Experimental Fireflood - Carlyle Field, Kansas

Elkins, Lincoln F.; Skov, Arlie M.; Martin, Philippe; Lutton, D.R.

doi:10.2118/5014-ms

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oil gravity is 19.5 API and oil viscosity is 700 cp in reservoir conditions (M. Smith 1966) (Elkins, Skov, et al 1974). The active aquifer maintained reservoir pressure but resulted in high water production and low primary recovery (3.5% OOIP according to Smith).…”

Section: In Situ Combustion Field Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced Oil Recovery of Heavy Oil in Reservoirs With Bottom Aquifer

Delamaide¹,

Moreno²

2015

SPE Western Regional Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oil production in presence of a bottom aquifer is one of the most challenging issues in reservoir engineering. In most cases water coning happens very quickly and the influx of water restricts oil production and limits recovery. The problem is even more difficult when the oil is heavy because the viscosity contrast is large. In some cases horizontal wells may be used to improve the situation but when reservoirs are thin and the oil is viscous even horizontal wells are of limited use. This paper presents the challenges and potential solutions for Enhanced Oil Recovery in heavy oil reservoirs with bottom aquifer. Existing literature is reviewed for field cases of EOR experience with bottom aquifer for chemical as well as thermal processes (SAGD, steam injection as well as In Situ Combustion). In the case of chemical EOR the chemicals may be lost to the aquifer; for thermal recovery the bottom water can act as a heat sink and affect and steam oil ratio. Some in-situ combustion projects have been successful in such settings but in every case the outcome is the same: the economics of the project can be affected. The paper contains some previously unpublished data of polymer injection in a heavy oil pool with some limited bottom aquifer; for the most part it is a review of the existing literature which may prove useful to practicing engineers who are faced with the issue of developing heavy oil resources in the presence of bottom aquifer.

show abstract

Section: In Situ Combustion Field Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced Oil Recovery of Heavy Oil in Reservoirs With Bottom Aquifer

Delamaide¹,

Moreno²

2015

SPE Western Regional Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In case of spontaneous ignition near the injector, the oxygen would be consumed and the process would revert to forward combustion. To avoid the spontaneous ignition near the injector, the reservoir should be preheated before air injection [22][23][24]. Secondly, reverse combustion can be often unstable with narrow combustion channels and, as a result, burns poorly [18,25,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Investigations of Forward and Reverse Combustion for Increasing Oil Recovery of a Real Oil Field

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The work presented herein is devoted to a unique set of forward and reverse combustion tube (CT) experiments to access the suitability and potential of the in situ combustion (ISC) method for the light oil carbonate reservoir. One forward and one reverse combustion tube tests were carried out using the high-pressure combustion tube (HPCT) experimental setup. However, during reverse combustion, the front moved in the opposite direction to the airflow. The results obtained from experiments such as fuel/air requirements, H/C ratio, and recovery efficiency are crucial for further validation of the numerical model. A quantitative assessment of the potential for the combustion was carried out. The oil recovery of forward combustion was as high as 91.4% of the initial oil in place, while that for the reverse combustion test demonstrated a 43% recovery. In the given conditions, forward combustion demonstrated significantly higher efficiency. However, the stabilized combustion front propagation and produced gases of reverse combustion prove its possible applicability. Currently, there is a limited amount of available studies on reverse combustion and a lack of publications within the last decades despite advances in technologies. However, reverse combustion might have advantages over forward combustion for heavy oil reservoirs with lower permeability or might serve as a reservoir preheating technique. These experiments give the opportunity to build and validate the numerical models of forward and reverse combustion conducted at reservoir conditions and test their field application using different scenarios.

show abstract

In Situ Combustion

Turta

2013

Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental Fireflood - Carlyle Field, Kansas

Abstract: Pilot tests of forward combustion were conducted in 35 to 45 ft oil-saturated sand overlying 100 to 125 ft water-saturated sand in the Bartlesville sand at a depth of 860 ft. Ignition and maintenance of combustion were achieved easily. Cold wells typically produced 0.5 to 2

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Enhanced Oil Recovery of Heavy Oil in Reservoirs With Bottom Aquifer

Enhanced Oil Recovery of Heavy Oil in Reservoirs With Bottom Aquifer

Experimental Investigations of Forward and Reverse Combustion for Increasing Oil Recovery of a Real Oil Field

In Situ Combustion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About