SPE 101099
Burning Reserves For Greater Recovery? Air Injection Potential In Australian Light Oil
Reservoirs
B.L. Hughes* and H.K. Sarma, SPE, U. of Adelaide
* Now with Sarawak Shell Berhad
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition held in Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Air injection is an Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) technique
with limited exposure in the Asia-Pacific region and no
previous application in Australia. Analogy with successful air
injection projects in the USA, suggests that it could be a
suitable EOR process for onshore light oil fields in Australia;
no evaluation has been conducted to date.
Using open file data, high level screening criteria are used
in this study to identify prospective petroleum basins, and an
individual candidate reservoir is examined through a
simulation study. Key issues in the application of the
technique are discussed, as are directions for implementation
in Australia.
Air injection involves the continuous injection of high-
pressure air into the reservoir. The oxygen in the air reacts
with the reservoir crude, consuming 5-10 % of the Original-
Oil-In-Place (OOIP) and generating flue gases in-situ. This
creates a gas drive process and acts to re-pressurize the
reservoir. The process does not require water as a mobility
control agent; a significant advantage in water-scarce
Australia. It could also replace hydrocarbon (HC) miscible
floods, freeing cleaner HC gases for energy use. Ideally the
process is suited to deep, high-temperature, light oil reservoirs,
and is applicable to both secondary and tertiary recovery.
The Cooper-Eromanga Basin, Carnarvon Basin (Barrow
Island) and the Surat-Bowen Basin were identified as the most
prospective. The simulation study conducted for ‘Reservoir A’
in the Cooper Basin indicated the potential for spontaneous
ignition and propagation of a stable combustion front within
the reservoir; hence it is a potentially good candidate for EOR
by air injection.
Given the ‘high’ oil price and maturity of Australia’s oil
provinces, significant value is associated with EOR. Air
injection is potentially suitable for Australian onshore
application. The process warrants further evaluation and
consideration as an alternative to accepted EOR techniques.
Introduction
Air injection was first introduced as a secondary recovery
technique in 19791 (Buffalo Field) to improve upon primary
recovery in deep, high temperature, low relief, low
permeability reservoirs. Since its first application, air injection
has been applied successfully, technically and economically as
both a secondary and tertiary (Double Displacement Process,
DDP, West Hackberry2,3) EOR process, over a variety of
reservoir scenarios, in both vertical and horizontal flooding
modes. Full-field air injection projects have been developed as
recently as 19964,5 (Horse Creek), and a range of field pilots
and evaluation studies are underway or have been proposed in
recent times; these have tended to focus on the use of the
process for tertiary recovery, including the potential of the
process for use offshore in the North Sea6,7.
One example of the successful application of air injection
for secondary EOR is the Medicine Pole Hills (MPH) field1,8.
This field is indicative of those projects which have been
undertaken in the Williston Basin in the Dakotas. The
Williston Basin has been the focus of air injection for
secondary recovery for over three decades. The reservoirs in
the Williston Basin (Buffalo, MPH, Horse Creek) are low
permeability non-fractured carbonate reservoirs. There is little
structural relief, and the primary drive mechanism of liquid
and rock expansion results in low primary oil recoveries due to
a lack of pressure support. This results in rapidly declining
production rates, and a high residual oil saturation due to
capillarity. The air injection technique allowed for rapid
reservoir re-pressurisation, to provide energy, and helped
mobilise trapped oil, through improved sweep efficiency.
Air inejection was initiated at MPH in 1986, but only
continued for two months before injection was stopped due to
a decline in oil price. Injection recommenced in October 1987,
and continued uninterrupted. As of June 1994 the oil rate at
MPH was 950 bbl/d as compared to 400 bbl/d prior to air
injection. The number of producing wells has remained
constant throughout field life, but early in field life a series of
acid fracturing jobs was performed. These jobs have therefore
made a small contribution to the production rate in early life.
The GOR (Gas-Oil-Ratio) has consistently increased as
injection has continued; this suggests rapid breakthrough of
flue-gas. The increase in GOR has been matched by an
2 SPE 101099
increase in the Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) content. An NGL
recovery plant was installed and during the period 1991-1993,
NGL recovery was approximately 200 bbl/d. The produced
gas stream at MPH consists of CO2, N2, hydrocarbon and trace
gases. This indicates that oxygen is being consumed by
reaction within the reservoir.
Other fields and their performance are not discussed here
as the focus of this paper is not to present a review of
existing/previous projects. Nevertheless, reservoir properties
for previous and possible/current air injection projects and
project performance data for previous/current projects are
presented in Tables A-1 and A-2 respectively.
Air injection was one of a number of potential EOR
techniques considered in all projects in which it has been used.
Alternate techniques included water injection, gas injection,
and horizontal wells. Key reasons for which air injection was
chosen over alternate techniques are,
• superior injectivity of air in comparison to water,
• faster re-pressurisation than with water; air
compressibility,
• preference for gravity drainage rather than pushing
oil up structure due to more favourable relative
permeability effects (West Hackberry2,3 ),
• cost benefit compared to other injectants; CO2, N2,
hydrocarbon gas,
• previous technical and economic success in nearby
fields (Williston Basin).
The use of the process at West Hackberry2,3 (salt-dome, high
relief, high permeability, high secondary recovery from water
flood), represents the proof of the air injection process for
tertiary recovery in high permeability reservoirs. In the
Williston Basin, air injection was selected because it best met
the technical and economic requirements. In the West
Hackberry project, the selection of air over other gas injectants
was based upon purely economic criteria, taking advantage of
technically suitable reservoir conditions to use air as a more
cost effective injectant. The general advantages/disadvantages
of air injection are summarised below in Table 1.
Table 1: Air Injection: Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
• Does not consume • Compressors must be
saleable gas for EOR specially fabricated
• Does not require source • Doesn’t attract
of CO2 sequestration benefits of
• Does not require water CO2
either for EOR or as a • Has not been proven
stability buffer (WAG) as offshore
for other gas processes
• Superior injectivity to
water
• Can be used in super-
wet fields
• Unlimited, universally
available ‘free’ injectant
Although air injection remains an un-proven technique
offshore, it has received a great deal of interest for offshore
application, in recent times. One logical driver for this is that
generally offshore developments are significantly larger than
onshore. This in effect means that the ‘prize’ is bigger, but
from a process point of view that a large and reliable injection
gas source is required. In order to support the injection of large
gas volumes, which would be required for an offshore project,
potentially significant infrastructure changes (‘topside’
modification) i.e., addition or modification of facilities e.g.
compression, purification, would be required. On an existing
facility for which these changes were not included during
design, such changes could be structurally or cost prohibitive.
Air provides a significant advantage in this environment
because it is available without transport infrastructure, and
only requires compression facilities. It may therefore have
more potential than other processes on existing facilities with
limited margin for modification. The major hurdle to be
overcome with the offshore use of air injection is the safety
hazards associated with having high-pressure air and
hydrocarbon in close proximity. If this issue can be addressed
satisfactorily, then air injection has the potential to have a
major impact on secondary and tertiary recovery offshore.
The potential benefits of air injection when applied to
fields in Australia, in combination with strong analogy to
reservoir characteristics in the successful Williston Basin
projects provide a strong motivation for further evaluation of
air injection as an EOR technique for Australian light oil
reservoirs
Air Injection Theory
The air injection process involves the continuous injection of
high-pressure air (79% N2, 21% O2) into the reservoir. The
oxygen reacts with the reservoir crude, preferably by
combustion consuming approximately 5-10% OOIP, and is
itself consumed. The combustion reactions release heat and
generate carbon oxides (CO2, CO) producing ‘flue-gas’ (CO2,
CO, N2. In light oil reservoirs, initiation of reactions in the
reservoir is typically spontaneous due to the small activation
energy. An artificial ignition source is therefore not required.
The aim of air injection in light oil reservoirs is not to
generate heat and promote EOR by thermal effects; rather, to
create a gas drive by generation of flue-gas in situ. It is
envisaged that gas drive will be the dominant mechanism, at
least in the earlier phase or when the ignition front is far
removed from the production well.
The process operates effectively as both a miscible and
immiscible gas flood. This means that whilst the reaction
pathway (combustion) remains critical and that heat generated
does contribute to recovery (if the combustion front is pushed
from the injector all the way to the producer) the temperature
range in which the reaction occurs, and, hence the degree of
exothermicity is not critical to an efficient recovery process.
Effective recovery can occur provided all oxygen is consumed
regardless of the temperature regime, Low Temperature
Oxidation (LTO), 150-350°C or High Temperature Oxidation
(HTO) 450°C+. It is imperative that all oxygen is consumed;
for both safe operation of the process and with regard to the
potential for the microbial degradation of the oil if free oxygen
was present in the reservoir.
The reaction of oxygen with a reservoir crude is an
extremely complex one. The reaction pathway of a crude is
determined by compostion, reservoir temperature, pressure,
rock mineralogy and rock heat loss characteristics. The heat
SPE 101099 3

loss characteristics are in turn affected by the porosity. In a A reservoir undergoing air injection can be broken down into a
light oil the desired reaction path of combustion is sustainable series of zones according to the processes and temperature of
(provided the oil has sufficient fuel load) in either the HTO or the zone. The schematic shown in Figure 1 describes these
LTO regime. In light oil, LTO is often the favoured reaction zones when the process is operating under ‘bond-scission’
pathway9 and combustion under HTO may not be sustainable mode. The specific mechanisms active in the air injection
given the fuel load of the oil. process will depend on exactly which mode i.e. miscible vs.
Combustion is a ‘nice’ and imprecise way of describing immiscible and the temperature range the process is operating
the reaction pathway; combustion represents the overall under.
reaction. The complex reaction ‘system’ is generally
represented in two parts, oxidation (addition) followed by
‘decomposition’6/’bond-scission’9. The first reaction describes
the formation of oxygenated compounds and the second the
breakdown of oxygenated compounds into carbon oxides and
a long chain hyrdocarbon. The other reaction, which occurs in
air injection, is cracking. In this case large molecules are
broken down into one lighter and one heavier component due
to heat. Operation in bond-scission mode i.e. combustion
rather than only addition is critical. Under addition,
oxygenated compounds will tend to react by polymerizing
with each other; this increases the oil viscosity. Removal of
the O2 from the gas stream without replacement by flue-gas to
maintain pore pressure promotes trapping of the oil phase9.
Based on studies of light oils, addition reactions tend to
dominate below 150°C9 (temperature under reaction not static
reservoir temperature).
Injector Producer
1. Swept Zone
O2 Concentration
20 2. Combustion Front
3. Oil & Steam Banks
10 4. Unswept Reservoir

1 2 3 4

Temperature Profile

Reservoir Temperature

NB* The combustion front is very thin compared to the other zones,
but is horizontally exaggerated in this schematic.

1. Swept Zone 3. Oil and Steam Banks-Thermal Effects

•Theoretical Residual Oil Saturation, Sor, is zero •Thermal effects generate an oil and steam banks
•Tres >Tinitial-res •Tres >Tinitial-res
•No reactions occurring •Reactions: Cracking
•Viscous fingering of steam can provide ‘super-extraction’
2. ‘Combustion’ front benefits. Steam transfers heat ahead of the combustion front,
•Thin zone, where all oxygen is consumed reducing oil viscosity.
•5-10% OOIP is burned
•Tres >Tinitial-res, typically 300-400 ˚C 4. Flue gas drive- NO Thermal Effects
Combustion/bond-scission produces combustion gases CO2, •Flue gas sweeps the reservoir
and CO. Resulting gas stream including N2, ‘flue gas’ typically •Tres = Tinitial-res
85%,N2 :13%,CO2: 2%, CO •Dominant mechanism in process; gas related effects e.g.
•Reactions: Primarily bond-scission swelling occur in this zone
4
Figure 1: Air Injection Process Schematic (after Clara et al. )
4 SPE 101099

Process Recovery Mechanisms potential areas was limited to onshore because air injection
The recovery mechanisms which may be attributed to air remains unproven offshore.
injection are summarized below,
• improved sweep efficiency due to flue-gas sweeping,
• rapid re-pressurization of the reservoir,
• ‘stripping’ of light ends (volatiles) by flue-gas and
subsequent NGL recovery, Carnarvon
Basin,
• oil swelling by flue-gas, Barrow
• injection gas substitution due to the generation of Island
Amadeus
CO2 in-situ, Basin
• miscibility of flue-gas with oil, Surat-
• operation above the critical point of water and Bowen
Basin
therefore potential super-extraction benefits
associated with steam fingering ahead of the
Cooper-
combustion front resulting in viscosity reduction and
Eromanga
oil mobilization. Basin

Air Injection in Australian Basins

Many of Australia’s hydrocarbon provinces, particularly
onshore, are mature. Supported by the ‘high’ oil price, the
application of EOR presents the next logical and economic
opportunity for these areas. In the past, the use of EOR has
tended to be limited to more traditional methods e.g. Figure 2: Australian Sedimentary Basins (courtesy Geoscience
waterflooding or gas-lift. This has changed and many Australia)
companies are taking the opportunity to evaluate and
implement more ‘fit-for-purpose’ EOR methods. CO2 flooding High–level screening criteria, based on previous successful
is one of the most promininet techniques and is strongly projects, air injection theory and the authors’ experience are
supported by the benefits associated with GHG (Green House used to further examine air injection potential in these basins.
Gas) sequestration. Table 2 provides such screening criteria and general basin
Air injection has many benefits, and as a process is broadly properties (property ranges) for the three Australian basins
comparable to other gas-based EOR techniques. Therefore it considered prospective on the basis of further investigation.
bears some similarity with respect to technical limitations (but
not necessarily ranges) e.g the potential for gas override. Table 2: General Reservoir Properties of Prospective
Air injection lends itself to project conditions in Australia Basins for Air Injection in Australia
for two key reasons; the large distances typically involved in
operations and the scarcity of water. Air is a universally Screeni Carnarvon Cooper-
11 Surat-Bowen
Basin ng (Barrow Eromanga 16
available and abundant injectant. For application to EOR it Criteria Island)
10 ,12,13,14,15 (Moonie)
does not require purification, transportation from a source, or South
Western Queensland/
storage. Water, which is often required in large volumes in Location Australia/
Australia NSW
gasfloods for mobility control is not a requirement in an air Queensland
injection project. This implies that there is much less ΦSo >0.1 Yes Yes Yes
requirement for post breakthrough water handling and disposal API Gravity
20-55+ 33-45 44-50+ 45
in an air injection project. Therefore, for projects, which may (˚API)
be technically feasible but require an injection gas source, the
Temperature >75+ 46-99 80-141 66
longer the distance to that source, the more economically (˚C)
advantaged air injection for EOR would typically be. Air does
not require purification and compression costs are similar to Depth
>1000 350-1950 1300-2940 1730
other types of gas injection. (Metres)
There is no experimental data currently available for 1-20
Thickness 20-50+
screening and design of Australian air injection projects. In (unless 50-130 20-60
(Metres) (Net= 5-30)
dipping)
order to select basins for high-level screening, a series of
Water Connate
discussions with experienced Australian professionals was 0.16-0.62 0.3-0.6 0.48
Saturation -0.7
conducted with a view to both potential and a reasonable Permeability 460 (avg,58-0)
0.1-1000 1-5000 0.001-10000
likelihood of meeting high-level screening criteria. On this (mD) (56-4, tighter)
basis the Amadeus Basin, Carnarvon Basin specifically
Barrow Island, Cooper-Eromanga Basin and Surat-Bowen The basin properties used are based on limited open-file data
Basin were selected for further evaluation (see Figure 2). This and are clearly not representative of individual reservoir
is not an exhaustive list but highlights areas with potential for suitability. However, they do provide an indication of whether
further examination by high-level screening. Consideration of air injection is likely to be applicable. Further detail and some
SPE 101099
potential candidates are identified in the basin-by-basin
discussion.
Amadeus Basin
The Mereenie reservoir in the Amadeus Basin was considered
as a potential air injection target. General reservoir properties
appeared to be appropriate but there is a large gas cap, which
is being actively produced as part of the production strategy.
Therefore, whilst the reservoir parameters may be appropriate,
the use of air injection for EOR is not compatible with the
field production strategy. No further evaluation of the
Mereenie field was carried out.
10
Barrow Island
Barrow Island is the only field to be evaluated for the potential
of light oil air injection in the Carnarvon basin. This is the
only field to be evaluated because of the logistical access that
Barrow Island provides i.e. the reservoir is effectively
onshore.
The Barrow Island structure is a broad anticline with
multiple oil and gas producing horizons, and an oil-in-place of
1250 MMbbl. The most significant oil producing zone is the
Windalia Sand, which has produced the bulk (95%) of the 278
MMbbl produced to 1999. Owing to poor reservoir quality in
the Windalia Sand, water flooding has been used in the field
since 1968 to enhance oil recovery.
The other reservoirs which contribute to the bulk of
production not from the Windalia Sand are the M3 Zone, the
Mardie Greensand, the Tunney member of the Muderong
Shale, and the Flacourt and Dupuy formations. Other oil zones
which produce only minor amounts are the Gearle Siltstone,
M4 Zone and Malouet Formation. A full set of available
reservoir data for these oil bearing zones is included in Table
B-1.
The aim of air injection into the Barrow Island reservoirs
would be to improve sweep efficiency and mobilize the
bypassed oil. The variable nature of the permeability in
Barrow Island to both extremes suggests that production by
either water flood or water drive could be improved. Air
injection would give better injectivity and allow the recovery
of bypassed oil. Based on the reservoir properties of Barrow
Island, potential issues with the air injection process are the
thickness of the reservoir, reservoir temperature, water
saturation, and degree of miscibility given the shallow depth.
The thickness of reservoir units in Barrow Island ranges
from 50-130 ft. Given that the structure has low relief, there is
significant potential for gas override which would result in an
inefficient and potentially unsafe process. There is some
heterogeneity within the reservoir; tight sandstone and
siltstone layers which act as vertical flow barriers within the
Windalia Sand may provide ‘thin’ enough flow layers to make
the process stable. Some of the other less prolific thinner sands
may also be appropriate under this condition.
The reservoir temperature in Barrow Island ranges from
46˚C to approximately 100˚C, but in several reservoirs is
below 75˚C. Considering this in addition to the high water
saturation which causes substantial heat loss, the question is
whether the process would auto-ignite and be self-sustaining.
This question can only be answered by experimental testing.
However experimental testing on the Avilé and Tronsco
5
reservoirs17 which have similar temperature, fluid saturation,
and oil API characteristics has demonstrated these reservoirs
to be potential candidates for the process.
The question of miscibility affects the efficiency of the
flue-gas drive. A miscible process will be more efficient and
recover more oil. The reservoirs of Barrow Island are quite
shallow, and have fairly low initial pressures. Therefore, if
Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) could not be obtained,
the process would operate in the less efficient immiscible
flood mode. This would still allow for better sweep, although
generating less significant volumes of incremental oil.
Cooper-Eromanga Basin11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Reservoirs in the Cooper-Eromanga Basin were identified as
potential targets for air injection because of similarities
between some reservoirs in this region and the successful
projects of the Williston Basin i.e. high temperature, low
permeability reservoirs with low primary recovery. The
Eromanga Basin overlies the Cooper Basin forming a
‘stacked’ basin. Oil is produced from both units and often
from the same field. There is potential in both units for the
application of air injection.
The oil-bearing reservoir units of the Eromanga Basin are
the Murta Formation, McKinlay Member, Namur Sandstone,
Birkhead Formation, Hutton Sandstone and Poolowanna
Facies. The basic reservoir properties of these units are
provided in Table B-2. Fields which broadly represent the oil
producing fields in the Eromanga Basin are,
• Strezlecki - producing from McKinlay Member-
Namur Sandstone, intra-Namur Sandstone, Birkhead
Formation-Hutton Sandstone,
• Dullingari – producing from Murta Formation,
McKinlay Member-Namur Sandstone,
• Jena - producing from the Murta Member, McKinlay
Member,
• Keleary – Poolowanna Facies.
The McKinlay Member, Namur Sandstone and Hutton
Sandstone reservoirs tend to contain large oil pools.
The main oil producing reservoir in the Cooper Basin is
the Tirrawarra Sandstone which comprises Permian braided
delta and braided stream sediments. The bulk of oil (80%)
produced from the Tirrawarra Sandstone is produced at the
Tirrawarra field, with Fly Lake, and Moorari-Woolkina
contributing the remaining oil. Significant oil accumulations
have also been identified in the fluvial sandstones of the
Triassic Nappameri group which are produced by the Telopea
and Keleary fields (Eromanga Basin).
The Tirrawarra and Moorari fields exhibited low primary
recovery, and the need to supplement the depletion drive
recovery was recognised early in field life. The reservoirs
were studied and miscible gas injection was determined as a
suitable EOR technique. A miscible gas flood pilot was started
in 1984 with separator gas from the Patchawarra Formation,
and ethane injection began in Tirrawarra in 1985. In 1996,
ethane injection into both fields ceased; due to increased gas
and ethane demand. No other gas injection process has been
utilised since this date. CO2 injection has been considered for a
miscible flooding process, but was considered to be too
6 SPE 101099
expensive. The Reservoir A field which provided the base data
set for the hypothetical simulation study is also located in the
Cooper Basin, and the study presented by Bon and Sarma18
suggests it is also amenable to a miscible CO2 flood.
The reservoirs of the Cooper-Eromanga Basin are
generally good candidates for air injection. The reservoirs are
hot and quite deep with sufficient residual oil saturation. In
addition, whilst other EOR processes such as CO2 flooding
may be suitable, air injection may provide a more cost
effective alternative, provided the fuel load in the oil is
adequate to sustain ignition. The applicability of miscible CO2
flooding strongly suggests that air injection would be an
appropriate EOR technique, and should certainly be
investigated further, particularly with regard to continuing the
EOR process at Tirrawarra and Moorari.
The only concern for implementation of air injection in the
Cooper-Eromanga is the sand thickness given the low relief of
the structural elements of the basin, which could result in gas
override. The reservoir units of the Cooper-Eromanga Basin
generally show significant permeability variation and tend to
have quite low average permeabilities. The degree of
heterogeneity is likely to be sufficient to ensure that the
process would be stable.
Paleo-oil Recovery
‘Paleo-oil’ is the residual oil which remains trapped in the
transition zone (below the Oil-Water-Contact) after the
upward displacement of the oil column. In large fields the
volumes of paleo-oil can be significant despite the low
residual oil saturation and high water saturation of the
transition zone. Gas based EOR techniques either in miscible
or immiscible mode have potential in recovering paleo-oil.
Significant volumes of paleo-oil have beem identified in
Santos’ Gidgealpa field within the Hutton sandstone. A CO2
gas flood has been identified as a potential recovery technique,
and would likely operate as a near miscible flood. The fact that
the flood is only likely to operate in a near-miscible mode
means that the benefits of pure CO2 may be reduced. In this
case air injection could be a competitive option.
The key question in relation to the use of air injection for
paleo-oil recovery is whether given the high water saturation,
combustion would occur and proceed stably under reservoir
conditions. The operation of the process in this case would be
similar in terms of saturation to ‘super-wet combustion’ as
described in In-Situ Combustion (ISC) literature. Experimental
testing would be critical to determining whether air injection
could be a potential EOR method for this type of recovery.
The authors are unaware of any previous application of air
injection to recover paleo-oil, but believe that there is
significant potential due to the economy and availability of air
as an injectant. This would have a particularly large impact
offshore where CO2 has already been considered for paleo-oil
recovery in the North Sea19.
Surat-Bowen Basin16
The Moonie field, Australia’s first commercial oilfield20, in
the Surat Basin was identified on a similar basis to that of the
Cooper-Eromanga Basin; an onshore reservoir with significant
heterogeneity, and a low recovery factor and therefore under-
developed.
Much of the data from the Moonie field is very old and
Table B-3 presents a few basic data. The reservoir zone in the
Moonie field is the Precipice Sandstone. The reservoir is
divided into two main sand units, the 56-4 sand which is
below the Evergreen Shale which acts as a seal, and the 58-0
Sand (Lower Precipice Sandstone) which is located below the
56-4 Sand. The 56-4 and 58-0 sands are separated by a thick
(30 m) shale formation. Within the 58-0 Sand there is
generally good horizontal permeability, but effectively zero
vertical permeability due to tight streaks and shale barriers.
The 56-4 Sand is a tighter sand and is not productive in all
wells due to varying contacts. Reports from written sources
suggest that recovery from the 58-0 sand is very high (93%),
but the picture that emerges from discussion with industry
professionals suggests that recovery has been far less efficient.
The authors believe that it provides limited consideration of all
potential units, i.e. the less desirable 56-4 sand is not fully
incorporated in the volumes. From the perspective of applying
air injection, the 56-4 Sand would, on the basis of available
information be the target for the process.
The Precipice Sandstone has significant heterogeneity in
the form of shale layers and tight streaks; hence large-scale
gas override is unlikely. The reservoir temperature and
relatively high water saturation raise the question of whether
the crude oil has the potential to auto-ignite, and whether a
stable combustion front could be maintained. This is similar to
the consideration of reservoir temperature and water saturation
in Barrow Island. Again, experimental testing is the only way
to determine whether the process would be applicable.
Basin Analysis Summary
Based on the foregoing discussions, it is evident that there is
clear potential for air injection in Australian light oil
reservoirs, most notably in the Cooper-Eromanga Basin. The
Surat-Bowen Basin and Barrow Island (Carnarvon Basin)
show somewhat less potential. Experimental testing is required
to further evaluate the potential for air injection in these areas.
As a priority, it is recommended that air injection be evaluated
as a replacement EOR process for ethane injection in the
Tirrawarra & Moorari fields.
Hypothetical Simulation Study
A hypothetical simulation study was carried out using the
CMG STARS thermal, 3-phase, multi-component simulator.
The aim of this simulation study was to further evaluate the
potential of a light oil air injection candidate using an
hypothetical data set.
The data set chosen from this study is that of ‘Reservoir
A’18 a light oil reservoir in the Cooper Basin which is
prospective for secondary EOR by CO2 flood. This data set
was chosen because the reservoir has good prospectivity for
air injection and had the largest and most appropriate data set
based on open file data. The process used to perform the
simulation is described by Figure 3.
SPE 101099 7

Key Limitations those for Reservoir A. Simulating any reservoir without a full
There are two key limitations of the model used in the set of accurate reservoir data, or production history places a
simulation of the air injection process for Reservoir A, significant limitation on the model. Clearly, making
• assumed reaction kinetic data (experimentally assumptions for unavailable data can decrease the accuracy of
measured for a previous air injection project), the simulation, even if reasonable assumptions are made. A
• limited open file data available without a full set of lack of production data for history matching means that there
reservoir data or production data for history is no ‘control’ on whether the behaviour of the model is
matching. correct. In this case, data for history matching was unavailable
but was also beyond the scope of the simulation due to time
Reaction kinetic parameters are unique to a given reservoir, restrictions.
crude oil, and in-situ conditions. The factors which affect the Figure 4 shows the data which was available from open
way a reaction occurs are numerous and their contribution is file and that which was assumed to create the hypothetical data
complex. For this reason there is no simple correlation which set used in the model. A value of relative importance has been
can be used, even as a guide to generate reaction kinetic assigned, according to the potential impact of the data, on the
parameters for a set of reactions. The only way of obtaining ‘basic’ i.e. key indicators of the simulation.
these parameters is by experimental testing.
Reaction kinetic parameters, which have been
experimentally obtained for a different air injection project are
used in this study in the absence of any site-specific reaction
kinetics data. This must be recognized as a significant
assumption. For this reason, it would not be unreasonable to
comment that the simulation is flawed, and that it cannot
represent with any degree of accuracy the air injection process
in Reservoir A. However, in the absence of experimentally
determined values for Reservoir A, the previously measured
experimental values are more ‘realistic’ than simply assuming
values. These values provide at least a representative starting
point, and values which are likely to bear some similarity to

DATA COLLECTION & PLANNING DATA SET

Identify Key Parameters Reservoir A Data Set

```
For Air Injection (SPE 88451)
Compile all open file data. Select best Identify missing data and make
data set reasonable assumptions

Reservoir A Hypothetical Data Set

b
b
b

RESERVOIR A STARS MODEL PREVIOUS AIR INJECTION

- Reservoir SIMULATION
- Fluid ___
- Reaction Experimentally Measured
- Wells Reaction Parameters




BASE CASE STARS MODEL

b
b
b

Review By Experienced STARS

Representative Data Set??? ___ RESULTS ```
Simulator

Figure 3: Simulation Methodology Flow Diagram

8 SPE 101099
Relative
Importance
Available Assumed
Reaction Kinetic
PVT & Composition HIGH Parameters
Reservoir
Temperature
Reservoir Structure &
Rock Properties MODERATE
Geology
Reservoir Pressure
LOW
Figure 4: Reservoir A; Relative Importance of Available &
Assumed Data
Simulation Grid
The simulation grid used in the model was a 320 acre, quarter
of a five-spot pattern, with grid dimensions 3740x3740 ft, cell
dimensions of 220x220 ft, and a single layer of thickness 50 ft.
An areal Local Grid Refinement (LGR) of 9:1 was applied to
those cells adjacent to the injector to facilitate monitoring of
the combustion front.
Simulation Reaction Model
The reaction model used in the simulation was designed to
match the available reaction kinetic parameters and Reservoir
A composition. The composition available from the Reservoir
A data set is limited to non-hydrocarbon gases, individual
components for methane to hexane, and heptanes plus.
The reaction model used is based on the combustion
reaction of two pseudo components C6-C7, and C8-C17 for
which reaction kinetics were available. The model does not
include a two-step reaction model i.e. oxidation followed by
decomposition, and considers the reaction of these two
components in the gas phase only.
The reaction model was identified as a key limitation of
the simulation model, when reviewed by an experienced
STARS simulator user. The reason for this is that the reaction
model does not include any components reacting in the liquid
phase. The largest component defined in the model is the C8-
C17 pseudo component; this is a volatile oil. All oils contain
heavier components regardless of their specific gravity, and
these are what ‘drive’ the combustion process. A volatile
component could evaporate, and hence ‘blow-out’ the
combustion process, resulting in an unstable and inefficient
combustion front, and is therefore insufficient to model the
process. A more appropriate set of pseudo components was
proposed21 in order to include a liquid reaction component. An
extra pseudo component, C18-C30+ was created.
In order to generate a new pseudo component a
distribution of the hydrocarbon mole fractions was created. In
this way an individual fraction for each of the C7+
components, (in this case C7- C30+) is determined. The
stream molecular weight of the hydrocarbon is calculated
using the fractions and is matched to the experimentally
determined stream molecular weight (see Fig. 5). In this case
the fraction of heavy oil components was assumed to tail off.
The fractions were then re-adjusted to obtain a reasonable
match (+/- 5%), with the stream molecular weight. The third
pseudo component is then calculated by lumping the C18-
C30+ fractions.
Generation of Unknow n Com ponents
25.00%
Mole Fraction
20.00%
Mole Fraction (%)
Log. (Mole
15.00% Fraction)
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
16
58
100
142
184
226
268
310
352
394
Molecular Weight (g/m ol)
Stream MW: 70.53 g/mol
Stream MW (Generated Fractions): 68.84 g/mol
Figure 5: Generation of Unknown Components
The stability of the process in the model does not appear to
have been affected by the use of volatile component only;
although this could only be rigorously verified by comparison.
Key Variables for Simulation
Given the limitations on data, and the required assumptions to
create a full data set for simulation, it would have been
unreasonable to expect the simulation to predict perfectly the
performance of the process. The aim of the simulation was to
focus on a set of key variables, and to determine whether these
provided a favourable indication of the process. The most
important question to answer initially is whether the oil would
combust within the reservoir, and if so, whether the
combustion front formed would be stable. It is also of primary
importance to consider whether all the injected oxygen is
being consumed and how the oxygen is moving through the
reservoir. The variables selected as primary indicators were,
• Temperature,
• Pressure,
• gas concentrations, CO2, O2, and N2.
Results
Results for Temperature and Pressure are displayed in Figures
6 and 7. Screenshots of the simulation grid are shown in
Figures D-1 to D-6 for N2, O2, and CO2, concentrations, at the
start and end of air injection in the simulation.
SPE 101099 9

Discussion
Tem perature and Pressure at Injection Well From the temperature results displayed in Figures 6 and 7,
350 5000 two key observations can be made. Firstly, that a short time
after air injection begins there is an increase in temperature at
the injector (Fig. 6), this represents spontaneous ignition of the
325 4000
Temperature (°F)

oil in the reservoir. Secondly, that over time the elevated

Pressure (psia)
temperature zone moves from the injector towards the
300 3000 producer (Fig. 7), indicating that a combustion front has been
initiated and that it is propagating stably through the reservoir.
275 2000
The pressure results confirm that spontaneous ignition has
occurred in the reservoir. Shortly after air injection begins the
pressure at the injection well exhibits a ‘spike’ as shown in
250 1000 Figure 6. A pressure spike is generally associated with the
Dec-03

Dec-07

Dec-11

Dec-15

Dec-19

Nov-23
combustion of reservoir fluid and generation of CO2 in-situ.
The other observation which can be made is about the
Tim e (m onth-year) Temperature
safety and desired operation of the process. From the
simulation screen-shots shown in Figures D-1 to D-6, it can
Pressure (psia)
be seen that whilst flue-gas breakthrough to the injector occurs
Figure 6: Simulation Results: Temperature and Pressure at (Fig. D-2), there is a zero concentration of oxygen ahead of
Injection Well vs. Time. the combustion zone inferred from the region of elevated
temperature (Fig. D-4). Furthermore the oxygen concentration
is restricted to the area behind the elevated temperature front,
Linear Front Distance from Injector
again indicating the location of the combustion front.
800

600 Road Map Implementation

Distance (ft)

Previous air injection projects have been demonstrated to

be technically and economically successful, but keys to this
400
success have evolved with field experience. Keys to success
have been,
200 • appropriate laboratory and simulation work for
screening and design,
0 • a good understanding of the process and potential
Dec-03

Dec-07

Dec-11

Dec-15

Dec-19

Nov-23

problems,
• appropriate safety mechanisms and procedures,
• use of existing field infrastructure & compromise to
Tim e (m onth-year) Linear Front enhance project economics.
Distance
A roap map for the implementation of an air injection project
Figure 7: Simulation Results: Linear Front Distance from Injector
follows in Figure 8. Some key considerations which apply to
vs. Time
different stages of implementation are highlighted, as well as
Important observations from the simulation results are, how these align with project phases.
• CO2 and N2 i.e. flue gas break through at producer
between 11-13 years (01/01/2019: CO2),
(01/01/2021: N2),
• no breakthrough of air i.e. no O2 at producer after 15
years (01/01/2023),
• combustion front location can be delineated by
temperature profile and confirmed by O2 and CO2
concentration profiles.
10 SPE 101099

P SCREENING/EVALUATION
R
O
J
E
C
T DESIGN

P
H
A
S IMPLEMENTATION
E

K
Experimental Health, Safety & Project
E
Testing Environment Monitoring
Y

C
O
N
S Compression Operational
I Requirements Issues
D
E
R
A NGL Recovery
T
I
O
N
S

R
O
A High Level Experimental Full Field Pilot Full Field
Screening Testing Implementation
D
M
A
P
Simulation

CURRENT
POSITION

Figure 8: Air Injection Implementation Road Map

Experimental Testing
The reaction behaviour of a crude oil is dependent on a series
of factors. The complexity of this system means that the
reaction behaviour of a crude oil is reservoir specific, and may
only be evaluated by testing with reservoir rock and fluid
under reservoir conditions. A range of experimental testing
techniques exist. These are designed to determine if and how
the crude oil will react in the reservoir, and the behaviour of
the system as any subsequent reactions occur.
Experimental testing is the only way to determine whether
an air injection candidate is suitable, and is integral to any air
injection project. Not only does experimental testing provide
the only rigorous way to screen a candidate reservoir, but tests
also provide key data which allow screening for design e.g.,
oil burning characteristics, and performance evaluation e.g.,
Air-Oil-Ratio (AOR). Data obtained are also necessary for
accurate simulation e.g. reaction kinetic parameters.
Different types of tests are available and these operate at
different pressures, temperatures, and hence can simulate
different conditions and provide different information. There
is some variation between techniques, and terminology due to
development by individual companies. A recommended
minimum suite of tests for screening and design of an air
SPE 101099 11

injection project is, Thermo-Gravimetric Pressurised Operational Problems

Differential Scanning Calorimeter/Accelerating Rate
Calorimeter (TGPDSC/ARC), Combustion Tube (CT), and
Ramped Temperature Oxidation (RTO) or company specific
equivalents. These tests are suitable to screen a candidate
reservoir, design field systems for a pilot and evaluate the
potential economics of the project at a high level.
Compression
Compression is key to an air injection project. The two key
points for consideration in compression design for an air
injection project are,
• installing a dual compression system,
• compressor rating.
Volumes of produced gas in the air injection process are
significant. This can cause gas handling difficulties. High gas
production rates can cause equipment erosion and mechanical
problems. Given low production rates, wells are often
pumped. A high gas production rate can potentially turn a well
from pumping to flowing status, but also impacts on the pump
efficiency e.g., gas locking of pumps is a potential issue.
The air injection process creates a corrosive environment.
This is caused by the mixing of oxygen and water at the
injector, and CO2 generation and subsequent production.
Corrosion of the wellbore can cause leaks. This decreases the
efficiency of injection, and presents a safety hazard due to the
potential for uncontrolled reaction of the oxygen.

A dual compression system provides compression ‘ullage’ and HSE

therefore redundancy in the compression system. Redundancy Health, Safety and Environment are key considerations in any
is commonly used to reduce individual units stress and ensure aspect of the Oil and Gas industry. The key safety issue with
that the system is not shut-down completely if one unit should regard to air injection is the combination of high-pressure air
fail. In air injection the redundancy is critical from safety and and hydrocarbon, or flammable equipment specific fluid e.g.
process performance perspectives. Firstly it ensures that compressor lubricant, which creates a risk of explosion.
backflow of air into the injector cannot occur, removing the Table 3 describes the potentially hazardous areas in an air
potential for explosion in the injector. Secondly it maintains injection project, and typical safety measures.
continuous and sufficient air flux to the reactions occurring in Provided that all oxygen is consumed and that reaction
the reservoir, ensuring that reactions are not starved of location is controlled, air injection is a safe process. This
oxygen. requires an appropriate candidate reservoir and
Compression systems must be designed to meet injection implementation of suitable safety measures.
requirements throughout project life. In the case of air
injection, the compression capacity must be designed above Table 3: Precautions/Equipment for Safe Operation
that which is initially required. This is because of the pressure of an Air Injection Project.
‘spike’ which occurs in the reservoir as injection occurs and
CO2 is produced. If compressors are not designed to be able to Hazard Safety Measures
inject at or above this pressure, injection will not be possible Injection Start-up • Artificial ignition on standby,
ready if spontaneous ignition
and the project will stall; this presents both safety issues
is not detected within a
associated with backflow and the degradation of the oil by specified time frame
microbial activity. Compressor & Injection Lines • High temperature synthetic
It should also be noted that gas compressors so configured lubricant
are not appropriate as a compression system for air injection. • Interstage Cooling
Injector • Dual compression to ensure
Compressors either built for air injection or re-fitted for the
constant positive pressure
purpose are necessary to provide compression for an air • Nitrogen or water purge
injection project. The cost of fabrication is approximately system to ‘kill’ well if
equivalent to the cost of a similarly sized gas compressor. compression is stopped, and
backflow occurs
Producer • Produced gas monitoring to
NGL Recovery detect O2 concentration
As flue-gas is produced it acts to sweep the reservoir and • Immediate shut-in once mole
strips the light-ends (volatile fractions) from the oil phase. fraction reaches a specified
Once flue-gas breakthrough occurs these valuable light-ends level (typically 3-5%) so
are carried through the produced gas stream. Previous air breakthrough to producer
does not occur
injection projects have demonstrated the value which can be Tubing leak (Corrosion) • Suitable completion design
obtained by installing an NGL recovery plant to capture these and materials
liquid volumes. NGL’s can contribute a significant liquid • Passivation
volume; in MPH field the NGL production for 1991-1993 was
200 bbl/d8. These NGL volumes add value to an air injection Project Monitoring
project, and it is recommended that consideration and design Monitoring of an air injection project is achieved by
of an NGL recovery system be completed early in project life monitoring the produced gas stream rate and composition. The
to capture NGL’s as soon as flue-gas breakthrough occurs ratios of components in the produced gas stream after
thereby capturing as much value as possible. breakthrough provide information about how the reactions are
proceeding in the reservoir. The hydrogen to carbon ratio
(H/C), or the percentage of oxygen converted to CO2 (oxygen
12
‘utilization’) by reaction in the process, is controlled by the
CO2/N2 ratio. This provides an indication of the mean
temperature of reaction. Moore et al. 9 state that if the desired
mode of reaction is occurring, i.e., combustion, “projects
involving air injection only should have apparent
hydrogen/carbon ratios of less than 3.0, and reacted oxygen
converted to carbon oxides of greater than 50%”. Monitoring
the produced gas to determine whether reactions are
consuming oxygen effectively infers whether the project is
operating in a safe mode.
The concentration of oxygen in the produced gas stream
must also be monitored. A significant volume of oxygen at the
producer creates the potential for explosion. The presence of a
large percentage of oxygen in the produced gas stream is an
indicator of problems with the operation of the process
(inefficient/incomplete oxidation). There are two possible
conditions which could contribute to oxygen breakthrough.
Very high permeability zones which act as flow conduits, such
as high permeability streaks or fractures, may allow O2 bypass.
Also, unfavourable reactions which do not consume O2 would
result in a build-up of O2; breakthrough is then dependent on
fluid mobility. The operating range implemented in the field
for produced gas stream oxygen concentration is typically
between 3 and 5 mole percent. Monitoring oxygen
concentration is also key for determining how much oil can be
obtained if pushing the combustion front to the producer. As
soon as oxygen breakthrough occurs, a well is finished as a
producer. This clearly has the potential to limit the recovery of
oil mobilized by thermal effects, with the possible exception
of thin, very steeply dipping, and therefore inherently stable
reservoirs.
Conclusions
• Air injection into light oil reservoirs for EOR is now
a proven technique in onshore reservoirs and has
been successfully demonstrated in a range of
reservoir scenarios. Air injection also has significant
potential for offshore application.
• Air has singular advantages both technically and
economically over other injectants; water or gas,
particularly given Australian conditions
• The potential for air injection in Australian light oil
reservoirs based on high-level screening is good.
Potential areas are Barrow Island (Carnarvon Basin),
Cooper-Eromanga Basin, and the Surat-Bowen
Basin. Of these the Cooper-Eromanga Basin provides
the most potential.
• The hypothetical simulation of Reservoir A in the
Cooper Basin indicated that with the assumed
reaction kinetic parameters, Reservoir A was an
appropriate candidate for air injection. Auto-ignition
was demonstrated and a stable combustion front was
propagated in the reservoir.
• Air injection has not previously been considered as
an injectant for the recovery of paleo-oil, but could
provide an economic alternative to CO2 flooding.
SPE 101099
Acknowledgements
Dr. Myron Khulman for simulation data and his assistance and
experience with simulation, Rahul Shrivastava for his help
with the STARS simulator, Prof. Peter Behrenbruch for help
obtaining data for simulation, Prof. Ashok Khurana for his
suggestion in selection of areas for the study.
References
1. Fassihi, M.R. et al.: “Estimation of Recovery Factors in Light
Oil Air-Injection Projects”, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Aug
1997) 173.
2. Gillham, T.H. et al,: “Low Cost IOR: An Update on the W.
Hackberry Air Injection Project”, paper SPE 39642 presented at
the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
OK, April 19-22.
3. Gillham, T.H. et al.: “Keys to Increasing Production Via Air
Injection in Gulf Coast Light Oil Reservoirs”, paper SPE 38848
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-8.
4. Clara, C. et al.: “Appraisal of the HORSE CREEK Air Injection
Project Performance”, paper SPE 49519 presented at the 8th
(1998) Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition &
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Oct. 11-14.
5. Watts, B.T. et al.: “The Horse Creek Air Injection Project: An
Overview”, paper SPE 38359 presented at the 1997 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21.
6. Ren, S.R. et al.: “Air Injection LTO Process: An IOR Technique
for Light-Oil Reservoirs”, SPEJ (March 2002) 90.
7. Surguchev, L.M. et al.:“Air Injection – Cost Effective IOR
Method to Improve Oil Recovery from Depleted and
Waterflooded Fields”, paper SPE 57296 presented at the 1999
SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference
(APIORC), Oct. 25-26.
8. Kumar, V.K. et al.:“Case History and Appraisal of the Medicine
Pole Hills Unit Air-Injection Project”, SPE Reservoir
Engineering (August 1995) 198.
9. Moore, R.G. et al.: “A Guide to High Pressure Air Injection
(HPAI) Based Oil Recovery”, paper SPE 75207 presented at the
2002 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
OK, Apr 13-17 April.
10. Ellis, G.K. et al.: “Barrow Island Oil Field”, APPEA Journal
(1999) 158.
11. Alexander, E.M.:“Reservoirs and Seals”, in Alexander, E.M.
and Hibburt, J. (eds.), Petroleum Geology of South Australia
Volume 2-Eromanga Basin,!st Edition, PIRSA, Adelaide, South
Australia (1996) Chapter 10-141. Retrieved July 2005,
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/petrol/data/pgsa2/vol2-
10.pdf.
12. Frears, R.A.:“Recovery Techology”, in Gravestock D.I.,
Hibburt, J., Drexel, J.F. (eds.), Petroleum Geology of South
Australia Volume 4-Cooper Basin, 1st Edition, PIRSA,
Adelaide, South Australia (1998) Chapter 11-181 Retrieved July
2005,
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/petrol/data/pgsa4/vol4-
11.pdf.
13. Gravestock, D.I. et al.:“Reservoir Technology”, in Gravestock
D.I., Hibburt, J., Drexel, J.F. (eds.), Petroleum Geology of South
Australia Volume 4-Cooper Basin, 1st Edition, PIRSA,
Adelaide, South Australia (1998) Chapter 10-157, Retrieved
July 2005,
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/petrol/data/pgsa4/vol4-
10.pdf.
14. Gravestock, D.I. et al.:“Field Summaries” in Gravestock D.I.,
Hibburt, J., Drexel, J.F. (eds.), Petroleum Geology of South
Australia Volume 4-Cooper Basin, 1st Edition, PIRSA,
SPE 101099 13

Adelaide, South Australia (1998) Chapter 12-189, Retrieved

July 2005,
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/petrol/data/pgsa4/vol4-
12.pdf
15. Northcott, I.W.:“Field Summaries”, in Alexander, E.M. and
Hibburt, J. (eds.), Petroleum Geology of South Australia Volume
2-Eromanga Basin, 1st Edition, PIRSA, Adelaide, South
Australia (1996) Chapter 12-153, Retrieved July 2005,
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/petrol/data/pgsa2/vol2-
12.pdf.
16. Exon, N.F.:“Moonie Oil Field”, Geology of the Surat Basin in
Queensland, Department of National Resources, Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Bulletin 166,
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, A.C.T.
(1976) 52, Retrieved from the QDEX Database, July 2005.
17. Juan. E.S. et al.:“Laboratory Screening for Air Injection-Based
IOR in Two Waterflooded Light Oil Reservoirs”, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, (Jan. 2005) Vol. 44, no. 4 31.
18. Bon, J. and Sarma, H.K.:“A Technical Evaluation of a CO2
Flood for EOR Benefits in the Cooper Basin, South Australia”,
paper SPE 88451 presented and the 2004 SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, Oct.18-20.
19. Skuage, A. and Surguchev, L.:“Gas Injection in Paleo Oil
Zones”, paper SPE 62996 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, Oct. 1-4.
20. Babson, E.C.:“Recent Oil Developments In Australia”, paper
SPE 521 presented at the 92nd (1963) AIME Annual Meeting,
Dallas, Texas, Feb. 24-28.
21. Khulman, M.I., Personal Communication, August 2005
22. Pascual, M. et al.:“Air Injection Into a Mature Waterflooded
Light Oil Reservoir. Laboratory and Simulation Results for
Barrancas Field Argentina” paper SPE 94092 presented at the
SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference 2005, Madrid, Spain,
June 13-16.
23. Duiveman, M.W. et al.:“Integrated Management of Water, Lean
Gas and Air Injection: The Successful Ingredients to EOR
Projects on the Mature Handil Field”, paper SPE 93858
presented at the 2005 APOGCE, Jakarta, Indonesia, Apr. 5-7.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589874 E-01 = m3

cP x.1.0 E-03 = Pa.s
ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
ft3 x 2.83685 E-02 = m3
°F (°F-32)/1.8 = °C
psi x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
tonne x 1.0 E+00 = Mg

*Conversion Factors are exact

14 SPE 101099

APPENDIX A

Table A-1: Reservoir Properties for Previous and

Possible/Current Air Injection Projects
Location Williston Basin Gulf Coast Other

1 1,8 4,5 W.H. –A&B W.H. 22 Handil

Field Buffalo MPHU HorseCreek 2,3 2,3 Barrancas 23
Nth Flank West Flank Pilot
Dip (degrees) Min. Min. Min. 60 5-12
Depth(ft) 8450 9500 9125 7500-9000 7550 1000-7200
Temperature (˚F) 215 230 220 174-200 185
Initial Pressure
3600 4120 4000
(psia)
Camerina A
Productive Formation Red River Red River Red River
Bol-3
Cam C1-C3,
Productive Zone B B&C D
Bol-3
Average Net Pay (ft) 10 18 20 70 10
Mainly
Trapping Mechanism Stratigraphic Stratigraphic Salt Dome Structural
Structural
Productive Acreage 5034 4877 (B) 3824
Liquid &
Rock
Liquid &
Expansion Liquid & Rock Weak Water Strong Water
Primary Drive Mechanism Rock
(B), partial Expansion Drive Drive
Expansion
water
drive (C)
Slight Aquifer & Gas Aquifer &
Aquifer/Gas Cap None None
Aquifer (C) Cap Gas Cap
Rock Type* Lsst Lsst Lsst Sst Sst
0.19 (B),
Average Porosity 0.2 0.16 0.28 0.17
0.15 (C)

Average Permeability
10 5 10-20 300 60 Range
(mD)
(10-2000)
Average Initial Water 0.37 (B), Current
0.45 0.35 0.19
Saturation 0.48 (C) (0.53)
API Gravity
30 39 32 30 31
(˚API)
Bubble Point Pressure
300 2246 625
(psia)
Solution GOR
120 525 205
(scf/stb)
Formation Volume Factor
1.16 1.4 1.205
(bbl/stb)
Water Water Water
Previous EOR None None None Water Injection
Injection Injection Injection
*Lsst = Carbonate (Limestone) Reservoir, Sst = Clastic
(Sandstone) Reservoir

Table A-2: Previous Project Performance

Expected
Project Cumulative Air Primary
Date AOR OOIP Incremental
Field Initiation Injected Recovery
(mnth-yr) (Mscf/bbl) (MMbbl) Recovery
(mnth-year) (Bscf) (%)
(%)
1
Buffalo
Jul-94 Feb-79 10.5 39.8 37 5.95 15.67
Medicine Pole
1,8
Hills Jun-94 Oct-87 7.3 13.7 40 15 14.25
4,5
Horse Creek
Dec-97 May-96 18* 4.55 45.7 9.92 16.62
West Hackberry
2,3
A May-97 July 1996 Approx. 9 0.368 40-50 30-40

*this value was expected to decrease, but no further data is

published on the project
SPE 101099 15

APPENDIX B

Table B-1: Barrow Island Field – Oil Reservoir

Properties10

Sand Gearle Windalia M3 Zone Mardie Tunney Flacourt Malouet Dupuy

Upper/Lower
Depth (ft) ≈ 1100 2230 2495 >2495 >2495 2690 5500 6400
Thickness (ft) 50 85-130
Formation Type Carb Sst Carb Sst Sst Sst Sst Sst
Oil Viscosity (cP) 1.0 1.76 0.7 (est) 1.4-1.5 Nd Nd
Pressure (psia) 420-570 995 1230 1245 1675 1250-1270 2705 2836

Bubble Point (psia) 550 Nd 1230 Nd 1690 1270 Nd Nd

Oil Gravity (ºAPI) 40-45 36 33 33 43 29-31 40 37.5
Solution GOR (scf/stb) 140-560 225 250 225 450 195 560(est) 560-760
Oil FVF 1.1 (est) 1.145 1.15 (est) 1.16 1.28 (est) 1.124-1.128 1.4 (est) 1.5
(rb/stb)
Gas/Water? G&W W W W (g) G&W W
Water Sat 0.55 0.55 0.62 0.16 > 0.5 (avg)
Porosity 2º Φ 0.28 0.05 -0.25 0.28 0.21 0.24-0.27 0.25 0.25
Vug and Avg =0.15
connectivity
Dependent
Permeability (mD) 500-5000 5.7 1-6000 5 5-35 Coarse mod 250 150
Avg 500 sorted qtz Sst.
Temperature (°C) 46 63 71 71 82 74.5 99 98
Drive Mechanism Pressure Solution Gas cap? Combination Pressure Combination Water Water/
dep/limited gas/gas Press depletion/ pressure
water drive cap dep? water depletion

Table B-2: Cooper-Eromanga Basin –Oil Reservoir

Properties11,12,13,14,15
Cooper Eromanga
Sand Tirrawarra Murta McKinlay Namur Birkhead Hutton Poolowanna

Field Tirrawarra Dullingari Strezlecki Strezlecki Strezlecki Strezlecki Keleary

Depth (Metres) ~ 2940 1500 1294 1319 1550 >1550 Up to 2226
Thickness (Metres) 20-50 Thin 20 7.7 28.7 19

Net Pay (Metres) 18 15.4 5.9 20.1

Formation Type Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone
(Braidplane- (Deltaic) (fluvial) (fluvial) (fluvial) (fluvial)
braid delta)
Pressure (psia) 4281 2070 2100 2450
Oil Gravity (ºAPI) 53.2 48.5 48.5 44.9 44.9
Oil FVF 2.9 1.05 1.05 1.05
(rb/stb)
Water Saturation 0.3 (initial) (avg 0.606) (avg 0.48) (avg 0.306)
Porosity 0.1-0.15 0.04-0.28 0.12-0.24 0.12-0.24 0.04-0.28 0.08-0.28 0-0.24
(avg=0.11) (avg (avg =0.172) (avg 0.178) (avg 0.18)
=0.172)
Permeability (mD) Average= 1.0 Avg= 21.3 Avg 0.01-10000 0.01-10000 0.1-10000 0.001-10000
(0.01-100) 0.001-1000 0.1-2000
Temperature (˚C) 141 80 80 90 90
16 SPE 101099

Table B-3: Surat Bowen Basin – Moonie Reservoir

Properties16

Basin Surat-Bowen
Sand Precipice
Field Moonie
Depth 1800
(Metres)
Thickness (Metres) 20-60
Formation Type Sandstone

Oil Viscosity (cP) 1

Pressure (psia) 4281
Bubble Point (psia) 1032
Oil Gravity (ºAPI) 45
Solution GOR (scf/bbl) 180
Oil FVF (rb/stb) 1.116
Gas/Water? Water
Water Saturation 0.48 (initial)
Porosity
(avg=0.177)
Permeability (mD) Avg =300
Temperature (˚C) 66
Drive Mechanism Water

APPENDIX C: Published Reservoir A Data Set18 (Bon

and Sarma)

Permeability: 01-1 mD
Porosity: 7-11%
Initial Reservoir Pressure: 4200 psi
Current Pressure: 2700-3150 psi
Reservoir Temperature: 279 ºF
API Gravity: 50 ºAPI
Viscosity (@Pb and Tres): 0.139 cP

Table C-1: Composition of physically recombined

Field A Separator Samples

Component Molecular Recombined

Formula Reservoir Fluid Mol %
Hydrogen Sulphide H2S 0.00
Carbon Dioxide CO2 15.57
Nitrogen H2S 0.73
Methane C1 23.95
Ethane C2 8.71
Propane C3 8.63
Iso-Butane i-C4 2.3
N-Butane n-C4 4.16
Iso-Pentane i-C5 1.46
N-Pentane n-C5 1.63
Hexanes C6 3.7
Heptanes Plus C7+ 29.16
TOTAL 100.0

MW C7+ = 149.6

A summary of the results from the experimental work

Oil FVF (Bo): 1.998 rb/stb

GOR: 1263 scf/stb
Saturation Pressure: 2,350 psig
Aspahltene Content: 0.1 wt%
MMPCO2: 2795 psig
CO2: 2.55 Mscf gas/stb
SPE 101099 17

APPENDIX D RES. A Base Case-Air Inj. Cooper Basin,

Gas Mole Fraction(O2) 2009-01-02 K layer: 1
File: Bas e Cas e.irf
User: bhughe01
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Date: 2005-09-15
Scale: 1:9007

0
LEGEND: GAS SATURATIONS, FRACTION (N2, O2, CO2)

0
Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft

1.0

-1,000
1.00

0.90

-1,000
0.80

0.70

0.9

-2,000
PROD01 INJ01 0.60

-2,000
0.50

0.40

0.8

-3,000
0.30

0.20

-3,000
0.10
0.00 195.00 390.00 yards

0.7
0.00 175.00 350.00 m eters 0.00

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Figure D-3: O2 Concentration, Start of Injection

0.6
RES. A Base Case-Air Inj. Cooper Basin,
Gas Mole Fraction(O2) 2023-01-01 K layer: 1
File: Bas e Cas e.irf
Us er: bhughe01

0.5
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Date: 2005-09-15
Scale: 1:9007

0
Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units : ft

0.4

-1,000
1.00

0.90

-1,000
0.80

0.70

0.3

-2,000
PROD01 INJ01 0.60

-2,000
0.50

0.40

0.2
-3,000

0.30

0.20

-3,000
0.10
0.00 195.00 390.00 yards

0.1
0.00 175.00 350.00 m eters 0.00

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Figure D-4: O2 Concentration, End of Injection

0.0
RES. A Base Case-Air Inj. Cooper Basin,
Gas Mole Fraction(CO2) 2009-01-02 K layer: 1
File: Bas e Cas e.irf
User: bhughe01
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Date: 2005-09-15
Scale: 1:9007
0

0
Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft
RES. A Base Case-Air Inj. Cooper Basin,
Gas Mole Fraction(N2) 2009-02-01 K layer: 1
File: Bas e Cas e.irf
User: bhughe01
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Date: 2005-09-15
-1,000

Scale: 1:9007
1.00
0

Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft 0.90

-1,000
0.80
-1,000

1.00 0.70
-2,000

0.90 PROD01 INJ01 0.60

-1,000

-2,000
0.80 0.50

0.70 0.40
-2,000

-3,000

PROD01 INJ01 0.60 0.30

-2,000

0.50 0.20
-3,000

0.40 0.10
0.00 195.00 390.00 yards
-3,000

0.00 175.00 350.00 m eters 0.00

0.30

0.20 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

-3,000

0.10
0.00

0.00
195.00

175.00
390.00 yards

350.00 m eters 0.00

Figure D-5: CO2 Concentration, Start of Injection
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

RES. A Base Case-Air Inj. Cooper Basin,

Figure D-1: N2 Concentration, Start of Injection Gas Mole Fraction(CO2) 2023-01-01 K layer: 1
File: Bas e Cas e.irf
User: bhughe01
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Date: 2005-09-15
Scale: 1:9007
0

Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft
RES. A Base Case-Air Inj. Cooper Basin,
Gas Mole Fraction(N2) 2023-01-01 K layer: 1
File: Bas e Cas e.irf
User: bhughe01
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Date: 2005-09-15
-1,000

1.00
Scale: 1:9007
0

Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft 0.90
-1,000

0.80
-1,000

1.00 0.70
-2,000

0.90 PROD01 INJ01 0.60

-1,000

-2,000

0.80 0.50

0.70 0.40
-2,000

-3,000

PROD01 INJ01 0.60 0.30

-2,000

0.50 0.20
-3,000

0.40 0.10
0.00 195.00 390.00 yards

0.00 175.00 350.00 m eters 0.00

-3,000

0.30

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

0.20
-3,000

0.00

0.00
195.00

175.00
390.00 yards

350.00 m eters
0.10

0.00
Figure D-6: CO2 Concentration, End of Injection
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Figure D-2: N2 Concentration, End of Injection