Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
INTRODUCTION
The oil sands of Alberta, Canada collectively represent one of the
largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world l . Cyclic steam stimulation, to
date, has been the most widely used technique for exploiting these
deposits. This technique is capable of recovering only 15 to 20 % of the
oil-in-place, and a follow-up process is required to improve recovery2.
Laboratory investigations of in situ combustion as a'
post-steaming process have been sufficiently encouraging to warrant
implementation of pilot studies by some lease operatorg3. However, the
transition from experimental and pilot stages to commercial
development has been virtually non-existent. This stems, in part, from
the fact that in situ combustion is not well understood, mechanistically.
A great deal of laboratory work has shown that frontal
advance and air requirement arc controlled by the kinetics of the
reactions in the vicinity of the burning front. Several studies4,5,6 have
reported on three major reactions which occur during fireflooding: (1)
thermal cracking, (2) liquid phase low temperature oxidation (L TO),
and (3) high temperature oxidation (HTO) of a solid hydrocarbon
residue. In their pioneering experimental effort, Alexander et aU
concluded that of all the process variables which they studied, LTO
prior to high temperature burning had the greatest effect on fuel
availability. Poettmann et al. 8 estimated that L TO could increase the
fuel deposition by as much as 100 %, and Lerner et al. 9 emphasized the
need to consider the effects of LTO in numerical simulations of
combustion processes.
In spite of these findings, published conceptual profiles of in
situ combustion still adhere to thermal cracking as the sole means of
98
100
25
397 C
397 C
coke
maltenes
asphaltenes
80
60
If
40
:.
if
:IE
~
:IE
20
15
10
gas
20
10
o~~~----~--~----~--~--~
12
Time (hours)
10
12
Time (hours)
Fig. Ib - Cracking model vs. Hayashitani's data for gas and coke.
these parameters are:
Reaction Kinetics
Based on Hayashitani's data, the thermal cracking scheme
proposed in this paper assumes three fIrst order reactions:
MALTENES -
ASPHALTENES
ASPHALTENES ASPHALTENES -
(1)
COKE
(2)
GAS
(3)
If kl> k2' and k3 are the rate constants respectively for the
above reactions, then differential equations describing the material
conversion can be written as
dCasp
(4)
dt
Al
EI
9.092 x 1012
2.347 X 105
sec- I
kJ/kmol
A2
E2
4.064 x 109
1.772 x lOS
sec- I
kJ/kmol
A3
E3
1.362 x 109
1.763 X 105
sec- I
kJ/kmol
MALTENES
(5)
dCgas
(6)
dt
with the temperature dependence of the rate constants being described
by the Arrhenius equation
~exp( -EJRT)
(7)
OXYGEN -
ASPHALTENES
ASPHALTENES
OXYGEN -
COKE
(8)
(9)
The kinetic parameters for this system were estimated from rate
equations similar to that described for the thermal cracking reactions.
However, oxygen concentration was specifIed in terms of its partial
pressure and the reaction order with respect to oxygen partial pressure
was allowed to vary in an unconstrained fashion. With respect to
hydrocarbon mass fraction the reactions were kept as fIrst order.
Respectively, the Arrhenius constants are:
6.819
8.673
X
X
103
104
2.133 X 10- 10
1.856 X 105
99
100
eo
...c:
8...
f
:E
100
135 C
maltenes
asphaltenes
... coke
150 C
maltenes
asphaltenes
... coke
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
o l..-::::::::t::::~===--1-~
oL-~~~~==~==~~
2
o
1
3
4
6
5
0.0
0.5
1.0
for the conversion of the hydrocarbon reactants. Note that the frequency
factors inherently state reaction orders, with respect to oxygen partial
pressure, of 0.4246 for maltenes oxidation and 4.7627 for asphaltenes
forming coke. Figures 2 and 3 show the experimental data at two
temperature levels, along with the predicted bitumen compositional
changes. Generally it was found that at temperatures of 275 OF [135
C], or less, the predicted mass percentages 0 f the components agreed
very well with the experimental data. However, at higher temperatures
(Figure 3) it was not possible to predict the reduction in asphaltenes
content and increased coke synthesis which occurred at later reaction
times.
It is important to note here that we have not specified the
release of oxygen in the cracked product streams of reactions 1-3. This
stems from our experimental findings (unreported) which have shown
that thermal cracking of preoxidized bitumen does not regenerate the
molecular oxygen which was consumed in the additive LTO reactions.
Kinetic parameters for coke combustion were obtained from
the work of Thomas et al. 15. Using integral analysis, these researchers
studied the oxygen uptake of coke combustion with coke derived from
an oxidized Athabasca bitumen-water-sand mixture. From this
reference, coke combustion is first order with respect to both reactants,
and the reaction rate was given as:
X
10-6
(10)
P02
2.5
3.612
2.0
Time (hours)
Time (hours)
gmolOzfhr
1.5
MALTENES -
0.372 ASPHALTENES
ASPHALTENES -
ASPHALTENES
(11)
83.223 COKE
(12)
37.683 GAS
(13)
simulation runs are discussed in this paper. For these runs, a constant
value 8.96 was specified for the CO2 /CO molar ratio, as the
stoichiometry is not appreciably affected by small changes to this
parameter. On a molar basis, and lumping the carbon oxides into CO..
the coke burning reaction becomes:
3.0
0.22 g 0/g Asphaltenes
CH1.13
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
equation:
dr00
dt
dtn"wt
dt
dmc:oke
+ -b
---(1 +b)
(14)
dt
(15)
0.4726 ASPHALTENES
(16)
101.539 COKE
The general form of the coke combustion reaction is well
documented in the literature l7 :
n]
2m+l
CH + - - + - 0 [ 2m+2
n
4 2
+
-CO
m+l
2
1
--CO
m+l
+ 0.565~0
(18)
COx
Heats of Reaction
There is little evidence in the literature which suggests that
thermal cracking of hydrocarbons is accompanied by any release or
absorption of heat which significantly affects the combustion process .
Therefore the enthalpies of these reactions were assumed to be zero. To
obtain an estimate of the heat liberated by L TO and coke combustion,
we referred to the publication by Burger and Sahuqud. For the
stoichiometries of the oxidation reactions, they suggested heats of
reactions for LTO and coke burning of the order of 5.567 x lOS, 1.228
X 106, and 1.893 X lOS Btu/Ibm mol [1.295 x 106, 2.857 X 106, and
4.278 x 105 kJ/kmol] of maltenes, asphaltenes and coke respectively.
1/
where a and b are the masses of oxygen that combines with maltenes
and asphaltenes respectively. Equation 14 reflects the fact that the total
oxygen uptake rate is due to both maltenes and asphaltenes conversion,
and that the total mass of oil in the system is increased by the additive
oxidation reactions. Figure 4 shows the estimated oxygen uptake ratios
for the two LTO reactions, as well as their ability to reproduce the
experimental data. Some scatter is evident, but the trend has been
adequately duplicated. Since the asphaltenes represent a partially
oxidized state they should have fewer oxygen addition sites than the
maltenes. This fact is observed in the lower oxygen uptake ratio.
Based on the L TO uptake ratios, and the assumed molecular
weights of the oil components, the molecularity of the reactions may
now be written:
1.23202
0.48267
0.19359
10-6 exp(7685.2{f)
10-4 exp(5369.2{f)
(19)
(20)
Based on the assumed molecular weights, the asphaltenes viscositytemperature relationship was then inferred from the mixing rule
to give
~asp
4.892
10-25 exp(33147{f)
(22)
(17)
n
-HzO
2
101
(K)
18.0
373
647
22107
1092.8
1011
1177
792
Gas
43.2
189
295
7176
Coke
13.13
Maltenes
406.7
703
892
1478
Oxygen
32.0
91
154
5046
Component
Water
Asphaltenes
Tb
Pc
(kPa)
= 0.9151
x..
= 0.0849
k-values
Maltenes
Asphaltenes
8.89513E+07
1.41960E+08
O.OOOOOE+OO
3.81644E+03
6.56230E+03
O.OOOOOE+OO
-4.61300E+Ol
-1.93020E+02
O.OOOOOE+OO
Constants
Heat Capacities
Component
CPa
CPb
Asphaltenes
6.010E+02
Gas
4.728E+00
CPd
O.OOOE+OO
CPc
O.OOOE+OO
O.OOOE+OO
1.754E-02
-1.338E-05
4.097E-09
7.950E-Ol
1. 287E-02
-1.042E-05
3.503E-09
Maltenes
2.376E+02
O.OOOE+OO
O.OOOE+OO
O.OOOE+OO
Oxygen
6.713E+00
-0. 879E-06
4. 170E-06
-2.544E-09
Coke
102
0.412
12/lm2
7.0 W/(m.K)
2280 kJ/(m3.K)
6
3 x 10. kPa 1
Gas/Oil
krow
S.+Sw
krg
krog
0.00000
1.00000
0.07000
0.10000
0.00000
0.00039
0.88581
0.16000
0.08615
0.00316
0.00156
0.77855
0.21000
0.06632
0.01262
Sw
krw
0.05000
0.10000
0.15000
0.25000
0.00625
0.58478
0.31000
0.03711
0.05050
0.35000
0.01406
0.41869
0.41000
0.01881
0.11362
0.45000
0.02500
0.28028
0.51000
0.00829
0.20199
0.65000
0.03906
0.08651
0.61000
0.00296
0.31562
0.75000
0.05625
0.03114
0.71000
0.00073
0.45449
0.85000
0.07656
0.00346
0.80000
0.00011
0.60106
0.95000
0.10000
0.00000
0.95000
0.00000
0.89080
1.00000
0.12656
0.00000
1.00000
0.00000
1.00000
Gas/Oil
Sw
krw
krow
S.+Sw
Krg
krog
0.11000
0.00000
1.00000
0.12000
0.10000
0.00000
0.15000
0.00013
0.87891
0.16000
0.08615
0.00316
0.20000
0.00052
0.76562
0.21000
0.06632
0.01262
0.30000
0.00208
0.56250
0.31000
0.03711
0.05050
0.40000
0.00468
0.39063
0.41000
0.01881
0.11362
0.50000
0.00833
0.25000
0.51000
0.01029
0.20199
0.60000
0.01302
0.14063
0.61000
0.00400
0.31562
0.70000
0.01875
0.06250
0.71000
0.00105
0.45449
0.80000
0.02552
0.01562
0.80000
0.00021
0.60106
0.85000
0.02929
0.00391
0.95000
0.00000
0.89080
1.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.90000
0.03333
0.00000
1.00000
0.04218
0.00000
Run #2
Run #3
0.250
1.83
1.83
0.0508
0.0994
0.0994
36
36
0.0500
0.1180
0.1130
0.2500
0.8820
0.8870
0.7000
0.0000
0.0000
4100
4100
5500
Pressure (kPa)
103
600
c::
100
1.0
0.25 '2
500
5'
U
CD
400
0.20
m
... 300
0.15
II)
Q.
l-
II)
II)
E
II)
...
Sa.
j ...... ../
200
::l
I,
100
/~
0.10 e:
II)
"
\
oxygen
2!
-a
0.6
1:.
a.
(/)
0.4
0.00
:J
CD
60
0.2
0.0
0
OJ
eII)
..loI:
40
I..
coke
\.......----
oil sat.
e:
1
I
.,e
/ \
(/)
II)
80
"\
:::iE
~,
0.8
en
" .....
2
II)
~...
I \I
CD
0.05 0
II)
~
n
u:
asph. mole
fraction
()
to
:J
:2
(/)
20
\
~
0
6
Time (hours)
Time (hours)
reaches its maximum (518 OF [270 CD agrees very well with those
published data.
This simulation was repeated without any LTO reactions, and
the results plotted in Figure 7. There is a single oxidation peak, and
only a small quantity of coke is deposited. It does not appear feasible
that this amount coke can support an advancing combustion front. It is
also important to note that coke is formed at a much higher temperature
without LTO.
Run 2 simulated a dry enriched air (94.78 % 02) combustion
tube test which has been reported as Test 206 by Belgrave18 . The
stabilized air injection rate was 1.955 scf/hr [0.056 std-m3/hr]. This run
was performed as a test of the ability of the proposed reactions to
duplicate the combustion front velocity as well as fuel and oxygen
consumption.
As was also the case with run 3, the model initialization
procedures closely followed the experiment, since at ignition fluid
saturations are not uniformly distributed. The simulations started from
uniform water and oil saturation and zero gas saturation (Table 5). Gas
was the injected at the top of the vertically oriented sand pack until the
model reached the experimental operating pressure given in Table 5.
Next, gas was flowed through the core until a continuous gas phase
saturation had been established. At this point the injection end of the
core was heated to 752 OF [400C] in run 2 and 572 OF [300 0c] in
run 3. Enriched air injection was then started. Temperature profiles for
run 2 at model times of 12.0 and 15.9 hrs are shown in Figure 8.
Model run time at ignition was 8.20 hrs. The experimental and
calculated (solid lines) leading edges of the combustion front are in
good agreement. Behind the fronts, however, the calculated temperature
profiles were higher than those obtained by experiment. This
discrepancy in radial heat losses is due to a less than adequate
description of the average thermophysical properties of the annular
region surrounding the combustion tube. These properties, which are
very dependent on experimental conditions 18 and are also are affected
by tube operation 21 , were not manipulated during these simulations.
Up to 15.9 hrs, 44 % of the tube had been traversed in the
simulation, and at this time the calculated average coke and oxygen
consumed were 1.44 Ibm/ft3 [23.09 kg/m3] and 64 scf/ft3 [64
std-m3/m3], respectively. The stabilized experimental values for the test
were 1.47lbm/ft3 and 56.4 to 62.9 scf/ft 3 [23.6 kg/m3 and 56.4 to 62.9
std-m3 /m 3]. Figure 9 shows that the produced fluids were also in good
agreement.
Run 3 simulated a superwet combustion tube test that has been
SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 1, No.1
600
c:
100
1.0
:0:;
<U
....
0.25 '2
500
u. 0.8
t;
.--6 400
....
e 300
0.20
,
CD
::l
0.15
temperature
CD
...
CD
CD
~
CD
c:
$
(jj
.c:
CD
<I(
0.10 c:
oxygen
~/"
0
0
" '"
0.4
....
::l 0.2
10
en
{)
0.00
6
0.0
40
oil sat.
0)
Q)
='
III
0.05 0
c:
CD
100
60
0.
f/)
'"E
0.6
:::J
200
asph. mole
I
fraction - - .
f/)
S0.
0.
.::
' - - core
80
~
:::
<U
()
(jj
::l
32
f/)
20
coke
- -
.. .. ..
,/
- -
0
2
Time (hours)
Time (hours)
CONCLUSIONS
(1)
(2)
(3)
1-----;:::::::======;1
800
~ r-------------~--------~
experiment
-model
12.0 hours
.15.9 hours
.-6
sao
-.
sao
-~
-~
as 400
CD
Q.
400
CD
Q.
{!
{!
200
200
~~~
__
~~~
0.4
0.0
__
0.8
~~~~~-J
1.2
0
0.0
2.0
1.6
0.4
Distance (meters)
i
~
"8
It
...
"-
c: 1.0
.2
'0
gas
oil
water
0.9
~$
CD
~CD
:8as
...
.a
12
16
20
Time (hours)
Fig. 9 - Experimental and numerical produced fluids for dry enrichedair combustion test.
106
0.4
asph. mole
fraction
-----,
15
/ \
I \
10
0.0
0.2
~
.~
~
1:
CD
0.2
0.0
4
I\
c:
0.3 ~
20
\./\
0.6
as
1000
coke
=:
0.6 Q:
2000
25
0.8
:::!E
"8
2.0
30
15
3000
=a
!.1lI
1.6
1.2
5000
4000
1.2
Distance (meters)
&
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1.0
Distance (meters)
Fig. 11 - Spatial variation of grid block variables for superwet test at
3.0 hrs after ignition.
NOMENCLATURE
a
b
kl,k2,k3
m
Pc
POl
Sw
So
t
T
Tb
Tc
X
Jl.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
SUBSCRIPTS
asp
bitumen
coke
malt
n
r
x
asphaltenes
bitumen
coke
maltenes
hydrogen/carbon ratio of coke
reaction r
oxygen/carbon ratio in carbon oxides
13.
14.
15.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors
gratefully acknowledge the significant financial support of the Alberta
Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA). Also
acknowledged is the support of NSERC, AMOCO Canada, and the
valuable contributions of the technical staff of the University of
Calgary. The authors also wish to thank Dr. N. Kalogerakis for his
expert assistance in setting up the parameter estimation models.
16.
17.
18.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
19.
20.
21.
22.
(SPE 20250)
\07