Remarks on ``Some Criteria for the In Situ Combustion of Crude Oil''

H. R. Bailey and B. K. Larkin

Citation: Journal of Applied Physics 31, 1123 (1960); doi: 10.1063/1.1735760
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1735760
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/31/6?ver=pdfcov
Published by the AIP Publishing




















[This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to ]
IP: 177.20.130.9 On: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:35:01
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
1123
filled by injected gas which does not cross the boundary, the rate
at which gas does cross the boundary representing the heat front
is given by Vol-tpV/. Assume the same temperature To at both
inlet and outlet ends of the system, and .::\.'>0 to satisfy Cooper-
man's second criterion; with Po and y having the same meaning as
in footnote reference 1, the expression
H = (Vgl- tpvj)ypgT
o
'::\" (4)
represents the excess heat per unit time carried into the system
by the reactants over and above the heat carried away by the
reaction products, because of the difference in heat capacities.
The change in heat capacity being caused by the chemical reaction,
it occurs at the zone boundary. But Eq. (4) is equivalent to Eq.
(60), footnote reference 1, in the adiabatic case; thus, Cooperman's
work must assume implicitly that the change in heat capacity at
the boundary is the only mechanism of heat release, and that the
heat generated by the combustion reaction itself is zero or
negligible. This is also apparent from the fact that Eq. (57),
footnote reference 1, which Cooperman claims to connect the heat
generated with the flux of air, contains only specific heats and inlet
and outlet temperatures, but not the heat of combustion either for
fuel or for oxygen. Note also that according to Cooperman, if his
second condition is not satisfied and n/m=3.05, there would be no
heat flux and no release of heat although the reaction Eq. (50),
footnote reference 1, would still be going on. The magnitude of
the error involved is readily seen from a numerical example:
with n/m=6, y=0.21 (injection of air, complete oxygen utiliza-
tion), To=600oR= 140F. and the same specific heats as in the
foregoing, Eq. (4) yields only 0.6 Btu/std cu ft of air passing
through the "combustion" zone, while the heat of combustion for
air, with petroleum fuels, is on the order of 100 Btu/std cu ft.
4. Consider a segment extending, both upstream and down-
stream of the front, far enough so that the temperature is substan-
tially equal to To and the temperature gradient is negligible. This
segment has, in steady state, a constant heat conten't and any
heat generated must be removed by the sensible heat of the flowing
fluids. This is possible in Cooperman's theory because he assumes
a rate of heat generation based on the heat carrying capacity of
the flowing fluids; but if we are to take into account the much
larger amounts of heat generated by the combustion reaction in a
real system, the heat capacities of the flowing fluids become
grossly inadequate to remove all the heat generated at any
reasonable temperature level. Hence, the assumption of steady
state in a linear system with real combustion cannot be justified.
1 P. Cooperman, J. App!. Phys. 30, 1376 (1959).
2 A. L. Benham and F. H. Poettmann, Trans. A.I.M.E. 213, 406 (1958).
'W. L. Martin, J. D. Alexander, and J. N. Dew, Trans. A.I.M.E. 213, 28
(1958).
Remarks on "Some Criteria for the In Situ
Combustion of Crude Oil"
H. R. BAILEY AND B. K. LARKIN
The Ohio Oil Research'Center, Littleton, Colorado
(Received October 12, 1959; revised manuscript
received February 1, 1960)
I
Na recent paperl by P. Cooperman, the following three criteria
for in situ combustion of crude oil are obtained: (i) A hydro-
dynamic condition-that the oil saturation So must be greater
than a certain constant times the water saturation (Inequality
38, footnote reference 1); (ii) A condition based on thermal and
chemical considerations-that the carbon-hydrogen mole ratio of
the burning hydrocarbon must exceed 3.05 (Inequality 51; foot-
note reference 1); and (iii) A thermal condition-that the gas
velocity behind the moving combustion front must exceed a certain
minimum (Inequality 60, footnote reference 1.)
As pointed out in footnote reference 1, the in situ combustion
process consists of a combination of thermal, hydrodynamic, and
chemical processes, Any model of these processes must include
many simplifications in order that the resulting equations be
amenable to solution.
Criteria (ii) and (iii) are not in agreement with experimental
results and it is the purpose of this letter to show where the model
considered in footnote reference 1 is not realistic and to indicate
criteria which can be obtained from a more realistic model.
In particular, the steady-state temperature behind the moving
combustion front is of the form

and from Eqs. (18) and (22) of footnote reference 1 we have
{31 = (1-q,)PrCrVt+q,V/Po,COI-VgIPgICgl'
The notation used in this letter is the same as footnote reference
1 and, where needed, the units are lb, ft, hr, btu, and OF. It can be
shown
2
,3 that for typical combustion conditions

This result is based on material balance considerations and is in
good agreement with laboratory results. W is the amount of
fuel on a unit volume of rock (fuel density). Typical values for
the foregoing parameters are (1-q,)prc
r
=28, W,<3, q,=0.25 and
COl =0,25. By using these values in the two foregoing relations
it is seen that (31, must be positive.
Since {3, >0, it is clear that Al =0 since otherwise Tl would be
unbounded as ...... - 00. Thus the solution behind the front is of
the form Tl =B
l
, a constant. If vertical losses are considered then
the temperature does fall behind the combustion front; however,
the adiabatic case is a good first approximation.
Both criteria (ii) and (iii) of footnote reference 1 are based on the
premise that Al?"O. This is explicitly stated in the derivation of
criterion (ii) and it is implicitly used in deriving criterion (iii) by
assuming that the constant Bl is determined by the boundary
temperature at ...... - 00. Since Al =0, the constant Bl is deter-
mined by the heat flux supplied at the source. This problem is con-
sidered by Jakob
4
for the case of heat flow by conduction from a
moving source.
The conch sion that Bl is determined by a boundary condition
results in a formula, criteria (iii) (Inequality 60, footnote refer-
ence 1), for minimum gas velocity which becomes infinite for
the case of zero-boundary conditions and this result does not seem
reasonable.
Criterion (ii)-that the carbon-hydrogen mole ratio n/m
must exceed 3.05-is violated by all published experimental results
which we have seen. Some known results
6
-
7
are given below in
Table I.
TABLE1. Experimental values for fuel composition.
Type of experiment
Laboratory
Field
Laboratory & field
n/m
1.4--2.0
1.2
0.69-1.1
Reference number
5
6
7
Transient solutions including vertiral losses have been
obtained
8
,9 for a conduction model of heat flow. A model including
convection effects has also been considered
2
and the steady-state
adiabatic (no vertical losses) temperature is given by
T-1;/Tm -T.=vj/v/-(J,
T-T;/T m-T,=v//v/-(J exp[ -
where
(J=VgIPglCgI/PmCm, a=k/Pmcm,
PmCm = PrCr (1-q,) +PalCalq" T, = ambient temperature, T m = .::\.HW /
PmC"" tJ.H =heat of combustion of the fuel in btu/lb and W-the
fuel density in lb/eu ft. The assumption that W is a constant in
a particular in situ combustion process is bask in our model. W is
the fuel density of a coke that is deposited ahead of the combustion
front, and it has been shown
6
in tube-run experiments that W is
practically a constant for any given experiment.
[This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to ]
IP: 177.20.130.9 On: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:35:01
1124 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A criterion for the Illllllmum air injection rate required to
sustain combustion is given in footnote 2 and 9. These results
are based on a transient solution of a radial heat flow model,
assuming that a minimum ignition temperature for the fuel is
known. Copies of various reports and papers describing this
work can be obtained by writing the authors.
1 P. Cooperman, J. App!. Phys. 30, 1376 (1959).
2 H. R. Bailey and B. K. Larkin, IIConduction-convection. in
combustion." Presented to an A.I.Ch.E.-S.P.E. SymposIUm on ,n Sttu
Combustion, San Francisco, December, 1959.
A. L. Benham and F. H. Poetmann, Trans. AIME 213, 46 (1958).
M. Jacob, Heat Transfer (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1949),
Vo!' 1.
W. L. Martin, J. D. Alexander, and J. N. Dew, Trans. AIME 213, 28
(1958).
C. F. Gates and H. J. Ramey, J. Petro!. Techno!. 10,236-244 (1958).
7 J. T. Moss, P. D. White, and J. S. McNiel, J. Petro!' Techno!. 11,
55-64 (1959).
8 H. J. Ramey, Trans. AIME 216 (1959); AIME paper 1133-G (1958).
H. R. Bailey and B. K. Larkin, Trans. AIME 216 (1959); AIME
paper 1134-G (1958).
Reply to the Letters of Szasz, and
Bailey and Larkin
PHILIP COOPERMAN
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(Received January 12, 1960; revised manuscript
received March 7, 1960)
B
ECAUSE of a lack of reliable evidence on the nature of
many of the processes of in situ combustion, theoretical
developments must be limited to qualitative rather than quantita-
tive results. The two-zone version of my theory had only this
restricted goal, as was clearly indicated at the beginning and end
of my paper. It would, therefore, be no surprise to learn that some
of the criteria (e.g., carbon-hydrogen mole ratio for combusion)
had to be modified. However, the point of the paper was not that
the G/H ratio had to exceed 3.05, but that it had to exceed some
minimum value. Similar statements could be made for the other
criteria.
There is no point, however, in changing or discarding these
criteria unless a sufficient reason is given. In my opinion, no such
reason has been presented in the above letters. For example,
Szasz's first criticism of the theory is that the criterion specifying
a minimum oil saturation for nonzero oil mobility is also satisfied
for saturations for which the oil mobility vanishes. Subsequently,
he remarks that if oil is to be produced from the reservoir, the
mobility must be different from zero, and that this requirement
would forestall his criticism. Since the produCtion of oil is the
point of in situ combustion, Szasz has answered himself.
Secondly, Szasz claims that the experiments of Martin et al.,
as interpreted by Benham and Poettmann, indicate that the G/H
ratio can be smaller than 3.05. This would be no surprise even if
the data from these experiments could be accepted, but when the
experimental conditions are considered, it is clear that the data
must be viewed with great suspicion. The apparatus used consisted
of materials of extremely low thermal conductivities (sand, oil)
encased in a tube of high-conductivity material (steel). Elemen-
tary calculations show that, under these circumstances, the larger
part of the heat flux bypasses the sand-oil mixture and travels
through the steel tube. Because of this, the temperature profile
and thermal history of the oil differs from what it would otherwise
be, and the deviations are in such a direction as to make it appear
that successful combustion can be attained at a lower G/H
ratio. It should be emphasized that the magnitu.de of the devia-
tions from ideal is not reasonably small; under ideal conditions,
none of the heat would travel through the tube, but in practice,
60-80% of the total does.
The third question raised by Szasz is based on a misinterpreta-
tion of Eq. (4) of his letter. Szasz understands this equation as
the definition of a heat flux density H, which is the difference in
the convected upstream and downstream heat flux densities.
However, this is not the case. H is defined in my paper as the
heat flux density resu.lting from the combustion itself. By virtue
of the first law of thermodynamics, H is the difference (or vector
sum) of the total flux densities conveyed by conduction and
convection. At the ends of an infinitely long tube, the temperature
gradient vanishes, and hence, there is no conducted heat there.
Thus the heat of combustion H must be equal to the convected
heat at the tube ends. Tbis is the significance of Eq. (4), and in
objecting to it, Szasz is opposing the first law. His numerical
example stems from the same misconception in that H is given
as the heat of combustion, and cannot be calculated by Eq. (4).
What is to be calculated is the requisite air flux and the contradic-
tion means that Szasz has not used correct values in the right-hand
side of Eq. (4). Since his last point also is connected with his
misinterpretation, there is no need to discuss it separately.
The remarks of Bailey and Larkin are mostly concerned with
the discrepancy between the theoretical criteria for combustion
and experimental data obtained in tube experiments. In particular,
they question the validity of the criterion for the C/H ratio, and
cite field and laboratory data in support of their argument. It has
already been shown that laboratory data are insufficient for this
purpose; field data are even more unsatisfactory because of the
many disturbing factors (e.g., inhomogeneities and gravity
segregation of fluids), and because of poor instrumentation caused
by limited access to the reservoir. Hence, these data do not force
any modification of the criteria in question.
These writers also make use of the equation
7W VI
to show that the quantity {3, must be positive, whereas the G/H
criterion depends on it's being negative. However, W, which is
the weight of coke per unit volume of rock has been determined
by steel tube experiments. Since the formation of coke is obviously
dependent'on the thermal history of oil, the values of W used by
Bailey and Larkin have not been established, and their argument
concerning the other constants of the theory is left resting on an
infirm foundation.
The temperature equations advanced by Bailey and Larkin
offer a clue to the reason for their rejection of the G/H criterion.
Their equation for the temperature upstream from the combustion
front states that it is constant. This is impossible unless there is a
source of heat at the upstream end. In tube experiments, there is
usually a heater placed at this end for the purpose of initiating
the combustion, but I have seen no paper in which it has been
specifically stated that these end heaters are turned off after the
initial period. The temperature equation for the region
given by Bailey and Larkin is consistent with the experimental
condition in which end heaters are permitted to operate after
ignition. Under these circumstances, the combustion is not
self-sustaining and, as shown in my paper [under Eq. (43)J, the
G/H criterion need not be obeyed. From a practical viewpoint,
in situ combustion may become commercially practicable only if
a supplemental source of heat is used since most crude oils do not
have a sufficiently high C/H ratio.
The downstream temperature of Bailey and Larkin is identical
with the one appearing in the original paper for the upstream
temperature. It is clearly invalid if {J, <0 since it would lead to a
rising temperature downstream. Furthermore,' it predicts the
temperature downstream on the basis of a knowledge of the
entering gas upstream, but contains no reference to oil, water, or
gas downstream from the combustion front. Such a result seems
highly implausible.
To summarize, my position is as follows:
(1) The criteria developed in the original paper are to be
regarded as qualitatively rather than quantitatively valid;
(2) However, the experimental data available at present does
not provide a basis for modifying or abandoning them;
(3) The steady-state theory advanced by Bailey:and_Larkin
leads to implausible temperature formulas.
[This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to
] IP: 177.20.130.9 On: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:35:01