sing at front and undesirable 0, consuming reactions,
moderate O2flowrates must be injected.
Laboratory tests and field experiences 29 '1have shown that
a O,/air ratio of 0.2 to 0.4 for the injected flowrates could be
recommended in general.
However, heterogeneous/fractured reservoirs or extra-heavy
oil field cases where gas fingering and channeling
phenomena are encountered, might be poor candidates for the
0, fireflooding process, unless field monitoring enables
0, flowrates at injectors to be selectively adjusted.
Simulations
Field A
Steam stimulation
Due to the very low mobility of the oil in place, steam
Huffn Puff has been applied on both injector and producer,
prior to the combustion process itself. 6 stimulation cycles
enabled to recover 5.1% OOIP in 4 years. For each cycle,
steam was injected during 15 to 30 days, followed by 7 days
soaking time with a maximum bottomhole pressure of
12 MPa (1,740 psi) which is above the parting pressure.
9,200 t of steam were injected in each well and the
cumulative oil-steam ratio (OSR) was 0.123 m3/t.
Combustion phase
Table 3 summarizes the optimized injection strategies used
for the four combustion processes studied: dry/wet 0, or air
fireflood.
For this field, wet air injection is the most efficient process:
lowest Air-Oil Ratio (AOR) and best additional recovery
factor: 24.7% OOIP. This can be attributed to the low
injection pressure after stimulation (no CO, effect during 0,
process) and mainly to the advantageous effect of the N,
stream ahead of the air combustion front. Indeed, for air, the
gas flow was approximately 5 times greater than the flow of
pure oxygen, and the vaporization of the large amount of
water downstream from the front, especially after stimulation,
is facilitated by high heat transfer by convection.
3
This phenomena has already been observed in laboratory at
low injection pressure (1 MPa).
Field B
Prior to combustion, 5.4% OOIP were recovered by primary
production. For this field, air injection was unsuccessful.
Indeed, after few months of injection, pressure reached
30MPa (4,350 psi) with a normal injection flux of
1 Nm3/m2hr. Reduction of the injected flowrate leads to a
rapid extinction, due to the important heat loss (oil
thickness = 4.6 m).
On the contrary, 0, injection followed by waterflooding
leads to a recovery of 37.5% OOIP for the dry process,
31.4% OOIP for the wet one (Table4). Wet combustion
enabled the recovery to be accelerated but breakthrough also
appeared more quickly at producer. Nevertheless, 0, wet
combustion is the most efficient process (AOR equal to 2,078
instead of 2,365).
Field C
Prior to combustion, 5.3% OOIP were recovered by primary
production. Table 5 summarizes the results obtained for the
four recovery processes. Here also, wet 0 2 injection leads to
the lowest AOR. By comparison with the wet air process, 0 2
wet injection is 1.5 times more efficient. However, the final
recovery factor is lower (-20% in comparison or 12% OOIP).
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS
Cost of 0, and Air at FieldScale
A comparison of costs for producing oxygen and air under
field operating conditions with the following development
strategies has been made for the three cases examined
(Table 6):
In the first two fields, oxygen was injected at flowrates close
to those considered for the first year, and it is interesting to
build up development strategies from the present state of
development of the projects. To be as thorough as possible in
covering the range of application of this recovery method, the
installation flowrates have been made to vary within fairly
wide ranges for each field. This range of flowrates goes from
1 to 20, i.e. 70 t/day for the first year at field C to 1,430 t/day
during the final production stage at field B. If we assume that
the ratio of 0, injected over oil produced varies between 100
Sm3/m3 in a favorable case and 700 Sm3/m3in a very
unfavorable case, the maximum amounts of oil liable to be
produced at the industrial stage would be between 0.5 and 3.5
Mm3/year at field A or field B, 0.25 and 1.8 Mm3/year at field
C.
Method
Data concerning oxygen were provided by 1'Air Liquide for
Oxyton units having an output pressure of 0.55 MPa (80 psi).
The oxygen was then adjusted to the pressure required by
unlubricated compressors.
 4 A W 0 2 FIREFLOOD: COMPARISON OF FIELD-SCALE PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICS
For each application, the supply of compressed air provided
a safety margin of about 20% all during production. The
planned duration of production was 15 years, with a stream
factor of 360 days per year (8,640 hours).
For all the cases considered, the cost of compressed air was
calculated on the following bases:
Electricity: $0.04AW
Cooling water: $0.03/m3
Linear depreciation (10 year period)
Interest: 7% of depreciable capital
9% of working capital
Operating cost: 7% of plant cost
Cost assessments do not take into account any residual value
of partially amortized units at the end of production.
Field A
Compression to 10 MPa of 750 tlday to 7,000 Vday of air
(24,150 Sm3/hr to 225,000 Sm3/hr) requires the progressive
use of five 12,000kW centrifugal compressors, each with
8 stages having a compression rate of 1.8 per stage and
intermediate cooling circuits. Each unit is powered by a
12,500 kW electric motor.
Figure 2 presents year by year the evolution of the average
cost of compressed air, expressed in $It of oxygen equivalent
based on the cost of supplying oxygen by l'Air Liquide.
For this application, characterized by a relatively low
injection pressure and a high flowrate, the cost of oxygen for
compressed air is always higher than that of pure oxygen, by
about 28% at the end of year 15.
Field B
Production from this field by in-situ combustion requires
the supplying of 1,750 to 7,150 tlday of compressed air at
27 MPa. The operation can be achieved by the progressive
installation of three 18,000 kW centrifugal compressors with
10 compression stages.
This application is characterized by high pressure and high
flowrate, but it varies only by a ratio of 4 between the
beginning and the end of the production period. This calls for
the installation of a high capacity compressor from the very
beginning.
Likewise, the need to compress pure oxygen from 0.55 MPa
(output pressure of the separation unit) to 27 MPa takes away
some of this process's advantage. However, it,is still slightly
more economical for production as a whole (about 10% at the
end of year 15).
Field C
This application is characterized by a high pressure
(30 MPa) and a relatively low flowrate, but one that varies by
a ratio of 1 to 10 between the beginning and end of
production (350 to 3,500 tlday of compressed air).
This development program involves the use of a large
number of medium-size compressors, i.e. four 7,500 kW
units with 10 stages.
Considering this configuration, the average costs for
supplying pure oxygen and oxygen in the form of compressed
SPE 24082
air are higher than those for the previous sites and are
practically equivalent for both processes.
Remarks:
The production of compressed air represents considerable
investments for the operator, whereas oxygen separation and
compression installations are entirely accounted for by the
supplier, who promises to see that production specifications
are met In this latter case, the technical and financial risks
remain limited for the operating oil company.
Effect of Injection Pressure and Gas Flowrate
In order to evaluate the effect of pressure, a field case A has
been extrapolated to an injection pressure of 27 MPa
(4,000 psi) which corresponds to that of field B. In figure 3,
average costs are compared for both injection pressures. The
difference between the two cases is relatively slight. This is
due to the discrepancy between the compressor cost which is
proportional to the square root of the number of compression
stages. Note that two supplementary stages are needed for
the extrapolated case.
In figure 4, the three high pressure field cases have been
represented: fields B and C and the extrapolated case issued
from A. It is shown that the cost of compressed air is more
affected by the injected flowrate and injection program than
by pressure.
Field C corresponds to a lower initial flowrate and
had the most important variation between the
beginning and the end of field development (injected
flowrate multiplied by 10).
For fieldB, the high initial flowrate was only
multiplied by 4, leading to the use of high capacity
compressors and therefore, to an important capital
expenditures saving.
Economics of Air and Oxygen Firefloods
Economic calculations of unit cost per barrel have been
made for the three oil fields with the following assumptions:
Capital Costs
Drilling, completion and piping:
For field A, infill drilling and steam stimulation were
needed to create communication between wells. So, 4 ha
patterns were changed into 1 ha inverted five-spots. The cost
of both air injector and producer was estimated to be
$170,000.
The cost of the same wells were $460,000 and $1,200,000
respectively for fields B and C. The additional cost of a wet
injector is about $95,000 per injector and $70,000 for a O2
injection well.
These additional costs are due to the use of alloy tubing for
wet combustion instead of coated tubing for dry combustion.
Special completion design must be considered for 0,
injection (wellhead, tubing, packer).
General expenditures including water wells, pumping,
softener, manifolds, power installation, pads and oil-treat-
 SPE 24082 HJ.M PETIT, ES. VALENTIN,J.P. DESMARQUEST
ment facilities are estimated to be $2 per barrel of oil
produced.
Operating costs
The cost of water injection represents $0.5/m3, whereas
produced water and oil treatment respectively cost $1.5/m3
and $l/bbl.
Considering that 0.6m3 of C@ is recovered from the
combustion of 1 m3 O,, the resale of CO, after purification,
its transport (100 miles) and pressurizing for another EOR
project represents $0.01 per cubic meter of oxygen injected.
Discussion
Table 7 summarizes the results obtained for the three
field-scale applications of the combustion processes.
This table clearly shows that the cost of oil produced by
fireflooding is very dependent of the nature of reservoir and
type of oil considered. For example the cost is doubled on
the whole, from field C to field A.
For shallow reservoirs having a high water saturation
(field A after steamflooding), it is of no interest to inject 0,
instead of air. Combined injection of water and 0, tends .to
quench combustion and to accelerate the breakthrough. Dry
air combustion remains the most efficient and profitable
process.
Thin and deep reservoirs are typically indicated for oxygen
fireflooding (field B). Wet oxygen injection is more efficient
than dry oxygen injection followed by waterflooding for
scavenging heat and oxygen stored behind the combustion
front. However, the cost of oil produced is approximately the
same.
For the thick and very deep reservoir (field C), wet oxygen
fireflooding is the most efficient and least costly process.
Combined water and oxygen injection boosts production, and
then enables additional patterns to be produced at slightly
lower cost. Dry oxygen followed by waterflooding is also of
interest and could be envisaged in the case of a lower
injectivity reservoir for which combined injection of gas and
water is limited. Figure 5 shows, for the four processes, the
evolution of amounts of fluid injected and produced during
the project life.
Figure 6 shows the breakdown of the cost of oil for the three
fields produced by wet oxygen fieflooding. The cost of
oxygen by itself represents $2.5 to $5 per barrel, that is
between 16 to 33% of the technical cost. Note, for field A,
the importance of the "other" (14%) including the cost of
steam injection. Treatment of oil and water represents
between 16 to 33% of the total cost.
CONCLUSIONS
-For a thin heavy41 reservoir, it has been
demonstrated that it would be not possible to use air
in a 6.25 ha (15.4 acres) inverted five-spot because of
the air injectivity limitation. There is clearly a
technical advantage for oxygen in this case.
5
On the contrary, injection of oxygen instead of air is
not recommended for waterflooded or steam
stimulated shallow reservoirs.
Based on results for one inverted five-spot,
scavenging of the oxygen fill-up behind the
burn-front has been found not to be detrimental to the
oxygen firt$lood process when followed by
waterflooding. By comparison with wet oxygen
combustion, this technique may lead to higher
recovery factors at slightly higher technical costs.
Regarding the examined field developments, 0,wet
combustion (simultaneous 0, and water injection) is
definitely the most efficient process for deep hea-
vy-oil reservoirs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burger, J., Sourieau, P. and Combamous, M.,
Thermal Methods of Oil Recovery, Editions Technip,
Paris, 1985.
Hvizdos, L.J., Howard, J.V., and Roberts, G.W.,
"Enhanced Oil Recovery Through Oxygen-Enriched
In-Situ Combustion: Test Results from the Forest Hill
Field in Texas", J. P. T. 35 (7) p. 1061-1070, June
1983.
Petit, H.J.M. " In-Situ Combustion with Oxygen-En-
riched Air," Paper SPE 16 741, 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE,
Dallas, Texas, September 27-30, 1987.
Hansel, J.G., Benning , M.A. and Fernbacher, J.M.
"Oxygen In-Situ Combustion for Oil Recovery:
Combustion Tube Test," Paper SPE 11 253, SPE
Regional Meeting, Washington, D.C., November 3-6,
1982.
Shahani, G.H. and Hansel, J.G., "Oxygen
Fireflooding: Combustion Tube Tests with Light,
Medium, and Heavy Crude Oils", SPEDOE
Paper 12726, 4thlSymposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 16-18, 1984.
Garon, A.M., Kumar, M., Cala, G.C. "Oxygen
Fireflooding - The State of The Art", Research
Conference on Exploration for Heavy Crude Oil and
Natural Bitumen, Santa Maria, CA,
October 29-November 2,1984.
Donnelly, J.K., R.J. Hallam, J.A. Duckett "An Oil
Sands Oxygen In-Situ Combustion Project", 3rd Int.
UNITARfUNDP Heavy Crude and Tar Sands Conf.,
Long Beach CA, July 22-31,1985.
Huffman, G.A., Benton, J.P., El-Messidi, A.E., Riley
K.M. "Pressure Maintenance by In-Situ Combustion
West Heidelberg Unit, Jasper County, Mississipi",
J.P.T. 35 (10) p. 1877-1883, October 1983.
 Table 1
Main reservoir characteristics
Field

Depth (m)
Thickness (m)
I Pattern size (five-spot) 1 ha (2.5 acres) 1 6.2 ha (15.4 acres) 1 6.2 ha (15.4 acres)
1 Gravity (OAPI)
100,000 (at 15.5OC) 1,000 (at 85OC) 6 (at 105°C)
Porosity (%) 30 27.7 14
1 Permeability (mD)

Reservoir temperature ("C)

Table 2
Coke laydown (kg/m3)
Field A B C I
Dry AirlO, 42 48 22
Wet Airlo, 29 38 19

Table 3
Field A: Results for one inverted five-spot
Gas injected Water injected Oil produced I AOR Add. Rec.**

Wet Air
Hypothesis:
4.8 7.0 3.5 5.2 11 23 30 30 13
Vertical air or 0, sweep efficiency: 0.175 (for injected gas calculations)
1,322 24.7
I
Critical flux at front: Air: 0.8 Nn?/m2hr 0s 0.2 Nn?/dhr
* including 11.1DP m3 by waterfloodingafter combustion
"additional recovery for an inverted five-spot

Table 4
Field B: Results for one inverted five-spot
Gas inj. I Water injected I Oil produced I AOR I Add. Rec.**

Hypothesis: Vertical O2sweep efficiency: 1 (for Injected gas calculations)

Critical flux at front: 02:0.4 Nn?/dhr
' by waterfloodingafter combustion
**additional recovery for an inverted fivespot
 Table 5

Dry Air 25 35 35 35 - - - - 35' 35.35' 45 27 20 17 2.8 1.3 1.4 1,142 71.3

Wet Air 25 35 35 18 - 17 35 35 - - - 46 29 33 9.1 - - - 969 72.7
Hypothesis: Vertlcal air or O2sweep efficiency: 0.28 (for injected gas calculations)
Critical flux at front: Air: 1.5 NmS/dhr Op:0.3 Nms/m2hr
by waterflooding after combustion
**additional recovery for an Inverted flvespot

Table 6
Field operating conditions
Depth (m) inj. pressure (MPa) Fiowrate in 0, equivalent (tld)
A I B I C
Field Field Years years yeam
A I B I C A I B I C 1 1 2-10 111-15 1 1 2-9 110-15 1 1 2-9 110-15
450 )1,43013,350 10 1 27 1 30 150 I125*I1.400 350 1120'/1.430 70 170* 1700
'annual increase

Table 7
Field develovment: main economic r,
Field A I
Field B Field C
dry 0, lwet 0,ldry airlwet airldry 0, lwet 0. dry 0, wet 0, dry air wet air
Oil production (Mbbi) 81.5 81.7 109.9 103.6 50.1 57.8 64.3 85.5 47.4 58.5
Air Oil Ratio 1,572 1,659 1,331 1,325 2,377 2,080

Figure 1: Coke laydown reduction vs pressure

 Figure 2: Unit cost of air and oxygen

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5
(years)
Figure 3: Unit cost of air: pressure effect
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 t 3 1 4 1 5

Figure 4: Unit cost of air: effect of injection rate

1.800 Id

Wet o2
1.m IS

.-
Wet Air
1.m 1.6

Figure 5: Evolutionof amounts of fluid injected and produced on field C

Field A Field B Field C

Figure 6: Breakdown of technical cost