SPE 113917

The Modeling Challenge of High Pressure Air Injection

A.H. de Zwart, D.W. van Batenburg, C.P.A. Blom, A. Tsolakidis, C.A. Glandt, and P. Boerrigter
Shell International Exploration and Production
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract
High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) is a potentially attractive enhanced oil recovery method for deep, high-pressure light oil
reservoirs after waterflooding. The advantage of air over other injectants, like hydrocarbon gas, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or
flue gas, is its availability at any location. HPAI has been successfully applied in the Williston Basin for more than twenty
years and is currently being considered by many operators for application in their assets.

Evaluation of the applicability of HPAI requires conducting laboratory experiments under reservoir temperature and pressure
conditions to confirm crude auto-ignition and to assess the burn characteristics of the crude/reservoir rock system. The
ensuing estimation of the potential incremental recovery from the application of HPAI in the reservoir under consideration
requires fit-for-purpose numerical modeling. Typically, the flue gas generated in-situ by combustion leads to in an immiscible
gas drive, where the stripping of volatile components is a key recovery mechanism. HPAI has therefore, in some instances,
been modeled as an isothermal flue gas drive, employing an Equation of State (EOS) methodology. This approach, however,
neglects combustion and its effects on both displacement and sweep. Furthermore, the EOS approach cannot predict if, and
when, oxygen breakthrough at producers occurs. Combustion can be included in a limited fashion in simulations at the
expense of extra computational time and complexity. In the available literature, combustion is taken generally into account
under quite simplified conditions.

This paper addresses the role that combustion plays on the incremental recovery of HPAI. Numerical simulations were
conducted in a 3D model with real geological features. In order to capture more realistically the physics of the combustion
front, a reservoir simulator with dynamic gridding capabilities was used. Kinetic parameters were based on the combustion
tube laboratory experiments. The impact of combustion on residual oil, sweep efficiency and predicted project lifetime is
presented by comparing isothermal EOS-simulations and multi-component combustion runs.


Introduction
High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) is generally defined as a process in which compressed air is injected into a high gravity,
high pressure oil reservoir
1
. The oxygen in the injected air will react with a fraction of the reservoir oil at an elevated
temperature to produce carbon dioxide and oxygenated oil-phase products. The resulting flue gas mixture, which primarily
consists of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, provides the mobilizing force to the oil downstream of the reaction region, sweeping it
to the production wells. The gas-oil mixture may be immiscible, partly, or completely miscible. In some situations, the
elevated temperature reaction zone may contribute to the incremental recovery. In its field implementation, the process is
initiated simply by injecting air, which will spontaneously ignite the oil due to high temperature and pressure conditions in the
reservoir. Air compression for injection is carried out with compressors that are specifically designed for air at the relatively
high target pressures.

The process is commercially applied as both, secondary and tertiary recovery techniques in some of the fields of the Williston
Basin of Montana and North and South Dakota in the USA. The four original projects, three in the Buffalo Red River Unit
and one in the Medicine Pole Hills Unit were started by Koch Exploration Company in 1987. Reservoirs in this area are
typically deep, high pressure, thin dolomites with permeabilities in the 10-20 mD range. Water flooding these reservoirs is
very challenging due to poor injectivity associated with the low permeabilities and the large well spacing. Two recent
2 SPE 113917
papers
2,3
provide an analysis of the technical and economical merits of HPAI versus water flooding in two adjacent units in the
Buffalo Field. The analysis is based on production results over nearly twenty years. Another successful pilot was conducted
in the steeply dipping, high-permeable West Hackberry field in Southwestern Louisiana. In two papers Gillham et al.
presented results and experience gained from this pilot
4,5
. Total's US subsidiary, Total Minatome Corporation, operated a
HPAI project in the Horse Creek Field that is also located in the Williston Basin
6
. Glandt et al. have reported on a feasibility
study for HPAI in one of Shells assets along the Cedar Creek Anticline of southeast Montana
7
.

Many studies on the feasibility of HPAI as a tertiary recovery process in reservoirs outside the US have been presented. Total
investigated the feasibility of air injection into the Handil field in Indonesia
8
. This study resulted in a HPAI pilot that was
started in July 2001
9
. Results for the first five months of the pilot were encouraging but further results have not been reported.
Phillips and Amoco reported on the feasibility of HPAI in the Maureen Field in the UK-sector of the North Sea
10
. This study
concluded that HPAI is technically feasible but marginally economic. A similar conclusion was reached for air injection in the
giant Ekofisk Field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. Incremental recovery due to air injection could be as high as 5%
of the original oil in place, but the project economics, when taking into account capital and operational expenses as well as
project uncertainties, were estimated to be negative
11
. In the Ekofisk study, capital expenses were significant as it was
proposed to have separate new injection and gas processing platforms to reduce the potential safety hazards. Repsol YPF has
reported on a feasibility study in the Barrancas field in Argentina
12
. Nearly every existing flavor of reservoir simulation
techniques has been used for these feasibility studies: isothermal black oil and equation of state (EOS) methods, and thermal
methods including combustion with different levels of complexity.

This paper starts with an historic overview of the various modeling approaches for predicting the HPAI performance that have
been presented in the literature. In order to improve predictions from multi-component thermal simulations that include
combustion dynamic gridding techniques are utilized. This technique is illustrated with simulations of air injection in a 3D
model with real geological features. Kinetic parameters were based on combustion tube laboratory experiments. Finally, the
role played by combustion on the flue gas drive is presented based on isothermal simulations and multi-component
combustion runs.


Modeling of HPAI
Various techniques to predict the performance of HPAI have been proposed and presented over the years. Tables 1 and 2
provide an overview of relevant published results of modeling efforts related to air injection into light oil reservoirs. The
overview shown in Table 1 relates to field performance predictions with the help of two and three-dimensional simulations.
This table clearly demonstrates the wide range of approaches used to predict HPAI field performance. Furthermore, there is a
large variation in block sizes used. The volumes of the blocks vary from 750 m
3
for simulation of a quarter five spot to 15,000
m
3
for the simulation of a pilot response in the Barrancas field in Argentina. Block sizes used for the predictions in the
Maureen field and the Total pilot are probably even larger but are not provided.

Many of the studies listed in Table 1 include descriptions and/or references to combustion tube experiments that were
conducted to determine the burn characteristics of the different fields. In several cases, these combustion tube experiments
were history matched in order to calibrate the reaction kinetics employed by thermal reservoir simulators with combustion
capabilities. Table 2 provides an overview of the number of grid blocks and the characteristic dimensions of these blocks that
are used in the reported simulations. Block sizes used for the combustion tube 1-D simulations are several orders of
magnitude smaller than those used for field scale simulations. A fine grid can capture the combustion front propagation. For
this fine grid the kinetic parameters do not require upscaling. When employing coarse grids this front is dramatically smeared
as the energy released by combustion is absorbed by the volumetric heat capacity of a large gridblock. Upscaling,
employing pseudo activation energies and pre-exponential factors, is required to prevent the block burnout effect
13
.

Approaches for upscaling reaction kinetics for in-situ combustion (ISC) of heavy oils have been proposed in the literature
13-18
.
The following two upscaling methods appear to be the generally accepted for overcoming the challenges of steep temperature
gradients in combustion modeling:
1. Enforce reactant-controlled type of reactions, where the reactions occur with infinite rate and the reactant is limiting
these reactions. Lerner et al. took this approach for light oils
19
.
2. Adjustment of the Arrhenius-type reactions by either tuning the pre-exponential factors and the activation energies or by
fixing the reaction rates to the combustion front or by minimizing the temperatures (pseudo-kinetics). Kuhlman took
this approach for light oils
20
.
The downside of up-scaling the reactions is that the ability to realistically predict oxygen consumption is compromised.

Surprisingly, Kumar reports the same reaction kinetics for his combustion tube and field scale simulations
21,22
. None of the
references that use thermal methods with Arrhenius-type kinetics provide insight of how the up-scaling was conducted.
SPE 113917 3
Another challenge in modeling combustion of light oils is that higher temperatures result in enhanced vaporization of light
components; this has a significant effect on the phase behavior. Upscaled reaction kinetics result in lower combustion
temperatures and consequently less oil vaporization and more residual oil left for combustion
19
. The net result is that the
model underestimates the predicted combustion front velocity.

The three reported studies that evaluated the feasibility of field implementation of HPAI in the 1990s chose to avoid the
complications associated with thermal modeling of HPAI. Sakthikumar et al.
8
simulated the process as an immiscible nitrogen
flood, Fraim et al.
10
modeled the process as a miscible flue gas flood with a black oil model, and Glandt et al.
7
modeled the
process as an isothermal flue gas flood with a 10 component EOS-model. In all three cases it was expected that the isothermal
predictions would represent a conservative estimate of the incremental oil production.

Kuhlman
20
evaluated the predictions resulting from the use of different simulation approaches for a viscous dominated (Horse
Creek) and a gravity stable (West Hackberry) reservoir. The study used a thermal combustion model, a flue gas EOS model,
and injection of reservoir gas in a black-oil model. Kulhlman concluded that the use of thermal models is preferred and that
EOS-models can be used for hot, thick, very light oil reservoirs. These conclusions were based on models that used the same
grid block sizes for each approach, and that included up-scaled-kinetics for the thermal simulations. EOS simulations showed
increased production when compared with the thermal simulations.


Improved thermal methods
Methods to avoid or circumvent the upscaling, as discussed above, result in pseudo-kinetics and poor vaporization predictions.
A first step to reduce the need for upscaling was given by Christensen et al.
23
who proposed a dynamic gridding method that
allows a finer scale representation around a thermal front. One of the example illustrations of the algorithm is an ISC
application. ISC is modeled in a block of 100 m length, 45 m wide and 28 m height. In this example, the smallest blocks have
a volume of 20 m
3
(4m x 5m x 1 m) that still requires upscaled kinetics. One complication for these dynamic gridding
techniques is that the smallest grid blocks determine the time-step size; therefore improved resolution results in longer
runtimes. Younis and Gerritsen
24
have proposed a time stepping methodology that uses specialized time integration methods
for the various physical processes that occur during combustion in porous media. Their proposed methodology has only been
demonstrated with one-dimensional combustion tube simulations. The ever-increasing computer power and the introduction
of improved dynamic gridding algorithms will help to further refine the gridding around combustion fronts to sizes that will
ultimately allow the use of experimentally obtained reaction kinetics for full field predictions.


Example Case
The feasibility of HPAI as a tertiary recovery has been evaluated for a series of fluvio-deltaic type reservoirs containing light
oils. Reservoir temperature is above 100 C and initial reservoir pressure is around 32 MPa at 3000 meters depth. Reservoir
permeabilities range from some mD in the poor parts of the reservoirs to several Darcies in the high permeability channels.
Around 50% of the OIIP will have been produced with the help of water injection or active aquifers before the tertiary
recovery process has started. The gross thickness of these reservoirs is typical around 100 m. HPAI as an immiscible gas drive
is better suited for thinner reservoir packages, as severe gravity override will result in poor vertical sweep.

HPAI is evaluated as a potential tertiary process to mobilize bypassed and residual oil. No other alternative gases such as
hydrocarbon gas or CO
2
could be sourced to the project. Simulations of continuous air injection were conducted for a small
isolated block that might serve as a pilot candidate. The size of the block is approximately 1150 m long, 300 m wide and has a
gross sand height of 80 m. Sealing faults bound three sides of the block while the fourth side is connected to an active aquifer.
The block is currently producing through one well. The bottom part of the block contains water that is in communication with
the active aquifer. The maximum oil column in the block is about 40 m. A static geological model for the block was
conditioned to the one well penetrating the block. For the purpose of the study a gas injector is placed at a distance of 500 m
from the producer.

The grid used for the simulations was designed to capture gravity override and fingering through high permeability channels
that might be expected from a displacement process such as gas flooding where the mobility ratio is unfavorable. The size of
the grid blocks in the oil column is 30 m x 30 m x 1 m, while the height of the blocks increases in the water zone. The total
number of grid blocks in the base-case simulation model is 21,000. A 3-dimensional view of the stochastically generated
permeability distribution, cut along the well plane is shown in Figure 1. High permeability channels are clearly visible. A
histogram of the permeability distribution is presented in Figure 2. The mean permeability of the block is 542 mD.

4 SPE 113917
PVT
The oil has an API gravity of 36, GOR of 62 sm
3
/m
3
, formation volume factor of 1.3, bubble point of 9.14 MPa at 114 C and
viscosity of 0.6 cP. The PVT data of the original bottom-hole oil sample was imported into a commercially available PVT
package. After assessing the quality of the sample data, the oil was characterized using the Peng-Robinson equation of state
with Peneloux volume correction. To describe the viscosity the method of Lohrenz-Bray-Clark was used. While characterizing
the oil, the C11
+
-fraction was split into 26 pseudo components. In the regression to experimental data a good overall match of
all oil and gas properties was pursued. In order to ensure proper subsurface behavior, special attention was given to the
matching of the saturation pressure, the oil density, and the oil viscosity with the highest degree of accuracy. The molar
distribution versus carbon number of the plus fraction of the characterized oil was found to be in good agreement with boiling
point distillation data that was acquired as part of the Accelerated Rate Calorimetry (ARC) and combustion test. Subsequently,
the oil was lumped into five hydrocarbon components, C1, C2-C6, C7-C15, C16-C26, C27
+
, and the flue gas components, N
2

and CO
x
. The components were chosen such that the model can describe both the vaporization process, initiated by the flue
gas, and the combustion process. The lumped model accurately describes the oil properties. Further reduction of the number of
components leads to unsatisfactory description of the vaporization process. The seven-component model is subsequently used
to obtain K-values and thermal properties for all components. The K-values for the increased temperatures were extrapolated
from the correlations implemented in the PVT package. In the combustion simulations, oxygen and coke are added to the
seven-component model.


Relative permeabilities
Corey functions describe the two-phase oil-water and gas-oil (liquid) systems, formation averages (connate water saturation,
residual oil saturation, Corey exponents, etc.) were used for the relative permeability functions. An in-house prediction tool
provided the gas-oil parameters. Three-phase relative permeabilities are generated by linear interpolation between the two
two-phase relative permeability sets. Straight lines connect wetting and non-wetting phase points of equal permeability. Points
on these lines provide permeabilities for the intermediate phase. In the simulations no temperature dependence of relative
permeabilities or capillary pressure is used. In addition the effect of hysteresis on relative permeabilities is not taken into
account.


Kinetic model
The kinetic model used in the combustion simulations is based on Lins model
26
. It is tuned on two combustion tube tests
recently conducted at the University of Calgary. Combustion tube and simulation details are reported in the last column of
Table 2. The kinetic model consists of one cracking reaction and three combustion reactions. Of these combustion reactions
one describes the combustion of coke and the other two reactions describe the combustion the light and medium fractions of
the oil (Table 3). The two liquid-oil combustion reactions provide the main source of heat and only a small amount of coke is
generated and combusted. The combustion tube results are matched on the gas effluent profile, the front temperature, the liquid
production and the front speed, by adjusting the pre-exponential factor and the activation energies. The effluent composition,
front temperature and speed are nicely matched, as shown in Figure 3. The match of the liquid production after air injection is
poor, as can be seen in Figure 4. The gas breakthrough and oil production of the nitrogen flood, conducted at the first 3.5
hours, are perfectly matched. The production after 5 hours of air injection is not matched well. The oil bank is produced too
early with respect to the experimental data. Several adjustments have been made to improve this match. The relative
permeability model, the K-values of both light (C7-C15) and medium (C16-C26) components, and the kinetic parameters were
further adjusted. This did not result in a better match of the oil production. The difficulty in obtaining a better match is caused
by the interplay of the aforementioned three factors. The oil remaining for combustion is impacted by the K-values of the light
and medium oil fractions. More and better data on the temperature dependence of the PVT behavior and relative permeabilities
will constrain the matching and will lead to a more realistic match. In addition, the kinetic model used is missing the vapor
phase combustion and oxidation reactions. For this work, the match is accepted acknowledging the current shortcomings.

Preconditioning and No Further Action (NFA) case
In order to obtain a representative remaining oil distribution, the block was preconditioned based on the pressure and
production history of the producer. The preconditioning had to be conducted twice: once for the EOS-model, that is later used
for the EOS flue gas simulations, and once for the K-value model, that was used for the thermal combustion simulations. A
three dimensional view of the saturation distribution along the plain of the well at the start of the gas injection operation is
presented in Figure 5. An NFA case, with an aquifer-driven primary production, was also simulated.


Isothermal flue gas simulations
The isothermal EOS simulations were conducted with Shells in house simulator, MoReS. The isothermal K-value
simulations were conducted with CMG STARS and used the same set of K-values that were used for the combustion run
described below. Continuous flue gas injection rate was set at 0.14 10
6
m
3
/day for a five-year period. The saturation
SPE 113917 5
distribution after five years of flue gas injection in the-EOS model is shown in Figure 6. The oil and gas production profiles
versus time for both isothermal runs are shown in Figure 7.


Combustion simulations
For the combustion simulations, the dynamic gridding option of STARS
23
is used. If the temperature difference exceeds the
threshold of 10C then the grid blocks are refined or unrefined. The blocks are refined in the xyz directions by a factor of 3 x
3 x 1. This results in a blocks of 10 m x 10 m x 1m and consequently increases the number of blocks. In our simulations the
grid is always fine at the combustion front while grid blocks further away from the front are unrefined. The grid around the
wells is refined at all times.

The preconditioned kinetic model is upscaled to the 10 m x 10 m x 1m grid blocks. The upscaling of the reactions was done
using the second method described in the modeling section. The pre-exponential factors are increased and the activation
energies are reduced to ensure combustion front temperature of about 300 C, which is the reported stable front temperature in
the laboratory. The oil production profile and the oxygen concentration in the produced gas for the combustion simulation are
shown in Figure 8


Results and Discussion
The saturation distribution presented in Figure 5 provides a view of the potential target oil for the gas flood in this block. The
target oil consists of the residual oil in the areas swept by the water, the attic oil and the oil in areas that were not swept by
water. The saturation distribution after five years of gas injection, as shown in Figure 6, demonstrates that the gas has indeed
swept the top of the reservoir and that it has reached the producer through the high permeability layers that are clearly visible
in Figure 1. The volumetric sweep of the gas is poor as expected from an immiscible gas displacement in a strongly
heterogeneous reservoir. The oil production response to the gas injection as shown in Figures 7 and 8 can be understood by
considering the gas production profiles and the permeability distribution. It takes approximately six months for the first gas to
reach the producer. An oil bank is pushed ahead of the gas front. Along the flow path created by the gas additional oil is
vaporized into the gas phase. Changes in slope of the gas production curve indicate the breakthrough of additional gas flow
paths. Each flow path has an associated oil bank that contributes to the increasing oil production, followed by a contribution
from stripping that declines over time. The longer it takes for a flow path to breakthrough, the larger the associated oil bank
will be. Ultimately, the gas rate stabilizes indicating that a quite stable saturation distribution has been established and most of
the additional oil is produced as a result of vaporization.

The difference between the isothermal EOS and K-value results can be understood from the different descriptions of the PVT
behavior and the properties derived from it. The EOS provides a better description of the stripping process. In addition
important variables for the displacement process such as densities and phase viscosities are calculated more accurately with the
EOS description than with the K-value approach, where the PVT properties are described with mixing rules based on
properties of the individual components. These different descriptions can explain the discrepancies between the production
profiles in Figure 7. The formation of the oil bank ahead of the gas front can be explained by evaporation of the light
components and the subsequent condensation of gas components, resulting in relatively lighter oil that has a lower viscosity.
In the EOS description this effect is more accurately described leading to a more favorable mobility ratio between the oil and
the displacing gas. This causes a later gas breakthrough along each flow path for the EOS case. From the above it follows that
the isothermal K-value approach provides a conservative oil recovery prediction for the flue gas injection. This is in line with
the observations of Kuhlman
20
.

The results obtained with the isothermal and thermal K-value methods are used to illustrate the importance of combustion.
Comparing the oil production profiles in Figure 8 we observe that the oil rates for both cases are very similar during the first
two years. The same flow paths also followed by the flue gas lead to identical breakthrough and production response. After
two years of air injection the production response of the combustion case starts to deviate from the isothermal case. This
deviation is due to the combustion front that approaches the production well, as also indicated by the increase in oxygen
concentration in the gas stream. Both cases show breakthrough of a significant oil bank after 2.5 years of air injection. Two
processes cause the higher oil peak for the combustion case: 1) The saturation of the oil bank is larger ahead of the combustion
front due to the elevated temperature and the corresponding reduction in viscosity. 2) The hot gas breaking through at the same
time as the combustion front carries heavier hydrocarbon components that result in additional incremental oil at surface
conditions. These two effects are illustrated in Figure 9. The oil production rate at reservoir conditions shows the breakthrough
of the oil banks, i.e. the peak at 2011. The oil production rate at surface conditions shows the incremental oil due to stripping
over the period from 2011 until 2012. This can also be illustrated by the C7-C15 gas molrate at reservoir conditions. In 2012
the oil bank displaced by the combustion zone approaches the producer. The sudden changes in oil and gas rates at reservoir
conditions indicate the breakthrough of the hot gas behind the front. The practical implication of including combustion in the
6 SPE 113917
model is that the air injection should be stopped once the oxygen concentration in the produced gas exceeds 3%.
Consequently, the incremental oil predicted by the isothermal models after breakthrough should be discarded.

Although a clear production response from the gas injection is shown in Figures 7-9, the volumetric sweep of the gas injection
process, as illustrated in Figure 6, is poor. Including combustion in the model does not improve the overall volumetric sweep
of the gas injection process but combustion has some effects on the areas that are swept as illustrated in Figure 10. This figure
shows the permeability distribution of the layer in which the oxygen breaks through at the producer, the gas saturation at the
time of oxygen breakthrough, and the gas saturation for the flue gas model, all at the same time. For both cases the gas clearly
follows the same high permeability channel. The dynamic grid used for the combustion simulations is shown. The gas
saturation along the flow path between injector and producer for the combustion case is everywhere almost one, while the
maximum gas saturation is only 0.6 for the flue gas case. In the combustion case there is hardly any oil remaining in the swept
area; the oil is either produced or burned. Figure 11 shows the temperature distribution and oxygen concentration along the
same layer at the time of oxygen breakthrough.

The above results illustrate that it is important to include combustion in the predictions of the HPAI process. The lifetime
forecast of a HPAI project depends on the oxygen breakthrough in the production wells. The capability to model oxygen
consumption is key for the economic evaluation and reservoir management of an air injection project. However, there are
many challenges in combustion modeling, such as the lack of temperature dependent PVT description, the temperature
dependence of three-phase relative permeabilities, the stoichiometry of the chemical reactions used to model the combustion,
and the upscaling method for the kinetic model. Further work is needed to improve the combustion modeling. For the time
being, multiple simulations are needed to evaluate the sensitivity of the model results to the above-mentioned uncertainties.


Conclusions
Previous work in modeling HPAI, shows a wide variety of modeling approaches, ranging from Equation-of-State isothermal
flue gas models to coarse and fine grid combustion models that employ K-values for phase partitioning. The flue gas modeling
focuses on the detailed description of stripping and condensation of the high volume flue gas that is in contact with the light
oil.

Combustion models need to rely on detailed combustion tube (CT) simulations in order to extract the fuel deposition
(matching of the propagation rate of the front), describe the thermal effects (matching of the CT temperature rise), and obtain,
one of the many, stoichiometric descriptions for a very simplified kinetic model.

History matching of the production response of the CT experiments becomes a challenging task, impacted by the PVT
behavior in a wide temperature range and compositional (viscosity) changes of the oil bank due to the vaporization /
condensation process

A K-value approach, in order to model HPAI as a flue gas drive, results in a conservative response as the main stripping and
condensation (viscosity reduction) detailed mechanism cannot be adequately captured.

The modeling of HPAI as a low-temperature combustion process provides insights of oxygen breakthrough and the need for
remedial action or the shut-in of the impacted producer. A quantitative predictive model of this phenomenon requires,
however, detailed kinetics including liquid and gas phase reactions, as well as the liquid phase reactions that result in higher-
viscosity oxygenated oil products. For field-sized models this is not possible today with the current software/hardware
capabilities.

Combustion and its associated temperature effects result in a total desaturation of the air swept zones. Furthermore, as the
combustion front approaches the producer, medium molecular weight components (C7-C15) are transported and produced in
the gas phase, thus significantly increasing peak production rates.

Combustion modeling is benefiting significantly by front-tracking dynamic gridding available today in commercial simulators.
The grid refining, however, needs further enhancements to allow the direct use of lab acquired kinetic data without upscaling.
SPE 113917 7
References
1. Moore, R.G. et al., A guide to High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI) based oil recovery, SPE 75207, Presented at the SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa (OK), April 2002.
2. Kumar, V.K., et al., Air injection and waterflood performance of two adjacent units in Buffalo Field: Technical Analysis, SPE 99454,
Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa (OK), April 2006.
3. Kumar, V.K., et al., Air injection and waterflood performance of two adjacent units in Buffalo Field: Economical Analysis, SPE
104479, Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, (OH), October 2006.
4. Gillham, T.H., et al., Keys to increasing production via air injection in Gulf Coast light oil reservoirs, SPE 38848, Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
5. Gillham, T.H., et al., Low cost IOR: an update on the W. Hackberry air injection project, SPE 39642, Presented at the SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 1998.
6. Watts, B.C. et al., The Horse Creek air injection project: an overview, SPE 38359, Presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
Casper, WY, May 1997.
7. Glandt, C.A., et al. Coral Creek Field Study: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Potential of High-Pressure Air Injection in a Mature
Waterflooded Project, SPE 52198, Presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City (OK), March 1999.
8. Sakthikumar et al., An investigation of the feasibility of air injection into a waterflooded light oil reservoir, SPE 29806, Presented at
the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 1995.
9. Duiveman et al. Integrated management of water, lean gas, and air injection: the successful ingredients to EOR projects on the Mature
Handil Field, SPE 93858, Presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 2005.
10. Fraim, M.L., et al. Laboratory Testing and Simulation Results for high Pressure Air Injection in a Waterflooded North Sea Reservoir,
SPE 38905, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, October 1997.
11. Stokke, S., et al., Evaluation of air injection as an IOR method for the giant Ekofisk chalk field, SPE 97481, Presented at the
International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2005.
12. Pacual M. et al., Air injection into a mature waterflooded light oil reservoir: laboratory and simulation results for Barrancas field,
Argentina, SPE 94092, Presented at the SPE/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, June 2005.
13. Coats, K.H., Some Observations on Field-Scale Simulation of the In-Situ Combustion Process, SPE 12247.Presented at the SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, November 1983.
14. G.K. Youngren, Development and application of an in-situ combustion reservoir simulator, SPE-7545; Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Houston, TX; Oct 1978.
15. Hwang, M.K., et al. An In-Situ Combustion Process Simulator With a Moving-Front Representation. SPE 9450. SPE Journal Vol 22,
No.2, pp. 271-279, 1982.
16. Ito Y, et al, A field-scale in-situ combustion simulator with channeling considerations, SPE 13220, SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol 3,
No. 2, pp. 419-430. 1988.
17. Le Thiez, P.A., and Lemonnier, P., An in-situ combustion reservoir simulator with a new representation of chemical reactions, SPE
17416, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1990, pp 285-292.
18. Marjerrison, D.M., and Fassihi, M.R., A procedure for scaling heavy-oil combustion tube results to a field model, SPE 24175,
Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa (OK), April 1992.
19. Lerner, S.L., et al., Dominant processes in in-situ combustion of light-oil reservoirs, SPE 12003, JPT May 1985.
20. Kuhlman, M.I., Simulation of light-oil air injection into viscous-dominated and gravity-stable reservoirs, SPE 59331, Presented at the
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa (OK), April 2000.
21. Kumar, M., Simulation of laboratory in-situ combustion data and effect of process variations, SPE 16027, Presented at the SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, February 1987.
22. Kumar, M., A cross-sectional simulation of West-Heidelberg in-situ combustion project, SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1991,
pp. 46-54.
23. Christensen, J.R. Darche, G. Dechelette, B. Ma, H. Sammon, P.H.: Applications of Dynamic Gridding to Thermal Simulations, SPE
86969, presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, CA, March 2004.
24. Younis, R., Gerritsen, M., Multiscale process coupling by adaptive fractional stepping: an in-situ combustion model, SPE 93458,
Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa (OK), April 2006.
25. Ren, S.R., et al., Air injection LTO process: an IOR technique for light oil reservoirs, Paper SPE 57005, SPE Journal, March 2002.
26. Lin, C.Y., et al. Numerical Simulation of Combustion Tube Experiments and the Associated, Kinetics of In-Situ Combustion
Processes. SPE 11074, SPE Journal, December 1984.
8 SPE 113917

Table 1: Overview of field performance modeling efforts for HPAI

L
e
r
n
e
r

e
t

a
l
.
1
9

K
u
m
a
r
2
2

S
a
k
t
h
i
k
u
m
a
r

e
t

a
l
.
8

F
r
a
i
m

e
t

a
l
.
1
0


G
l
a
n
d
t


e
t

a
l
.
7

R
e
n

e
t


a
l
.
2
5

K
u
h
l
m
a
n
2
0

P
a
s
c
u
a
l

e
t

a
l
.
1
2

Year 1985 1995 1997 1999 2005
Physical Size
Length (m) 113 180 NA NA 4389 770 1600 2800
Width (m) 113 30
NA NA
9144 300 1600 2550
Height (m) 12.5 30
NA NA
15 40 7 65
# Grid Cells 100 216
NA NA
57600 5000 1734 32500
NX 20 36
NA NA
48 200 17 50
NY 1 1
NA NA
100 5 17 50
NZ 5 6
NA NA
12 5 6 13
Block volume
(m
3
)
1600 750
NA NA
1542 1848 10334 14280
# Components 7 NA NA 10 7 8
Simulation
Type
Thermal Thermal Isothermal Black Oil EOS Thermal Black Oil,
EOS,
Thermal
Thermal
Reaction
Kinetics
Infinite Arrhenius None None None Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius
Upscaling Infinite
Rates
None NA NA NA NA
CT Match Lin et al.
26
Kumar
22
In paper NA NA In paper None In paper



Table 2: Overview of characteristic dimensions for matching combustion tube reaction kinetics

L
i
n

e
t

a
l
.
2
6

K
u
m
a
r
2
2

S
a
k
t
h
i
k
u
m
a
r

e
t

a
l
.
8

R
e
n

e
t

a
l
.
2
5

P
a
s
c
u
a
l

e
t

a
l
.
1
2

T
h
i
s

w
o
r
k

Physical Size

Length (cm) 80.8 80.8 52 125 168 168
Diameter (cm) 5.5 5.5 7.4 NA 10 10
Grid Size 51 24 22 128 NA 168
Block Size (10
6
m
3
) 38 80 102 NA 78 78
Reaction Kinetics Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius
Table 3: reaction model
Light Oil Fraction Combustion (liquid) C7C15 + O
2
H
2
O + CO
x
+ Heat
Medium Oil Fraction Combustion (liquid) C16C26 + O
2
H
2
O + CO
x
+ Heat
Heavy Oil Cracking C27+ Coke + C7C15
Coke Combustion Coke + O
2
H
2
O + CO
x
+ Heat

SPE 113917 9


Figure 1: Permeability distribution.


Figure 2: Histogram of the permeability distribution of the block

0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Tube distance (mm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)
)
Experiment @ 6.1 h.
Experiment @ 7.1 h.
Simulation 6.0 hour
Simulation 7.0 hour

Figure 3: Temperature profiles of the combustion tube and the corresponding simulation results.

10 SPE 113917
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 5 10 15
Time (hour)

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

L
i
q
u
i
d
(
c
m
3
)
Water Experiment
Water Simulation
Oil Experiment
Oil Simulations

Figure 4: Cumulative production of the combustion tube test and the corresponding simulation results.



Figure 5: Saturation distribution at the start of the gas injection.



Figure 6: Saturation distribution after five years of flue gas injection.

SPE 113917 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)
O
i
l

R
a
t
e

(
m
3
/
d
a
y
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

m
3
/
d
a
y
)
NFA
EOS - Oil
K-Value - Oil
EOS-Gas
K-Value - Gas

Figure 7: Oil production profiles for NFA case and isothermal flue gas injection described with EOS and K-value models.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015
Time (Year)
O
i
l

R
a
t
e

(
m
3
/
d
a
y
)
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
24%
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
l
/
m
o
l
)
K-Value - Oil
Combustion - Oil
Oxygen Concentration

Figure 8: Oil production profiles for the isothermal flue gas injection, and the thermal combustion cases.

12 SPE 113917
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)
O
i
l

R
a
t
e

(
m
3
/
d
a
y
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

m
o
l
e
/
d
a
y
)
Oil Surface
Oil Reservoir
C7-C15 in gas
C16-C26 in gas

Figure 9: Oil production profiles for combustion case at reservoir and surface conditions, and gas molrate of the light and medium oil
components at reservoir conditions.



Permeability (mD) Gas saturation (combustion) Gas saturation (flue gas)

Figure 10: .Top view of a high permeability channel in layer 12. On the left, the permeability distribution is shown. In the middle, the gas
saturation after 2.5 year of the combustion model and on the right the gas saturation after 2.5 years of the isothermal K-value model, are
shown.

SPE 113917 13

Temperature Oxygen concentration (Sg * O2 mol%)

Figure 11: Top view of a high permeability channel in layer 12. On the left the temperature distribution after 2.5 years and on the right the
oxygen concentration in the gas phase saturation after 2.5 years obtained with the combustion model, are shown.