Spfe#riiii

Combustion-Drive Tests
W.E,

SHOWAI-TER

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses
some oi the results
of
cotnbu stron-drive tests which were made. in a test
cel[ using a sand bed 10 in. in diameter x 10.ft
long. The test method is illustrated
and described.
The relationship
between the API gravity of the
in situ oil and the amount of air required for combustion drive is discussed
in detail. other things
constant,
t be air requirement
for combustion
drive
increases
as the API gravity of the in situ oil
If the test results
apply to actual
decreases.
reserm irs, the lowest-priced
oils may cost the
most to recover by this method.
Irz/orma~ion is shown which indicates
that the
effect
of pressure
on the amount of bydrocarbofi
br.aned is not large. A method o/ predicting
air
requirements
from the API gravity of the in situ
oil is presented.

INTRODUCTION
Combustion drive is the term used to identify
the process of interstitial or in situ burning as an
oil recovery method. Part of the in situ oil is
burned to generate the energy needed to produce
the remainder of the oil.
Combustion drive as an oil recovery mechanism
remains an economic uncertainty
in spite of aH
the work that has been done by the industry in
both laboratory and field}-6 This paper will show
some of theresults of tests which were made in a
test cell fo~ the purpose of studying the nature of
the combustion-drive process. It will present data
which indicate that the API gravity of the in situ
oil is a significant indicator of the amount of air
required to drive a burning front through oil sand.
Air requirement varies inversely as the API gravity
of the in situ oil.

UNION

OIL

BRE&

CALIF.

CO,

OF

CALIFORNIA

resistance heaters which, by means of an automatic

controller, maintained adjacent sections of the wall
of the pipe at temperatures equal to the temperatures
of the contained sand. Each heater covered 6
linear in. of the pipe. By this means lateral heat
loss from the sand section was minimized, thereby
causing the sand section to simulate more closely
a hor~zontal increment
of a combustion-drive
reservoir.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the test
assembly, Thermocouples to measure the temperature
in the sand were located every 6 in. along the length
of the sand section. The pipe containing the sand
was enclosed in a cell designed for an operating
pressure of 500 psig. The inlet air pressure was
controlled at the inlet, and the gas fIow rate was
controlled and measured at the outlet of the cell.
The oil sand used for the tests was prepared by
mixing first water and then oil with the non consolidated sand using a closed mixer similar to a
cement mixer. Table 1 shows a screen analysis of
the sand. Ninety per cent of the sand was 100 mesh
or finer. This sand was a mixture of 80 per cent
No. 120 Nevada White Sand and 20,per cent Tennessee
Hi-Fusion Moulding Sand No. 3. The Nevada sand
was a clean silica sand. The Tennessee sand con-

fk%_M!wT

TH
ALVE

EXPERIMENTAL
The tests were performed in a cell which t&iIized
a cylindrical sand section 10 in. in diamerer x 104t
long, The thin-walled metal pipe which held the
sand waa wound with twenty external electrical
Originul
office
Psper
,

1962,

manuscript

Aw,

presented
in Lo e

lRef=en=es

-M +R CH .

received

3, 1962. Revised

at37th

in Societ y of Petroleum
manuscript

Annusl

Fsll

.%%eles, Calif.
given

at end of P-e.

received

Meeting

Jan.

EnKlneers
11, 1963.

of SP 1?. Oct.

7-10,
FIG.

SCHEMATIC
.

PRODUCTION WITHDRAWN
HERE

OF COMBUSTION-DRIVE
CELL,
.

TEST

63

1963

..

..m

TABLE
IN
U.

lSi
COMBIJa

,ALYSIS
, ,.. I+ DRIVE

OF

SAND

TEST

Weight

S, Screen

Held

Size

Per

30

0.04
0.04

50

0.36

70

0.84

100

5.44

140

29.75

200

42.80

270

12.72

*Of

Cent

on Screen

40

7.92*

Pan

was

USED

CELL

thin,

5L) par

largely

quartz.

cent

was

kaolin.

The

{emainder

tained approximately 18 per cent kaolin. The eftective air permeability y before ignition ior the individual
tests varied from 200 to 950 md.
Oil production from the cell was measured dry
after removing the water by di st ill ation,.
Exhaust gas from the cell was sampled periodically and tested (by mears of a mass spectrometer)
for its principal ingredients,
including C02, CO
and 02. The C02 content of the exhaust gas was
recorded continually by a C02 analyzer.
Burning was initiated by means of an electrical
heater. Tests were performed at pressures
up to
500 psig and at raies of burning as low as I ft/D of
flame-front advancement. Sixteen tests will be discussed.
The quantity of hydrocarbon burned (fuel con
sumption) was calculated pnly for a portion of the
sand section in which burning had been as uniform
as possible.
This was usually the 4 linear ft of
sand starting 4 ft from the upstream sand face and
ending 2 ft from the downstream sand face. Values
for the amount of hydrocarbon burned were calculated
from the volume of the oxides of carbon produced
while that section of sand was burning. This method
excluded the nonequilibrium
burning which took
place during and subsequent to ignition and in the
vicinity of the flanges around the downstream sand
face.
DISCUSSION
This discussion
is concerned principally
with
the relationship between the API gravity of the in
situ oil and the volume of air required co drive a
burning front through oiI sand. It is proposed that
the air requirement can be predicted. It depends
mainly on the quantity of the fuel for combustion;
the quantity of the fuel for combustion can be predicted from the API gravity of the in situ oiI. The
API gravity appears to be a satisfactory
indicator
of the fuel-for-combustion
content of the in situ oil.
Air requirement i:; also affected by the character of
the rock, but that was held constant for the oilgravity tests.
The discussion
of fuel consumption will be in
terms of 1 cu ft of oil sand because this unir can
be readily employed in reservoir calculations.
Fuel
consumption is defined as the quantity of the fuel
for combustion (quantity of hydrocarbon burned) per
5A

cubic foot of oil sand.

It is visualized that a definite burning front moves
through the sand, much in the way that the burning
front moves through a cigarette. The burning front
mnves
...- .- to its fuel supply leaving behind fuel-depleted
sand; it moves to its fuel supply because the fuel
consists of the immobile part of the in situ oil. It
moves only as faat as it depletes ita fuel supply.
The burning front follows the air flux channels
through the sand, becauae at usual pressures many
pore volumes of compressed air must pass through
an incremental volume of oil sand to furnish the
oxygen required to bum the fuel therein contained.
As the burning front moves through the oil sand it
sends out a vanguard of heat. Heat moves forward
by conduction, as sensible he~t in liquid and gas
which is flowing forward, and as heat of vaporization in vapor, part of which is involved in a repeating c ycIe of vaporizing, moving forwsrd to cooler ~
~egions and condensing.
The wave of hot fltids
flushes volatile and mobile interstitial
substances
from the path of the burning front. Residual hydrocarbon (coke) which is sufficiently nonvolatile
:F~J
immobile to resist the flushing action of the heat
wave is advanced upon by the burning front and
consumed as fuel for combustion. It seems reasonable to expect that in such a process low-gravity
crude oils will furnish more fuel for combustion
than will high-gravity crudes.
To evaluate the relationship between oil gravity
and fuel consumption,
seven different crude oils
ranging in gravity from 40 to 11 API were tested.
These natural crude oils are identified in Table 2.
The test conditions, except for pressure and rate of
burning, were the same for all of the tests. It had
been established
previously
that the effect of
varying the pressure and the rate of burning, within
the range in question, was not large. The initial
conditions and results of the oil-gravity tests are
summarized on Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the initial water and oil
saturations
of the sand were 20 and 60 per cent
respectively,
in all but one case. Regarding these
initial conditions, none of the sand packs produced
fluid under air drive until after burning had been
initiated.
The burning rates for, clifferent tests
varied from as low as 1 tk/D to as high as 7 ft/D.
Burning rate is controlled by the rate of air injection.
Burning temperature varied from a low of 650F to
a high of 950F. Fuel consumption for the individual

TABLE

DESCRIPTION

OF

CRUDE

OILS

USED

IN

-. -...,
Test

(API)

Source
Guodalupe,

3, 3A,
8.15

17.0

Stearns,

Brea.Olinda

25.0

Stearns,

Brea.01

30.0

.%msinena,

35.0

Bornsdall.ODee,

7.

40.0

Padelfwd,

SOCIETY

OF

South

PETROLEUM

of Oi I

11*O
12.5

Santa

Maria

Valley

Belridge

inda

Whittier
Resocrans

Rasecrans

ENGINEERS

JO URN AI.

tests ranged from a high of 3.0 lb/cu ft of oil sand

to a low of 0.S lb/cu ft, and variea inversely with
the API gravity of the in situoil.

TABLE

3-VARIATION
AIR REQUIREMENT
Oil

Gravity

VS

CONSUMPTION

OIL GRAVITY

Initfpl

Fuel consumption for the individual tests is

plotttdon
Fig. 2 against the APIgravieyof
the in
situ oil used for the individual tests. The relationship is approximately Iirtear for oil gravities between
40 and 17 APL Below 17 API, however, fuel
consumption increases very rapidly aa oil gravity
decreases, The curve terminates at 40 API because
crude oil with a gravity above 40 API did not
deposit a sufficient amount of fuel-for-combustion
to generate enough heat to sustain a moving combus~ion front.
Fig. 2 and Table 3 show only those tests in which
all the conditions except pressure and rate, and in
one case saturation,
were constant. There were,
however, 11 mom-or-less comparable tests using
the 17 API oil, These can be used to estimate
test reliability y. The average value of fuel consumption for 11 tests using 17 API oil was 1.43 Ib/cu ft.
The coefficient of dispersion for the 11 values of
consumption was t 6 per cent.
AIR

REQUIREMENT

VS OIL

GRAVITY

The volume of air required to drive a burning

front chro ugh oil sand depends prisnaril y on the
auantitv of the fuel for combustion. While this is
~elieved to be principally true, there are at least
three other factora which also affect the air requirement. First, the composition of the fuel for combustion with respect- to the number of atoms of
hydrogen per atom of carbon has an effect on the
amount of oxygen (and, therefore, air) required to
burn a given quantity of hydrocarbon. Where the
C/H ratio* is lower, the air required per pound of
fuel will be greater, at usual conditions, because
pound-for-pound
more 02 is reqaired to oxidize
~This 1S the atomic
rntio

of methene

woutd

welsht
be 12/4

ratio.
= 3.

Far

example,

the

C/H

Soo

:<:

400

300

3.0

*O

-t

200

1.0

00

,~
API

;0
GRAVITY
OF

FIG,

;0

IN

SITU

;0

AT

60

[00

.0

F,

OIL

2 COMBUSTION-DRXVE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
AND AIR REQUIREMENT VS OIL GRAVITY.

Test

FUEL
WITH

CONSUMPTION
OIL GRAVITY

Initial

(API)

FUEL

OF

(Nominal)

Product
011

Water
.

011

1 Lo

19* 1

20

60

12,5

16.5

30

50

17.0

16.6

20

60

3A

17,0

17.0

20

60

25.0

23.6

20

60

30.0

29.6

20

60

35,0

35.6

20

60

40.0

40.9

20

60

Average
Burning
Test
1

(%

Exhaust
a~a~~
( scf/mhr/f@)

Nominal
Pressure
During

%tura?lon
(percentage
of
pore space)

rest
(ISSIQ)

3s0
300
200
200
450
4s0
200
200

Exhaust
Gas
COmpasltion*
(.01

per

AND

Burning
Rate
(ft/D)
0.9
1.4
5*2
0.s
6,7
6.5
1.0
0,9

C@~~&.

Re~~r*

(1~%)

(s%%)

cent)

c~o~z

..

2
3

780
840
940

0.29
0.33
0.95

15,0 106 1,3

12,2 2.3 4.6
11.s 1.7 3.4

3.0
1.8
1.4

205

3A

730

0.13

14.0

1.7

1.5

1.4

250

780

0.95

10.8

2.8

3.5

1.2

240

830

O*88

11.4

2.5

3.5

1.0

195

670

0.11

13.8

1.5

0.7

0.94

170

650

0095

13.4

1.7

1.9

*Ccmmcted
for use in Eqs. 1 and
mass-spectrometer
test results.

2. Average

O*77
of ali

.510
350

140
sensible

hydrogen than carbon. Considering

one set of
typical conditions, 12 per cent more air is required
to burn a pound of hydrocarbon with a C/H ratio of
6 than is required to burn a pound of hydrocarbon
with a C/H tatio of 12. Second, the relative amount
of carbon which is incompletely
oxidized and
appears in the exhaust gas as CO will affect the
air requirement because twice as many atoms of
oxygen per atom of cstbon ace required to produce
C% as compared to CO. Third, some oxygen appears
in the exhaust gas. The air requirement is increased
by an amount necessary to supply that quantity of
oxygen which is in the exhsust gss. All three of
these factors may vary somewhat.
The last column on Table 3 shows values of the
air required per cubic foot of oil sand, These
values were determined taking into account the
afore-mentioned
three factors, The exhaust gas
volume will usually be smaller than the corresponding. injected air volume as a result of the fact that
some of the 02 in injected air is used Up in the
formation of water. This effect is offset to a degree
by the fact that 1 mol of 02 will produce 2 mol of
CO, but the CO content of. exhaust gas is usually
so small that the net effect is an exhaust gas
volume at standard conditions which is less than
the injected air volume at standard conditions.
The upper curve on Fi~ 2 shows air requirement
.
vs the API gravity of the in situ crude oil. The
combined effect of the three factors was rather
uniform from test to test for the teats shown on
Fig, 2. A smooth curve approximately parallel to
the fuel-consumption
curve cart be drawn through
the points. If, however, more data points were
avaiIable
for tests which were similar to those
represented on Fig. 2 except for variations in the

.
M>\n CH,
.

1963

Ss

combined effect of the three factors,

the aitrequirement points could be expected rb be scattered
and to occupy a band across the top of the chart.
Individual points would be higher, or Iower, in the
band according to the degree to which the combined
effect of the three factors tended to increase or
minimize the air requirement. The lower boundary of
the band OFpoints, would probably be approximately
parallel to the fuel-consumption
curve and would
represent absolute minimum values of air requirement
for associated
values
of fuel consumption.
An
indication of this scattering is shown on Fig. 12
at 170 API where there are two identical values of
fuel consumption,
but one of the corresponding
values of air requirement is higher than the other.
Apparently,
each of the three factors and fuel
consumption can be affected either independently
or to different degrees by variations in environmental
or operational conditions. There is probably room
for more study in this area.

-.

PRESSURE

It was stated earlier that varying the pressure

did not have a very large effect on the quantity of
fuel for combustion. This is illustrated
for one
crude oil on Fig, 3 where the fuel consumption
for nine tests and plotted against test pressures,
These were Tests 8 through 15 (Table 4) and Tests
3 and 3A (Table 3). The test pressure
is che
pressure of the air upstream of the inlet sand face.
The data indicate that, although fuel consumption
does increase with pressure, the magnitude of the
effect is not large.
Fig. 3 also shows a plot of air requirement vs
test pressure.
Here the scattering
of the airrequirement points due to variations in the combined
effect of the three factors is apparent. Because of
this scattering,
the points are ahown in a shaded
area.

.
.
-

-.
...+

BURNING

RATE

Within the limits of these tests, burning rate

appears to have very little effect on fuel consumption,
This is indicated by two pairs of teats, each pair
of which waa alike except for burning rate. The
pairs are Tests 3 and 3A (Table 3) and Tests 8
and 9 (Table 4). The burning rates for Tests 3 and
,7, Apl

CRUDE

OIL

TABLE
FUEL

4EFFECT
CONSUMPTION

Test
.

.-

200

300

TEST

PRESSURE,

400

500

. ..--

Water

..-.

(psig)

17

18.0

60

470

17

17.7

20

60

470

1.9

10

17

18.3

20

60

45

2.4

17.4

20

60

450

4.8

12*

:;

1 7*8

20

60

300

5.3

13*
14+

17
17

19.2

20

60

200

5.2

17*7

20

60

500

5.4

15*

17

18.6

20

60

330

6,0

CO O,

(lb/ft8)

11*

how:

%-

Burning

During

oil
.m

5.2

Exhaust
GOS FIOW

Tmr:

Rate
(scf/min/f#)

Test

CO,

(scf/ftg)

1,000

0.81

15.1

3,3

O*15

1,6

255

835

0,29

15.2

3.5t

0.01

1,5

225

10

830

0.27

15.3

3.5

0.23

1.2

180

11*

826

0.s3

10.0

3.4

5,5

1,4

290

12*

830

0.90

11.4

3,7

3.6

1.4

255

}3

815

0,92

14*

907

0.90

15*

883

0.94

10.9

2.8

4,3

Note:

Tests
11, 12 and
contain
clay.

* Adinbatic
** (&.ected
mass.

13 were

mnde

using

1.4
o sand

heaters
not used.
fOr use in Eqs. 1 and 2. Average

spec,!rometer

test

275
which

of all

did net

sensible

results.

t Assumed.

3A were 5.2 and 0.8 ft/D, respectively.

The fuel
consumption for both Tests 3 and 3A was 1.4 lb/cu ft.
Tests 8 and 9 were similar to Tests 3 and 3A
except for pressr,ue. Tests 8 and 9 were made at
470. psig while Tests 3 and 3A were made at 200
psig. All four of the tests were performed with
crude from the same well, but Tests 8 and 9 were
done 15 months after Tests 3 and 3A. The burning
rates for Tesrs 8 and 9 were 5.2 and 1.9 ft/D,
respectively.
The values of fuel consumption for
Tests 8 and 9 were 1.6 and 1.5 lb/cu ft, respectively.
It is probably significant that, even though the
fuel consumption was the same for each of these
pairs of tests, the air requirement was higher at
the higher burning rate for both pairs. (AH four of
these tests appear on the plot of pressure vs fuel
consumption and have contributed ~o the establishment of that correlation. )

1
TABLE

5PRODUCTION

BELRIDGE

I
100

Pr#;cl

{Nominal)

ON

Nominal

rhs,r,~m

Initial
oil

10

EXPERIMENT

.--,

-0.

14

157

-o-

15

1s3

0.19

-o-

12

154

17.43

0.19

0.10

13

162

16.10

0.15

0.10

172

14,s9

0.19

0,21

173

6,90

0,07

1,8

378

0006

18.68

0.10

18,2S

D
E

DATASOUTH

RECOVERY

~-

18.32

WELL

TktERMAL

00

PRESSURE
REQUIREMENT

Initial
e- . . -------

-1

OF TEST
AND
AIR

0.26

7.64

2.1

10

258

PSIG
*These

FIG. 3 COMBUSTION-DRIVE
FUEL
AND AIR REQUIREMENT VS TEST

CONSUMPTION
PRESSURE.

reports
< are

exhaust
about

published

gas

the .%th
with

the

anal yses
Belr idge
eansent

were
thermal

of Mobil

taken

from

recovery
Oil

tmpubl i shed

experiment

and

CO.

I
SOCIETY

S6

.. .
I

OF

PET ROI. EIIM

ENGINEERs

JO

IJRX,il,

&.COMBUSTION

RELATIONSHIPS

Mention
was
made earlier of three factors in
addition to the quantity of the fuel for combustion
(fuel consumption) which also affect air requirement.
These factors are the C/H ratio of the fuel for
combustion (hydrocarbon burned), the amount of CO
and C% in the exhaust gas, and the amount of 02
in the exhauat gas, The C/H ratio of the hydrocarbon ~
burned can be calculated from the results of exhaust
gas analyses using Eq. 1. This equation is derivable
from stoichiomeeric consideration.

A+B

R=

where

.(1)

. ..*

21 -L4+B+C)
2.37

+Ji
6

R = C/H ratio of the hydrocarbon

A = per cent CO z in the exhaust

burned,
gas,
B = per cent CO in the exhaust gas, and
C = per cent 02 in the exhaust gas.

The volume of air required to burn 1 lb of hydrocarbon can be calculated using Eq. A This equation
is also derivable from stoichiometric considerations.

v=

( )1
R

2.667 (A +

R-PI

A4B

COMBUSTION-DRIVE
WELL

Table 5 shows data from an actual combu:tion&lve producing weI1. The exhaust gas ana[yses
from this well were corrected to a methane-free
basis nnd averaged, month by month. For each month
the CO + C02, the CO/CO z and the 02(C0 z were
calculated. Using curves developed from Eq, 1 and
2, rhe C/I-l ratio of ,the fuel for combustion and the
volume of air required to burn a pound of fuel were
determined
for each month. Examination of this
Iatter column of resuks
wilf show that, when
significant amounts of oxygen began to appear in
the gas from this well, the volume of injected air
required to bum a pound of fuel roughly doubled.
This means that for Months G and H on~half of the
gas production from the well represented
air that
was injected and subsequently
produced withoutbeneficial
effect beyond transferring
heat and
kinetic energy.
The over-all fuel consumption
for the South
Belridge thermal-recovery
experiment can be calcul ated from published information. s The value is
approximately
Fig. 2.

1.9 lb/cu

ft. This value fits well on

PRODUCTION AND TEMPERATURE

PROFILES

0.01873
. . . . . . . ..?..

AN. ACTUAL
PRODUCING

.,

(2)

where V = volume of air required to bum 1 lb of

hydrocarbon, scf (32F, 1 atm).
With this information and with a value fpr the
fuel consumption per cubic foot of oil sand predicted
from the API gravity of the in situ oil, the volume
of oil sand burned out by a given volume of air can
be calculated.
With other information about the
reservoir,
the combustion-drive
engineer can use
the foregoing method to sharpen his estimates of
such things as the location of the burning front, the
need for supplementary compressor capacity,
the
proper time to shut-in a producing well and the
advisable rates of injeccion in the various injection.
that the test resdts apply to
wells. This assumes
reservoirs.
When exhaust gas analyses are used as just set
forth, they should be corrected to an extraneous.gas-free basis. In other words, the percentages
of
CO, C02 and 02 should be recafculateti eliminating
H2 and any gases which were not in the air or are
not products of combustion such as hydrocarbon

Fig. 4 shows a typical plot of oil and water

production from the test cell.
Fig. 5 shows- a typical plot of four temper&zre
profiles along the length of the cell at four different
positions
of the burning front, It will be noted
that the time required to burn 2 linear ft decreased
by three-foutrhs of an hour for each successive
2
linear ft. This probably illustrates
the dilution
effect. The in situ oil downstream of the burning
front undergoes continual dilution by oil of higher
gravity which is being driven ahead of the burning
front. The diluting oil is of higher gravity because

gases.

Preliminary
estimates of air requirement which
are needed before a project is started could be made
from information like that shown in Fig, 2. When
the pro ject is underway and exhaust gas analyses
are available, the preliminary estimates could be
refined, if necessary, using Eqs. 1 and 2.
MA RCIi,

1963

o~
012345.6789104
DISTANCE

OF

UPSTREAM
FIG,

BURNING
SAND

FRONT
FACE

FROM

, FEET

TYPICAL
PLOT OF OIL AND WATER PRODUCTION FROM CELL (TEST 4),

s?

TABLE

Air R#ueyt,
Oil Sand
Tes~efibor
.

Ref.

9,0
9*O
805
9.6
12,3

13
14
1s
16
17
18

DISTANCE

FROM

UPSTREAM

SAND

FACE,

FEET

P.LOT SHOWING FOUR TEMPERFIG. 5 - TYPICAL

ATURE
PROFILES
ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE
SAND SECTION (TEST 8).

some of the residuum, the fuel for combustion, is

absent. Also, some cracking may have occurred.
The downstream oil, being continually
diluted,
continually
deposits
less-and-less
fuel for combustion. The magnitude of this effect, of course,
would be different for a radial system than it was
for the linear system of the cell.
REMARKS
No attempt has been made to extrapolate these
test results to an entire reservoir. This discussion
has been limited, purposely, to a consideration
of
that part of the oil sand which has been burned
through by the burning front. The values of fuel
consumption reported herein are intended to represent
portions of the reservoir burned through by the
burning front, and are not necessarily
reservoir
values in the sense of being an average value for
an entire reservoir. In an actual reservoir there are
many other factors to consider which are beyond
the intended scope of this discussion,
For example,
all the ramifications
of fingering and consequent
by-passing
with lowered sweep efficiency would
have to be considered in the determination of a
figure for fuel consumption
or air requirement
which would represent an entire reservoir.
The ability to estimate the vohame of reservoir
burned through by the burning front per unit of air,
limited as it is, is useful and contributes to making
a complete reservoir study.
The data shown here are for California crude oils,
asphaltic
in nature. It is not the intent to imply
that the correlations shown here are final and are
universally
applicable.
Rather, the intent is to
contribute to finding out to what extent they apply
by submitting
them for comparison
with other
existing data srtd with data which will become
avail able in the future.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion to be drawn from the data presented
is that, other things being equal, the air required
for combustion drive could be substantially
higher
for reservoirs containing low-gravity oils than for
reservoirs containing high-gravity oils. This means
that the cost of supplying air varies inversely
with the posted price of the in situ oil, The lowestpriced oils may cost the most co recover by tl@
s8

7
6
5
6
7
5

245
219
251
295
358
301

Eq,

2,

Fig.

243
228
235 :
255
345
230

method.
The API gravity of the in situ oil can be used
to predict fuel consumption
which, in turn, can
be used together with exhaust gas analyses to
to determine the
estimate
the air requirements,
volume of reservoir burned through at any time,
and to aid in day-to-day combustion-drive re servoir
engineering. This assumes that appropriate correlations are avaiIable,
REFERENCES
L

V. S.: k Situ Combustion Experiments

in London,
Oil and Gas Jour. (June 2, 1958) VOL
56, No. 22, 129.
2. Martin, William L,, Alexa rider, John D. and Dew, John
N.: Process
Variables of In Situ Combustion)),
Traris,,
AIME (1958) VOL 213, 2S,
Swaminsthan,

3. Benham, A. L, and Poettmsnn, Fred H.: The .fiermal

Racovery
Process
An Analysis
of Laboratory
Data,
Trams,,
AIME (1958) VOL 213,
Combustion
406,
4. Kuhn, C. S. and Koch, R. L: In-Situ Combustion,
Oil asd Gas ]our, (Aug. 1953) Vol. .52, No. 14, 92
Results
5, Gates, C. F, and Ramey, H. J,, Jr.: Field
of South Belrid~
Themml
Recovery
Experiment;,
Tram, AIME (195S) Vol. 213, 236,
6. Alexander, John D., Martin, Willism L. and Dew, John
N.: Factors
Affecttng
FueI Availability
end Cornposition During JrrSitu Combustiont,
Jorw, Pet, Tech
(Ott,
1962) 11S4,
APPENDIX

Martin. st al, 2 in their valuable va~er show

exhaust gas arialyses for their Tests- 1> through
18. They also show values for the volume of air
required and the C/H ratio of the ~burned residuum.
Their exhaust gas analyses were used to determine,
from Eq. 1, the C/H ratios of the fuel for combustion.
of
These ratios were used to make determinations
the air required per pound of fuel for combustion
from Eq. 2. These latter values were multiplied by
1.25, which was taken from Fig. 2 and is the fuel
consumption in pounds of fuel per cubic foot of oil
sartd corresponding to an oil gravity of 21.2 API,
the reported gravity of the in situ oil for their
Tests 13 through 18. Table 6 shows that there is
good agreement between the air requirements which
they report and the air requirements
determined
as above for all but* their Test 1% This single
discrepancy
could probably be explained if more
information were available.
The exhau& gas analyses used for these determinations
were not corrected to an extraneousgas-free basis because the required data were not
in the published report.
***
SOCIETY
.,

OF

PETROl.EllM

l?NC INltERS

JOURNAL