Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Juan David Antolinez Jimenez
 -- 1464 2023-09-14 20:57:30 |
2 format correct
Wendy Huang
Meta information modification 1464 2023-09-15 08:45:16 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Antolinez, J.D.; Miri, R.; Nouri, A. Forward and Reverse Combustion. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49198 (accessed on 30 June 2024).
Antolinez JD, Miri R, Nouri A. Forward and Reverse Combustion. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49198. Accessed June 30, 2024.
Antolinez, Juan D., Rahman Miri, Alireza Nouri. "Forward and Reverse Combustion" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49198 (accessed June 30, 2024).
Antolinez, J.D., Miri, R., & Nouri, A. (2023, September 14). Forward and Reverse Combustion. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49198
Antolinez, Juan D., et al. "Forward and Reverse Combustion." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 September, 2023.
Forward and Reverse Combustion
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/en16176306

In situ combustion or fire flooding is a promising enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technique designed to produce heavy oils and bitumen. This method involves the in-place heating and combustion of hydrocarbons, resulting in reduced viscosity and increased mobility for improved flow toward the production wellbore. Despite its potential, widespread commercial implementation of in situ combustion has been hindered due to technical and economic challenges like inadequate project design and improper reservoir selection.

in situ combustion EOR dry forward combustion wet forward combustion reverse combustion

1. Introduction

The energy and industrial sectors are turning towards hard-to-reach and non-negligible oil reserves that are essential for future energy supply. This is because conventional oil reserves are being depleted and reaching the end of their commercial life. However, commercial extraction of heavy oil poses significant challenges due to its high viscosity and density, particularly in countries such as Canada and Venezuela, where viscosity values can reach up to 106 cp. The primary challenge is to reduce the oil’s viscosity to facilitate easier production of hydrocarbons. To tackle this challenge, thermal methods like steam injection and in situ combustion are employed as effective solutions [1]. While steam injection may seem feasible, it has significant environmental drawbacks, such as requiring vast amounts of water and energy and generating large amounts of greenhouse gases. In contrast, in situ combustion is a promising and less environmentally harmful solution that ignites a portion of the heavy oil in the reservoir while reducing its viscosity and enabling its easier extraction.
Moore et al. [1] define in situ combustion as “the propagation of a high-temperature front for which the fuel is a coke-like substance laid down by thermal cracking reactions”. In other terms, it is a thermally induced enhanced oil recovery method where the thermal energy is generated in situ, i.e., in place or in the reservoir, by injecting an oxidizing gas (air or oxygen-enriched air) that burns a portion of the heavy oil acting like a fuel, i.e., 5 to 10% of the oil-in-place [2]. Typically, this oil is predominantly composed of heavier components.
The in situ combustion method is known to be the oldest thermal recovery method [3][4] dating back to the early 1920s [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Since then, many projects have been carried out all over the world. The first successful ISC (in situ combustion) project in the U.S. occurred in 1920 in southern Ohio to melt paraffin and increase oil production [11]. Similarly, the first field experiment of in situ combustion outside of the U.S. took place in the Soviet Union in 1935 [12]. In Canada, Lloydminster-type sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan have good features for implementing fire flooding. To date, the most successful project is located in the Suplacu de Barcău field in northwestern Romania and has become the largest of this type in the world [13].
Over the course of implementing in situ combustion, there have been both successful operations and failures resulting from various factors. Despite demonstrating exceptional theoretical thermal recovery efficiency, multiple projects in the 1990s encountered failure. The causes behind these failures include an inadequate selection of reservoirs, unfavorable characteristics of both the reservoir and the fluid, deficient design and operational practices, and unfavorable economic factors [4]. Specifically, in Canada, problems like the lack of control of the operation are attributed to a poor understanding of the main kinetic parameters [1]. This has led to many early failures in field tests (55% of the projects in the USA between 1960 and 1990 failed) [4]. Consequently, the level of interest in ISC has dramatically decreased, which is why operation and production engineers consider it as their last option for oil recovery [14]. Additional factors contribute to this issue, including the substantial investment required to acquire air compressors, the intricate nature of the combustion process, which demands a high level of specialized expertise, and the scarcity of qualified personnel available to tackle this complex task [15].
Notwithstanding, several advantages are associated with this recovery method, including eliminating steam-related costs, a marked reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, avoiding the need for water recycling processes, in situ upgrading of heavy oil, and avoiding energy-intensive methods further down the production chain. Such benefits make this approach both more environmentally sound and economically viable [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. According to Storey et al. [24], ISC can be used to produce more environmentally friendly energy through the in situ production of hydrogen [19][25] and from the naturally high heat flow of ISC via enhanced geothermal systems [26][27][28][29].
When it comes to enhancing oil recovery, in situ combustion techniques have received significant interest. Three notable methods in this domain are dry forward combustion, wet forward combustion, and reverse combustion. These techniques involve the controlled ignition of oil within the reservoir to improve oil mobility and extraction.
Table 1 provides an overview of the different ISC processes. The following section briefly overviews these techniques, their advantages and limitations, and a practical understanding of how they contribute to ISC practices.
Table 1. Comparison of dry forward combustion, wet forward combustion, and reverse combustion.
ISC
Mechanism		 Definition Applied to Advantages Disadvantages
Dry Forward Combustion Most popular version of ISC. The combustion front is generated in situ. Same propagation direction of injected air and combustion front. Heavy oil reservoirs. The combustion provides the formation with a complete burning of formation, leaving the formation hydrocarbon-free. Limit viscosity reduction to recover hydrocarbons. Low heat is transferred from the combustion front to the downstream zones.
Wet Forward Combustion Combination of forward combustion and waterflooding. Addition of water or steam in the process. Thin reservoirs. Increases process efficiency. Improved heat transfer. Improved sweep efficiency. Simultaneous co-injection of both water and gas can be challenging.
Reverse The combustion front is initiated at the production well and moves backward against the airflow. Reservoirs with low
effective permeability.		 A significant amount of cracking occurs. Less upgraded oil is recovered. Spontaneous ignition near the injection well.

2. Dry Forward Combustion

This technique involves the injection of air into a designated injector well, followed by the ignition of oil either through natural means (autoignition) or with the aid of external heat sources (such as electrical or gas heaters). It is worth noting that the accidental ignition of an oil reservoir was initially observed in the 1920s during an air injection operation for pressure maintenance, leading to the discovery of the conventional in situ combustion EOR method [30].
Once the oil ignition occurs, different heat zones are created within the reservoir due to heat and mass transport. These zones give rise to distinct temperature profiles. A combustion front is established among the zones where a portion of the oil (coke) undergoes combustion, generating heat. This heat is then transferred via convection through the water, facilitating oil mobilization. Continuous air injection is employed to sustain the advancement of the combustion front towards the production well, with both the combustion front and the injected air moving in the same direction.
In conventional dry forward combustion, the injection of oxygen (air) into the reservoir serves the purpose of igniting the coke, sustaining the combustion front, and displacing the oil towards the production well. This process can be likened to cigarette burning or the glowing hot zone observed in barbecue coals [3].

3. Wet Forward Combustion

In the dry forward combustion mechanism, only oxygen is injected; however, during this process, much of the heat remains in the zone behind the combustion front since the heat capacity of the gas is very low. On the other hand, water can be injected with air to improve the heat transfer forward. To overcome this issue, wet combustion was designed to get some heat to the zone ahead of the combustion front [31].

4. Reverse Combustion

Reverse combustion, also called countercurrent ISC, works like a cigarette [31]. The combustion front is initiated near the production well, and the more is blown into the cigarette (into the reservoir), the more the combustion front moves toward the injector well. At the same time, the oil is displaced toward the production well. This results in the air and the combustion front moving in opposite directions.
Although not a very promising technique beyond laboratory tests [4][15][32], this method was proposed for high-viscosity oil and tar reservoirs where the hydrocarbons have to flow from hot to cold regions, resulting in reduced mobility and increased flow restrictions. To address this challenge, the method keeps the major portion of the heat between the production well and the mobilized oil. By doing so, this method enables hydrocarbons to flow more efficiently during production, with minimal heat losses. Nevertheless, according to Brigham et al. [3], there are two main reasons why it has not been successful:
1.
The need for high-cost tubulars that can withstand the high temperatures of the produced fluids. Also, reverse combustion generally requires more oxygen than forward combustion; therefore, the costs will be higher.
2.
Some deposits of unburned heavy hydrocarbons will remain in the reservoir. Eventually, these materials will tend to react, and the process will shift to forward combustion.

References

  1. Moore, R.G.; Laureshen, C.J.; Ursenbach, M.G.; Mehta, S.A.; Belgrave, J.D.M. A Canadian Perspective On In Situ Combustion. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 1999, 38, 1–8.
  2. Gutierrez, D.; Skoreyko, F.; Moore, R.G.; Mehta, S.A.; Ursenbach, M.G. The Challenge of Predicting Field Performance of Air Injection Projects Based on Laboratory and Numerical Modelling. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2009, 48, 23–33.
  3. Brigham, W.; Castanier, L.M. Chapter 16 In-situ Combustion. In Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Volume V: Reservoir Engineering and Petrophysics; Holstein, E.D., Ed.; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 2007; Volume V, pp. 1367–1398.
  4. Sarathi, P.S. In-Situ Combustion Handbook—Principles and Practices; Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): Tulsa, OK, USA, 1999.
  5. Wolcott, E.R. Method of Increasing the Yield of Oil Wells. U.S. Patent 1,457,479, 5 June 1923.
  6. Howard, F.A. Method of Operating Oil Wells. Patent US1473348A, 6 November 1923.
  7. Kuhn, C.S.; Koch, R.L. In-Situ Combustion newest method of increasing oil recovery. Oil Gas J. 1953, 92, 113.
  8. Grant, B.F.; Szasz, S.E. Development of an Underground Heat Wave for Oil Recovery. J. Pet. Technol. 1954, 6, 23–33.
  9. Chu, C. A Study of Fireflood Field Projects (includes associated paper 6504). J. Pet. Technol. 1977, 29, 111–120.
  10. Cheih, C. State-of-the-Art Review of Fireflood Field Projects (includes associated papers 10901 and 10918). J. Pet. Technol. 1982, 34, 19–36.
  11. Mills, R.V.A. The Paraffin Problems in Oil Wells. In U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1923.
  12. Sheinman, A.B.; Dubroval, K.K.; Charuigin, M.M.; Zaks, S.L.; Zinchenka, K.E. Gasification of Crude Oil in Reservoir Sands. Pet. Eng. 1938, 1, 27–30.
  13. Panait-Patica, A.; Serban, D.; Ilie, N. Suplacu de Barcau Field—A Case History of a Successfull In-Situ Combustion Exploitation. In Proceedings of the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 June 2006.
  14. Guo, K.; Li, H.; Yu, Z. In-Situ heavy and extra-heavy oil recovery: A review. Fuel 2016, 185, 886–902.
  15. Turta, A. Chapter 18-In Situ Combustion. In Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies; Sheng, J.J., Ed.; Gulf Professional Publishing: Boston, MI, USA, 2013; pp. 447–541.
  16. Castanier, L.M.; Brigham, W.E. Upgrading of crude oil via in situ combustion. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2003, 39, 125–136.
  17. Xia, T.X.; Greaves, M.; Turta, A.T.; Ayasse, C. THAI—A ‘short-distance displacement’ in situ combustion process for the recovery and upgrading of heavy oil. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2003, 81, 295–304.
  18. Gates, I.D.; Chakrabarty, N.; Moore, R.G.; Mehta, S.A.; Zalewski, E.; Pereira, P. In-situ upgrading of Llancanelo heavy oil using in situ combustion and a downhole catalyst bed. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2008, 47, 23–31.
  19. Kapadia, P.R.; Kallos, M.S.; Gates, I.D. Potential for hydrogen generation from in situ combustion of Athabasca bitumen. Fuel 2011, 90, 2254–2265.
  20. Kapadia, P.R.; Wang, J.; Kallos, M.S.; Gates, I.D. Practical process design for in situ gasification of bitumen. Appl. Energy 2013, 107, 281–296.
  21. Kapadia, P.R.; Kallos, M.S.; Gates, I.D. A review of pyrolysis, aquathermolysis, and oxidation of Athabasca bitumen. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015, 131, 270–289.
  22. Hart, A.; Wood, J.; Greaves, M. Laboratory investigation of CAPRI catalytic THAI-add-on process for heavy oil production and in situ upgrading. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2017, 128, 18–26.
  23. Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Hu, Z.; Xu, B.; Li, Y.; Pu, W.; Zhao, J. A review of in situ upgrading technology for heavy crude oil. Petroleum 2021, 7, 117–122.
  24. Storey, B.M.; Worden, R.H.; McNamara, D.D. The Geoscience of In-Situ Combustion and High-Pressure Air Injection. Geosciences 2022, 12, 340.
  25. Hajdo, L.E.; Hallam, R.J.; Vorndran, L.D.L. Hydrogen Generation During In-Situ Combustion. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers-SPE California Regional Meeting, CRM 1985, London, UK, 18–20 September 1985; pp. 675–689.
  26. Davis, A.P.; Michaelides, E.E. Geothermal power production from abandoned oil wells. Energy 2009, 34, 866–872.
  27. Cinar, M. Creating enhanced geothermal systems in depleted oil reservoirs via in situ combustion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eigth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Enginerring, Stanford, CA, USA, 11–13 February 2013.
  28. Cheng, W.-L.; Li, T.-T.; Nian, Y.-L.; Xie, K. Evaluation of working fluids for geothermal power generation from abandoned oil wells. Appl. Energy 2014, 118, 238–245.
  29. Zhu, Y.; Li, K.; Liu, C.; Mgijimi, M.B. Geothermal power production from abandoned oil reservoirs using in situ combustion technology. Energies 2019, 12, 4476.
  30. Ramey, H.J. In-Situ Combustion. In Proceedings of the 8th World Petroleum Conference, Moscow, Russia, 13 June 1971.
  31. Turta, A.T. Conventional ISC. 2022. Available online: https://insitucombustion.ca/#conventional (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  32. Stosur, J.J. Chapter 34-In Situ Combustion Method for Oil Recovery State of the art and Potential. In The Future Supply of Nature-Made Petroleum and Gas; Meyer, R.F., Barnea, J., Grenon, M., Eds.; Elesver: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1977; pp. 611–623.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Petroleum
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Juan D. Antolinez
,
Rahman Miri
,
Alireza Nouri
View Times: 389
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback